[nfbmi-talk] official board correspondennce nfb mi for record

Wed Dec 7 01:57:58 UTC 2011

December 6, 2011

Official Board Correspondence Re NFB Comments June MCB Meeting

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

joeharcz at comcast.net

Dear Commissioners,

Since the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan was given short shrift at  the MCB meeting at issue and our 45 minutes was shrunk to 12 minutes I am submitting the attached as official board correspondence to be read into the public record in full at the upcoming MCB meeting.

Sincerely,

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

Cc: Luzenski

Cc: Cannon

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: MCB 20/20 list serve

Attachment:

        These documents were presented to the Commission for the Blind Board

on June 17. They were written and edited by members

of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan.

My name is Michael Powell. I am the 1st Vice-President of the National

Federation of the Blind of Michigan. We are the oldest and largest

organization of blind people speaking for the blind and working to change

what it means to be blind.

I have been attending commission meetings on a regular basis since 2005. I

observed that the commissioners, while being good and well intentioned

people, always took the agency's view as the final word on how things were

going for the blind in Michigan. Whenever the National Federation of the

Blind of Michigan, or any individual for that matter, would raise an issue,

it usually met with the comment that, "of course, there is always room for

improvement and we can try to do better." We continued to point out problems

and possible solutions. The Commission Board functioned as a rubber stamp

for whatever the state agency Director and his staff recommended.

This deteriorating relationship culminated in 2010. In the May 2010 issue of

the Braille Monitor, our national publication, it was noted that, "Whatever

else can be said about the quality of services, administrative

irregularities and managerial manipulation at the Michigan Commission for

the blind, nobody doubts that the relationship between the state's blind

consumers and their principle rehabilitation service provider has been

poisoned."

Shortly after our 2009 state Convention, Dave Robinson, one of our members,

was fired from his job with the Michigan Commission for the Blind. He seemed

to be targeted because of his membership in this organization. Christine

Boone was now the only one of our members still employed by the Commission.

We were seeing disturbing patterns of behavior on the part of the

Commission. When Mr. Robinson took the matter before the state Civil Service

Commission the Hearing Officer came to the same conclusion. This opinion is

now part of the public record and can be read by anyone who wants the

information.

On January 26, 2010, we learned that Christine Boone was going to be fired

from her position as the Director of the Michigan Commission for the blind

Training Center. That firing was largely due to information gathered from

statements made in a presentation at our state Convention. This was a

blatant attack on the Federation. The firing of the training center director

has had a detrimental impact on the quality of services to Michigan's blind

citizens seeking rehabilitation and training in the skills of blindness.

These skills enable them to pursue goals of education, employment and

independent living. It was also a denial of Ms. Boone's right to due

process.

On Friday, January 29, 2010 the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

picketed the Michigan Commission for the Blind. A later demonstration was

also held in Kalamazoo.

At the March 19, 2010 meeting of the Michigan Commission for the Blind we

presented our position on this matter and other issues involving the

Commission in the form of several documents. This information was not

entered verbatim into the public record of your meeting. All Commissioners

were presented with copies of the material.

Some individuals have not appreciated our approach to problem solving. Many

years of discussion with the Commission Board have produced minimal results.

When the blind are being mistreated or denied proper services we will take

appropriate action. The National Federation of the Blind will not hesitate

to advocate, without apology for Michigan's blind citizens.

Since I last spoke to you on March 19, 2010 much has taken place. A new

director was hired for the training center whose only background in

rehabilitation of the blind was her being an employee of the Michigan

Commission for the Blind. John Scott, a member of the NFB of Michigan, was

appointed to the Commission Board. Before he could be fully installed the

Board voted to go into closed session.  In view of the current climate of

mistrust, this was inadvisable and a violation of the Open Meetings Act.

John Scott did not yet have voting privileges. We objected to this wrong

decision by issuing a law suit. We felt that there was not good cause to

justify a closed meeting. Through a decision made by our State Board that

lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn.

