[nfbmi-talk] Fw: amended request

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Wed Feb 1 10:05:50 CST 2012

Ceck out dates. Clown Cannon was fully apprised of obligations under the ADA. Thus this is deliberate indifference to the law and actually his chronic violations of the ADA after being informed and with copious documentation to this very date ammount to systematic, malicious and perniciously wilful violations of my and all of the class' civil rights.

He thus should be sued under ex parte Young individually for these pernicious violations of law, equity, and civil rights and for monetary damages individually.

Ask Terry Eagle and ask lawyers about this standard (ex parte young).


Joe Harcz

For the record once again...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) 
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: amended request

March 24, 2010


Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net



Mr. Patrick Cannon, Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind and State of Michigan ADA Coordinator

E-mail: cannonp at michigan.gov


Dear Mr. Cannon,


Though I've sent you the effective communications requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 before, and in fact have sent you them and other free technical assistance for that matter several times perhaps you haven't read them. I would have thought that as the Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind and the State ADA Coordinator you'd be intimate with them (as well as all of the regulations for that matter). Regardless I'm sending them to you once again so that you might get up to speed in discharging your duties in these regards.




Paul "Joe" Harcz, Jr.



Cc: Great Lakes TAC

Cc: several attorneys at law

Cc: several interested parties

Cc: Governor Jennifer Grandholm




ADA Title II Subpart E Communications


{35.160 General.


Section 35.160 requires the public entity to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members

of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.


Paragraph (b)(1) requires the public entity to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary to afford an individual with a disability

an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the public entity's service, program, or activity. The public entity must provide an

opportunity for individuals with disabilities to request the auxiliary aids and services of their choice. This expressed choice shall be given primary

consideration by the public entity ({35.160(b)(2)). The public entity shall honor the choice unless it can demonstrate that another effective means of

communication exists or that use of the means chosen would not be required under {35.164.


Deference to the request of the individual with a disability is desirable because of the range of disabilities, the variety of auxiliary aids and services,

and different circumstances requiring effective communication. For instance, some courtrooms are now equipped for "computer-assisted transcripts," which

allow virtually instantaneous transcripts of courtroom argument and testimony to appear on displays. Such a system might be an effective auxiliary aid

or service for a person who is deaf or has a hearing loss who uses speech to communicate, but may be useless for someone who uses sign language.


Although in some circumstances a notepad and written materials may be sufficient to permit effective communication, in other circumstances they may not

be sufficient. For example, a qualified interpreter may be necessary when the information being communicated is complex, or is exchanged for a lengthy

period of time. Generally, factors to be considered in determining whether an interpreter is required include the context in which the communication is

taking place, the number of people involved, and the importance of the communication.


Several commenters asked that the rule clarify that the provision of readers is sometimes necessary to ensure access to a public entity's services, programs

or activities. Reading devices or readers should be provided when necessary for equal participation and opportunity to benefit from any governmental service,

program, or activity, such as reviewing public documents, examining demonstrative evidence, and filling out voter registration forms or forms needed to

receive public benefits. The importance of providing qualified readers for examinations administered by public entities is discussed under {35.130. Reading

devices and readers are appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to permit an individual with a disability to participate in or benefit

from a service, program, or activity.


Section 35.160(b)(2) of the proposed rule, which provided that a public entity need not furnish individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use

or study, or other devices of a personal nature, has been deleted in favor of a new section in the final rule on personal devices and services (see {35.135).


In response to comments, the term "auxiliary aids and services" is used in place of "auxiliary aids" in the final rule. This phrase better reflects the

range of aids and services that may be required under this section.


A number of comments raised questions about the extent of a public entity's obligation to provide access to television programming for persons with hearing

impairments. Television and videotape programming produced by public entities are covered by this section. Access to audio portions of such programming

may be provided by closed captioning.


Section 35.161 Telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD's).


Section 35.161 requires that, where a public entity communicates with applicants and beneficiaries by telephone, TDD's or equally effective telecommunication

systems be used to communicate with individuals with impaired speech or hearing.


Problems arise when a public entity which does not have a TDD needs to communicate with an individual who uses a TDD or vice versa. Title IV of the ADA

addresses this problem by requiring establishment of telephone relay services to permit communications between individuals who communicate by TDD and individuals

who communicate by the telephone alone. The relay services required by title IV would involve a relay operator using both a standard telephone and a TDD

to type the voice messages to the TDD user and read the TDD messages to the standard telephone user.


