[nfbmi-talk] Random thoughts...

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Oct 21 21:33:27 UTC 2011


Most well said Fred!

>From the beginning of my involvement with MCB and including being on this 
list serve  which dates back to about 2001 I've striven for data driven 
measurements, public and institutional accountability, and adherence in 
practice to requirements of the very laws that bind and create this agency.

I've also striven for public accountability in these regards as a citizen 
who has the right to know period.

Aside from issues discrete to blindness which certainly are not irrelevant 
here there are issues of public accountability of a federally and state 
funded entity.

MCB is simply not a sewing circle. It has exacted standards required by 
state, and federal laws which include full transparency and which include 
data driven measurements let alone basic accounting and accountability as to 
how the taxpayer's funds are expended.

Now all citizens have the right, absolute right under a variety of laws to 
access at the first instance to these performance measures and information. 
In short all citizens are given the right to fact based information from all 
of our governmental entities including MCB. We who are blind have the same 
right and in a timely manner to this information in a format we can use and 
that is effective. This, is in part, large part a central component of 
democracy and in fact goes to the fact that this great nation is a 
government of laws and not of man. We are not a dictatorship. And blind 
folks in the schema of overall checks and balances and governmental 
accountability should not have lesser  standards for citizenship, or 
involvement than those afforded others with sight.

In short we are not children of a "Lesser God"" or children of lesser rights 
in these regards.

Finally I am a Journalist by background, education, and by trade.

The fundamentals of Journalism are:

-Who
-What
-When
-Where
-Why
-How

Inquiries of public entities are indeed a public trust and are sacrosanct.

There is no protection of the public if entities, and public servants within 
those entities do not produce information in timely and accessible manners. 
There is no accountability. There are no safeguards against waste, fraud, 
and abuse of which all "right to know laws" are premised. And if folks think 
this is personnel in the negative sense of the word it is not for public 
employees including and most especially those at the very top are 
accountable.

Regardless, there is another principle here and that was elucidated by Harry 
S. Truman when he bravely said, "The buck stops at the top."

Bottom line is that Patrick D,. Cannon personally has not responded to 
inquiries over decades or remitted timely delivery of public guaranteed 
information, or accounted for his subordinates, etc. to do same.

Instead he in cowardly fashion ignores, defers, plays games behind the seen, 
and creates turmoil all for the sake of himself and his position.

Very few of my requests for public information and in a timely manner should 
have ever been made FOIA requests to begin with. They should have been 
provided in a variety of formats pro forma including on this very list.

And it goes to Cannon directly who doesn't have the guts, quite frankly to 
answer the calls for accountability or information period.

He is on this list and has been and he supposedly knows how to use e-mail.

But, he, Pat Cannon spins and defers and avoids his personal responnsability 
over and over again.

Now here is a real fundamental question that is self evident in it's 
ramifications:

If I still have to on an ongoing basis fight a running dbattle for timely 
and accessable delivery of draft meeting minutes which are required by the 
OMA, FOIA,, Title I, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA, 
Title II subparte e and with all sorts of case law then isn't it self 
evident that this organization doesn't effectively communicate with the very 
ccustomers it is required to in the first place in a timely and accessable 
manner? Now pick a card. Pick any card for indemonstrable fashion this 
agency under the direction of Cannon and he, personally continually violates 
in, again demonstrated fashion the ADA, 504, the OMA, FOIA, PA 260, and all 
provisions of the Rehabilitation Act under his charge. Now, I've written 
this as a public assertion and if he, Cannon thinks I'm defaming him then 
let him sue me for defamation. I say, go for it make my day.



By the by requesting public information and accountability isn't degrading 
or out of line  or personal or anything else but it is simply what it is

And asking for the head of an entity to be accountable for his actions let 
alone those of his subordinates is not out of line at all. Again the buck 
stops at the very top.

Sincerely,

Joe.





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at comcast.net>
To: "'Michigan Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List'" 
<MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" 
<nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Random thoughts...