What can we expect from the new Board that is currently in place? The people

of the state of Michigan, through your appointment from the Governor, gave

you a sacred trust. The people of Michigan believe that you are capable of

setting policies to meet the needs of the blind because of your background,

activities, experience, and commitment. It must be the Board that sets the

policy to be implemented by those who provide the services and the training

that will empower people who are blind to participate actively in their

communities and pursue goals of education and employment. Wwe expect that

you will use the knowledge you gain through association with us, your

experience and understanding of the problems faced by blind people,

knowledge of the service delivery systems in this state, and personal life

experience as blind people, parents and advocates for blind children to see

that those employed to provide services do their jobs and attain the highest

quality results.

We have compiled a document outlining problems you can address and

suggestions of possible solutions to these problems. We also want to state

that our president Larry Posont is seeing this information for the first

time. As Vice-President I chaired the part of our last state Board Meeting

that discussed and wrote this document.  We did it this way because we take

these matters very seriously.  We stand ready to help you in any way that we

can.  Today can be a new day in serving the blind people of Michigan.  All

we ask you to do is to seize the opportunity and take it.  For our part we

will continue to advocate for the needs of the blind.

When we believe things are wrong we will ask questions and seek remedies.

We are the National Federation of the Blind.  This is who we are. This is

what we do.  And we make no apology for it.

Access is a Civil Right, NFB MI Presentation to the MCB for June 17, 2011

Access to information from a public entity like MCB is as fundamental as

America itself. As, people who are blind cannot by nature of disability read

conventional

print both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504

of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the very act that creates MCB) require that

information is made accessible to blind employees, members of the public,

and consumers of MCB services. This information must be made available in

the most effective format for the individual including Braille, audio,

digital, or large print formats.

Federally funded state agencies such as MCB must also act affirmatively in

providing accessible information, cannot charge any additional cost for

providing it in accessible form, and must provide information in a timely

manner.

Equal access to information is a civil right and failure to provide it

either pro forma or upon request is a fundamental civil rights violation.

Yet, we the NFB offor

Michigan note severe violations of the ADA and 504 in this regard  for

years.

While commissioners do for the most part receive accessible information when

it is

Remitted, they most often do not, as documented in the public record receive

vital information in any format, or in a timely manner. Several

commissioners in the public including Eagle and Taeckens have complained

about not receiving timely data about this agency's actions. In fact state

plan information including annual supplements was only provided to most

commissioners when one of our members received them for the entire decade

through the Freedom of Information Act and then distributed them to

commissioners.

The lack of timely information related to the RSA

monitoring covering four years, and which was after all a monitoring to see

whether

or not MCB was following its state plans and the Rehabilitation Act is

legendary by now. Commissioners did not receive anything for more than a

year. In fact they

still have not received all data related to the required corrective actions,

now

many months passed due.

There are many more instances where commissioners do not receive timely and

accessible information that is part of the public record.

Needless to say receiving nothing months, or even years after the fact

hardly is

timely delivery of accessible information.

Another fact is that Michigan's MAIN system to this date is not fully and

independently accessible to any blind employee of the State of Michigan.

Not, even to MCB Director Cannon, who is also the State ADA coordinator.

Cannon acknowledged this basic issue at the last NFB MI convention, but has

never taken one action to fix it.

In addition, many components of state web pages are not accessible; and

again, Cannon has ignored complaints.

Moreover, BEP operators have reported over years issues with receiving

timely and accessible information about their operations and that includes

information related to ALJ and other due process proceedings. A denial of

timely and accessible information in these regards is also a fundamental

denial of due process. At the last MCB meeting it was also reported that BEP

trainees did not

all get timely and accessible training materials either. This is a mind

blowing publicly

documented act of gross discrimination by an agency that is supposed to be

advocating

for training and educational information for college students and so forth.

Yet, they don't provide it in their own program.

Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require that all information related

to

public meetings and all facilities used for them are accessible. Every

document made available to members of the

commission must be made available to blind people in alternate formats and

upon request in a timely manner.

Moreover all meeting sites must be accessible including the one structural

communications element in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility

Guidelines (ADAAG(), which is the requirement of raised character and

Braille signage on every permanent room including room numbers. Director

Cannon knows of these requirements .   He was the Chair of the United States

Access Board.  Many complaints about violations have come to him including a

2008 survey of state owned facilities conducted by DTMB.

MCB is required to hold public hearings and relate information about those

public

hearings in a variety of media regarding its Tri-annual Comprehensive Needs

Assessment.

