[nfbmi-talk] the monitor article

[Amy Sabo]

Hello all,

First of joe thanks for posting this article to the nfb of mi
list. I knew of this article because I talked with a friend of
mine who also is a federationist and, is also a Michigan baby
but, nows lives in Minnesota. But, after reading this article I
would like to express my views and thoughts on this article.

It sounds like things with the commission have gone way to far in
my opinion. And, that pat cannon has no consideration or
involvement with the views of blind people in the state of
Michigan and, that what has happened with good people like
Kristine and dave are totally wrong. The commission needs to be a
vehicle/organization to assist people in rehabilitation obtaining
good training with using activities or resources to make this
happen.

Well, that's my views on this article again, thanks for posting
it here and, I will talk to you all soon.




Sincerely,
Amy sabo

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz
Comcast
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:01 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] the monitor article

[PHOTO CAPTION: Shown here is the front of the training center
and its sign

which shows the American flag and the words Michigan Commission
for the

Blind Training Center]

   Continuing Conflict and Strife at the Michigan Commission for
the Blind

                               by Gary Wunder

      In the roll call of states in 1978, Allen Harris, reporting
as the

president of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan,
proudly

announced the passage of legislation establishing the Michigan
Commission

for the Blind (MCB). The convention was excited; people from
Michigan were

elated. We had long known that the best services for blind people
are most

likely to be provided by agencies run by a supervising board
appointed by

the governor with the input of the blind, who can go directly to
the

legislature and the governor to make their case for the programs
they need.

      In Michigan the legislation that passed wasn't everything
the

affiliate had hoped it would be. The commission was not a
free-standing

agency but a bureau. Employees, including the agency's director,
would

still be a part of Michigan's merit system. Unarguably positive,
however,

there would be a five-member commission board that would
supervise and

evaluate the director and make policy for the agency. In a time
when many

agencies for the blind were being consolidated into larger
governmental

bodies and losing their ability to present their budgets to the
general

assemblies of their states and finding they could no longer speak
directly

with the governor and legislature, Michigan's progress was
important for

the blind of Michigan and a reason for the blind of America to
cheer.

      One fear of the Michigan general assembly and governor was
that

passing the new commission bill would turn the agency upside
down. Promises

by the act's proponents for a smooth transition, jobs for workers
in the

agency who still wanted them, and as little disruption to service
as

possible meant that the commission came into being and functioned
much like

its predecessor. The commission board perhaps for too long
continued to

function as an advisory body. The agenda was still set by the
agency;

things it wanted placed before the new commission board came to
its

attention while those the agency chose to handle itself did not.

      Much has changed in the thirty-plus years since Michigan
got a

commission. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was amended in 1998.
Consumer

choice and empowerment and consumer-directed programs have become
a part of

our everyday language and expectation. The federal Rehabilitation
Act

mandates a rehabilitation council in every state. For Michigan
this council

is the Michigan Commission for the Blind. The role of the
rehabilitation

council as defined in the Rehabilitation Act goes beyond
communicating the

programs of the agency to its patrons and acting in an advisory
capacity as

former state councils and advisory committees once did. State
councils are

to be partners in determining what programs their agencies
conduct,

evaluating the success of those programs, and actively
soliciting,

reporting on, and trying to implement consumer feedback.

      The extent to which these councils function as true
partners varies.

Some appointed members are so flattered at sitting at the head
table and

rubbing elbows with higher-ups in the agency that they are
content to

assent and pass on everything the agency proposes. They take no
assignments

and gratefully agree to pass on any work between meetings to
agency staff.

Some who are more active soon have to decide how much of their
time outside

agency meetings they are willing to devote to finding out what
consumers

want and learning enough about the law to determine which changes
are

possible and which are not. Those who come with an agenda and the
intention

of bringing about real change soon learn that their zeal must be
tempered

by an appreciation for the people who have made their careers the
helping

of blind people and by how long it takes to develop a consensus.
The terms

of effective advocates are often characterized more by
constructive change

than by drama. The challenge is to ensure that one doesn't win a
public

battle while in so doing making so many enemies among those who
will

implement the change that the war is lost.

