[nfbmi-talk] why was this censored by state list?

[Tonya Smith]

Hey Joe, this is Tonya. This is just my opinion. Probably, the only reason why you were censored and yeah, the amendment is, like, freedom of speech. Okay, and that's, and the reason why it was amended. Well, I mean, the reason why it was censored, because she probably didn't like the freedom of speech. She probably didn't like, see, you know, see, I guess in my opinion, is that maybe a lot of times the reason why people censor things is cause they want to shut you up, you know. Or maybe, they don't like their freedom of speech act, which is the First Amendment. You know, and so on and so forth. I don't know, but you know what, in my opinion, oh well. You know, if she doesn't like it, that's just to doggone cotton picken' bad, isn't it? I mean, you didn't say anything bad. I mean, besides, even if you did, you know, I mean that's, I don't know. And I'm sorry about that. It was like a slap in the face. I mean, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, we have right to celebrate victories, you know, at all costs. You know, so there you go. If she doesn't like it, oh well. You know, then maybe she should just resign. See, you're fired. There you go.

Tonya Smith sent you this voice-to-text generated email using Voice on the Go.
To listen, click on the voice message link or open the attachment.
http://vemail2.whitelabelapp.net:8080/enterprise/Recordings/WVOR7K8l-20110309-0847.wav


> Original Message:
> ---------------------------------
> 
> From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net> 
> Sent: March 9, 2011 8:38:06 AM
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] why was this censored by state list?
> 
> Why Was This Censored?
> 
>  
> 
> March 9, 2011
> 
> Colleagues and Those Interested in Democracy and Public Accountability,
> 
>  
> 
> A few days ago I sent the public domain Michigan Civil Service Commission decision and victory for Dave Robinson, in which he prevailed against his illegal firing at the hand of Michigan Commission for the Blind Director Patrick Cannon, to the State of Michigan run list serve ?MCB 20-20?.  It was censored by list moderator Cheryl Hiebeck. This was not the first time that this moderator and this state agency has censored such information in gross violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is ?content regulation? and ?prior restraint? by a state actor and the grossest of violations of this treasured right of all citizens. I know of which I speak as I am a former professional journalist, with a B.A. in Communications and I did take during my course of studies ?Media Law?. I received an A in that class by the way and do have a four year degree which is something that the Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind has not accomplished, but I digress.
> 
>  
> 
> The reason this, and related information, and other similar information related to lawsuits is censored from this list serve is simple. Cannon has run MCB through intimidation and threat of retaliation against anyone whom he thinks threatens his personal position or even his tender ego by simply invoking facts, or even demonstrating proficiency, or even against those who actually advocate for customers of MCB or the increasingly embattled employees of MCB. And what Mr. Robinson?s case shows is that those who fight back and those who actually invoke the rule of law over this tyranny can prevail if tenacious. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear, again through the public record that Cannon with his reckless activities has exposed this organization to hundreds of thousands of dollars in liabilities. Incredibly who ultimately will pay for this? Why, it will be the taxpayer of the state and, indeed the United States, and ultimately the ever suffering people who are blind in Michigan who are denied timely services because the money has been so squandered in such a reckless manner.
> 
>  
> 
> At the risk of hyperbole here I cannot help but be reminded of the same bunker mentality, and pathological behavior of Muumar Qadaffi. For years that tyrant controlled public information, denied fundamental rights, retaliated against even perceived enemies of his person, which he deemed to be the state. We?ve seen this for more than a decade on a smaller and less violent scale from Patrick Cannon.