> Hi Bob,
>
>
>
> I certainly am inclined to take the "Appreciative inquiry" approach to
> management.  I also believe that the Demming ideas around "Zero Defects" 
> is
> an appropriate way of framing management issues. One of the principles of
> both of these is measurement.  Transparency is also critical in a public
> agency.  Within MCB all decisions must embrace the concept of "consumer
> driven" as it relates to P.A. 260.
>
>
>
> As I see it, we will never rid ourselves of these claims and counter 
> claims
> around expectations and performance until we develop a broad measurement
> system which is reliable and open to the public.  This is not a critical
> statement.  I simply believe we need to work from the facts, in as nearly 
> a
> real time frame as possible and share the facts with stakeholders, no 
> matter
> their implications.
>
>
>
> Regarding returned phone calls, the anecdotal data is overwhelming and
> widespread.  The 48 hour policy is routinely not observed at most levels,
> though support staff seem better about observing it than others. Until we
> measure it and improve it, it will remain a hot button issue for 
> consumers.
>
>
>
>
> Regarding accessible data, progress is being made with the recent
> consolidation of some data on the MCB web site.  I am personally aware of
> repeated requests for information in an accessible format (not from me)
> which have gone unanswered.  With the exception of confidential client 
> data,
> all MCB information is public.  Under ADA this information is required to 
> be
> provided in an accessible format.  This ought to be ironclad SOP.  I do 
> not
> understand why MCB continues to allow this to be a thorn in its side.  It 
> is
> a distraction and is petty.  Further, it causes distrust and 
> separates -MCB
> from its customers in an unnecessary atmosphere of apparent lack of 
> concern
> for customer needs.
>
>
>
> I view these issues as more systemic than people driven.  MCB needs 
> systems
> to automatically provide information in a timely way in a format of the
> customer's choice.  MCB needs a management system which measures and
> improves customer responsiveness on all levels, including returned phone
> calls, requests for information about blindness, referrals to appropriate
> sources for assistance and so on.  Such responsiveness includes job
> placement, development of employers who will hire blind people, attending
> IEP's of transition students to help them with navigating the college and
> job-seeking landscape.    System 7 is not functioning properly.  This 
> needs
> to be repaired and made to serve the staff and customers of MCB.
>
>
>
> I would suggest that contrary to what you said in your statement, returned
> phone calls are not solely the purview of MCB management.  The Commission
> Board is designed to be a consumer based mechanism for delivering quality
> rehabilitation services to blind consumers.  It is in the interest of
> consumers to receive timely responses to inquiry's.  In a public agency
> there is always a variety of interests and levels of accountability. 
> Every
> public employee has 1 boss and many stakeholders and constituents.  It is
> necessary to keep these stakeholders and constituents in mind and better 
> to
> maintain a positive working relationship with them to the maximum extent
> possible.
>
>
>
> Inevitably, there will be conflict.  It is the manner in which these
> conflicts are handled that will make a difference.  Data collection and
> management will greatly assist in supporting decisions and improving
> services.  Staff training is an integral part of the feedback system 
> around
> data-driven management.  It seems to me that to begin to close the
> expectation/performance gap, MCB must, immediately and in a dramatic way,
> adopt a comprehensive training program for all new and existing staff that
> incorporates a positive philosophy of blindness, openness toward including
> consumers in agency functioning, policies and data elements as a core 
> design
> feature..  Today is not too soon for this change to take place.
>
>
>
> I do not feel that any of the forgoing is personal toward anyone.
> Demonizing or villainizing consumers or staff is distracting and does not
> address the matters at hand.  Measurement of job performance is just 1 
> more
> data-driven part of the MCB system and will root out issues of
> accountability.  It is certainly relevant to the MCB system which is not, 
> in
> my opinion, operating at near top efficiency.  Management and staff need 
> to
> be accountable for following the law and Commission policies.
>
>
>
> $25 million is a lot of money.  Only a third (or less) is being spent for
> case services.  Only three fourths or less is being spent of the small
> portion for clients.  The unspent budget is a prime example of this
> inefficiency and is a fact supported by data.  Placements are too low. 
> This
> is a fact and is supported by data.  Too few placements with unspent funds
> is clearly a contradiction and is factual and supported by data.  The cost
> of closing a case unsuccessfully is nearly as much as closing a case
> successfully.  This is a fact.  Why not finish the job and close these 
> cases
