[nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy

[joe harcz Comcast]

You don't have to cool off at all. I share your angst not only over this but 
over a number of items over the years. But, as I said as far as she went and 
with the information put forward she was correct.

Certainly no laws are worth a tinker's dam if not enforced and effectively 
MPAS and the client assistent program are supposed to aid in enforcement.

Joe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy


> Hi Joe,
>
> I still feel strongly that MPAS, generally, and Jeanette, specifically 
> were
> AWOL at every turn in this process.  They are not calling the Commission 
> on
> to follow the law.  Jeanette merely parroted the law and did nothing when
> Commission staff were clearly off base.  MPAS nor Jeanette are protecting 
> or
> advocating for clients as evidenced in Mondayy's meeting and in their lack
> of responsiveness to client complaints.  I may cool off toward Jeanette, 
> if
> you keep trying, but not ready to do an about face at the moment.
>
> Warm Regards,
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:57 AM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy
>
> Where she was correct in short Fred was in her references to what would be
> required in a college policy by RSA and the guiding document, the Rehab 
> Act.
>
> She was also correct in what may not be in there like requiring loans. And
> she was correct in her references to what may be required but does not 
> have
> to be in there. On the latter point a state agency may have a needs test 
> but
>
> is not required to have one.
>
> This said I reiterate that there are distinctions between policies and
> practices. While Jeanette may be correct on these particular issues of
> policy as far as she goes (and note I say as far as she goes) MCB has
> demonstrated in the trenches violations in practice and simply CAP hasn't
> been there.
>
> I hope you understand the distinctions I'm making here. I also hope that 
> you
>
> know I'm looking at individual aspects of this meeting, and indeed the 
> over
> all process.
>
> Regardless I contend the real "bad guys" at this meeting and behind the
> policy are MCB itself and the shameful actions of the counselors and
> supervisors at that meeting. I'll have more to write on that later.
>
> In my opinion however I think you neither owe Jeanette an apology or a pat
> on the back for that matter. It was just that she was correct, once again 
> as
>
> far as she went.
>
> Owe on a final note I noted that she abstained on the final so-called vote
> on the timeline issue. But those shameful staff voted unanimously and with
> the taxpayer's footing the bill for their attendance too!
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
> To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: <jbrown at mpas.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy
>
>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> What am I missing about MPAS?  Jeanette Brown sat there and defended the
>> Commission.  Isn't she supposed to be asking the same pointed questions
>> that
>> you are?  Where is her advocacy for clients in this meeting?  I may be
>> blinded by my rage at her and MPAS and their impotence to deal with the
>> illegal behavior of MCB, day after day.  If I owe jeanette Brown an
>> apology,
>> I will gladly do it in public any time or any place.  For now, though I 
>> se
>> her as as guilty as MCB by her complicity in their actions.  Help me out
>> here.
>>
>> Warmest Regards,
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org 
>> [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>> On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
>> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:43 PM
>> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] more jagged notes re college policy
>>
>> Ok I finished the afternoon session. I noted Leeman Jones continued
>> references to required performance standards and indicators relative to
>> the
>> timeline and closure issue. And on several occasions both then and in the
>> past Gerri Taeckens asked for data to support the contentions made by
>> mostly
>> staff, yet Leemon has never been able to produce data.
>>
>> Now, this is exactly the type of data that  MCB is required to submit to
>> RSA, and indeed to the Commission Board and indeed the public in the RSA
>> monitoring, state plans, and annual reviews.
>>
>> It is the commission folks that hasn't done its RSA homework in a timely
>> manner in these regards! And it is hiding this information from the
>> commission board and the public including NFB MI and individuals like
>> myself
>> with its ludicrous FOIA denials, which, of course are totally illegal in
>> and
>> of themselves.
>>
>> Moreover, the counselors voted on the timeline issue when they know or
>> should know that a uniform timeline (not a goal) is not something that
>> fits
>> all. These things as Taeckens rightfully and to her credit consistently
>> pointsout are a function of the Individual Plan for Employment. Note the
>> term "Individual" here.
>>
>> Now each and every counselor speaking is supposed to be intiment with the
>> requirements for IPE development and related civil rights checks on