> 
>  
> 
> But, it is high time that the censorship ends, that the doors of public information are opened widely and accessibly to all Michiganders. It is time, also that, for once people who are blind are included as full citizens, and endowed with the same First Amendment and other rights that other citizens take for granted. It should be noted that aside from expression rights, the First Amendment also guarantees the right of association. It is implicit in the decision that Cannon and his henchmen also violated Mr. Robinson?s civil rights in this regard too and, thus threatens the Constitutional rights of all people who are blind regardless as to their association, or lack thereof. It doesn?t matter if one is involved with NFB, or MCBVI, or, for that matter a Boy Scout troop.  So, long as one is perceived a threat, in any manner, real or perceived to the arbitrary authority of Patrick Cannon then that person will be attacked in such a manner as Robinson was. History, documents this fact and the cases of the Eagles, Boone, McMahan,, Brooks, Tomcak, Fellows, and countless other vendors, employees and consumers over the years shout as a loud testament to the facts.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Please, see the Civil Service decision, received through a Freedom of Information Act request with no muss and fuss by the way from the good people at the Michigan Civil Service Commission.
> 
>  Attached after my signature line.
> 
> In Solidarity with Those who Love Liberty,
> 
>  
> 
> Joe Harcz
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Attachment:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Table with 1 column and 3 rowsSTATE OF MICHIGAN 
> 
> CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 
> 
> HEARINGS OFFICE 
> 
> Table end   Table with 3 columns and 10 rowsDAVID ROBINSON 
> 
> CSHO 2011-006 
> 
> v. 
> 
> Mailing Date: 
> 
> February 23, 2011 
> 
> DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LABOR AND 
> 
> ECONOMIC GROWTH 
> 
> Ref. No.: 
> 
> 2010-02283 
> 
> GRIEVANCE DECISION 
> 
> Hearing Officer: William P. Hutchens 
> 
>  Representatives: 
> 
>  Grievant: 
> 
> Law Offices of Mark E. Kamar, by Mark E. Kamar and 
> 
> Gerald Joseph Cichocki 
> 
>  Department: 
> 
> Marilyn Smith, Labor Relations Representative 
> 
> Table end  Table with 2 columns and 5 rowsCASE SUMMARY 
> 
> KEY WORDS: 
> 
> Discipline, Dismissal; and Political Activity 
> 
>  The manner in which the service ratings were implemented violated Civil Service Regulation 
> 
> 2.06, Conducting Employee Ratings; further, it is the hearing officer?s determination that the 
> 
> Commission for the Blind discharged the grievant in violation of Civil Service Rule 1-8.1(a), 
> 
> Prohibited Discrimination, due to partisan considerations due to his membership in, and 
> 
> advocacy on behalf of, the National Federation of the Blind. This is based upon 
> 
> circumstantial evidence contained in the disciplinary timeline. The dismissal was not for just 
> 
> cause. The grievant is to be reinstated to his former position with full back pay and benefits, 
> 
> minus any outside earnings. 
> 
> This CASE SUMMARY is not an official part of the decision. 
> 
> Table end A grievance hearing was held on September 7, 2010, at the Capitol Commons Center, 
> 
> 400 South Pine Street, Lansing, Michigan. The parties were given full opportunity to present 
> 
> testimonial and documentary evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and present oral 
> 
> argument. Closing briefs were submitted by October 22, 2010, at which point the record was 
> 
> closed. 
> 
> THE ISSUE 
> 
> Was the grievant dismissed for just cause? 
> 
>  THE FACTS 
> 
> The grievant, David Robinson, was employed by the Michigan Commission for the Blind as a 
> 
> Promotional Agent. In that capacity, it was his function to visit and service visually handicapped 
> 
> food service vendors within state of Michigan office buildings, helping them to build their 
> 
> businesses. 
> 
>  The grievant had been employed in the above capacity with the Commission for the Blind since 
> 
> 1998. At the time of his discharge, the grievant reported to James Hull, the assistant business 
> 
> enterprise program (BEP) manager. Hull began his supervision of the grievant on June 14, 2010. 
> 
>  In his testimony, Hull described the duties of the promotional agents as being the liaison between 
> 
> the facility operators and BEP administrative staff. They are responsible for procuring 
> 
> equipment for the stand operators and to ensure that the operators have the training and skills 
> 
> necessary to successfully operated food service establishments within the BEP program. This 
> 
> requires the promotional agents to make site visits to each facility every six weeks, or if that is 
> 
> not physically possible, they need to contact the operators and document that in the BEP 
> 
> database. 