Section 204(b) of the ADA requires that the regulation implementing title II with respect to communications be consistent with the Department's regulation

implementing section 504 for its federally conducted programs and activities at 28 CFR pt. 39. Section 35.161, which is taken from {39.160(a)(2) of that

regulation, requires the use of TDD's or equally effective telecommunication systems for communication with people who use TDD's. Of course, where relay

services, such as those required by title IV of the ADA are available, a public entity may use those services to meet the requirements of this section.


Many commenters were concerned that public entities should not rely heavily on the establishment of relay services. The commenters explained that while

relay services would be of vast benefit to both public entities and individuals who use TDD's, the services are not sufficient to provide access to all

telephone services. First, relay systems do not provide effective access to the increasingly popular automated systems that require the caller to respond

by pushing a button on a touch tone phone. Second, relay systems cannot operate fast enough to convey messages on answering machines, or to permit a TDD

user to leave a recorded message. Third, communication through relay systems may not be appropriate in cases of crisis lines pertaining to rape, domestic

violence, child abuse, and drugs. The Department believes that it is more appropriate for the Federal Communications Commission to address these issues

in its rulemaking under title IV.


Some commenters requested that those entities with frequent contacts with clients who use TDD's have on-site TDD's to provide for direct communication between

the entity and the individual. The Department encourages those entities that have extensive telephone contact with the public such as city halls, public

libraries, and public aid offices, to have TDD's to insure more immediate access. Where the provision of telephone service is a major function of the entity,

TDD's should be available.


Section 35.162 Telephone emergency services.


Many public entities provide telephone emergency services by which individuals can seek immediate assistance from police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency

services. These telephone emergency services--including "911" services--are clearly an important public service whose reliability can be a matter of life

or death. The legislative history of title II specifically reflects congressional intent that public entities must ensure that telephone emergency services,

including 911 services, be accessible to persons with impaired hearing and speech through telecommunication technology (Conference report at 67; Education

and Labor report at 84-85).


Proposed {35.162 mandated that public entities provide emergency telephone services to persons with disabilities that are "functionally equivalent" to voice

services provided to others. Many commenters urged the Department to revise the section to make clear that direct access to telephone emergency services

is required by title II of the ADA as indicated by the legislative history (Conference report at 67-68; Education and Labor report at 85). In response,

the final rule mandates "direct access," instead of "access that is functionally equivalent" to that provided to all other telephone users. Telephone emergency

access through a third party or through a relay service would not satisfy the requirement for direct access.


Several commenters asked about a separate seven-digit emergency call number for the 911 services. The requirement for direct access disallows the use of

a separate seven-digit number where 911 service is available. Separate seven- digit emergency call numbers would be unfamiliar to many individuals and

also more burdensome to use. A standard emergency 911 number is easier to remember and would save valuable time spent in searching in telephone books for

a local seven-digit emergency number.


Many commenters requested the establishment of minimum standards of service (e.g., the quantity and location of TDD's and computer modems needed in a given

emergency center). Instead of establishing these scoping requirements, the Department has established a performance standard through the mandate for direct



Section 35.162 requires public entities to take appropriate steps, including equipping their emergency systems with modern technology, as may be necessary

to promptly receive and respond to a call from users of TDD's and computer modems. Entities are allowed the flexibility to determine what is the appropriate

technology for their particular needs. In order to avoid mandating use of particular technologies that may become outdated, the Department has eliminated

the references to the Baudot and ASCII formats in the proposed rule.


Some commenters requested that the section require the installation of a voice amplification device on the handset of the dispatcher's telephone to amplify

the dispatcher's voice. In an emergency, a person who has a hearing loss may be using a telephone that does not have an amplification device. Installation

of speech amplification devices on the handsets of the dispatchers' telephones would respond to that situation. The Department encourages their use.


Several commenters emphasized the need for proper maintenance of TDD's used in telephone emergency services. Section 35.133, which mandates maintenance

of accessible features, requires public entities to maintain in operable working condition TDD's and other devices that provide direct access to the emergency



{35.163 Information and signage.


Section 35.163(a) requires the public entity to provide information to individuals with disabilities concerning accessible services, activities, and facilities.

Paragraph (b) requires the public entity to provide signage at all inaccessible entrances to each of its facilities that directs users to an accessible

entrance or to a location with information about accessible facilities.


Several commenters requested that, where TDD-equipped pay phones or portable TDD's exist, clear signage should be posted indicating the location of the

TDD. The Department believes that this is required by paragraph (a). In addition, the Department recommends that, in large buildings that house TDD's,

directional signage indicating the location of available TDD's should be placed adjacent to banks of telephones that do not contain a TDD.


{35.164 Duties.


