[nfbmi-talk] the monitor article

[joe harcz Comcast]

Indeed it was a very good article and captured a lot of what has been going 
on. Of course no article can even come close to capturing the breadth and 
depth of the true disaster on every front that MCB has become under Cannon, 
and his cronies.

In fact there isn't a day that goes by where the very laws that create and 
fund MCB are not broken as a course of events, let alone other binding laws 
like the ADA, the Freedom of Information Act and the Open Meetings Act.

In fact I contend and have contended all along that this reckless 
lawlessness discredits the institution over all and makes it very 
vulnerable.

But, again the essence is in this wonderful (pun intended ...smile) story. 
For the real bottom line in which we all agree is that MCB is supposed to be 
all about the Vocational Rehabilitation and Independent Living of 
Michiganders who are blind. Instead it has sadly become a chronically 
corrupted, malfeasant, patronage system for a willfully elite few. Certainly 
the excellent fundamental drum beat of this story is that MCB has lost 
"mission focus" to say the least. And as Truman said, "The buck stops at the 
top."

Now, while there is a concerted effort against those within and aligned with 
the Federation, a point I agree with, it goes even further. For I contend 
that there is a concerted effort against 99.9 percent of all blind people 
here in Michigan, again to keep the elite sell outs to our collective 
interests in power. That is pure and simple corruption on a grand scale.

Now, we have highlighted here the horrendous wrongs done to Chris, Dave, and 
Hazell. But, as awful as all those things were the hidden story is for the 
literal thousands of blind folks who routinely get turned away at the first 
instance. There isn't a meeting that goes by were consumers don't report 
never receiving a return phone call from this agency even at the point of 
application for example.

The sad thing is that we are now seeing, not unlike what is going on 
nationally in the economy a lost generation of blind folks.

I know this is why the likes of Fred Wertzel, Larry Posont and so many 
others are so passionate. Our productive and leadership days are in their 
twilight years.

But, to see the future assaulted in such a malicious way for the younger 
generation is simply intolerable.

What ever happened to public virtue and the American notion of progress 
where the next generation is supposed to be better off than the one 
preceding this?

No, my passion and the passion of others arises from the fact that Cannon 
and his minions has been robbing our youth and indeed even the newly blinded 
folks of employment age. Oh, well being the equal opportunity offender he is 
they now are and have been messing with the elderly blind too.

Sorry for the ramble, but Gary did do a wonderful job in portraying the 
history and the fact that the promises inherent with a separate commission 
have been violated by the current agency leadership over and over again. And 
implicit is that it is all done for immoral, illicit, and very selfish 
personal reasons that are un vicious, and frankly, unforgivable.

Now, while the simple removal of Cannon will not solve all the issues facing 
we the blind in Michigan by a long shot it is certainly a prerequisite. 
Nothing will change under the current leadership except, perhaps that things 
will get much worse. and they will now as the stimulus funds are now all 
gone.

But, that is another story for another day.

Sincerely,

Joe




----- 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/joeharcz%40comcast.net