> 
>  Hull stated that in addition to the above requirements, the promotional agents must give each 
> 
> operator they supervise an annual evaluation. 
> 
>  Hull stated that in the first month that he supervised the grievant, he became aware of a time and 
> 
> attendance issue. On June 30, 2010, the grievant recorded eight hours of time worked, when it 
> 
> was brought to the attention of the BEP that he had gone to a meeting with Department of 
> 
> Energy, Labor and Economic Growth (DELEG) staff acting as a representative of an 
> 
> organization other than the state of Michigan. In doing so, the grievant did not request any type 
> 
> of leave on his time sheet for the day in question. 
> 
>  As a result of this, Hull investigated further and learned that the grievant had attended the 
> 
> meeting and that those conducting the meeting were not aware that the grievant was a state 
> 
> employee. He received similar information from Pat Cannon, the director of the Commission for 
> 
> the Blind, who told Hull that he had received a telephone call to that effect. Subsequently, a 
> 
> disciplinary conference was held with the grievant and he received a one-day suspension for 
> 
> falsification of his time sheet (Department Exhibit #3). 
> 
>  Hull stated that at the time he became the grievant?s supervisor, he was made aware that the 
> 
> grievant had been counseled about similar issues in the past by his previous supervisor, 
> 
> Constance Zanger. 
> 
>  Zanger testified that she supervised the grievant from March 2007 through June 2009. At the 
> 
> time, she was the manager of the BEP. She identified three counseling memoranda issued to the 
> 
> grievant during the period of her supervision, dated in March, July, and October 2008. She was 
> 
> the author of the last two memoranda, she testified (Department Exhibits #5, 5(2) and 5(3)). 
> 
> These memoranda show a pattern on the part of the grievant of a failure to enter his site visits 
> 
> into the BEP database. She further testified that he was not entering his annual operator 
> 
> evaluations properly into that database. These memoranda and the discussions that accompanied 
> 
> them were an effort to correct the grievant?s behavior. 
> 
>  Zanger further testified that the memos show that the grievant was not developing a monthly 
> 
> report spreadsheet and inventory package and discussing these issues with his operators before 
> 
> he conducted an inventory. Further, he was not completing the inventories and was not 
> 
> finalizing the inventory documentation on a timely basis. She stated that he failed to meet the 
> 
> deadlines for the performance of his work. Failure to maintain proper inventory records, she 
> 
> stated, could put an operator in difficult financial circumstances were they to decide to leave 
> 
> their facility. 
> 
>  Zanger testified that after the October counseling memo, the grievant interfered in a sensitive 
> 
> situation at the Hall of Justice in which Director Cannon had already been involved. There had 
> 
> been a vacant concession stand in that building with no blind operator due to a lack of interest. 
> 
> There was therefore a sighted individual running the stand. Once a blind person did bid on the 
> 
> stand and was awarded the contract, there was a very negative reaction to the imminent change 
> 
> from employees at the Hall of Justice who wished to retain their current operator. 
> 
> Director Cannon and others met with the human resources director, Lisa Kutas, and it was 
> 
> explained that the blind operator had priority and would be coming in. An agreement was 
> 
> reached by which the sighted operator would provide training to the incoming operator. The 
> 
> grievant then met with Kutas himself and determined that there would be no need for the sighted 
> 
> operator to train the blind operator; he essentially undid the efforts of Director Cannon. 
> 
> Ultimately the blind individual who had bid on the stand decided that she was no longer 
> 
> interested and submitted a bid on another facility, which was awarded to her 
> 
> (Department Exhibit #12). 