> successfully instead of giving up?  If blind people were getting jobs in
> their chosen career fields and not being thwarted by the system in 
> attaining
> the best education possible these facts would begin to swing in the 
> positive
> direction hoped for by anyone who cares about the ability of blind people 
> to
> assume our places as first-class citizens along with our sighted peers.
>
>
>
> Warm Regards,
>
>
>
> Fred
>
> From: Michigan Comma for the Blind Vision 20/20 List
> [mailto:MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV] On Behalf Of Robertson, Bob 
> (LARA)
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV
> Subject: Random thoughts...
>
>
>
>
>
> For those of you who might recall, one of the principles of the 2020 
> process
> within MCB was that of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). More traditional change
> management philosophy requires that people look at a problem, analyze it,
> and then try to find a solution. The old-time focus is on that which is
> broken or not working as well as it should. By focusing on the problem
> areas, we naturally amplify them to the point where negativity takes over
> everywhere. At the other end of the spectrum, AI says we should look at 
> what
> works in the organization. It says we should look at those things we do 
> well
> and agree upon and then build from there.
>
>
>
> There are several "assumptions" that go with Appreciative Inquiry. I will
> not go into all of them but some of the key ones are:
>
>
>
> 1.       In every group or organization, something works.
>
>
>
> 2.       What we focus on becomes our reality.
>
>
>
> 3.       If we are going to carry parts of the past forward, they must be
> what is best from the past.
>
>
>
> With this in mind, I wish to address two issues which seem to be "hot
> button" topics. One is materials in accessible format and the other is 
> staff
> returning phone calls. Now, before I go any further, I want to make it 
> clear
> that the information posted here is mine. I have not consulted anyone. I
> have not cleared this with anyone. I may catch hell for these remarks from
> my co-workers as well as others on this list. Regardless, I wish to point
> out what I see as an exaggeration of facts.
>
>
>
> Some members of the community have been quoted saying we do not provide
> materials in accessible format. Some like to quote from a satisfaction
> survey done in November 2008 where consumers were asked if materials were
> provided in their preferred format. Of the 78 people who responded to the
> survey, 6 said never. (That is usually where the quoting of the survey
> ends.) In addition, 13 said sometimes and 59 said always. I think we can 
> all
> agree that 6 is too many yet when the main thrust for an argument that the
> agency never provides materials in accessible format is 8% of the
> respondents on a single survey, that's a bit of exaggeration. Is it
> acceptable to look at that number and say it needs to be improved?
> Absolutely! However, when making the argument for improvement in this 
> area,
> maybe we should focus on the 76% who say they always get the materials in
> their preferred format, learn what is working, and try to replicate that
> across the entire agency.
>
>
>
> The second issue is returning phone calls. Clearly this is a concern 
> because
> it seems to come up from time to time in different settings. I would argue
> that citing a handful of random comments off a survey or quoting a couple
> people from a public meeting is hardly evidence of widespread negligence.
> Are there situations where staff do not call back in a timely manner? More
> than likely. Are there a thousand and one possible reasons (not excuses) 
> for
> this? Probably, sometimes. Nevertheless, it is a management issue that 
> needs
> to be addressed by agency management and nobody else.
>
>
>
> There are other areas we could discuss. I just happen to pick these two
> because they have been the focus of recent activity on this list and
> elsewhere. I bring them up because if we were to use Appreciative Inquiry
> principles, instead of focusing on the 8% who state they never receive
> materials in their preferred format, we'd focus on the 76% who said they
> always did and say something like "hey, we're doing an okay job but we can
> do better.how do we improve it?"
>
>
>
> Let me just end these ramblings with another thought. In major league
> baseball, if a batter is successful 30% of his career, he's a shoe-in for
> the Hall of Fame. Yet, if you're running an airline and have 1000 planes
> take off and only 999 of them land safely, that's a major disaster. I say
> this because we need to put things in perspective. It would be great if
> every single phone call was returned immediately and every single client 
> got
> materials in the preferred format 100% of the time. Unfortunately, we do 
> not
> have a magical wand to create a perfect workplace. However, we do have a
> staff made up of over 100 dedicated, hard-working, caring professionals 
> and
> sometimes those professionals (even me, believe it or not!) aren't 
> perfect.
> So instead of creating an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect, let's 
> focus
