[nfbmi-talk] Fw: official request for information and accommodation

[joe harcz Comcast]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG) 
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation 


September 2, 2010

No Sir,

You are "cherry picking". 

For you see this information requested was presented at a meeting of MCB and information related to that meeting was supposed to be made available to me in accessible form and in a timely manner upon request. I did so verbally and I did so in writing and have yet to receive the said information.

Moreover, you may not use administrative criterion or methods of administration to circumvent  under 504 or Title II of the ADAobligations. And clearly you are doing so right now in stonewalling and exploiting your version of the FOIA to avoid obligations to remit accessible information under subpart e, of Title II of the ADA.


Moreover, Tyler v. Manhatten provides case law that the entity must act affirmatively in providing accessibl information. Here it isn't doing so even after the fact.

Now, this is all very simple sir. This is public information and the commissioners already have it in accessible forms as does the agency. (I.E. it is already accessible and can be provided at no cost to the agency if it wishes to be trully transparent, which apparently it does not).

But, sir if you continue to frustrate my legitimate requests for timely and accessible information cherry picking all the way then please be prepared to face me in United States District Court with discrimination charges under the ADA, 504 and in your official capacity as a state actor under 42 USC 1983 alongside Mr. Patrick D. Cannon, of course who should and does know that he is violating my rights under the ADA and 504 as he is the State of Michigan A.D.A. coordinator and this knowing act is malicious discrimination.

As stated my patience in these regards has run its course. 

Now, all of this simply can be resolved by remitting the information and in fact putting it on MCB's web site so that all can see the workings of this agency including critical financial data (i.e. its operating budget, and all of the information including federally required reporting data that was presented at the August 26, 2010 budget and cash match in service training of the MCB Commissioners (which by the way a quorum was present).

The people of the state of Michigan and this one blind man have the right to this information and without further stonewalling.

Thus I simply ask you to do the right thing and not the "bureucratic thing and the discrimination thing too boot.

Sincerely,

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG) 
  To: joe harcz Comcast 
  Cc: Ceena Andrades ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG) 
  Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 PM
  Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation 


  Mr. Harcz, the attached document/ information you provided includes the statement:

   "Additionally, the accessible information must be provided timely and under conditions affording 

    people with disabilities the same degree of access to information as their non-disabled 

    counterparts." 

   

  This statement supports the Department's action regarding your requests for records/information. Your requests, aside from some accommodations that may be made, are processed basically the same as other requests received by the Department.

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:59 PM
  To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
  Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation 

   

  Legal Foundations for the Right to Accessible Info  

  Legal Foundations of the Right to Accessible Information 

  Summary 

  In general, federal governmental agencies, recipients of federal financial 

  assistance, and state and local governmental entities are required under federal 

   

  law to provide people with disabilities equal access to printed and other 

  information which is made available to employees or members of the public. This 

  requirement makes "effective communication" possible with people who have 

  sensory disabilities, such as blindness or visual impairment. Fulfilling this 

  obligation goes a long way to breaking down the information barriers that 

  perpetuate discrimination on the basis of disability. For information to be 

  truly accessible, and to make "effective communication" a reality, information 

  must be made available to people with disabilities in their preferred reading 

  media if at all possible. Additionally, the accessible information must be 

  provided timely and under conditions affording people with disabilities the same 

   

  degree of access to information as their non-disabled counterparts. Only when 

  the provision of accessible information becomes an "undue burden" may the 

  federal government, recipients of federal financial assistance, or entities of 

  state or local government make information accessible in a manner that does not 

  adhere to the individual's preference or to the requirement of timely delivery 

  and equivalent access. 

  The Law 

  In 1973, Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act, a comprehensive statute 

  establishing a partnership between the federal and state governments to foster 

  the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to people with disabilities. 

   

  This program provides training and related services to people with a wide range 

  of disabilities primarily to equip them for entry or reentry into the workforce. 

   

  However, Congress also recognized that, in addition to a lack of educational 

  opportunities and work experience leading to skills development, people with 

  disabilities also face discrimination both by employers and by public agencies. 

  To ensure that the federal government would not perpetuate the discrimination 

  that the vocational rehabilitation system was designed to mitigate, Congress 

  also enacted civil rights protections for people with disabilities. In 

  particular, the Rehabilitation Act bars discrimination on the basis of 

  disability by recipients of federal financial assistance and by agencies of the 

  federal government themselves. This requirement, known as Section 504 (29 U.S.C. 

   

  Sec. 794 (a)) reads in part as follows: 

  No otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by 

  reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be 

  denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program 

  or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or 

  activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal 

  Service. 