Not only has this never been done, but current Commissioner Posont received

a print

letter related to the one last year in his capacity as President of NFB MI

signed

by none other than Patrick D. Cannon!

The absolute worst and most chronic violations of the ADA and 504 however

aren't

just these, but the continued violations of the rights of consumers of MCB

to receive

all information related to their affairs in a timely and accessible manner,

including

rights of appeal and other due process rights. Numerous complaints have been

made

to this board, to CIC and other agencies in this regard including CAP and

Michigan

Protection and Advocacy Services. But, in spite of MCB's contention that it

follows

the ADA in these matters even its own 2008 consumer satisfaction survey

denoted that

a substantial percentage of even so-called "successfully closed" consumers

never

received one item in accessible format from application to closure. They

received

nothing:Nnot even the application itself or even an IPE let alone

assessments, evaluations

and other critical items that indeed ensure accountability, due process and

informed

consent. What more needs to be said that is not said in that survey?

Make no mistake these and other violations over the years constitute not

only deliberate

indifference to these civil rights laws by Director and Michigan ADA

coordinator

Cannon and MCB over all, but constitute willful, intentional and malicious

mass violations of blind people's civil rights as a class.

We, the NFB of Michigan wish to reach across the table to members of MCBVI.

ACB has fought for the rights of the blind to receive accessible information

from cases against

the Social Security Administration through work along with NFB on Accessible

texts

and joint work on things like accessible ATMs and voting systems. We ask

them to join us in making MCB fully accessible.

Now, with these considerations in mind the NFB MI strongly urges the MCB

Board to take the following action steps:

1. That the MCB Board urge the Director of the new Department of Licensing

and Regulatory Affairs to immediately fill the required, but vacant "ADA

Coordinator" position within LARA and with someone who knows more about the

ADA than its initials. Moreover, we

urge this board to call on Governor Snyder to remove the totally ineffective

Patrick

Cannon as State ADA Coordinator and to inform him that the position is also

conflicted

as Cannon is a documented perpetrator of chronic ADA violations.

2. That this board files this document and any associated documentation of

ADA violations over the years with the U.S. Department of Education's Office

of Civil Rights as a systemic complaint on behalf of blind persons as a

class and that it urge OCR to

conduct a full scale compliance review of MCB.

3. That this board directs the Director to immediately contact the DBTAC

Great Lakes Technical

Assistance Center for a thorough staff and public training of obligations,

and responsibilities related to the ADA. Our members have contacted key

personnel their and they would be delighted to do this.

4. That the MCB Board contact Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services and

advise

them that they wish for access to information and facility access for people

who

are blind or visually impaired throughout every state agency including MCB

to be

one of its top priorities for enforcement actions.

It is well-documented that, generally speaking, there is a 70-80 percent

unemployment rate among blind people of working age.  To give this some

perspective, during the Great Depression of the 1930's the worst economic

event in American history, the unemployment rate for the general population

was around 25 percent.  It is also documented that blind people who

successfully complete programs in rehabilitation services have an

approximate 30-35 percent unemployment rate.  Even this lower figure still

exceeds the general population unemployment rate during the Great Depression

and is more than 3 times the current "high" unemployment rate of around 10

percent.

Blind people and other people with disabilities have gone to Congress and

explained these stark facts.  Congress has been generous in appropriating

funds to provide services to blind people to assist us in finding work.

With figures obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the

Commission for the Blind the following facts have been uncovered.  It is no

wonder that the Administration has been reluctant to share this data with

the Commission board despite the Board's request at its March meeting.  In

Michigan, in 2010, the Michigan Commission for the Blind had around

$28 million to serve blind people. One might reasonably ask, "What has the

MCB done with this very large amount of money to serve blind people?"  Is

every unemployed blind person now employed?  What would you, a concerned

citizen, do with $28 million to help your fellow blind person to get a job?

Anyone who has had any kind of meetings or has an open case with the

Commission will tell you that virtually without exception, the Commission

staff believe the agency is underfunded and cannot afford to provide the

necessary services to assist every client to find employment in their chosen

field.  The facts simply do not bear this out.  Given the very large budget

surpluses, MCB has ample funds to fully help all clients.

