[nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about roleofcommission now?
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Thu May 6 12:03:34 UTC 2010
I think we need to be the "monitors". And when I say "we" I mean
stakeholders and consumers as the law requires. And of course that means the
organized blind. Now, here is a blast from the past and goes to a part of
the issue facing not only the blind and people with other disabilities in
Michigan but in the entire nation. The facts are that the cut backs in RSA
monitoring and technical assistance has allowed agencies like MCB to run out
of control and likely off the rails. Every program is in jeopardy. Now, here
is some historical context and really trying to "change what it means to be
blind""
http://nfb.org/legacy/bm/bm05/bm0507/bm050702.htm
Feet on the Street to Save Rehab
The Braille Monitor
July 2005
(
back)
(
next)
(
contents)
Feet on the Street to Save Rehab
by Barbara Pierce
In recent months Department of Education (DOE) officials have
signaled more and more clearly that the Rehabilitation Services
Administration
was in the crosshairs as they made plans to divert funding from
rehabilitation to other DOE programs. Throughout the spring we have reported
on initiatives
being planned that will undermine whatever positive steps RSA has made in
recent years. During the months since RSA commissioner Joanne Wilson
resigned
in protest, the disability community has debated what actions it should take
to bring this crisis to the notice of Congress and the public.
Eventually the NFB took the initiative to organize a rally in
front of the Department of Education building, within walking distance of
the
hotel we use when we go to Capitol Hill for the Washington Seminar every
February. In early May we chose a date, May 26, and began soliciting
cosponsors.
By the day of the picket and rally, forty-eight organizations had joined the
NFB in sponsoring the event.
By Wednesday morning hundreds of people had arrived on Capitol
Hill to talk with members of Congress and their staffs about the emergency.
Here
is one of the documents NFB members circulated:
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION:
DON'T LEAVE BLIND ADULTS BEHIND
BACKGROUND:
The program known as "Vocational Rehabilitation," authorized in
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as last amended in 1998, provides
almost 80 percent of the funds used by states to pay for training and
adjustment services provided to persons with disabilities. These services
are essential
for blind people and others with disabilities to achieve productive
employment and self-support goals and are planned to meet individual needs.
This is
why vocational rehabilitation has enjoyed consistently strong bipartisan
support in Congress throughout its eighty-five-year history.
The federal funds are paid to states through formula grants as
long as certain requirements are met. Having a specific agency with
full-time
personnel dedicated to delivering vocational rehabilitation services is one
of the most essential federal requirements, except states may have two such
agencies if one of them is devoted to serving the blind. States receive
technical assistance and monitoring through the Rehabilitation Services
Administration
(RSA), located in the U.S. Department of Education.
THE PROBLEM:
Without announcing a plan to redesign the vocational
rehabilitation program, the Bush administration has initiated several
actions to reduce
emphasis on specialized services for the blind and others with disabilities.
These include:
. Seeking Congressional authorization for states to consolidate vocational
rehabilitation with job training and employment programs for youth,
dislocated
workers, and other unemployed adults under a proposal known as "WIA Plus
Consolidation";
. Closing all of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) regional
offices used to monitor and assist states with implementation of
Rehabilitation
Act programs;
. Reducing the RSA professional and support staff by approximately 50
percent, with a disproportionate impact on jobs held by disabled employees;
. Possible elimination of the RSA Division for the Blind and Visually
Impaired, which supports nationwide implementation of the Randolph-Sheppard
Act, provides
essential guidance to states for specialized services to working-age blind
adults, and coordinates independent living services for seniors losing
sight;
.Changing the head of RSA from a presidentially-appointed position requiring
Senate confirmation to a Department of Education staff position not
appointed
by the president and not subject to Senate confirmation.
ACTIONS REQUESTED:
All members of Congress are urged to express a strong commitment to
effective vocational rehabilitation programs by taking the following
actions:
. Advise the chairmen and ranking minority members of the authorizing and
appropriations committees that the administration's vocational
rehabilitation
initiatives are unacceptable;
. Send or sign on to a letter (see attached draft) to Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings supporting vocational rehabilitation as an identifiable,
state-administered program with continued strong federal leadership.
At noon Thursday the crowd gathered to chant and cheer in front of the
platform before settling down to listen to speakers.
At noon Thursday the crowd gathered to chant and cheer in front of the
platform before settling down to listen to speakers
Blind Americans are counting on you for support. Please help to
maintain vocational rehabilitation as a vital service to meet our unique
employment
and independent living needs.