> on the things that are being done right and work hard to make them even
> better.
>
>
>
> Bob Robertson
>
> MI Commission for the Blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Michigan Comm for the Blind Vision 20/20 List
> [mailto:MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV] On Behalf Of Robertson, Bob 
> (LARA)
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: MCB2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV
> Subject: Random thoughts...
>
>
>
>
>
> For those of you who might recall, one of the principles of the 2020 
> process
> within MCB was that of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). More traditional change
> management philosophy requires that people look at a problem, analyze it,
> and then try to find a solution. The old-time focus is on that which is
> broken or not working as well as it should. By focusing on the problem
> areas, we naturally amplify them to the point where negativity takes over
> everywhere. At the other end of the spectrum, AI says we should look at 
> what
> works in the organization. It says we should look at those things we do 
> well
> and agree upon and then build from there.
>
>
>
> There are several "assumptions" that go with Appreciative Inquiry. I will
> not go into all of them but some of the key ones are:
>
>
>
> 1.       In every group or organization, something works.
>
>
>
> 2.       What we focus on becomes our reality.
>
>
>
> 3.       If we are going to carry parts of the past forward, they must be
> what is best from the past.
>
>
>
> With this in mind, I wish to address two issues which seem to be "hot
> button" topics. One is materials in accessible format and the other is 
> staff
> returning phone calls. Now, before I go any further, I want to make it 
> clear
> that the information posted here is mine. I have not consulted anyone. I
> have not cleared this with anyone. I may catch hell for these remarks from
> my co-workers as well as others on this list. Regardless, I wish to point
> out what I see as an exaggeration of facts.
>
>
>
> Some members of the community have been quoted saying we do not provide
> materials in accessible format. Some like to quote from a satisfaction
> survey done in November 2008 where consumers were asked if materials were
> provided in their preferred format. Of the 78 people who responded to the
> survey, 6 said never. (That is usually where the quoting of the survey
> ends.) In addition, 13 said sometimes and 59 said always. I think we can 
> all
> agree that 6 is too many yet when the main thrust for an argument that the
> agency never provides materials in accessible format is 8% of the
> respondents on a single survey, that's a bit of exaggeration. Is it
> acceptable to look at that number and say it needs to be improved?
> Absolutely! However, when making the argument for improvement in this 
> area,
> maybe we should focus on the 76% who say they always get the materials in
> their preferred format, learn what is working, and try to replicate that
> across the entire agency.
>
>
>
> The second issue is returning phone calls. Clearly this is a concern 
> because
> it seems to come up from time to time in different settings. I would argue
> that citing a handful of random comments off a survey or quoting a couple
> people from a public meeting is hardly evidence of widespread negligence.
> Are there situations where staff do not call back in a timely manner? More
> than likely. Are there a thousand and one possible reasons (not excuses) 
> for
> this? Probably, sometimes. Nevertheless, it is a management issue that 
> needs
> to be addressed by agency management and nobody else.
>
>
>
> There are other areas we could discuss. I just happen to pick these two
> because they have been the focus of recent activity on this list and
> elsewhere. I bring them up because if we were to use Appreciative Inquiry
> principles, instead of focusing on the 8% who state they never receive
> materials in their preferred format, we'd focus on the 76% who said they
> always did and say something like "hey, we're doing an okay job but we can
> do better.how do we improve it?"
>
>
>
> Let me just end these ramblings with another thought. In major league
> baseball, if a batter is successful 30% of his career, he's a shoe-in for
> the Hall of Fame. Yet, if you're running an airline and have 1000 planes
> take off and only 999 of them land safely, that's a major disaster. I say
> this because we need to put things in perspective. It would be great if
> every single phone call was returned immediately and every single client 
> got
> materials in the preferred format 100% of the time. Unfortunately, we do 
> not
> have a magical wand to create a perfect workplace. However, we do have a
> staff made up of over 100 dedicated, hard-working, caring professionals 
> and
> sometimes those professionals (even me, believe it or not!) aren't 
> perfect.
> So instead of creating an atmosphere of distrust and disrespect, let's 
> focus
> on the things that are being done right and work hard to make them even
> better.
>
>
>
> Bob Robertson
>
> MI Commission for the Blind
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 





More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list