Here is what the legislature wants MCB to do with taxpayer money. 393.354 Of

the Commission law says in Sec. 4. (1) The commission shall maintain a

program of services to assist visually

handicapped persons to overcome vocational handicaps and to obtain the

maximum degree

of self-support and self-care.. .

the following is added to make sure everyone is clear about the intent of

the legislature.

(k) Provide other rehabilitative goods and services as appropriate to each

individual

circumstance.

How many times must the law say that the Commission is to make maximum

efforts to help blind people get good jobs?  Not the minimum, not a minimum

wage job, not a sheltered workshop, the law says the maximum effort in

accordance with the blind person's abilities and interests.  A reasonable

person would agree that maximum effort would be to utilize all the resources

available to accomplish these items.

A paraphrase of The Bible tells us that where the treasure is, there is the

heart, also.  It is telling that the cost categories which pay salaries,

rents to state government, state retirement, and so on, are the accounts

which are the most exhausted.  Any account directed to providing direct

services and employment to blind people is woefully underspent.  One might

reasonably wonder why those items that spend money for governmental items

are nearly fully spent, fully spent or significantly over-spent while client

service accounts are significantly underspent.  Is this a reflection of the

priorities of the agency?  Are these funds treated as a convenient ATM to

fund outside interests?

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

$28,798,133

$20,552,909

71 percent

According to these figures the MCB had nearly $29 million to spend.  It only

spent 71 percent of this money.

Here are some examples of the spending priorities within MCB as published by

the agency for the 2009-2010 fiscal year

CASE SERVICES

$5,431,115

$4,279,761

79 percent

It is difficult to explain that the agency failed to spend around $1 million

while telling clients there are no funds for their services.  This is the

heart of the agencies programs to assist with employment for blind people.

This is the reason the agency exists.  Case services is where the real work

of the agency is accomplished.  Without case services, there is no reason

for an agency for the blind. We are talking about 21 percent of the money

available to help get jobs went unspent.  Remember, there are 70 percent of

us who want to work and don't.  Furthermore, if a client who receives Social

Security benefits is successfully placed and ceases to receive Social

Security benefits, the Commission is reimbursed 100 percent of the

rehabilitation costs.

SALARIES AND WAGES

$6,539,308

$6,199,397

95 percent

Ok, now we see that 95 percent of salaries and wages are spent while only 79

percent of case services funds are spent.  Remember the part about where the

heart and treasure are?  Commission employees deserve good pay and good

working conditions.  There are a lot of very good employees within MCB.  We

ought to hire more counselors and placement people to reach and get jobs for

more blind people.  However, in this politically charged environment of

cutting government spending, the above numbers with fully spent salaries and

underspent case services do not support the premise that the agency is

understaffed, even though we all know that caseloads are too high in some

areas.

We call upon you, the Commission Board to take charge of the budget and the

budget process and get the agency priorities in order.

Revision of Commission board by laws

It is the position of this organization that the board needs to revisit and

revise their by laws.  Even though some revisions were made in 2009, the by

laws fall short in a number of areas.  Most critical of these is the

extraordinary power it gives to the Commission director.  Other areas

include the time needed for Commission board members to receive background

material on issues they will be deliberating and the limited time for

response and presentation of issues from the blind public citizens of

Michigan as has occurred here today.

We request that the Commission board initiate a review of the by laws and

make the following changes:

#1. The role of the Commission director be only limited to support and not

have the ability to veto meetings and set the agenda as outlined in Section

5, 12 and 13.

#2. Sufficient time be provided to the Commissioners to review all material

including minutes of meetings, administrative reports, and transcripts of

hearings on cases of litigation.

#3. Clarification of the time and manner for public comment.

#4. Removal of Commission staff handling the minutes or correspondence for

the Commission board and assigning it to an independent support position as

outlined in the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act.

Other issues may need to be addressed as determined by the Commission board.

We hope that in taking this necessary step the Commission board can

establish standards and guidelines that will allow it to fulfill its proper

role as established under P.A. 260.

There was a recent job announcement for a counselor position in Nebraska.

We wish to call your attention to the training requirement for staff in

Nebraska.