> 
>  Another example Zanger provided of the grievant?s alleged lack of cooperation concerned the 
> 
> Ottawa Building snack bar (Department Exhibit #13). Zanger stated that she had received a call 
> 
> from an Ottawa Building customer regarding the operator?s proposal to close the snack bar, 
> 
> which he claimed to be generating an insufficient profit. Zanger asked the grievant to look into the situation to see what could be done to make the operation more profitable for the owner so 
> 
> that this convenience could be preserved for the employees in that building. She asked him, in 
> 
> September 2008, not to make any further move regarding the snack bar until they had a chance to 
> 
> discuss it based upon the requested information. She then learned in October that the snack bar 
> 
> equipment was being transferred out of the Ottawa facility, meaning that the facility had been 
> 
> closed. This was in direct contravention of her email set forth in Department Exhibit #13.  Zanger stated that a part of the grievant?s problem in completing his tasks seemed to be that he 
> 
> was performing duties that were not part of his job. By way of example, she stated that for some 
> 
> operators, it was difficult for them to get fresh milk deliveries to their facilities. The grievant 
> 
> would assist them by going out and purchasing fresh milk and delivering it to them himself. 
> 
> That was not part of his job, she stated. It was the responsibility of the operators to obtain the 
> 
> product that they sold in their facilities. 
> 
>  Zanger testified that during the time that she supervised the grievant, he never complained to her 
> 
> that he felt he was being singled out for differential treatment due to his membership in the 
> 
> National Federation for the Blind, the organization that he was representing on the date 
> 
> referenced above for which he received the one-day suspension. 
> 
>  On cross-examination, it was brought out that other promotional agents under the supervision of 
> 
> Zanger had been tardy in the documentation of their site visits and evaluations as well, but the 
> 
> testimony indicated that the grievant was far and away the worst offender. She stated that of his 
> 
> 24 facilities, 19 were more than 180 days past due; another agent with 21 facilities had 
> 
> 7 similarly past due and an agent with 22 facilities had 6 past due and another with 22 or 23 
> 
> facilities was the second worst offender with 11 past due. 
> 
>  There is no documentation of deficient performance between the last counseling memorandum 
> 
> (October 15, 2008) and the issuance of the interim rating which ultimately led to the discharge of 
> 
> the grievant in December 2009. That rating was issued to him on September 17, 2009 
> 
> (Department Exhibit #6). The follow-up rating, in which his performance was determined to be 
> 
> unsatisfactory, was issued on December 18, 2009, at which point he was discharged. The only 
> 
> incident that had taken place in the interim was the meeting that the grievant attended as a 
> 
> representative of the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) for which he was issued a one-day 
> 
> suspension for falsification of his time card. The Ottawa Building snack bar and Hall of Justice 
> 
> incidents, both addressed by Zanger, were incidents that occurred within the rating period, but 
> 
> the grievant did not appear to be counseled for them, at least according to the documents in this 
> 
> record. 
> 
>  The grievant testified that while he was scheduled to work 40 hours per week, his typical 
> 
> workweek was 60 to 70 hours. He stated that part of his problem in keeping up with his paperwork entries into the BEP database was in transferring the information from his note taker 
> 
> to the computer system. He described his note taker as a Blackberry® type device designed for 
> 
> the blind. In transferring the information, the grievant stated, he uses a speech access program 
> 
> and due to changes in the BEP software, he claimed that he had asked Zanger for additional 
> 
> training that had not been provided. He stated that ultimately, Hull had offered to get him a 
> 
> wireless card for his computer, which would enable him to broaden the areas from which he 
> 
> could work. He later learned that some of the other promotional agents had been supplied with 
> 
> wireless cards previously, but he knew nothing about them. He stated that he received the 
> 
> wireless card within three months or thereabouts of being discharged (Tr., p. 187).  Assistant BEP Manager James Hull testified that a review of the site visit documentation for all 
> 
> of his promotional agents shortly after he became the grievant?s supervisor showed that all of the 
> 
> promotional agents were behind in their documentation. He therefore directed them on June 12, 
> 
> 2009, to document all site visits by a certain date and from that point forward to remain current 
> 
> on all site visit documentation. He also asked them to provide him with a projected itinerary for 
> 
> the upcoming week and a summary of their activities for the preceding week. He believed that 
> 
> would help them to regulate their time and to keep current in their assignments. He specifically 
> 
> asked the grievant for this information in an email dated August 12, 2009, referencing a 
> 
> conversation they had at the disciplinary conference regarding the one-day suspension on 
> 
> August 4, 2009. 
