[nfbmi-talk] OOPS! Really about the MCB Budget : [

Mon May 2 20:58:31 UTC 2011

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On Behalf Of Fred Wurtzel
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:30 PM
To: 'Geri Taeckens'; 'Elizabeth'; luzenskis at michigan.gov;
alissa161 at gmail.com; cannonp at michigan.gov; dcgorton601 at comcast.net;
mohnked at hotmail.com; wild-rose at sbcglobal.net; furtond at michigan.gov;
grace at menzelcoaching.com; debate912 at gmail.com; mpvi at intergate.com;
heibeckc at michigan.gov; jbrown at mpas.org; pilarskij at charter.net;
jonesl2 at michigan.gov; kisiell at michigan.gov; 'Larry Posont';
laury-johnsons at michigan.gov; lovep at michigan.gov; 'Lydia Schuck';
mcnealg at michigan.gov; mcvoys at michigan.gov; silveya at michigan.gov;
smithd11 at michigan.gov; martzvir at msu.edu; whitee2 at michigan.gov;
wilsond9 at michigan.gov; marywurtzel at comcast.net; 'Fred Wurtzel'; 'Michigan
Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List'; 'joe harcz Comcast'; 'NFB of Michigan
Internet Mailing List'
Cc: brlbumps at sbcglobal.net; 'John Scott'; margwolfe at usa.net
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] College policy edited board draft for 8-27 meeting

Blind People Want the PIN to the ATM

By Fred Wurtzel

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 not shared 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, the reader, 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 under funded 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.  

As a slight aside, here is what the law; Public Act 260 of 1978 says about
what the Commission is to do.  Remember, shall means that this is the law
and is not optional, while "may," is discretionary and is an option for the
agency.

The Commission law reads, in part, as follows:

393.354 Services to assist visually handicapped persons; fee; duties of
commission

Generally.

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.. .

Again, the above is mandatory.  It is the law, just like speed limits, drug
laws and pollution control laws.  Consider that the law uses the term
Maximum degree" when referring to reaching a vocational goal.  Many clients,
of late, are being told that the Commission is only in business to assist
with the minimum employment possible, so if a high school diploma will get a
job in your chosen profession, then, the Commission will not help with
college.  It must be noted that administration officials will deny this is
the policy, but this author has been in meetings where staff has expressed
this position.  If the "maximum degree" is the commission policy, then
significant staff training is in order.  Judging by the paltry amount spent
on staff training, this will not be done, soon.  We, the consumers, have
been advocating for the development of a more comprehensive and intensive
staff training effort, while the Commission administration has resisted our
efforts at every turn.

Second, during the college policy development, there were hours of
discussion on the point of maximum preparation for a career, and assistance
with advanced degrees from Colleges or Universities is still resisted in the
policy, though perfectly allowable.

In case one wonders if the above is too broad or not clear about how the
Commission is to spend its money, consider the following from the same
section: 
. . .Shall do all of the following:. . .
. . . (g) Place visually handicapped persons in jobs or business enterprises
in accordance

With the abilities and interests of the applicant.

(h) Teach visually handicapped persons trades or occupations which may be
followed

in their homes and to assist them in whatever manner may seem advisable in
disposing

of the products of their home industries.

(i) Aid individual visually handicapped persons or groups of visually
handicapped

persons to engage in gainful occupations by furnishing materials, equipment,
goods

or services to them, by providing financial assistance as necessary to
encourage

and equip them to reach an objective established with them by the
commission.

(j) Provide rehabilitation services for blind persons who are senior
citizens so

that they may reside within a community.
In case there is a lingering doubt that MCB is to do all in its power to
help unemployed blind people 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.

So, the reader may ask, what does all this have to do with the budget?  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?  How does the greater Department or state
government view rehabilitation funds?  Are these funds treated as a
convenient ATM to fund outside interests?

Below are some examples of the spending priorities within MCB as published
by the agency for the 2009-2010 fiscal year?  The first number is the amount
appropriated by the legislature, the second is the actual amount spent and
the third is the percentage of the total appropriation that was actually
spent. 

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.  There may well be good cause for not fully
expending the amount allowable.  The legislature provides authority to spend
money, but may not provide the money itself.  This is done so the agency may
accept outside funds and legally spend them.  Even if this accounts for a
full 15 percent, that still leaves 15 percent unspent that could have been
spent to help blind people find work. 

MINI ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM

$100,000

$70,769

71 percent

The above is a long-running, innovative and arguably quite successful
program to reach out to blind people around the state to introduce the
services of the agency and demonstrate how a full course of services can be
beneficial.  Notice, this is a direct service to blind individuals and is 29
percent underspent.

