[nfbmi-talk] Fw: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Thu Oct 6 19:10:31 UTC 2011
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)
Dear Ms. Haynes and (indirectly Mr. Cannon and Mr. Arwood),
I have several things to say about this non-response. One you and the agency implicitly violate the "surcharge" provisions of the ADA and Section 504. As I've sent these regulatory and statutory citations to the agency before and as this is after all the Michigan commission for the Blind with the former head of the U.S. Access Board and former State of Michigan ADA coordinator at the helm, namely the scofflaw Patrick D. Cannon, I can only construe that the direct violations of the ADA/504 requirements are not only deliberate indifference to known civil rights laws (re: Tyler vs.. Manhattan), but also willful and made with malice of forethought.
In short this and similar responses constitute a malicious violation of my and other's civil rights.
Again, this is simply absurd on its face as the Michigan Commission for the Blind is indeed just that and should be the expert and is paid by the taxpayer to be the expert in keeping such records and indeed making them accessible in the first place and in fact signs assurances with the feds each and every year in those regards. Are those assurances indeed outright lies as this response implies? If so then I think the U.S. Attorney's office should engage in false statements act claims against the personnel who indeed utters and engages in these violations of law and equity.
Moreover, I urge you and all to look at the regulations on the affirmative defense relative to "administrative burdens and undue hardship". These are not fleeting issues or arbitrary ones but, rather ones that must be read literally, and again you've all been notified by yours truly in these regards. The absurdity on this issue at the risk of redundancy is plain on its face as you represent Michigan Commission for the Blind for crying out loud! Would a Michigan Commission for the Deaf cite such absurd issues in violation of clear cut mandates and federal civil rights laws with impunity, let alone a straight face? I think not!
By the way again refer to affirmative obligations under case law on the issue such as Tyler vs.. Manhattan. which again, I've sent you all and thus again you all are guilty on its face of 42 USC 1983 violations of my civil rights which is actionable and recoverable against you all personally as you are all state actors acting in concert against my known civil rights and you are all acting inconcert in malicious fashion being dully notified in law and equity.
Now, finally the abject failure of you all in accounting for the expenditure of federal funds "earmarked" and required for specific purposes herein (namely Federal funds for the express purposes of the BEP and VR programs) or the open and with this message undocumented, and self-admitted lack of accounting of same is malfeasant by your own admission at very best and is, frankly criminal, and I mean that term in its strictest sense at worst.
The MCB is a "Shepard" of federal taxpayer's funds and those funds must be accounted for. Aside from the discrete issues of blindness and my invocations of the ADA/504 in these regards each and every taxpayer regardless as to race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or other contingency has a right to know just how and why these funds are expended and to what purpose.
It is both on its face outrages and wholly unacceptable that this agency cannot by your own admission break out or otherwise account for differentials in funding for dedicated funding and discrepancies therein for non-blind temporary operators versus blind operators for whom the very establishment of PA 260 and indeed the Randolph Shepard program let alone the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 were created and funded in the first place.
This is simply an outrageous response for simple accounting let alone true public accountability.
This response in and of itself is again also a constitutional violation of both the "spending clause" and the "14th Amendment" requirements in regards to the misapplication and misinterpretations of the ADA/504 and abusing the FOIA (state law) to pre-empt federal legal requirements. Again, I neeed not prove anything but this very message which stands in stark violation of the federal civil rights laws and statutes.
So my suggestion is this: remit requested information forthwith not only to myself in accessable format, but also account for these expentidures to RSA, the GAO but also the Michigan Auditor General and make all such required documentation available to the Governor of the State of Michigan and even more importantly the public and our entire Republic on MCB's own web site.
To reiterate the law and indeed several laws are consistent in these regards. The Business enterprise program under PA 260, and/or the RS/Rehabilitation Act program are federally funded programs for the express purpose of promoting gainful and meaningful employment of people who happen to be blind. They are not programs for underwriting without any measure of accounting let alone accountability with state and federal funds sighted, non-disabled white males or females for that matter. If the State Licensing Agency (MCB) disagrees with this simple interpretation of law, equity and accountability then I suggest that you all give up your federally subsidized laws under these Acts and return your paychecks to the state and federal taxpayer. Then you can rightfully lobby to re-vise these programs, and services and benefits and activities that you seemingly so despise by your actions.