> 
>  Hull testified that due to the fact that the grievant failed to make his site visits current, and the 
> 
> fact that he had not asked for an extension in which to make them current, he gave the grievant 
> 
> the service rating in question. The rating directed him to make all site visits current within one 
> 
> month of receiving the rating. This was something that Hull believed that the grievant could do, 
> 
> as was the directive to make site visits and to submit his proposed itineraries. 
> 
>  Hull testified that the grievant did submit itineraries, but the follow-up conference revealed that 
> 
> the grievant failed to follow all of his directives. This is reflected in the follow-up rating, dated 
> 
> December 18, 2009 (Department Exhibit #8). Another issue that came up during the rating 
> 
> period was regarding a proposed free popcorn giveaway as part of the State Employees 
> 
> Combined Campaign, a charity fund raising event. The coordinator of the proposed popcorn 
> 
> giveaway for the SECC had contacted the grievant, he testified, to try to set up a popcorn 
> 
> giveaway through the BEP operators at all state facilities. Hull became aware due to complaints 
> 
> by operators who had been approached by State employees who apparently had been told that 
> 
> they were entitled to free popcorn. Hull investigated with Lisa Moye, the event ?coordinator? 
> 
> who said that she had worked directly with the grievant, who was to contact the operators to 
> 
> advise them of the event and was to negotiate the price for the popcorn with the SECC for the 
> 
> reimbursement to the operators for their participation. This, Hull stated, was not something that 
> 
> the grievant was supposed to be doing. His involvement, or lack of it, generated numerous complaints from operators and from state employees. The operators complained that they had 
> 
> not been forewarned of the event, so they had not made any adjustments to their purchasing or to 
> 
> their scheduling of labor. They further complained that the price that had been agreed to did not 
> 
> cover the cost of the popcorn. When he spoke to the grievant about this, he denied responsibility 
> 
> (Tr., p. 32).  Regarding the above issue, the grievant testified that he had been contacted by Lisa Moye, but 
> 
> that he had told her that he could supply her with a list of operators and that participation would 
> 
> be up to them. He told her he could not quote a price because the operators buy their corn from 
> 
> different suppliers and in different forms. He stated that he would never have quoted her a price. 
> 
> He said that arrangements would have had to have been made by the SECC coordinator in each 
> 
> building with the individual operator in each building, since each is an independently owned 
> 
> business. 
> 
>  Another issue that had been brought to the attention of the grievant during the rating period was 
> 
> the fact that his state of Michigan email address appeared on the website of the 
> 
> National Federation of the Blind. He was directed to have that removed. His failure to have it 
> 
> removed for several weeks forms part of the basis for his dismissal. It is clear from this record 
> 
> that it took some time to have the email address removed from the organization?s website. The 
> 
> hearing officer views this as a non-issue. 
> 
>  The grievant has contended that his dismissal was in violation of Civil Service Rule 1-8.1(a), 
> 
> Prohibited Discrimination, in that he was dismissed based upon partisan considerations due to 
> 
> his membership in and status as a board member in the National Federation of the Blind of 
> 
> Michigan. In addition, he claimed that there existed no cause for the dismissal. He alleged that 
> 
> the dismissal violated Article 11, § 5 of the Michigan Constitution since the dismissal was 
> 
> motivated by partisan considerations. He further contended that his dismissal violated state and 
> 
> federal constitutional rights to free speech, association, due process and equal protection under 
> 
> the law because the termination under the pretext of just cause was actually due to his 
> 
> involvement as an advocate for the blind vendors and promotional agents as a board member and 
> 
> representative of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. 
> 
>  OPINION 
> 
> The issue before the hearing officer is whether the grievant was discharged for just cause. 
