[nfbmi-talk] Getting Closer!

[Elizabeth]

Hello Geri,
 
It was a pleasure to speak with you this evening. I believe you did a good job of summarizing the pain points of our conversation. However, I would like to submit the following changes to what I stated during the conversation. If my comments are simply going to be summarized in an email after a verbal conversation in the future, then I would rather simply send out an email with my written comments rather than defend what I said after the fact. 
 
I apologize for being a bit more blunt than what I should have been during our conversation. However, I keep receiving the impression that my thoughts and experiences as a college student are not taken seriously because they do not align with what the administration of the Michigan Commission for the Blind wants the college policy to say. I refuse to back down from creating a policy that allows college students to receive services from the Michigan Commission for the Blind without being shortchanged by the agency. I hear way too many horror stories about how students are fighting so much with their counselor to receive services in a timely manner that it takes time away for them to actually be students. If this agency would put as much time and effort into actually providing services, and finding creative ways to say yes instead of automatically saying no, then we would probably have one of the best vocational rehabilitation agencies in the country.
 
However, it is now time for me to momentarily step aside from this issue as I will be going out of town for the next two weeks on vacation. While I am away on vacation, I will not be responding to any emails regarding the college policy issue. If your email on this issue is urgent, and requires an immediate response, I suggest that you contact Fred Wurtzel during my absence. We have collectively been working on this issue for quite some time, and I am confident that he can address your concerns while I am out of town. However, this does not mean I am abandoning this issue, and will resume any and all communications regarding this issue once I come back from my vacation.
 
Warm Regards,
Elizabeth Mohnke
 
Notes from Conversation:
 
1.  College assessment should reflect the student’s right to informed choice based on their individualized needs as an individual. Not all students are the same, and they may be able to demonstrate their ability to attend college by other means besides attending the college assessment program at the training center.
 
Example of modification to the draft…
 
Students shall participate in a college assessment to ensure that they have the skills necessary for college participation. Students must demonstrate competent skill levels in the areas of technology, communication, note taking, traveling, and independent living. If students cannot successfully demonstrate competent skill levels in these areas, they shall work with their counselor to receive additional training at the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training center or another qualified vocational training center consistent with the individuals informed choice. 
 
2. Stronger language regarding the sponsorship of advanced degrees.
 
Example of modification to the draft.
 
Students who complete a bachelor's degree may continue to pursue an advanced degree if their vocational goal commonly requires an advanced degree to secure competitive employment.
 
The sponsorship of an advanced degree by the Michigan Commission for the Blind shall be limited to students who cannot obtain competitive employment with a bachelor's degree, or when they are included as a part of a student’s Individualized Plan for Employment.  
 
 

Does not support the use of the new DELEG financial needs form. Most of the information included in this form can be obtained through the use of the client counselor relationship that was identified as a key component by the counselors during the meeting on Monday.
 
4. Relayed the fact that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan does not support the use of a time limit, and after reviewing additional documents that have been sent out regarding this issue, believes that the time limit should be in line with what is set forth in the Rehabilitation Act. If the Rehabilitation Act does not require a time limit, then it should not be a part of the policy. I stated in the meeting that I would prefer no time limit, but was willing to compromise. I do not recall any discussion on the exact working and terms of this compromise during the meeting. I also do not believe this vote was fair since half of the room was filled with agency staff members who have considerably more resources which allow them the opportunity to attend the meeting. 
 
5. Would like to see the use of the appeals process to the service director be minimized if not eliminated all together. The key relationship should be between the student and their counselor. Michigan Rehabilitation Services does not include this as part of their college policy, so why should it be included in the Michigan Commission for the Blind’s college policy?
 
6. Would like to see the references to see other documents be eliminated. They seem to break up the flow of the document and makes the policy more confusing. Either put the referred policy in the document, or summery of it with a citation to read more information about it.
 
7. Wording and grammar still need to be worked on a bit. The words “may” and “will” should be changed to “shall” to give the policy its proper authority.
 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1