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.  Why?  What is the barrier to
providing desperately needed services?  Remember, there are 70 percent of us
who want to work and don't.  Most of the money comes from federal funds.
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 and the
money is far less restricted in its use than ordinary rehabilitation funds.

One statistic not showing, here, is the percentage of the entire budget set
aside for case services.  Remember, case services include things like
college tuition, adjustment to blindness services, adaptive technology and
the vast array of services needed by unemployed persons who want to work. 

MCB budgeted less than 20% of the total budget for its core services.  To be
fair, the entire budget includes stimulus funds which increase the budget
above ordinary appropriations. So if these are subtracted, we are still
around 25 percent.  As will be demonstrated below, the nearly unrestricted
stimulus funds remain virtually unspent, so the above caveat exacerbates the
issue, not resolves it. It appears that it takes 3 to 4 dollars to spend 1
dollar of rehabilitation funds.  This author wonders what the national mean
and median percent of the total budget that goes for case services is for
agencies for the blind. One concern about raising this low level of case
service spending is that the administration will transfer the funds to other
non-client categories and spend it all without increasing spending on case
services. 

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.  In
this writer's opinion, 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 this
premise.  

VENDING & CAFETERIA OPERATIONS

$1,480,000

$1,239,911

84 percent

 This item refers to the Commission's Business enterprise Program (BEP).
According to the BEP enabling legislation the purpose of the law is to
"provide jobs and increase the economic independence of blind persons."  The
BEP is the only direct program for employment within MCB.  Tellingly, there
are a large number of sighted persons operating Business Enterprise
facilities and thus occupying jobs legally set aside for blind persons.  In
addition, the agency is under-supporting the program and not increasing the
number of blind people working in the program.  Recently, the agency has
been trying to reduce upward mobility services designed to assist persons in
the program to move into better jobs.  Amazingly enough, they say it costs
too much even though there is a big pile of unspent money in both BEP and in
VR case services.  At the most recent operator workshop, according to
Elected Committee members, the operators were told there was insufficient
funding to pay for recognition awards, though 16 percent of the budget
remained unspent.  The operators used funds to provide flowers and cards for
sick or bereaved operators to pay for the recognitions of fellow operators.
Where is the credibility?  

STATE IL COUNCIL

$101,000

$100,996

100 percent

Now, here is, possibly, the most egregious example of using the Commission
for an ATM.  This organization does nothing to employ, train or place
anyone.  It is particularly disgusting when one takes into account the
numbers below about services to older blind persons, those who might be
served by Independent living services.  MCB has hardly spent any money on
these individuals, yet it supports another state agency which does nothing
perceptible to help anyone.

COST ALLOCATIONS

$242,139

$356,682

147 percent

Here is an item which exceeded its budget.  None of these funds went to
serve blind people.  In fact, if the Attorney General's office is paid from
this category, these funds were spent to fire, demean and otherwise drag
blind people down.  They may be defended by saying they are necessary to
carry out other services of the agency, but the fact that they are one and
one half times more than budgeted while direct services are drastically
below budget makes one wonder why agency and state government services get
more than their share while blind clients are under-served and thrown into
the streets with no job at all.  It appears to be the ATM syndrome at work,
again.  This is an ambiguous category, a better description may help us feel
better about its apparently excessive spending in the face of depriving
blind clients of service.

BEP OCCUPANCY

$1,040,000

$1,008,368

97 percent

Again, this money goes to the Department of Technology, Management and
Budget and is virtually fully spent.  This money is allegedly to pay for
space which is occupied by BEP foodservice facilities for state employees.
First, this expenditure does not even belong within the BEP budget.  The
cost of space for state employee foodservices and break areas ought to be a
cost for each agency, just like hallways, elevators and bathrooms.  These
spaces are for the benefit of employees and the cost ought to be included in
the rent paid by the various agencies for housing their employees.  This
would not increase the cost of occupancy for the state as a whole, but would
free up money for serving blind people by allowing more funds for matching
federal funds.

Second, a large number of the BEP facilities are being operated by sighted
people while qualified blind people are being denied the opportunity to
work.  So money appropriated to serve blind people is paying rent on space
where sighted people are working.  Many of these sighted people are not
paying their fees to the agency, while blind operators are being removed for
far less serious offenses.  

Again, though the amount of money spent to operate the program is
underspent, the money inappropriately going to DTMB from the MCB ATM for
their purposes is fully funded. Is there something wrong with this picture?