Section 35.164, like paragraph (a)(3) of {35.150, is taken from the section 504 regulations for federally conducted programs. Like paragraph (a)(3), it

limits the obligation of the public entity to ensure effective communication in accordance with Davis and the circuit court opinions interpreting it. It

also includes specific requirements for determining the existence of undue financial and administrative burdens. The preamble discussion of {35.150(a)

regarding that determination is applicable to this section and further explains the public entity's obligation to comply with {{35.160-35.164. Because

of the essential nature of the services provided by telephone emergency systems, the Department assumes that {35.164 will rarely be applied to {35.162.



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) 
  To: joe harcz Comcast 
  Cc: Jo Anne Pilarski ; brlbumps at sbcglobal.net 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 12:56 PM
  Subject: RE: amended request

  Dear Mr. Harcz,


  You'll be pleased to know that we are in the process of responding to your many notes of inquiry during the past weeks and are pleased to do so.  It is our hope to effectively reply to your numerous inquiries in a comprehensive email message to you soon, perhaps covering many of your notes in a single reply.  In the meantime, though, I do want to clarify the Commission's interpretation of and adherence to the Michigan Open Meetings Act (OMA), the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, particularly their relationship to proposed draft minutes.


  As you know, OMA states that proposed minutes shall be public records open to public inspection and shall be available to the public not more than eight business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer.  Approved minutes are to be available not later than five business days after they're approved by the public body.  The Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) has consistently complied with these requirements through the years that I've been here and, of course, intends to continue to operate within these requirements.


  Our compliance with OMA, Mr. Harcz, is actually not an ADA issue as you've described it.  The ADA (and Section 504) speaks to civil rights, non-discrimination and equal access, not greater or better access.  MCB's practice is to make proposed minutes available for public inspection at our Lansing office is consistent with OMA and any ADA requirements.  After minutes receive formal approval by Commissioners they are properly posted and broadly distributed


  As you may know, the ADA would speak to dissemination of this information in an accessible manner to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access (i.e. in terms of format, timing of release, etc.) as the general public.  I'm pleased to advise you that we strive to consistently meet this mandate and will continue to do so.  More specific to your request for minutes of the December 11, 2009, MCB meeting, Mr. Harcz, the proposed minutes of that meeting have been available for public inspection here at the Commission's Central Office.  These minutes were approved March 19th and will be posted and distributed no later than March 26th, as called for by the OMA, and will be advanced to you at the same time and in a format accessible to you, as called for by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.


  It is clear from your communications over the years, Mr. Harcz, that your interpretation of the OMA and the ADA is different than ours and I encourage you to confirm our interpretation with the U. S. Department of Justice and/or the Great Lakes ADA Center in Chicago, both highly reputable resources for such information, as well as resources of which I know you are most familiar.  We also invite you to call our office, toll-free, at 800-292-4200, if you'd like any additional information.




  Pat Cannon

  State Director




  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:31 PM
  To: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG)
  Cc: Jo Anne Pilarski
  Subject: amended request


  (Note: In the prior request for accommodation and "proposed minuts I inadvertently asked for the December 11, 2010 minuts. Of course I was requesting the December 11, 2009 "proposed" or "draft" minutes. Please accept my apology for any confusion. I attached the corrected request here and will also send it to other board members:)


  March 16, 2010


  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

  1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

  Mt. Morris, MI 48458

  (Cell: 810-516-5262)

  E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net


  Re: Specific Request for Proposed Minutes December 11, 2010



  Phone, voice: (517) 373-2062

  Toll-free voice (800) 292-4200

  TTY (517) 373-4025; toll-free TTY (888) 864-1212

  Fax: (517) 335-5140


  Cannon, Patrick D., Director

  (via e-mail)



  Ms. Jo Ann Pilarski, MCB Commission Chair

  pilarskij at charter.net


  Mr. Michael Geno, MCB Commission Vice Chair

  luzenskis at michigan.gov


  Ms. Velma P. Allen, MCB Commissioner

  luzenskis at michigan.gov

  Ms. Geraldine G. Taeckens, MCB Commissioner

  geri.taeckens at isahealthfund.org


  Ms. Margaret Wolfe, MCB Commissioner

  margwolfe at usa.net





  This is a specific request to receive the "Proposed" or "Draft" minutes of the Michigan Commission for the Blind board meeting of December 11, 2009 (see attached agenda after my signature line) in accordance with The Michigan Open Meetings ACT

  Act 267 of 1976. Specifically I cite this reference to this requirement (something I've pointed out in the past to Director Cannon on several occasions by the way)):


  "15.269. Minutes; contents, corrections, open to public inspection


  Sec. 9. (1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place, members present, members absent, any decisions made at a

  meeting open to the public, and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes shall include all roll call votes taken at the

  meeting. Corrections in the minutes shall be made not later than the next meeting after the meeting to which the minutes refer. Corrected minutes shall

  be available no later than the next subsequent meeting after correction. The corrected minutes shall show both the original entry and the correction.