All new hires will complete 600 hours of immersion

>>>> training in Lincoln, at NCBVI expense, at the Nebraska Center for

>>>> the Blind to learn the alternative skills of blindness (cane

>>>> travel, Braille, assistive technology, activities of daily living,

>>>> etc.); those completing the training will be certified as

>>>> Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors for the blind.

Though we are not in possession of all hiring statistics, we are aware that

many of the recent hires for MCB have not been trained in a college program

for blindness rehabilitation professionals.  We also are aware that many of

the recent hires come from the Michigan Rehabilitation Services agency which

has a profoundly different caseload and philosophy of rehabilitation, a

philosophy that has shown nationally that blind people do very poorly when

they are served by a general rehabilitation agency.  Rehabilitation is not

simply rehabilitation.  Blindness is different, in its affect from almost

all other disabilities.  Society falsely views blindness as a death, a

tragedy, an insurmountable barrier to being a first-class citizen.  The work

of a rehabilitation agency is that of social change for the community and

encompasses a much wider range of skills, beliefs and attitudes than those

skill areas like cane travel, braille and talking computers.

In sworn testimony in an administrative hearing, a Michigan counselor

testified that she had a total of 4 weeks training in blindness skills,

including college and MCB.  All rehabilitation is not created equal.

Blindness brings with it unique issues that call for unique solutions:

solutions that can only be fully understood through intensive emersion

training.  Some of these solutions are technical in nature like labeling,

marking and so forth.  Primarily, however, these solutions have to do with

attitude, philosophy and a true belief in the efficacy of alternative

techniques of blindness.  This is not an indictment of staff who have not

received such training, after all, MCB employees have met all hiring and

training expectations.  The deficit is in the management's expectation

regarding expertise in blindness skills and attitudes.  Further the training

deficit is graphically and vividly expressed in the poor outcomes with

regard to placement rates and the ongoing violations of the rehabilitation

act as expressed in the federal monitoring report and the continual illegal

advisement of MCB clients that the are required to use their SSI or SSDI

funds for rehabilitation costs.

MCB needs to embark on a long-term (5-year) and intensive training program

for new and existing staff to begin to change the culture of the agency to

build it into a culture of high expectations and above average quality

outcomes in terms of placements, starting wages, acquisition of advanced

degrees, high GPA's for students and competitive literacy rates for all

readers who successfully complete rehabilitation programs through MCB.

These Quality Assurance (QA) deficits were specifically pointed out in the

monitoring report.

 The federal monitoring report found:

.         A significant number of new MCB staff members lack expertise and

are pursuing training in order to meet the Comprehensive System of Personnel

Development (CSPD) standard.

.         MCB has difficulty hiring qualified individuals that meet the CSPD

requirements for the VR counselor and rehabilitation teacher positions.

RSA solicited input from MCB to identify the following continuing education

needs of its staff:

  a.. developing and implementing service delivery evaluation processes;

  b.. skill-building to improve the achievement of competitive employment

outcomes;

  c.. strategies to decrease recidivism; and

  d.. developing and implementing effective strategies to improve internal

and external communication.

1.  Quality Assurance

Observations:  MCB does not have comprehensive and integrated QA processes

and, therefore, cannot evaluate the agency's financial and programmatic

performance on a continuing basis.

  a.. VR counselors are not evaluated on the quality of the employment

outcomes achieved by individuals on their caseloads.

  b.. MCB does not have standards for measuring the performance of vendors,

nor does it have a system for ensuring the accountability of, and the

consumer satisfaction with, vendor performance.

  a.. MCB and its commission spend extensive time soliciting consumer input,

but do not have a systematic method to incorporate this input into QA

processes.

Recommendations:  RSA recommends that MCB:

1.1   develop and implement an agency QA system that promotes

accountability, evaluates MCB and vendor performance, and serves as a

baseline for measuring agency progress in achieving strategic goals;

1.2   integrate into the QA process activities and input identified through

the Vision 20/20 initiative, the findings contained in the CSNA, agency

performance and financial data, the results of consumer and employee

satisfaction surveys and the service record reviews, and other information

necessary to align resource allocation with agency needs; and

1.3   modify the employee performance appraisal system to align with the

tenets of the new QA system.