> 
>  In reviewing the grievant?s work history leading up to his discharge, it is appropriate to consider 
> 
> the counseling memoranda issued to him in October 2008 but not those issued earlier than that.Review of Civil Service Regulation 2.06, Conducting Employee Ratings, §§ 4(E)(2), states that: An interim rating shall address specific performance or 
> 
> behavior problems, identify specific expectations for 
> 
> improvement, and establish a timeframe for improvement 
> 
> during a follow-up rating period. 
> 
> The grievant?s interim rating (Department Exhibit #6) appears to set forth the above items, but 
> 
> according to the testimony in the record, pretty much all of the promotional agents were behind 
> 
> in their paperwork. The grievant was by far the worst offender, but to expect him by the stroke 
> 
> of a pen to catch up all of his untimely work for the last 12 months in a 30-day period, then 
> 
> maintain all of his work in an ongoing timely fashion, when it is clear that no one else does this, 
> 
> is an unrealistic and unreachable expectation. 
> 
>  Regulation 2.06, §§ 4(E)(3), states that: 
> 
> An unsatisfactory interim rating is typically preceded by 
> 
> counseling, reprimands, or other forms of corrective action 
> 
> regarding the employee?s performance or behavior. 
> 
> In this instance, the closest counseling memo in time to the issuance of the first of the ratings at 
> 
> issue in this hearing was dated October 10, 2008, and was issued by a supervisor other than the 
> 
> one who issued this interim rating. This supervisor (Hull) did not take the time to document the 
> 
> performance deficiencies of the grievant prior to issuing the rating on September 17, 2009. 
> 
> Apparently, it was assumed the counseling memos issued in the preceding eighteen months by 
> 
> other supervisors, combined with the one-day suspension given to the grievant in the summer 
> 
> of 2009 for a totally separate issue, would suffice. In the opinion of this hearing officer, they do 
> 
> not. 
> 
>  Regulation 2.06, §§ 4(E)(14), states: 
> 
> If an employee?s performance is unsatisfactory during the 
> 
> follow-up rating period, counseling memos, reprimands, or 
> 
> other forms of corrective action are typically taken, followed 
> 
> by an unsatisfactory service rating. 
> 
> There were no counseling memoranda, reprimands or other forms of corrective action taken 
> 
> during the follow-up rating period. There were the two email chains entered into the record 
> 
> regarding the Ottawa Building snack bar (Department Exhibit #13) and the Hall of Justice issue 
> 
> (Department Exhibit #12), neither of which amount to anything approaching a counseling memo 
> 
> or any type of corrective action. 
> 
> The testimony of witness Hull indicates in essence that in order to help his promotional agents 
> 
> catch up on their paperwork, he assigned more paperwork to them (weekly itineraries and 
> 
> weekly summaries of their prior week?s activities). 
> 
>  The hearing officer does not believe that the grievant was a model employee. It is apparent from 
> 
> this record that he was inordinately slow in entering his required paperwork into the BEP 
> 
> database. As was testified to by witness Zanger, especially as it concerns inventories, this could 
> 
> have extreme financial consequences for the operators whom he is supposed to serve, in the 
> 
> event that they were to close down their businesses. Further, the hearing officer does not believe 
> 
> the grievant regarding the issue of the popcorn giveaway. If the grievant did not quote 
> 
> Lisa Moye a price, then why did the operators call Hull complaining about the price that was 
> 
> quoted, and the fact that it was not sufficient to cover their costs? The grievant must take more 
> 
> responsibility for his own actions and must focus on the required portions of his duties and less 
> 
> upon the voluntary aspects of them, since they seem to bog him down. 
> 
>  The grievant has contended that his termination was motivated by partisan considerations due to 
> 
> his status as a member of and as a board member of, the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) 
> 
> of Michigan. He produced the testimony of Fred Wurtzel, the retired manager of the BEP and a 
> 
> ten-year president (recently retired) of the NFB. Wurtzel offered his opinion that 
> 
> Director Cannon of the Commission of the Blind has launched an out-and-out attack against the 
> 
> NFB and its members. He described alleged incidents in which blind operators have been 
> 
> removed from their positions without cause, and referenced the terminations of three 
> 
> Commission employees he believed to have been motivated by their membership in and 
> 
> advocacy for, the NFB. 