The day on the Hill was cool and cloudy, but Thursday was
clear and sunny. For almost two hours picketers marched and chanted, while
volunteers
leafleted pedestrians on nearby streets. By noon the crowd had gravitated to
the Department of Education courtyard, where a platform had been erected
with
a banner across the back listing many of the sponsors. James Gashel, NFB
executive director for strategic initiatives, served as master of
ceremonies.
He called the crowd's attention to the large empty chair on stage ready for
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings so that she could see and hear
what
disabled Americans think of the department's plans to dismantle RSA.
>From left an American Sign Language interpreter translates what is being
said. Jim Gashel stands with the empty Spellings chair in front of him,
listening
to Fred Schroeder addressing the crowd, while to the right Joanne Wilson
stands at the top of the stairs and NFB President Marc Maurer stands on the
steps
below her.
Front left an American Sign Language interpreter translates what is being
said. Jim Gashel stands with the empty Spellings chair in front of him,
listening
to Fred Schroeder addressing the crowd, while to the right Joanne Wilson
stands at the top of the stairs and NFB President Marc Maurer stands on the
steps
below her.
A representative from each of the rally sponsors had a moment to
introduce his or her group and say something about the situation in which we
find ourselves. Then each of the four past RSA commissioners who are
concerned about the current Bush administration initiatives spoke briefly.
They were
Edward C. Newman, commissioner in the Nixon administration; Robert R.
Humphreys, commissioner in the Carter administration; Fredric K. Schroeder,
commissioner
in the Clinton administration; and Joanne Wilson, commissioner in the Bush
administration.
All speakers were commendably brief, though passionate in their
remarks. As an example of the views expressed, here is what Fred Schroeder
said:
Remarks at the May 26 Rally
by Fredric Schroeder
I grew up believing that we could expect, indeed require, that
government be honest and forthright, truthful and accountable--that
government
officials say what they mean and mean what they say.
Department of Education officials say that the plan to close the
RSA (Rehabilitation Services Administration) regional offices was simply the
outgrowth of an ongoing management agenda to make government more efficient.
The truth is that the plan to close the regional offices was made in spite
of a GAO (Government Accountability Office) study and numerous internal
department studies documenting the value of the regional offices. Maybe the
department
has conducted new studies, new analyses, but if so, would you not expect
that any new study, new analysis, would be based on discussions with the
blind
and other consumers, on discussions with state and private VR (vocational
rehabilitation) agencies? Wouldn't a new study, new analysis, at least
include
talking with the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration
and members of her staff? The department says that the plan to close the
regional
offices was the result of study and analysis; the truth is that the decision
was made in secret with no study, no analysis, no planning, and no
consultation
with blind people, advocates, or even the commissioner of RSA. We say to the
department, be truthful; say what you mean and mean what you say.
Department officials say that the closure of the regional
offices reflects good stewardship and the administration's commitment to
services
not bureaucracy, that the $7 million saved will be used to expand services
for transition-age youth--less fat and more money for people with
disabilities.
The truth is that the department is reducing its support of direct services
for consumers, cutting programs--not increasing support. The department's
current
budget request--the same budget request that includes the elimination of the
RSA regional offices--eliminates funding for the Supported Employment
Program,
$37 million; eliminates funding for the Projects with Industry Program, $22
million; eliminates funding for the Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers
Program,
$2.5 million; eliminates funding for the Special Recreation Program, another
$2 million--$63 million in cuts overall to direct services--not an increase.
Department officials say they are trimming fat to direct more money to
client services. They say it is a $7 million increase, but the truth is that
the
department's budget cuts $63 million in valuable direct service programs.
The department is walking away from people with disabilities, not
strengthening
its support. We say to the department, be truthful; say what you mean and
mean what you say.
Department officials say that by cutting RSA's staff in half,
eliminating the regional offices, and consolidating functions into the
central
office, RSA will be able to provide better technical assistance and better
monitoring; they say the agency will become more efficient and responsive
and
that the elimination of the regional offices will not weaken the agency's
commitment to specialized services or programs. In fact they say that
specialized
services will receive better support under a centralized structure. The
truth is that the RSA reorganization plan shows the elimination of the
blindness
division, the elimination of the Randolph-Sheppard branch, the elimination
of the deafness and communicative disorders branch--no support for any
specialized
service or program. Department officials say that specialized services will
receive more attention and better support. But the truth is that the
department's
reorganization plan eliminates support for specialized services and special
populations. We say to the department, be truthful; say what you mean and
mean
what you say.
We are here today to express our objection to the planned
closure of the RSA regional offices and to the elimination of the department's
commitment
to specialized services. We are here today to say to the department, these
programs do not belong to you; they belong to us--to the people of America
and
to the people who need the opportunity to receive the training, supports,
and encouragement to live normal, productive lives. We are here today to say
that we want the RSA regional offices restored; we want the blindness
division and the Randolph-Sheppard and deafness branches restored; and we
are here
today to say we expect department officials to restore honesty and integrity
to their work, to work openly and honestly with consumers and other
stake-holders.