  In addition, Section 504 allows federal agencies to draft their own individual 

  rules to meet the mandates of this statute. Although this provision has largely 

  been ignored, a number of agencies have promulgated rules addressing Section 504 

   

  obligations of the federal government generally and of specific agencies. In 

  particular, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued regulations 

   

  implementing the requirements of this section and has applied them specifically 

  to the context of access to information. Though specifically drafted to cover 

  the programs and activities of DOJ, these regulations were designed as the 

  prototype for federal agency rulemaking to implement Section 504. Under 

  Executive Order No. 12250, the United States Attorney General has the authority 

  to coordinate the implementation and enforcement of a variety of civil rights 

  statutes, including Section 504. The DOJ regulations (28 C.F.R. Part 39) read in 

   

  part as follows: 

  "Sec. 39.160 Communications. 

  The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication 

  with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and 

  members of the public. 

  The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to 

  afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to participate in, and 

  enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency. 

  In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency 

  shall give primary consideration to the requests of the handicapped 

  person. 

  The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers 

  for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature." 

  To provide further clarification, the DOJ regulations define "auxiliary aids" at 

   

  28 C.F.R. Sec. 39.103 as follows: 

  Auxiliary aids means services or devices that enable persons with impaired 

  sensory, manual, or speaking skills to have an equal opportunity to 

  participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, programs or activities conducted 

  by the agency. For example, auxiliary aids useful for persons with impaired 

  vision include readers, Brailled materials, audio recordings, 

  telecommunications devices and other similar services and devices. 

  So reads the federal government requirement to make printed and other 

  information accessible to its employees and members of the public with 

  disabilities. However, federal agencies are not without a defense to unlimited 

  demands for access that would severely impair their ability to conduct an 

  overall program or activity. The regulations at 28 C.F.R. Sec. 39.160 continue 

  as follows: 

  "d. This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can 

  demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a 

  program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In 

  those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action 

  would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue 

  financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving 

  that compliance with Sec. 39.160 would result in such alteration or burdens. 

  The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must 

  be made by the Attorney General or his or her designee after considering all 

  agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the 

  conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written 

  statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required 

  to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such 

  burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in 

  such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to 

  the maximum extent possible, handicapped persons receive the benefits and 

  services of the program or activity." 

  Note that auxiliary aids encompass a range of options, including the production 

  of accessible materials, and that the DOJ regulations are clear that primary 

  consideration must be given to the preference of the individual with a 

  disability. Note also that this model requirement for all federal agencies 

  provides that an undue financial or administrative burden will be evaluated 

  based upon the resources available to the entire program or activity in 

  question. This is a very high standard and will almost never be met by agencies 

  of the federal government. However, even if an undue burden can be identified, 

  the entity is only able to avoid the specific requirements of preference and 

  equivalent access. The disabled employee or member of the public must ultimately 

   

  be afforded some level of access to the printed information at issue. 

  In addition to the obligations placed on federal agencies themselves, Section 

  504 also prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by any 

  program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Congress "sought to 

  impose Sec. 504 coverage as a form of contractual cost of the recipient's 

  agreement to accept the federal funds." United States Dep't of Transp. v. 

  Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. 597 (1986). There is neither a requirement that a 

  state entity directly receive federal financial assistance, Grove City College 

  v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 564, (1984), nor that it directly benefit from that 

  assistance, Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. at 607 (citing Grove City). Under 

  amendments to Section 504 enacted in 1988, the definition of "program or 

  activity" was expanded to include not only a state or local entity originally 

  receiving such assistance, but also each department or agency to which it 

  "extends" that assistance. (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(b)(1)(B) Similarly, regulations 

  promulgated under the Rehabilitation Act define a "recipient" as including "any 

  instrumentality of a state . . . to which Federal financial assistance is 

  extended directly or through another recipient." 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.3(f) Neither 

  the statute nor the regulations require an instrumentality of a state to which 

  the assistance is "extended," to be also in a position to accept or reject Sec. 

  504 obligations for the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act to apply. 

  Therefore, the scope of Section 504 coverage is extremely broad. 

  In 1990, the requirements concerning information access were expanded even 

  further with the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title 

  II of the ADA applies the ban on discrimination against people with disabilities 

   

  to entities of state and local government whether or not such entities receive 

  federal financial assistance. Therefore, under the ADA Title II regulations 

  codified at 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.160 mirroring the Section 504 rule, a public 

  university or community college, for example, is required to provide timely 

  access to information in a medium preferred by the individual with a disability. 