We hope that staff will encourage, embrace and advocate for more training in

blindness and quality assurance to help achieve the kinds of outcomes you

all have for your clients.  There is no doubt that better results will be

achieved with the same effort through the robust application of high

standards and deep expertise in blindness skills and positive attitudes

about blindness and blind people.  We believe MCB staff goals are similar to

ours:, good jobs for lots of blind people.

After all though, it is up to you, the board, to lead the way and set high

training standards, including emersion, for MCB staff.

Commission presentation

Many of us remember a decade ago when the Michigan economy was thriving and

tax revenues to the State were plentiful.  The State workforce was robust

and each department had a full compliment of employees enjoying a good

salary.  The Business Enterprise Program operators were enjoying strong

sales because state workers were spending. The traveling public had money to

spend on snacks and pop because they were not paying $4 for a gallon of gas.

For many reasons beyond our control this economy was not sustained. Hard

times became the norm.

As businesses failed, state government revenues declined and the cost for

everything, including food and beverages increased, profits for BEP

operators began to dwindle.  In the mid 2000's operators began to bid out of

locations that were no longer profitable.  Other operators entered these

facilities in hopes of turning them around.  Most did not succeed. Operators

in these undesirable locations attempted to move to a facility that could

still render any kind of a profit or leave the BEP altogether.  It was then

that operators began to urge the BEP management to take a look at the BEP

facilities to determine the viability for employment of each location.  This

was never done, and is still not being looked at today.

It has been boasted by the BEP management that all they have to do is to

have a reasonable expectation of an operator earning at least 120% of the

prevailing federal minimum wage to make a facility a viable operation.  Our

question to them is how do you know the facility can reasonably expect the

operator to earn 120% of the federal minimum wage?  No review of a facility

for its economic viability has been done.  Most of the facilities operated

under the BEP are ones created long before the year 2000; substantially

before the economic downturn.  This occurred long before the state work

force decreased and the traveling public limited their driving because of

rising gas prices.  We can definitely say that the BEP is not keeping up

with the times.

It is common knowledge that many of the BEP facilities listed on the bid

line have been there for some time.  Many of them have sighted people

operating them just to keep them open.  We wonder how many BEP allocated

Federal dollars are being spent on sighted people receiving and keeping a

job.  The question then is why are these facilities on the bid line for so

long?  Perhaps we ought to ask the operators?

Recent review of the facilities on the bid line indicates that 10 of the 13

have sales under $75,000 a year.  Several of these locations need more then

just the operator to run the business.  With the cost of goods, employee

costs and other fixed cost such as insurance, workers compensation,

telephone, liability etc. no profit could be realized.  The operators know

this. They are familiar with the circumstances at the facility and they have

not and will not bid on them because they have been proven to be

unprofitable.  The agencies solution to the large number of facilities on

the bid line is to train more people to be operators.  This results in new,

recently trained, inexperienced operators taking locations that are not

viable thus causing the new operator to fail.  The BEP management then

points to the operator and says he or she was a failure rather then looking

in the mirror and asking themselves what they could have done to prevent the

failure.

The BEP, as part of the Commission for the Blind, is a program to provide

employment opportunities for blind persons.  Employment means a job that

will provide a living wage.  The facilities being offered to operators and

potential operators are far from jobs.  As the months go by the situation

continues to get worse. Even facilities being run by blind BEP operators are

suffering from the economic downturn, and profits are declining.  Yet the

BEP management still requires the operators to maintain a certain profit or

be deemed out of compliance and risk losing their license to operate a

facility.  These profit requirements were established decades ago and have

never been updated to reflect the changing times.  In the past couple of

years the BEP management has chosen to ignore the pleas of many and take an

attitude of punishment of the operators rather than an attitude of support

and finding solutions to the current business climate.

We call upon the board to launch an investigation into the viability of

facilities in the BEP and what the reasonable profit level should be for

each operating facility.  Furthermore, the BEP needs to immediately

implement a plan to consolidate current locations and add new locations that

can be offered to current and potential operators where they can make a

living.  Criteria assuring placement of only trained blind persons into the

available locations at all times must be established and maintained.  We see

no reason for such delays in providing employment opportunities for the

blind and we believe that BEP management is neglecting their

responsibilities to provide a viable employment program for the blind of

Michigan or deliberately destroying the BEP opportunity completely.