>> arbitrary and capricious administration. They were after all Certified
>> Rehabilitation Counselors and this goes into the training requirements.
>> Did
>> each and every one of them flunk "IPE development 101"?
>>
>> Have not a one of them referenced RSA circulars, the Rehab Act itself,
>> and/or had continuous improvement in training on this issue?
>>
>> I simply wonder what in the world is going on here.
>>
>> My goodness consumers and other non-professionals including, by the way
>> Ms.
>> Taeckens seem to have a grasp of what goes into the IPE and that also
>> includes setting goals and effectively timelines on an Individualized
>> basis.
>> It also must consider going to Lydia's continued point and others,  the
>> impact of multiple disabilities upon a person, sickness, and other
>> contingencies.
>>
>>
>> Going back to the data issue...Leemon and others wish to use this issue 
>> as
>> an excuse on the policy development issue and on the other don't produce
>> the
>> data or the systems to actually cull data like Taeckens asks for in case
>> examinations. and analysis.
>>
>> Other data required is again the consumer satisfaction surveys yet ours
>> has
>> been so late in coming that findings would be virtually meaningless...But
>> again MCB was given these "homework" assignments actually with 
>> continuiing
>> and annual updates...And many of these assignments were missed.
>>
>> Finally, on this thrust I am very proud of Fred in his standing up on the
>> issue. and I'm very proud of Elizabeth for effectively saying there are
>> obligations and timelines upon MCB staff including counselors.
>>
>> And I for one demand they meet their responsabilities.
>>
>> They are a dysfunctional family there and I'm talking about the 
>> counselors
>> and supervisors represented in my opinion. They wish to hold the consumer
>> constantly responsable for standards that the staff violates routinely. 
>> In
>> other words these so-called professionals do not practice what they 
>> preach
>> on the timeliness issue over and over again.
>>
>> And they wish to give anecdotal claims without supplying supporting data
>> to
>> back allegations up. Good for Ms. Taeckens, Elizabeth and others for
>> holding
>> them accountable. Good for Larry too in his comments at the end.
>>
>> I believe in high expectations. I expect accountability by highly paid 
>> and
>> professionally trained staff. Oh yes by the way many of these counselors
>> and
>> supervisors did have much, if not all of their education funded by MCB, 
>> or
>> RSA through either being consumers themselves once upon a time, or 
>> through
>> RSA grants, or through RSA/MCB funding for continuous improvement and
>> certification.
>>
>> I sure know that Debbie Wilson had her switch from MSW to CRC funded
>> through
>> MCB.
>>
>> Man, what a bunch of hypocrities were represented with that block!
>>
>> Now, before I end this diatribe I must say there are some excellent
>> counselors in MCB. I noticed not one of them were represented at this
>> meeting. And I assume that was because they are already competent in IPE
>> development and are or were working in the field doing their jobs, of
>> which,
>> again they are highly paid for. No those are not the sherkers, or the 
>> ones
>> that blame consumers for all their earthly woes. Those are the good guys
>> and
>> gals that Larry was right to point out that we in NFB and other orgs are
>> trying to protect and assist.
>>
>> Bottom line though is no matter what they do or finally right the law 
>> says
>> what the law says.
>>
>> And a consensus doesn't abrogate legal requirements that are already in
>> the
>> law.
>>
>> But, sadly Cannon and his gang of disfunctionals seem to contiue to
>> violate
>> all sorts of laws over and over again.
>>
>> Anyway I do not think frm this meeting that Ms. Taeckens was wrong, or
>> Jeanette Brown (as far as she went) or of course, those members of the 
>> NFB
>> led by Fred and Elizabeth  on this issue.
>>
>> And I think we should all ask Leemon for the data to affirm the
>> conjecture,.
>>
>> (Of course he doesn't have it as he has clearly stated over and over
>> again...Which is my point.)
>>
>> I'm reminded here of an old saying from former Senator Daniel Patrick
>> Monihan. He said, "People are all entitle to their opinions. But no one 
>> is
>> entitled to his own facts."
>>
>> You see the twenty twenty process has been abused here for it puts
>> opinions
>> over facts; so-called concensus over fundamental laws including the Rehab
>> Act itself.
>>
>> I say to those counselors who don't like the Rehab Act or its clear cut
>> requirments then maybe, just maybe they should find another line of
>> employment. Perhaps they should consult with each other and draw up an
>> IPE!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Joe!
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbmi-talk:
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comc
>> ast.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbmi-talk:
>>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comca
> st.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comc
> ast.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net