   

  However, since such institutions more than likely directly or indirectly benefit 

   

  from federal financial assistance, they are also subject to the Section 504 

  information access requirements as well. As a practical matter, Section 504 and 

  ADA Title II provide comparable protections for people with disabilities seeking 

   

  access to information of all kinds, and complaints of discrimination by such 

  entities of state or local government are properly lodged under either law, and 

  frequently under both simultaneously. 

  The United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has 

  dealt specifically with the question of accessible materials and the 

  requirements to honor the preference of individuals with disabilities and the 

  timeliness of delivery. In a series of Letters of Findings (LOFs) articulating 

  the information access policy, OCR has unambiguously outlined the right to 

  "effective communication." Issued against specific educational institutions, 

  these LOFs provide an example of how one class of public entities must comply 

  with federal law. 

  Two examples will illustrate this point. In OCR's LOF concerning Los Rios 

  Community College, a student alleged that a college discriminated on the basis 

  of disability by failing to make its computer laboratory, library, employment 

  services, and written materials accessible to students with visual impairments. 

  During the course of the investigation, the college agreed to a voluntary 

  resolution plan which, among other things, provided that the college would 

  develop written procedures to respond to requests for auxiliary aids, make 

  printed materials and computers accessible by providing auditory, tactile and 

  enlarged print materials, and make its library and student employment services 

  accessible to students with visual impairments. In describing the scope of the 

  information access requirement outlined above, OCR stated: 

  Due to the "range of disabilities" and the "primary consideration" accorded 

  the individual's preference in the manner accommodation is offered, the 

  post-secondary public institution should be prepared to deliver in a 

  reasonable and timely manner the printed materials relied upon in its 

  educational program in all of the following mediums: auditory, tactile 

  (Braille), and enlarged print. Although there may be circumstances when the 

  student's preferred medium is not, on balance, the medium selected by the 

  post-secondary institution to provide the student appropriate aids and 

  services, the institution may not categorically refuse to provide 

  accommodation through a particular medium (e.g., Braille). Rather, the 

  post-secondary institution must be prepared to timely offer access to its 

  printed materials in all three mediums, with the particular medium used for 

  the student's request dependent on a case by case analysis. 

  Additionally, in OCR's letter concerning California State University at Los 

  Angeles, a complaint filed with OCR alleged that the university failed to 

  provide access to blind and low vision students with respect to library 

  resources, campus publications, and open computer laboratories. The university 

  agreed to a voluntary resolution of the issues raised in the complaint and to 

  draft language proposed by OCR describing the steps to be taken to comply with 

  the law. The letter reads in pertinent part as follows: 

  In construing the conditions under which communication is "as effective as" 

  that provided to nondisabled persons, on several occasions OCR has held that 

  the three basic components of effectiveness are timeliness of delivery, 

  accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner and medium 

  appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the 

  individual with the disability. The courts have held that a public entity 

  violates its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act when it 

  simply responds to individual requests for accommodation on an ad-hoc basis. 

  A public entity has an affirmative duty to establish a comprehensive policy 

  in compliance with Title II in advance of any request for auxiliary aids or 

  services [see Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 857 F.Supp. 800 (D. Kan. 1994)]. A 

  recognized good practice in establishing such a comprehensive policy is to 

  consult with the disability community, especially those members most likely 

  to request accommodations. 

  Conclusion 

  For some time, the federal government has been required to make information 

  accessible to people with disabilities. According to its own regulations, the 

  accessible information must be provided in formats (such as braille or audio 

  recording) preferred by those requesting such information. Additionally, 

  recipients of federal financial assistance are under a similar obligation to 

  provide accessible information. Even public entities which do not receive such 

  assistance are now required to provide accessible information in compliance with 

   

  the ADA. In no case must any of these entities comply with the individual's 

  preference when doing so would result in an undue burden, but such a 

  determination is made based upon the resources available to the program or 

  activity as a whole. When an undue burden cannot be shown, the accessible 

  information must be provided in a timely manner and generally under conditions 

  affording equal access to people with disabilities. Finally, public entities 

  must be prepared in advance to provide accessible information in a manner that 

  complies with these long-standing requirements of federal law. Date: October 12, 

   

  1999 

    

    

  Return to Governmental Relations Group 

  Return to AFB Home Page 

  Please direct your comments and suggestions regarding this web site to the AFB 

  Information Center at afbinfo at afb.net 

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG) 

    To: joe harcz Comcast 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG) 

    Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:08 PM

    Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation 

     

    Mr. Harcz, my reading of the attached information you provided regarding Section 504 regulations in no way indicates that the Department is currently, or has ever unlawfully discriminated against you as regards your requests for public records in it's possession. I fail to see how extending the response period to your August 26, 2010 under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as has been done with other requests, can be viewed as being "discriminatory" against you. To the contrary, pursuant to applicable laws and/or regulations, the Department has, within reason, been able to address most of your previous requests.