And we are here to say that we will not give up; we will not give in; and,
unlike the department officials who set these damaging changes in motion, we
are truthful; and we say what we mean and mean what we say.
The concluding speaker was President Maurer. As he stepped away
from the podium, dirge-like music began playing over the loudspeakers. Jim
Gashel explained that though they had been invited, no one from the
Department of Education had seen fit to come out and take note of the
dissatisfaction
with their actions being expressed by disabled Americans and our friends.
Suddenly he corrected himself. A figure was emerging from the direction of
the
department building. It was the Grim Reaper, more than seven feet tall,
swathed in a filmy black cloak and carrying a scythe (that was, conveniently
enough,
of a length to be used subtly as a white cane. In front of him were six pall
bearers dressed in black tie and carrying a casket. They placed it in front
of the platform and opened it. The Grim Reaper, who was wearing a sign
around his neck identifying himself as the Department of Education, followed
them
forward and took up his post in front of the casket.
Kevan Worley dressed as the Grim Reaper and representing the Department of
Education, destroys signs representing the hopes and dreams of disabled
Americans,
Kevan Worley, dressed as the Grim Reaper and representing the Department of
Education, destroys signs representing the hopes and dreams of disabled
Americans.
Six pall bearers carry the casket containing the Grim Reaper away from the
rally.
Six pall bearers carry the casket containing the Grim Reaper away from the
rally.
As Jim Gashel described the unfolding scene, a line of disabled
people approached the Grim Reaper. Each was carrying a sign with a word or
phrase on it. The Grim Reaper took each and tore it to pieces before
crumpling it and throwing it into the casket. Twenty signs, saying things
like "Opportunity,"
"Choice," "Freedom," "Hope," and "The Future" were crushed by the Department
of Education before a crowd of sign bearers revolted and tipped him over
into
the casket. Then they closed the lid, and the pall bearers bore him off
stage.
That action concluded the rally proper. So what difference did
a thousand or so protesters have? It is still too early to know. Congress
will
have to find a way to intervene if the Department of Education is to be
stopped. Whether our senators and representatives will bother to make the
effort
depends on those who care about whether the disabled people who come after
us will be forgotten and left out, which is clearly what the Department of
Education
has in mind. Each of us must write to Secretary Spellings to register our
objections to what the department is doing, and we must let our members of
Congress
know what we have said to her. We must also educate our communities about
this crisis. After all, it is those who are not at the moment disabled who
have
the most to lose from the destruction of the rehabilitation system.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlotte Czarnecki" <czarnecki17 at comcast.net>
To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about roleofcommission
now?
> Hello all:
>
> I am in strong agreement with Elizabeth regarding this matter. Although
> we need to make others aware of certain points, we do not need to over
> post, especially in a rude fashion. I believe David Andrews and Steve
> Jacobson are the primary moderators for the NFB lists so perhaps we need
> to make them aware of what is happening. I know they are extremely busy
> and perhaps need to be put on notice. I believe that consumer
> organizations need to keep state agencies like the commission under watch,
> however the postings we have seen resemble an unhealthy obsession with
> agency. Instead of getting every FOIA request we can get,and reporting on
> everything we see and crticizing it, we need to be carefully analyzing
> what the Commission does and keep in mind that this agency is not only
> accountable to the consumer organizations but it is even more accountable
> to its funding sources...the federal and state governments. This agency
> is ultimately repsonsible for the laws that it has been authorized under.
> With that in mind, we may not agree with what the agency does, however, it
> may be following state or federal law.
>
> Let's not be so obsessed with the state agency. Let's focus on changing
> what it means to be blind. We don't need a Commission to do that. Let's
> calm down on these posts about the commission. Thank you.
>
> Charlotte
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elizabeth" <lizmohnke at hotmail.com>
> To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about role ofcommission
> now?
>
>
>>
>> Hello Joe,
>>
>> Since it appears as though you do not appreciate receiving my messages as
>> much as I do not appreciate receiving your messages, then perhaps we
>> should agree to disagree. If you feel as though you have a right to post
>> your messages, then I should have the same right to respond to them.
>> However, for the record, I do not appreciate seeing trolls take over an
>> email list, and would like to see those who are in charge of the list to
>> set some guidelines for the list. As the saying goes, You can catch more
>> bees with honey than you can with vinegar.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Elizabeth
>>
>>> From: joeharcz at comcast.net
>>> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 21:24:42 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] they are still jawboning about role of
>>> commission now?
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/czarnecki17%40comcast.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
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list