As an aside to Ms. Haynes, for this message is clearly aimed at "higher ups" predominately I must say our relationship has been cordial and I hold no personalanimous towards you personally. But, I also must say I have the rights of all citizens and they will not be deterred.
In short if people wish to "nickel and dime" by contrivance and denigration of known civil rights laws my and others constitutional right to know the public activities of public institutions and actors nd if one wishes to let these same scofflaws violate my and others constitutional and civil rights then one might well be expected to be sued on the same par as those self-same scofflaws for cause.
Regardless I've made my case in point and in fact and in deed.
I will not desist and I call for the United States Attorney's Office to look in to this bovine scatology.
She has done so before and she will do so again.
State Departments cannot be trusted right now with the public trust.
Again, Carla, sincerely about all that. But public trust, public laws and public rights are what they are.
----- Original Message -----
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) ; Wallace, Judy (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:53 PM
Subject: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)
October 6, 2011
Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
Dear Mr. Harcz:
This letter is in response to your September 21, 2011, email request for copies of public records, received September 22, 2011, please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.
In your email, you requested information/records described as follows: "Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone."
Pursuant to MCL 15.235, Section 5(2)(c) of the FOIA, your request is partially granted and partially denied.
Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records possessed by the Department/MCB falling within the scope of your request. However, pursuant to MCL 15.234, Section of the FOIA, the Department/MCB has assessed estimated, allowable costs of totaling $81.30 to process this request. The records possessed by the Department are print documents of monthly billings with a receipt stamp indicating that the Department's Revenue Accounting Division has received payment and attributed the monies to the proper accounts under the MCB, which includes the set-aside account. As the Department/MCB does not have a method that differentiates between sighted or blind temporary operators, the records possessed are for all temporary operators in the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) for Fiscal Year 2011.
FOIA Response - P.J. Harcz, Jr.
October 6, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Thusly, based on the amount of labor involved and the amount of material that must be produced, and reviewed regarding statutory privacy concerns, pursuant to MCL 15.234, Section 4(3) of the FOIA, the Department/MCB must assess costs to process this request because, in this particular instance, failure to charge for search, examination, review, and deletion and separation of exempt from nonexempt information would cause the Department/MCB to incur unreasonably high costs for these activities that are excessive and beyond the normal or usual amount for these services; and would result in an undue financial and administrative burden per ADA regulations (28 CFR 35.160.164) which states:
"A public entity must ensure that its communications with individuals with
disabilities are as effective as communications with others. This obligation
does not require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate
would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its services,
programs, or activities, or in undue financial and administrative burdens."
The estimated cost of $81.30 to process this request is based on:
--Labor time to search for, copy, examine to redact exempt information,
and put on a flash drive is 3 hours at $25.10/hr = $75.30.
--Flash drive and postage costs = $6.00
Please send payment of $81.30 as indicated on the attached invoice.
Upon receipt of payment, the Department/MCB will continue processing this request; notify you of any statutory disclosure exemptions; any applicable remedial rights; and any balance due or owed.
Sincerely,
Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Attachments - Invoice and Email Request
Cc: Patrick Cannon
Mel Farmer
Susan Turney
Constance Zanger
James Hull
Judy Wallace
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT INVOICE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF REQUESTER
Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
BUREAU/OFFICE:
Michigan Commission for the Blind
ACCOUNT CODE:
Index: 36200
PCA: 11343
REQUEST RECEIVED: 9-22-11
TYPE OF REQUEST
LETTER/SUBPOENA FAX x E-MAIL
REQUEST PARTIALLY DENIED ( X ) YES ( ) NO
REQUESTED INFORMATION WILL BE:
X MAILED UPON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
MAILED/INVOICED FOR FULL PAYMENT
PAID AND PICKED UP IN PERSON
EXEMPT INFORMATION WITHHELD/REDACTED ( ) YES ( ) NO
EXTENDED RESPONSE NOTICE ISSUED ( ) YES ( X ) NO
DLARA CONTACT: Melvin Farmer, Central FOIA Coordinator (517) 373-0194
Ottawa Building, 4th Floor, 611 W. Ottawa, Lansing, MI 48909
The FOIA provides that the department may charge a fee to comply with requests for public records. The processing fee is composed of hourly wages and benefit costs of the lowest paid employee(s) capable of processing the request; the duplication of records at assessed costs per page; mailing costs; and other related special costs. Prior to searching and copying requested records, the department may request full payment or 50% of the estimated costs exceeding $50.00 with the balance required before mailing the records. Assessed costs are related to your request for:
"Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone."
