[nfbmi-talk] (no subject)
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Tue Jun 28 12:12:33 UTC 2011
Thanks as always.
Peace,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: <trising at sbcglobal.net>
To: "NFBofMichigan List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:20 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] (no subject)
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.
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 348 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
The Professional version does not have this message
_______________________________________________
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