> 
>  Wurtzel?s testimony does not constitute proof; it was his opinion. When one views the timeline 
> 
> in this case, however, it lends credibility to the statements offered by Wurtzel. The grievant, for 
> 
> example, had three counseling memoranda on his record, but nothing more significant than that 
> 
> until he appeared at a meeting with DELEG officials acting as an advocate for the NFB. 
> 
> Word of this got back to his supervisor, who appropriately sanctioned him, from the evidence in 
> 
> this record, for falsifying his time card. A mere 11 days after the grievant appeared at that 
> 
> meeting, however, the previous tolerance of untimely submission of BEP database materials on 
> 
> the part of all promotional agents was brought to an end by Hull. While this impacted all of the 
> 
> promotional agents, the one who of course was most dramatically impacted was the grievant. He 
> 
> was the one who was the farthest behind in his paperwork. Hull then imposed further 
> 
> paperwork, making it more difficult for the grievant to catch up. 
> 
>  Once the disciplinary conference was held in August regarding the timecard falsification and the 
> 
> one-day suspension was issued, the grievant was again reminded to fill out his paperwork in a 
> 
> timely fashion and to submit his weekly itinerary and summary upon his return. Within three weeks, he was place on the interim rating that led to his discharge. Nowhere in any of this 
> 
> timeline of Hull?s supervision of the grievant is there evidence of counseling memoranda, 
> 
> reprimands, or other efforts at corrective action. There is evidence of unreasonable expectations 
> 
> designed to make certain that the grievant would fail.  Were these actions taken because the grievant was a board member of/advocate for the 
> 
> National Federation of the Blind? The circumstantial evidence from the timeline seems to point 
> 
> to that conclusion. The hearing officer does not have knowledge of the other instances of alleged 
> 
> NFB discrimination alleged by Wurtzel, but as immediate past president of the Michigan NFB, 
> 
> Wurtzel was in a good position to know the nature of the relationship between that organization 
> 
> and the Commission for the Blind, headed by Director Cannon. 
> 
>  It is my determination first, that there was no just cause demonstrated for the dismissal of the 
> 
> grievant due to the total lack of documentation offered in support of the service ratings; second, 
> 
> that the probable reason for the lack of documentation is that the grievant was not doing that 
> 
> poor of a job, compared to the other promotional agents, though his performance clearly was the 
> 
> worst of the lot; and third, that the Commission for the Blind took his laggardly performance, 
> 
> heretofore tolerated, as an excuse to discriminate against, and discharge, the grievant due to his 
> 
> membership in and advocacy on behalf of, the National Federation of the Blind. 
> 
>  For the above reasons, the grievance is granted. The grievant is to be restored to his previous 
> 
> position with full back pay and benefits, minus any outside earnings in the interim. 
> 
>  DECISION 
> 
> The grievance is granted. 
> 
> Table with 3 columns and 2 rows    William P. Hutchens, Hearing Officer 
> 
> Table end Table with 1 column and 1 rowNotice: This decision may be appealed if received by the Civil Service Commission?s Employment 
> 
> Relations Board within 28 calendar days of the mailing date on the face of this decision 
> 
> (March 23, 2011) as authorized by Civil Service Commission Rule 8-7, Appeal to Civil Service 
> 
> Commission. Instructions and forms for filing an appeal, Civil Service Regulation 8.05, Employment 
> 
> Relations Board Appeal Procedures, and Regulation 8.06, Computing Time and Filing Documents, 
> 
> can be found at www.mi.gov/erb. Appeals and inquiries should be addressed to the Employment 
> 
> Relations Board, Michigan Civil Service Commission, Capitol Commons Center, 400 South Pine 
> 
> Street, P.O. Box 30002, Lansing, Michigan 48909; by telephone, at (517) 335-5588; by fax, at 
> 
> (517) 335-2884; or by e-mail to MCSC-ERB at michigan.gov. 
> 
> Table end
> _______________________________________________
> 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/tonyasmith75%40live.com
>