INVOICE CALCULATIONS
AMOUNT
(Lowest Paid Capable Employee)
LABOR (Locating and Duplicating): No. of Hours 2 x Hourly Rate $25.10
LABOR (Examining and Extracting): No. of Hours 1 x Hourly Rate $25.10
50.20
25.10
POSTAGE: (estimate)
2.00
DUPLICATING: No. of Pages x Copying Rate Per Side $.25
OTHER: (overtime, audio tapes, discs, photos, security, etc.) Flash Drive
4.00
Make check or money order payable to: STATE OF MICHIGAN
Remit to: Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs
Office Services Mailroom
7150 Harris Drive, P.O. Box 30015
Lansing, MI 48909
RETURN ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT.
*Please note that if a deposit is requested, the indicated amount is an estimate of the cost of complying with your request. The actual cost may vary somewhat from this amount.
TOTAL 81.30
DEPOSIT
BALANCE TO BE PAID
$81.30
Distribution: Requester, Agency, Financial Services, FOIA Coordinator
NOTE TO FOIA COORDINATORS:
UPON PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT OR BALANCE SEND COPY TO CENTRAL FOIA COORDINATOR
From: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:09 AM
To: Farmer, Mel (LARA); Haynes, Carla (LARA)
Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Subject: FW: FOIA open inquire
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:43 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Cannon, Patrick (LARA); lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; Arwood, Steve (LARA)
Subject: open inquire
Dear Ms. Zanger and Mr. cannon,
It has come to my attention that we in MCB have not collected all set asides from sighted, non-disabled tempory operators for some time. I'm a bit confused by this documented fact in that MCB is required by PA 260 and the Randolph Shepard Program to offer a priority to blind folks in these concessions as the State Licensing Agency. I'm also confused in that this set aside is considered income for federal matching purposes.
So, correct me if I'm wrong here but don't we violate the mandates of the RS, VR and other programs when we don't require when using federal funds the same requirements of so-called temporary operators who are not blind in the same manner as we've done for blind operators? And aren't these inequities primae facae evidence of mass, systemic, and willful violations of the ADA, and Section 504 in their clearcut discriminatory impact in that they clearly set and implement in fact and documented deed discriminatory standards of practice?
And, moreover a practical matter here...In short aside from the clear cut misappropriations of federal funds here aren't we as an agency losing appropriate federal match as again set asides are "income" and thus robbing the entire MCB program because of these derelictions of duties and misappropriations of federal funds in the first instance?
I mean think about it you clearly don't ask for the same inventory requirements as documented in fact and deed of these temporary operators let alone the same set aside requirements .
Shoot ALJ decisions in the public domain are rife during recent years where you all yanked licenses from operators, often appropriately for not paying or accounting for federally funded inventories. Oh I guess these were problems because the operators were blind?
But you don't set the same standard, and the same accountability for sighted, non-qualified temporaries?
Are the violations in law and equity here only obvious to an outsider likeme or even the casual observor on the seen?
What gives here?
I'd like some accounting let alone accountability here.
Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone. I want line item accounting and not voodoo accounting too.
sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
cc: MCB Commissioners
cc: Craig McManus, RSA
cc: Steve Arwood
cc: OIG, United States Department of education
Carla Miller Haynes
DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind
201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 30652
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517/373-2063
FAX: 517/335-5140
www.michigan.gov/mcb
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list