Whichever it is, the blind will not allow it to continue and we request the

Commission board to take action that will restore the BEP to a meaningful

employment opportunity for the blind.

No rehabilitation agency can satisfy all of its clients, all of the time.

Therefore, Congress included section 112 in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

as amended, and created the Client Assistance Program (CAP).  The mission of

CAP is clearly spelled out in Section 112.  CAP shall provide assistance and

advocacy to clients and applicants for services, in pursuing legal,

administrative, or other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of

the rights of such individuals under this act, and to facilitate access to

the services funded under this Act through individual and systematic

advocacy.  In Michigan, the Client Assistance Program is housed within

Michigan Protection & Advocacy.  The NFB of Michigan has heard from many

people, both members and non-members, that the CAP staff is either non

responsive to telephone calls and inquiries, or that the CAP director

advocates for the agency in almost every instance, leaving clients and

applicants for services to stand alone if they wish to grieve any action or

failure to act on the part of the Commission.

We call upon this Board to request a full report from the CAP director, to

be provided  in person at an upcoming Commission meeting, with a written

copy to be given to Commissioners at least 14 days inn advance of that

meeting.  The report should include, at a minimum, the following statistics

for the past 2 year period relating to MCB:

Number of people contacting CAP;

Number of calls returned to those people by CAP staff;

Number of CAP brochures provided in alternative formats;

Approximate Number of CAP brochures provided to potential MCB consumers;

Number of individuals to whom additional information is provided by CAP

staff;

Number of cases opened to advocate for clients or applicants for services;

 Number of administrative reviews at which CAP staff represented legally

blind individuals;

Number of ALJ hearings attended by CAP staff representing legally blind

individuals;

Number of successful outcomes for clients and applicants represented by CAP.

College students are still experiencing the same problems they encountered

before the new College policy was adopted. Students are still having

difficulties receiving services to help pay for tuition, textbooks, and

reader services not provided by the college or university. If receiving a

college education is the leading predictor in whether or not a person

becomes gainfully employed, then when will the MCB  start providing college

students the services they need in a timely manner as defined by Public Act

260 and the Rehabilitation Act as amended?

The Governor of Michigan appoints the MCB Board of Commissioners to hold the

agency accountable when creating policies that effect consumers. However,

where was this accountability when the agency was looking to adopt a new

college policy? If the Commission Board was doing its job as defined by

Public Act 260, then why did it allow the agency to adopt a college policy

that does not fully comply with federal law?

The Rehabilitation Act is clear, the MCB cannot create a means test for

college students who receive social security benefits including Supplemental

Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance. However, this is

exactly what the new Financial Needs and Resources form does as a part of

the new college policy. The NFB of Michigan calls upon the Commission Board

to review the new college policy, and remove the Financial Needs and

Resources form.

During the 2010 state convention, we adopted a resolution regarding the new

college policy. It reads as follows:

Whereas the MCB has adopted a new policy regarding the services it provides

to college students, and;

Whereas the MCB severely limited the participation of consumers including

college students and college administrators in the review of this new

policy, and;

Whereas the new college policy includes a Statement of Financial Needs  and

Resources asking students how much they have contributed to disability

related services including Personal Equipment, Medical Expenses, Personal

Assistants or Attendants, and transportation, and;

Whereas such a statement of financial needs and resources eludes to the

adoption of a means test, and;

Whereas the NFB of Michigan has previously adopted a resolution opposing the

use of a means test for providing services to college students,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the NFB of Michigan in convention assembled this

thirty-first day of October 2010 in the City of Dearborn Michigan to condemn

and deplore the use of a financial needs form by the MCB when administering

services to college students, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization call upon the MCB Board of

Directors to take a more active role in standing up for the rights of blind

consumers when adopting and reviewing new policies as defined by Michigan

Public Act 260.

Today's college students will be tomorrow's leaders, so why not give them

all the resources possible? As members of the MCB Board of Commissioners,

you hold the power to help make the dreams of these students a reality.

Please do not let petty politics get in the way of students receiving the

education they need to become the leaders of tomorrow.

--