  (2) Minutes shall be public records open to public inspection and shall be available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant to section

  4. Copies of the minutes shall be available to the public at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying.


  (3) Proposed minutes shall be available for public inspection not more than 8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. Approved minutes

  shall be available for public inspection not later than 5 business days after the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body."

  Since clearly the eeight ((8) days requirement for making these available to the public has lapsed I do again specifically request them now.


  In addition I ask for reasonable accommodations in this regard relative to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Specifically I request that you simply e-mail them to me. As certainly they are already maintained and in a digital format (likely Microsoft Word) this request should be of minimal trouble to accomplish.




  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.







  December 11 2009 Meeting of the MCB Board & Honor Roll Awards Presentation






  9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.


  Live audio streaming of the meeting will be available online at approximately 9:00 a.m. at the MCB Web site at



  To listen to the Commission meeting over the telephone dial:

  1-916-233-0780 or toll free 1-888-296-6828

  Passcode: 847670# (required for both call in numbers)




  I. Committee of the Whole 9:00 - 10:00

  List of 6 items

  . Reappointment of Commissioners

  . Vice Chair Selection

  . Reports on Commissioner Activities

  . Issues/Questions from Previous Meeting

  . Director's 2009 Evaluation

  . Other

  list end




  II. Call to Order, Roll Call, and Determination of Quorum - Ms. Jo Ann Pilarski, Chairperson 10:00 - 10:15


  III. Approval of September 18, 2009 Meeting Minutes - MCB Board


  IV. Approval of November 5, 2009 Special Meeting Minutes - MCB Board


  V. Approval of Director's 2009 Evaluation - MCB Board


  VI. Board Correspondence


  VII. PUBLIC COMMENT** 10:15 - 10:30


  VIII. Welcome Library Services for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (SBPH) to the Commission - Sue Chinault 10:30 - 10:50


  IX. Presentation of MCB Honor Roll Awards 10:50 - 12:00


  LUNCH (Note: Lunch provided to award winners and their guests, commissioners and attending staff) 12:00 - 1:00


  X. PUBLIC COMMENT** 1:00 - 1:15


  XI. Update on the National Agenda for Education of Children and Youth with Visual Impairments, Brunhilde Merk-Adam, National Co-Chair 1:15 - 1:45


  XII. Administrative Reports 1:45 - 3:00

  List of 5 items (contains 2 nested lists)

  . Consumer Services Report - Mr. Leamon Jones, Consumer Services Director

  List of 1 items nesting level 1

  . Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) with Institutions of Higher Education (IHE)

  list end nesting level 1

  . Business Enterprise Program Report - Ms. Constance Zanger, BEP Manager

  . Elected Operators Committee Report - Mr. James Chaney

  List of 6 items nesting level 1

  . Motion #1: The Attorney General's opinion on the position paper is referred to the Policy, Manual and Rules Subcommittee for review. (Information Only)

  . Motion #2: An operator voluntarily leaving the program and then returning to the program more than three years later retains their initial years of service

  for purposes of the Operator Selection System seniority component. (Action Item)

  . Motion #3: The EOC adopted an updated Vending Facility Evaluation for a 2 year trail period. The EOC will assess the value of the instrument after the

  first year of its use. (Information Only)

  . Motion #4: The EOC adopted an updated initial inventory policy for a 1 year trial period at which time its value will be assessed. (Action Item)

  . Motion #5: Bill Younce and Garent Prentice are awarded mandatory training points for attending the 2000 Annual EOC Workshop. (Information Only)

  . Motion #6: Install Sharon Nelson as the temporary operator of the convenience store at the McNamara Federal Building. (Information Only)

  list end nesting level 1

  . Training Center Report - Mr. Bruce Schultz, Assistant Training Center Director

  . Director's Report - Mr. Patrick Cannon, State Director

  list end


  XIII. Adjournment 3:00


  **NOTE: Public comment may be submitted during the meeting from 9:30-12:00 via email to

  mcbpubliccomments at comcast.net .

  Emails received outside of this time frame are not considered part of Public Comment.


  The meeting site is accessible. Individuals attending the meeting are requested to refrain from using heavily scented personal care products in order to

  enhance accessibility for everyone. People with disabilities requiring additional accommodations (such as materials in alternative format) in order to

  participate in the meeting should call Sue Luzenski at 517/335-4265 by December 7, 2009.



More information about the nfbmi-talk mailing list