MCB RENT AND OCCUPANCY

$450,000

$412,717

92 percent

Of course the MCB needs office space and other space in which to operate
from.  Again, the Department of Technology, management and Budget is getting
funds from the MCB ATM provided to serve blind people while blind people's
cases are going wanting and blind people are being told there is
insufficient money to provide needed goods and services.  At a minimum, rent
ought to be reduced to 79 percent, the same extent that case services are.

STRATEGIC PLANNING

$3,000

$1,096

37 percent

Strategic planning is a federal requirement under the Rehabilitation act.
Clearly, as demonstrated by the federal monitoring report and the defiance
of the law as shown in this under expenditure MCB does not take the
Rehabilitation Act or such requirements seriously.  Proper strategic
planning ought to be looking at the facts in this budget and wondering why
more resources aren't going to the people who the agency is legally mandated
to serve.  It is difficult to imagine, based on this budget summary what
planning was done and what the goals and outcomes were.   

STAFF TRAINING

$29,000

$9,214

32 percent

Again, there is an apparent disdain for staff training in the face of a
federal monitoring report and many policy development meetings where federal
rules were flagrantly violated.  As recent as 2 weeks ago, a client was
illegally told they are required to use their SSI funds for their
rehabilitation services costs.  This is strictly prohibited by the law.
Maybe some training on the rehabilitation act would prevent the agency from
violating the law. (Incidentally, MCB administration was fully aware of all
the violations contained in the monitoring report, including
misappropriation of funds, in time to provide staff training during the
subject fiscal year, not to mention the present year.)  

ARRA - TITLE I

$2,000,000

$4,068

0 percent

This is stimulus funding.  It has far fewer restrictions than ordinary
rehabilitation funds.  To MCB's credit, it planned to use this funding to
hire interns in state government and has done so.  Judging by the
expenditures, not too many blind people got these jobs.  The inability to
spend $2 million to help blind people get jobs is not surprising in view of
the fact that MCB cannot even spend its ordinary rehabilitation case
services money.  Based on these facts, one may be led to believe that all
the blind people in Michigan are working and jobs are easy to get.  We must
be being misled that Michigan's economy is depressed and there are blind
people looking for work.  

ARRA - OLDER BLIND

$1,187,077

$471

0 percent

ARRA - PART B

$156,528

$6,337

4 percent

The above 2 items are also known as "stimulus funds."  These are for older
blind individuals.  There are few restrictions and a limited time during
which the money is to be spent, otherwise it must be returned to the federal
government.  Commission staff has called the NFB asking for donations of
Perkins Braillers because they don't have funds to provide equipment to
seniors.  Given the numbers, above, this is unimaginable.  What in the world
is happening, here?  How can staff believe there is no money with budget
surpluses in the millions of dollars?  Again, there are good staff people
out there who are not being properly trained, informed or supervised.

Last December during the quarterly Commission Board meeting, at the annual
recognition of staff and clients who are doing extraordinary things there
were some really good stories of quality rehabilitation work and positive
outcomes.  This leads one to wonder how many more such outcomes could have
been achieved if there had been more and better planning, more and better
staff training and a willingness to provide more goods and services to blind
clients of MCB.  Judging by the lack of spending of money targeted to help
blind people, there is no need for the service.  Somehow, it is doubtful
this is true, based on the people I talk to on a daily basis, the adult
children of blind seniors who want help for their moms and dads.  The
college students who are being told there is no money for technology, room
and board and so on.  All blind people who are looking for jobs have all the
computer training and adaptive equipment they need to go to work.  What
other explanation could there be for this vast surplus of money?  Could the
explanation be a commission Director who is out of touch with what is
happening in the agency?  Could it be that the priority is to keep insiders
funded while blind citizens go neglected and fired and discriminated against
by the very agency that is legislatively established to assist them to get
good jobs?  

What is the Commission Board doing to monitor and control this travesty,
this amazingly blatant rip-off of blind people while lining the pockets of
sighted people and other agencies.  How much does one agency director need
to do before someone begins to question their competence?  A short list of
allegations includes a failing monitoring report from the federal
government, illegally firing blind staff for belonging to the National
Federation of the Blind, illegally firing the director of the Michigan
Commission for the Blind Training Center with no due process, illegally
taking jobs from blind vendors while illegally providing employment to
sighted people in the Business Enterprise Program, allowing the entire staff
of approximately 35 of MCBTC to sit idle for weeks with no work at a
conservatively estimated cost of $75,000/week, no computers, no phones at
full pay.  How many offenses against blind people have to be committed
before the Commission Board exercises its lawful duty to evaluate this
person and take appropriate action?    It is time to give blind people the
PIN to the MCB ATM and allow us to join society as first-class tax-paying
working people.  

_______________________________________________
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/marywurtzel%40at
t.net