[nfbmi-talk] diabetes forcast on NewslineRe: (no subject)

Georgia Kitchen gakitchen at gfn.org
Wed Jun 29 02:17:50 UTC 2011


Hi all,

Please tell your friends that another magazine for Diabetics is now on 
Newsline.
For you folks that use the computer mainly, see the web site
www.nfbnewslineonline.org
for the different ways  you can access NFBNewsline over the internet etc.

Best

Georgia Kitchen
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] (no subject)


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/gakitchen%40gfn.org 





More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list