     

    At this time, no portion of the current request has been granted or denied. As indicated in my September 1, 2010 response notice, the Department will respond accordingly by September 17, 2010, or sooner. Should any portion of your request be denied, you have appeal rights under MCL 15.240 of the state's FOIA.

     


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
    Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:38 PM
    To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
    Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation 

     

    Mr. Farmer:

     

    This from Section 504 regulations is only a partial response. Please read them very, very carefully.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

    § 104.4   Discrimination prohibited.

                      (a) General. No qualified handicapped person shall, on the 

    basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, 

    or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activitiy which 

    receives Federal financial assistance.

                      (b) Discriminatory actions prohibited. (1) A recipient, in 

    providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through 

    contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of handicap:

                      (i) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to 

    participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;

                      (ii) Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to 

    participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to 

    that afforded others;

                      (iii) Provide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, 

    benefit, or service that is not as effective as that provided to others;

                      (iv) Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services 

    to handicapped persons or to any class of handicapped persons unless such action 

    is necessary to provide qualified handicapped persons with aid, benefits, or 

    services that are as effective as those provided to others;

                      (v) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified 

    handicapped person by providing significant assistance to an agency, 

    organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of handicap in providing 

    any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the recipients program or 

    activity;

                      (vi) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to 

    participate as a member of planning or advisory boards; or

                      (vii) Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the 

    enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others 

    receiving an aid, benefit, or service.

                      (2) For purposes of this part, aids, benefits, and services, 

    to be equally effective, are not required to produce the identical result or 

    level of achievement for handicapped and nonhandicapped persons, but must afford 

    handicapped persons equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the 

    same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement, in the most integrated 

    setting appropriate to the person's needs.

                      (3) Despite the existence of separate or different aid, 

    benefits, or services provided in accordance with this part, a recipient may not 

    deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in such aid, 

    benefits, or services that are not separate or different.

                      (4) A recipient may not, directly or through contractual or 

    other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration (i) that have 

    the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the 

    basis of handicap, (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or 

    substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's 

    program or activity with respect to handicapped persons, or (iii) that 

    perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient if both recipients are 

    subject to common administrative control or are agencies of the same State.

                      (5) In determining the site or location of a facility, an 

    applicant for assistance or a recipient may not make selections (i) that have 

    the effect of excluding handicapped persons from, denying them the benefits of, 

    or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination under any program or activity 

    that receives Federal financial assistance or (ii) that have the purpose or 

    effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the 

    objectives of the program or activity with respect to handicapped persons.

                      (6) As used in this section, the aid, benefit, or service 

    provided under a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance 

    includes any aid, benefit, or service provided in or through a facility that has 

    been constructed, expanded, altered, leased or rented, or otherwise acquired, in 

    whole or in part, with Federal financial assistance.

                      (c) Aid, benefits or services limited by Federal law.  The 

    exclusion of nonhandicapped persons from aid, benefits, or services limited by 

    Federal statute or executive order to handicapped persons or the exclusion of a 

    specific class of handicapped persons from aid, benefits, or services limited by 

    Federal statute or executive order to a different class of handicapped persons 

      ----- Original Message ----- 

      From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG) 

      To: joe harcz Comcast 

      Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG) 

      Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:54 AM

      Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation 

       

      Mr. Harcz, Section 11-7000 Equally effective communication of the ADA Title II Technical 

      Assistance Manual reads as follows;

       "A public entity must ensure that its communications with individuals with disabilities are as 

       effective as communications with others. This obligation, however, does not require a public 

       entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the 

       nature of its services, programs, or activities, or in undue financial and administrative burdens."

       

      The Department is treating your August 26, 2010 request for copies of public records under the 

      Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) the same as it treats similar requests from other 

      requesters. Thusly,  based on the above ADA guideline, the Department is in compliance with all 

      applicable federal and state FOIA, and related provisions regarding requests for public records; 

      and not, as asserted in your September 1, 2010 emails, illegally discriminating against you in 

      processing this and other requests for nonexempt public records in it's possession. 

