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

Wed May 5 01:24:42 UTC 2010

Are many on the list aware of important information like this or other 
relevant ininformation in latter years in funding including by the way 
funding for postsecondary ed? If you look carefully at the reports over the 
years you will see that while in some years aggregate spending might just 
increase the numbers of blind persons actually funded to go to college or 
other postsecondary programs have gone down...But you'll be happy to know 
that Administrative spending as percentage has pretty much gone up year in 
and year out.

Another thing Elizabeth and with all do respect I have a mother already and 
I really don't appreciate it for being chastised in a condescending tone 
over and over again. It is not productive and it is not respectful. It is 
also simply not productive whatsoever.

Joe
 MCB RSA Annual Review Report FY 2007From

In FY 2007 MCB used $17,503,634 for its VR program, an increase of 1.98%. 
Compared to the prior year, the use of funds for administration increased by 
19.83%

and the use of funds for all client services decreased by 3.58%. Of the 
funds used for client services, 72.23% was used for services provided 
directly

by the agency and 27.77% was used for services purchased from other 
providers.

Table 21. Funds used

Table with 5 columns and 6 rows

Type of funds

FY 2007

Increase or decrease from prior year

Percent of agency total

National average for blind agencies

Administrative

$4,885,285

+808,375

27.91%

17.81%

Total all client services

$12,618,349

-468,571

72.09%

82.19%

Agency-provided services

$9,114,617

-1,854,543

52.07%

47.38%

Purchased services

$3,503,732

+1,385,972

20.02%

34.81%

Total funds used

$17,503,634

+339,804

100.00%

100.00%

table end

Unused funds of $1,711,233 were available for carryover to FY 2008.

C. Expenditures on services

Of the $12,618,349 used on client services, 32.07% or $4,046,094 was used on 
services to groups. The following table provides the remaining expenditures

on services provided to individuals, whether purchased or provided directly 
by MCB.

Table 22. Services provided to individuals

Table with 5 columns and 12 rows

Service

FY 2007

Increase or decrease from prior year

Percent of agency total

National average for blind agencies

Assessment, counseling, guidance, and placement provided by MCB personnel

$1,854,601

-257,814

14.70%

32.70%

Assessment (purchased only)

$800,746

+101,897

6.35%

2.45%

Placement (purchased only)

$84,381

-72,958

0.67%

1.77%

Treatment of physical and mental impairments

$55,866

-60,855

0.44%

7.30%

Postsecondary education

$965,463

+348,848

7.65%

4.74%

Other training and education

$396,091

-2,893,315

3.14%

22.00%

Assistance with living expenses

$156,179

+56,703

1.24%

2.71%

Transportation

$109,677

+105,574

0.87%

1.41%

Personal assistance, reader, or interpreter services

$48,351

-98,657

0.38%

0.58%

All other services

$886,978

+180,246

7.03%

10.62%

Total expenditures on services provided to individuals

$8,572,255

+623,591

67.93%

87.90%

table end

Of the $12,618,349 used on client services, 3.30% or $416,482 was used on 
rehabilitation technology services.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth" <lizmohnke at hotmail.com>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about role of commission 
now?

>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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 