      The personality of the agency director, the strength of the
agency's

traditions, the vitality of the consumer organizations, and the
way the

state rehabilitation council is composed and views its role all
contribute

to how involved consumers are in shaping agency policy. A
director who sees

his governing board as an asset and a board that believes its
members are

partners in carrying out the agency's mission find their
relationship

rewarding and productive. When the director regards his council
or

governing board as removed from the real work with the agency and
considers

board meetings a burdensome reality he or she must tolerate in
working for

a social service agency, the relationship is poor. Meetings are
not events

in which constructive dialogue and sound public policy are
demonstrated.

When the council or commission is constantly at odds with the
agency

administration, the agenda is a battleground where the
administration

fights for time to be used in reporting and the governing body or
council

fights for policy evaluation and change. Meetings are endured
rather than

enjoyed, and the positive consumer-driven process intended by the
drafters

of the Rehabilitation Act and its amendments is thwarted.

      In June and July of 2010 the Braille Monitor published
articles about

the Michigan Commission for the Blind and serious conflicts
between

consumers of the state, the commissioners of the Michigan
Commission for

the Blind, and the director of the commission, Patrick Cannon.
Because that

coverage was so detailed, this article will summarize only those
items

relevant to understanding the activities which have occurred
since.

 [PHOTO CAPTION: Christine Boone]

      In February of 2010 Cannon fired Christine Boone, the
director of the

residential rehabilitation training center, alleging she had
started a

marksmanship class without his knowledge or consent and that she
had

violated state law by allowing firearms to be purchased and
brought onto

state property. Cannon initially said he had learned of the class
at the

2009 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan. Later

he testified that he remembered having discussions about the
class with

Boone, that those discussions involved looking into instruction
offsite,

and that never had he given his approval for the class. Allowing
blind

people to do things normally considered impossible for the blind
is a well-

established practice of rehabilitation centers in trying to
reshape the way

blind students think and feel about being blind. Rock climbing,
skiing, and

other challenge activities are well-accepted strategies that are
key to

changing a student's perception of what it means to be blind and
are found

in some of the best training centers in the country. Sky diving
was even

conducted at the Michigan training center in recognition of the
importance

of such challenge activities.

      With the help of the National Federation of the Blind,
Christine

Boone appealed her dismissal. A four-day hearing was held before
an

arbitrator in January of 2011. In arguments supporting Boone's
dismissal

for violation of civil service regulations, the state alleged
that she

might have discussed the possibility of training with her
supervisor, but

never had she gotten his approval to proceed with it. To the
extent that he

understood such training was being discussed, it was Cannon's
understanding

that the class would be taught offsite at a local firing range.
The state

also alleged that the guns used in the marksmanship class were
firearms as

determined by state civil service regulations and, as such, were
not

allowed on state property.

      In presenting her side, Boone argued that she had told
Cannon about

the students' desire to do target practice as part of the
center's

adventure activities, that he was supportive and told her to
research how

the class might be conducted, and that he emphasized the need for
safety.

Boone assigned one of her assistant directors, Karen Cornell, who
was very

involved in marksmanship as a recreational activity, to research
how and

where the class could be conducted. While a target practice
facility was

located in the area, it seemed safer and less disruptive to hold

marksmanship training on the center's property. Given that the
center has

more than twenty acres and is making an effort to use that land
fully,

Cornell suggested this solution as an alternative. She next went
to the

state police and then to the Kalamazoo Public Safety Department
in the

Kalamazoo Police Department to determine whether the
spring-loaded guns she

was considering were firearms. The police concluded that they
were not; the

guns were purchased with a state purchasing card and without a
background

check. The purchase rang up as general merchandise. State
purchasing paid

the bill, questioned the purchase several months later, and was
answered by

Assistant Director Bruce Schulz, who explained the role of
adventure

activities at the training center as the reason for the purchase.

      Classes were held, and the success of the training was
indeed a topic

covered in Boone's report at the National Federation of the Blind
of

Michigan convention. Boone testified that Cannon's preference for
oral

rather than written communication explained the lack of written
approval

and that, indeed, no written approval for the sky-diving program
conducted

by the center had been granted, though clearly the program had
been

authorized, supported, and even publicized by the agency. She
argued that

the need for Cannon's approval was questionable given her job
description

and the discretion given to her as a high-level manager. Boone
admitted

that she had not initially been aware of a civil service
regulation when

she authorized the commencement of the marksmanship class but
quoted the

rule which clearly defines a firearm as "A weapon from which a
dangerous

projectile may be expelled by explosive, gas, or air." She
presented

evidence that the guns purchased by the Center (and approved by
Department

of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth purchasing officials) did
not use any

of these three methods to expel the pellets. The guns use a
spring

cylinder, and the owner's manual warns that the markings on these
units

say, "Warning: Do not brandish or display this product in
public--it may

confuse people and may be a crime. Police and others may think it
is a

firearm. Do not change the coloration and markings to make it
look like a

firearm." The civil service rule used as the basis for Boone's
firing also

spells out numerous exceptions, including specific approval by an

appointing authority, which can be the CEO of an autonomous
entity that is

headed by a board or commission. She further argued that Cannon
had no

concern about the legality of the pellet guns on state property
because she

was ordered to bring them to his office for his personal
inspection when he

raised the issue of not knowing about the training. Finally she
argued that

Cannon's understanding of where the training would take place was
of no

consequence since the regulations do not distinguish between
firearms on

state property or in the possession of employees while on state
time.

      Prior to the Commission meeting on June 17, 2011, an
arbitrator from

the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth,
who is also

a member of the American Arbitration Association, ordered Boone's

reinstatement. In the thirty-six page decision, the arbitrator
found that

there was agreement that the marksmanship class was well received
by the

students and staff of the training center; that no one believed
they were

violating either the spirit or the letter of the law or the
regulations of

the state of Michigan; that personnel of the state of Michigan
charged with

interpreting the regulation had difficulty in determining whether
the BB

guns were firearms; and that the regulations were too ambiguous
to justify

Boone's termination. In its summation the finding reads:

      The Appellant makes a cogent argument that Ms. Boone's
termination

for her alleged violation of the work rule and regulation at
issue violates

her due process rights because the policies, as they are applied
to the

specific facts and circumstances in this case, were impermissibly
vague.

The regulation and work rule relied upon for the termination of
Ms. Boone's

employment are so complicated that it took both Jason Nairn and
Patty Gamin

hours of research to determine whether the rule was violated. Mr.
Cannon

wasn't sure and relied on their opinions. Automatically
terminating the

employment of an employee for violation of a rule where the
application of

such rule is not clear and readily understandable violates the
concept of

just cause. Due process requires that noncompliance with a rule
can only be

relied upon in administering discipline if the rule is clear and
accessible

enough to be readily relied upon by the subject of the
discipline.

      After careful review of all the facts and circumstances, it
is clear

that Ms. Boone performed her work in good faith and with
reasonable

diligence. It has not been shown that the Appellant purposely
violated any

of the rules or regulations with which she is charged. There is
not just

cause for discipline or discharge in this matter.

                                     DECISION

      For all the above stated reasons, the grievance is granted.
Ms. Boone

shall be reinstated to her former employment and made whole as to
lost

wages and benefits.

      There you have the concluding remarks of the arbitrator and
the order

to reinstate Boone. Director Cannon announced this decision to
the staff in

a memorandum entitled "Wishing Sherri Well," Sherri Heibeck being
the

person appointed by director Cannon to run the training center
following

Christine Boone's firing. In the same way Director Cannon
announced Boone's

return to the board of the Michigan Commission for the Blind
under the

agenda item entitled "Training Center Report," which he began by

introducing Sherri Heibeck and complimenting her on her many
years of

service to the agency and her more recent work with the training
center. He

told the commission board and those in the audience that Sherri
had to

leave work with the blind because the agency had been ordered to
reinstate

Christine Boone. The clear implication was that a loyal and
dedicated

employee was being forced out by Boone, but at no time that day
did anyone

mention the facts on which the arbitrator ruled, the injustice to
Christine

Boone, or the anxiety of training center staff that resulted from
the

firing, absence, and return after eighteen months of their former
boss.

      Much to Heibeck's credit is her own handling of Boone's
return as the

director of the training center. In remarks to the training
center's staff

on learning she would be leaving the director's position, Heibeck
assured

them that their good work would not go unnoticed, that they
should not be

anxious about Christine Boone's return since most of them already
knew and

had worked for her, and that quality programs would continue and
expand at

the training center. The same cordiality was shown when she met
with Boone

prior to her return.

      The Christine Boone case is not the only one in which the
Michigan

Commission has been involved in the last year. Dave Robinson,
also a member

of the National Federation of the Blind, was dismissed after ten
years with

the agency. Although highly rated by the Michigan vendors he
served as a

promotional agent (in other states this position is known as a
vending

supervisor), his dismissal was based on being behind on
paperwork, a

problem shared by many promotional agents in Michigan. Robinson
notes that

he was the agent for more vendors than any other, being
responsible for

serving thirty-one facilities. The promotional agent with the
second-

highest workload has twenty-four.

      Robinson appealed his dismissal, and an arbitrator ruled in
his

favor. The arbitrator found his termination was based on his
membership in

the National Federation of the Blind. Robinson was on paid leave
from

February to August of 2011. The state appealed the decision of
the

administrative law judge and won, so Robinson says he now plans
to take the

matter to court.

      Robinson says his firing had less to do with paperwork than
with a

conflict with Director Cannon. Michigan law spells out that blind
vendors

have preference on state property, including catering for special
events.

When state workers began routinely to bring in food from the
outside

without giving the onsite vendor an opportunity to compete for
the

business, Robinson says he insisted the vendors had the right to
complain

and defended them. He says that, when Director Cannon was
contacted by the

heads of offices that had hired others to do the catering, he did
not like

the conflict, and he suggested Robinson stop raising the catering
issue.

      The Monitor has learned that one other issue involving
blind vendor

complaints about outside catering cost Hazell Brooks her facility
and

income. In her career Brooks had filed and won four grievances
against the

agency prior to the catering dispute. We are told that, after
complaining

about a catering event for which she was not allowed to bid to
officials in

the building in which she worked, she was visited by Cannon and a
staff

member of the vending program. Contrary to state and federal
rules, Hazell

was removed immediately. She fought the removal and since has
been awarded

a better facility--the claim is that the location she has now is
the second

best in the state. The commission board has also ordered the
agency to

negotiate with her to provide compensation for the lost income
she

sustained. By our count this makes her five for five, a great day
for a

hitter in baseball and a quarterback's dream in football.

      All told, it appears the state of Michigan has had to pay
more than

three quarters of a million dollars in grievances and lawsuits
from

customers of the business enterprise program, grievances by
consumers and

employees, and lost wages and benefits over the last eighteen
months. One

must ask why? A partial answer is the failure of agency director
Cannon to

resolve internal conflicts within the MCB, leaving it to hearing
officers,

administrative law judges, and arbitrators to settle matters that
have

arisen from agency disputes. The experience of one former blind
vendor

illustrates this problem.

      Terry Eagle worked as a vendor in the Michigan program for
ten years.

 Then successful surgery gave him substantial vision. So
significant was

the increase that he withdrew from the Business Enterprise
Program and made

his living for fifteen years in other pursuits. Eventually his
vision

deteriorated to such a degree that, when he again became legally
blind, he

applied to reenter the program. Vending staff at the commission
said he

could not compete for facilities until he took vendor training,
with no

allowance for his previous training and experience. He holds a BA
in

hospitality management, which includes certification in hotel and

restaurant management. Training in the Michigan program costs
$2,900 a

week, lasts for eight weeks, and is then followed by nine weeks
of on-the-

job (OJT) training. The rehabilitation counseling unit of the MCB
said it

had no intention of paying for someone with Eagle's training and
experience

to go back for such instruction. Eagle said he would retake the
vending

classes, if required, but agrees that he does not need such
training.

According to Eagle, so too did John McEntee, at the time the
trainer for

the Business Enterprise Program, who said he could give Eagle any
refresher

training he might need in two weeks. Management declined the
offer and

recommendation. Clearly Eagle was caught in an internal agency
dispute that

should have been resolved by Director Cannon or his designee, but
the case

has been taken to federal court. The court has decided it does
not have

jurisdiction, and Eagle promises to take it up in state court.
The result

has already cost the state money to defend, and the likelihood is
that, if

properly filed as Eagle promises, will result in another
settlement against

the commission. It is one thing when an agency for the blind and
a consumer

disagree and the assistance of a third party is required to
resolve the

impasse; it is quite another when disagreements within the agency
require

the consumer to take action outside the agency to receive
service. Eagle

says that, to be fair, he was given one other option for entering
the

program: paying for the training and OJT out of pocket.
Conservatively this

would have cost at least $30,000.

      As Fred Wurtzel, the former president of the National
Federation of

the Blind of Michigan and the former head of the commission's
Business

Enterprise Program, says: "Most of the time when we are involved
in an

appeal, we win, but statistics don't explain how it feels to be
the victim

of these tactics. It is hard enough to face discrimination and

misunderstanding based on blindness, but to face the mistreatment
by our

state agency when all that is wanted is a livable income and the
respect of

the community is almost impossibly difficult and stressful. BEP
operators

have been seriously harassed after the board or an ALJ have
ordered their

return. The object lesson is that, even though you may eventually
get your

job back, Pat Cannon can disrupt your life, take away your
income, tarnish

your reputation, and reduce your influence with others. One need
only

remember the removal of Mark Eagle, a twenty-two-year-old who was
removed

from the commission board based on charges of ethical conflict
because his

father was involved in helping other vendors with their
grievances. This is

a totally inappropriate way to manage a public agency. Only
people like us,

Federationists whom Pat cannot affect, are in a position to fight
back

effectively for blind people."

      To the commission's credit, a real attempt to make the
proceedings of

the board available to the public was evidenced by the work that
went into

broadcasting the June 17 meeting on the Internet, making it
available by

telephone, and accepting comments from people not in the room,
whether they

wished to respond orally or using email. Commission staff went
into great

detail about how to listen and participate in the meeting, and it
was clear

that the effort represented a good deal of time to research and
implement.

Participation from around the state was evident as offices of the

commission and consumers in their homes heard and spoke to the
board.

      Within days of the meeting, members of the commission board
and staff

were surprised to learn that, in addition to the audio, the
session had

been videotaped. The failure to mention this when the recording
and live

audio coverage had played such a prominent part in the meeting
was not well

received. Just as participants had the right to know that what
they said

was being recorded and broadcast, those in the room had the right
to know

that they were being photographed. Many who were disconcerted by
the

videotaping said it reminded them of the pictures taken at
demonstrations

in the sixties and used as a reason to create FBI files on
patriotic

citizens who chose to express their concern through peaceful
protests. An

apology has been issued by Steve Arwood, who heads the larger
agency which

houses the MCB.

      The tension between Director Cannon and the commission was
obvious

both before and during the meeting. According to the commission's
current

bylaws, the board agenda is determined by the chairman and the
director,

and thirteen items recommended for consideration from the board
were not

included. An agenda item involving a forty-five minute
presentation from

members of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan that
had not

been covered in the previous meeting of the board was reduced to
twelve

minutes without apology or explanation.

      Since the meeting the chairman of the commission, Jo Ann
Pilarski,

has resigned. This means that the five-member commission board is
now

functioning without a chairman, and two of its five positions are
vacant.

By the time this issue goes to press, the next quarterly meeting
of the

commission board will have occurred. From time to time there is
talk of

combining the MCB with the state's other rehabilitation agency.
Whether

this is an attempt to bring the blind to heel or represents the
recognition

of the commission's many blunders and their cost to the state is
debatable.

What is beyond debate is that Michigan Federationists believe
that Pat

Cannon is a bully who has very little professional knowledge and
lacks a

real understanding of the rehabilitation process, the
rehabilitation law,

and the art of personnel management. He continues to usurp the
authority

and role of the commission board and muffles and blunts all
serious

consumer involvement. While most feel compelled by their most
personal

values to refrain from judgment, to respect the humanity of their

adversary, and to separate the sinner and the sin, they truly
believe that

only after Director Cannon is replaced can the process of
building trust

and a positive process for serving blind people begin.

_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
for nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/amylsabo%
40comcast.net