[nfbmi-talk] the monitor article

[Larry D. Keeler]

Amy, You are indeed correct!  I was at the meeting that was being reported 
on and it was just so.  Mr. Wonder, you did an excellent job!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Amy Sabo" <amylsabo at comcast.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] the monitor article


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/lkeeler%40comcast.net