[nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about role of commission now?

Wed May 5 00:27:20 UTC 2010

Hello Joe,

Many of us on the list are aware of the things that have been discussed at the Michigan Commission for the Blind board meetings over the past few years. Furthermore, the minutes of these board meetings can easily be found on the Michigan Commission for the Blind website for anyone to read. I ask that you please keep this in mind when posting to the list.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

> From: joeharcz at comcast.net
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 18:07:36 -0400
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about role of commission now?
> 
> http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-28077_28313-205402--,00.html
> 
> SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
> 
> VICTOR BUILDING
> 
> LANSING, MICHIGAN
> 
> 
> 
> RETREAT MINUTES
> 
> 
> 
> COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
> 
> Ms. Jo Ann Pilarski, Chair
> 
> Ms. Velma Allen, Vice-Chair
> 
> Ms. Margaret Wolfe
> 
> Mr. Mark Eagle
> 
> Ms. Geri Taeckens
> 
> 
> 
> COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
> 
> None
> 
> 
> 
> MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND (MCB) STAFF PRESENT
> 
> Mr. Patrick Cannon
> 
> Ms. Sue Luzenski
> 
> Mr. Leamon Jones
> 
> Ms. Sherri Heibeck
> 
> 
> 
> GUESTS/ATTENDEES
> 
> Mr. Terry Eagle
> 
> Mr. Raymond Roberson
> 
> 
> 
> Committee of the whole called to order at 2:20 p.m.
> 
> 
> 
> Training on Role and Representation of Commissioners
> 
> 
> 
> Commissioner Allen opened the meeting speaking about a training module that her and Director Cannon had taken part of during the NCSAB conference in April
> 
> 2008. The training module focused on the role and representation of commissioners, clarifying the roles and relationships between the commissioners and
> 
> the administration in relation to directing the Director, not dictating or micro-managing. Commissioner Allen looked into presenting the training module
> 
> at the retreat but a more in-depth look into accessing it and the length needs to be done by staff. Sue Luzenski will circulate a document that was prepared
> 
> called Communications Protocol that may address some of these questions.
> 
> 
> 
> Dialogue moved into talking about the Director's objectives and how the Commissioners have taken a more active role than in the past. Director Cannon stated
> 
> that the MCB Director is not only accountable to the Commissioners but also reports to Deputy Director Levin in DLEG and is held accountable by that office.
> 
> Director Cannon stated that the Action Plan is a useful management tool which states clearly the goals and progress of staff. The plan contains many objectives
> 
> related to the Director's evaluation.
> 
> 
> 
> P.A. 260
> 
> 
> 
> Chair Pilarski asked Commissioners to come forward with any issues or thoughts regarding PA 260. The law is still relevant today though current practices
> 
> may be different in some instances than which is stated in the 1978 statute. Commissioner Taeckens brought up concerns regarding section 393.356, Education
> 
> of Blind Youth. Commissioner Taeckens conducted a training program at Camp Tuhsmeheta this summer and notes that, in her view, the children were lacking
> 
> in skills of independence. She asked what the Commission is doing to address the issue of educating blind kids. Leamon Jones spoke regarding the role the
> 
> Commission plays in making sure that all MCB does is in compliance with special education limits. MCB currently has an MOU between MCB, DLEG and the Department
> 
> of Education and MCB has made summer transition programs a focus. Further discussion centered around what the commission can do to begin educating youth
> 
> earlier, communicating what services are currently available for blind youth age 14 and older, exposing blind youth to the tools necessary to help them
> 
> be successful into adulthood both socially and economically, determining how much Braille teaching time is necessary to become proficient, having Braille
> 
> and sign language be part of the Special Education Teacher curriculum during college, combating the notion of low expectations for blind and visually impaired
> 
> youth, advocate groups that are currently formed to prioritize and address these issues and focusing on educating parents to advocate for their blind youth.
> 
> The end result of this discussion was to have 1 or 2 of these advocate groups at a future commissioner meeting to discuss these priorities. It was suggested
> 
> that a paper be put together regarding guiding principles for educating blind youth for topics of discussion to the Superintendent of public education.
> 
> 
> 
> Bylaws
> 
> 
> 
> Commissioner Eagle brought raised the point that portions of the Commissioner bylaws are outdated and need to be revised. Discussion included creating a
> 
> 1 - 2 person sub-committee to review the bylaws, bring any recommendations to the Board at a future commission meeting and consider proposals to changes
> 
> in the bylaws. Chair Pilarski indicated topics to be looked at: purpose of the board, role as liaison to MCB committees and definition of a consumer. Other
> 
> items discussed was whether or not the vice-chair needs to be re-elected each year; an informal poll concluded that the commissioners do want to re-elect
> 
> the vice-chair each year.
> 
> 
> 
> Chair Pilarski stated that she has received inquiries from BEP Operators regarding the role of Commissioners and BEP. Sherri Heibeck clarified who is the
> 
> responsible authority of the BEP program. The Board's role is to have the final say on ALJ decisions and BEP policies. Legal action beyond the agency goes
> 
> to Federal arbitration and then civil court.
> 
> 
> 
> Board Meeting Structure
> 
> 
> 
> Chair Pilarski raised the issue of public comment at recent commission meetings and the confrontational tone demonstrated by some individuals. There was
> 
> further discussion on how to provide ample time for public comment and consumer involvement and still maintain orderly and respectful communications. Ms.
> 
> Heibeck stated there are rules for conduct on any owned or leased state property and the DMB Policy for conduct on state property can be forwarded to the
> 
> Commissioners for their review.
> 
> 
> 
> Another question was posed as to the number of meetings MCB has. Director Cannon spoke to the Rehab Act and how it states that there must be at least 4
> 
> meetings a year. The state has mandated a cut in meetings in response to the budget situation. Director Cannon noted that although regular meetings have
> 
> been reduced to once every 3 months, the Chair can call a special meeting if an urgent issue arises which cannot wait until the next scheduled meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> Another issue is the meeting not moving around the state allowing the exposure to all consumers throughout the state. Commissioner Taeckens suggested having
> 
> a common meeting place where consumers can congregate to participate as a large group by phone or go to a library to share audio streaming capabilities
> 
> during a commission meeting. There was also discussion about conducting all of the meetings in Lansing as opposed to holding some meetings in different
> 
> parts of the state as had been done in the past. It was agreed that consideration should be given to holding one meeting next year in the northern part
> 
> of the state, perhaps Marquette in the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> Public Comment
> 
> 
> 
> Terry Eagle:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Eagle stated there is an issue with correspondence between people who write to the board but get a response from Director Cannon. He stated the board
> 
> should be united, talking amongst themselves and coming up with a response, not push this off on an administrator. There should be a duty to respond to
> 
> them directly as a board.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Eagle commented when MCB started there was 11 meetings with two 15 minute public comment sections, then meetings were reduced to 6 and now to 4 a year.
> 
> Mr. Eagle agreed with putting a timer on public comment, other solutions could be a sign up sheet, issues spoken of being specific to agenda items, public
> 
> comment held before lunch and then again at the end of the meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> Ray Roberson
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Roberson stated that there is insufficient time for public comment at commission meeting. How will the commission know what problems the public is facing
> 
> if you don't hear from consumers? If there are problems and issues how will the board know if they don't give consumers a chance to speak directly to the
> 
> board?
> 
> 
> 
> Adjourned: 5:18
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 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/lizmohnke%40hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old 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_3