       


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
      Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:25 PM
      To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
      Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation 

       

      August 26, 2010

       

      Dear Mr. Farmer,

       

      Those documents were in the hands of the MCB commissioners, Cheryl Heibeck of MCB, parties from Deleg, Patrick Cannon, Constance Zanger at the budget and cash match meeting held in the Victor Office Building August 26, 2010.

       

      Moreover, I did not make this request under FOIA, but rather through relevant provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and relevant sections of both title Iand V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As you might be aware federal law, especially civil rights laws such as the ADA and Rehabilitation Act trump state law.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

       

        ----- Original Message ----- 

        From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG) 

        To: joe harcz Comcast 

        Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG) 

        Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:54 PM

        Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation 

         

        Mr. Harcz, this notice is in response to your request for copies of records/information described in the attached copy of your August 26, 2010 email to Mr. Duncan Wyeth. Please be informed that the Department of Energy, Labor, & Economic Growth (DELEG) is processing this request under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

         

        In order to determine the existence of any nonexempt records/information within the DELEG that might be responsive to your request, a search and examination of records/information must be undertaken. For this reason, it is necessary, as permitted by MCL 15.235, Section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA, to extend the time for response to September 17, 2010, or sooner.

         

         

         


------------------------------------------------------------------------

        From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
        Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:12 PM
        To: Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG)
        Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG); Luzenski, Sue (DELEG); Jo Anne Pilarski MCB, Chair; Margaret Wolfe MCB, Commissioner; John Scott MCB, Commissioner; Geri. Taeckens MCB, Commissioner; mike.cox at michigan.gov; Lynnae Ruttledge RSA Commissioner; John L Wodatch USDOJ; TOM MASSEAU MPAS; president.nfb.mi at gmail.com; Joe Sibley MCBVI Pres.; Richard Clay Advocates f/t Blind; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
        Subject: official request for information and accommodation 

         

        Official Request for Public Documents Including Financial Information

        August 26, 2010

         

        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

        1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

        Mt. Morris, MI 48458

        E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

         

         

        Re: request for information pursuant to ADA, Title II

         

        Duncan Wyeth, DELEG ADA Coordinator

        Via e-mail

        Patrick D. Cannon, Director Michigan Commission for the Blind

        And State of Michigan ADA Coordinator

        Via e-mail

         

        MCB Commissioners (all via e-mail)

         

        Jo anne Pilarski, Chair

        Michael Geno, Vice-Chair c/o Susan Luzinski

        Margaret Wolfe, Commissioner

        Geraldine Taeckens, Commissioner

        John Scott, Commissioner

         

         

         

        All,

         

        I am writing you today in the interest of accommodation, inclusion, and transparency for all of the following items in accessible format pursuant to obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1993 (Title II, subpart e, communications), as well as relevant provisions of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.

         

        The documents may simply be sent to me via e-mail as either Word attachments or plain text enclosures.

         

         

        I reiterate my request for all information in the "commissioner's packet" reference today at the meeting on budget and cash match. Ms. Luzinski only sent me the MCB Report, Agenda and Draft College Policy. But documents related to the State Plan which the commissioners clearly have and other documents they will be priey to tomorrow at the board meeting were not sent to me. Thus again I wish to have all documents that the commissioners have concerning tomorrow's quarterly meeting sent to me.

         

        Moreover, as discussed today I wish to have all of the documents related to the in service sent to me. They include in part:

         

        -all the reports that Ms. Cheryl Heibeck referred to including the 911 report, standards and indicators, the most recent Auditor General's report (single audit) and so on and so forth

        -the operating budget that Ms. Zanger referred to

        -all of the memorandums of understanding referred to with Intermediate School Districts, by Mr. Jones

         

        -the financial report referenced by the person from DELEG (Al was his first name but I couldn't hear his last or official position

        -the memorandum of understanding referred to at today's in service

         

        I must say that Mr. Cannon denoted that these documents were to be made available to members of the public and that he reiterated his contention that MCB was open and wished to be more open than other agencies in the country. I take him at his word on this and am taking him up on his offer of open governance in these regards now.

         

        Finally, I reiterate my verbal suggestion today that these and other documents relative to the activities of the Michigan Commission for the Blind are routinely, in a timely and accessible manner simply posted to MCB's web site now and in the future.

         

        Respectfully,

         

        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

         

        Cc: MI National Federation of the Blind

        Cc: Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired

        Cc: Advocates for the Blind

        Cc: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section

        Cc: Michael Cox, Michigan Attorney General

        Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.

        Cc: Lynnae Rutledge, Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration