[nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission (thelongversion)

rehahnanimallover at att.net rehahnanimallover at att.net
Sun Feb 26 06:09:38 CST 2012


I agree.  Let's try and work with the new people and show them who we are. 
Then I belive they will be receptive and listen to us--the blind the NFB of 
Michigan.

-----Original Message----- 
From: J.J. Meddaugh
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 3:00 AM
To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission 
(thelongversion)

Fred,
I appreciate the thoughtful reply to Mark's comments and wish others would
be as level-headed as you when approaching this issue instead of just
spouting off hatred which gets us nowhere. I understand initial reactions
were filled with dismay, but it's time to now look forward and turn this
into a positive instead of a negative.

Frankly, based on the current governmental client in Michigan, I am not at
all surprised at what has happened and we probably should have seen it
coming.
What we are basically all in agreement on is the ineptness in which the MCB
has operated for the past decade or more. I understand the knee-jerk
reaction to just blast the governor for what has happened. After all, it's
not the solution that any of us had hoped for. but I believe it's also
important to examine this from a different lense. We are unsure as to who
will be in charge of the former MCB staff. Perhaps if there is a new person
in charge, they will be more willing to listen to us or to work with us.
There is also a possible opportunity to serve on this new advisory board
that has been created. On the other hand, if MRS continues to have just as
many problems as the MCB, this is exactly what our current governor loves to
fix. If MRS is terrible at managing a budget or creating positive change,
then he may be just as interested in fixing this as well, which could
ultimately be to our benefit.
In the shortterm, we can propose some changes which will be in our best
interest. The governor is all about transparency and publishing results.
Let's push him to bring his dashboard concept to MRS and the agencies
serving the blind. This will give an additional layer of accountability and
give us information which we can use to take to the media on the success or
failure of the program.
Also, it would not be in our best interest to automatically antagonize the
new person in charge of the former MCB staff, especially if it is an
outsider. It is not a good idea for us to assume they are out to hurt us.
Things like Newsline and Camp T funding become posibilities with positive
dialog. Now, if the new person is about as effective as the old, then by all
means admonish them for it. But let's not jump to conclusions.
That is what I fear some of the people on this list are doing, and this will
only hurt us in the end.




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at att.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission (the
longversion)


> Hello Mark,
>
> Thank you for the measured reply to my pointed response to your message. I
> have been involved with this issue since the mid '70's.  I was there when
> Governor Milliken signed P.A. 260.  I believe P.A. 260 was a pretty good
> piece of legislation given the constitutional constraints here in 
> Michigan.
> I was annoyed that someone who, to my knowledge, has never worked with
> others to make changes was so confidently telling us all what we had done
> wrong and how we had created the problem.  I apologize if I overreacted 
> and
> wish to explain, probably in too lengthy a post, my perspective on the
> matter.  It is easy to Monday-morning quarterback.  Not so easy to work
> nearly every day to do one's best to creat an agency that will create jobs
> and opportunities for first-class citizenship for blind people, even if
> mistakes were made.
>
> I have been away from the computer all afternoon.  It seems there is a lot
> of interest in this topic and you have certainly raised some points that
> have struck some nerves.  This is good.  Until we can all have some
> concensus about what happened, Why it happened we will not be able to set 
> a
> direction in which to proceed.
>
> First, are we, the consumers, the cause or the victims here.  My opinion 
> is
> clear.  We, the consumers did not cause this to happen.  In my view 2
> unfortunate forces converged within MCB.  First, generally speaking the
> field of rehabilitation of blind people is arcane and thus not well
> understood by the vast majority of public adninistrators.  It is the job 
> of
> the agency administrator and other influencial parties to articulate this 
> to
> decision-makers in order to direct public policy in favor of positive
> rehabilitation outcomes.  Second,
>
> Second, unfortunately, MCB was directed by an inept, uneducated and
> self-promoting director.  I almost said ineffective.  This would have been
> wrong.  When he had a personal goal he was quite effective in attaining 
> it.
> It even appears that he used some of this effectiveness to make positive
> changes.  He orchestrated the move of MCB from the welfare agency to the
> Labor department.  Second and even more important, he was able to acquire 
> a
> better split of federal funding between MRS and MCB.  Tragically, Larry 
> Best
> died about that time and there wer no more such beneficial outcomes for 
> MCB
> within state government.  It was Larry Best who managed the budget and was
> liason among various departments including between the Labor finance 
> people
> and MCB.  The MCB Director has no financial acumen and ceded all authority
> to the Department finance people following Larry's death.
>
> I have my view of the appropriate role for the MCB Board.  I agree with
> those who argue that the Board is not to micro-manage life on a daily 
> basis
> for MCB staff.  The board , clearly to me, has a role to set good policy
> based on sound management practices and sound rehabilitation principles.
> The board needs to see to it that the director is the conduit between 
> these
> 2 segments of the agency. This is where the constraints of the Michigan
> Constitution get in the way.  P.A. 260 was  a little too ambiguous on the
> ability of the board to manage the Director.
>
> The Director inappropriately acquired too much power over the board by
> manipulating the appointment process and then emasculated the board by
> controlling the agendas, the information they received and partitioning 
> them
> from training about the budget, the laws and their role.
>
> You characterized the board as amateurish.  I do not see it that way.The
> most recent board was demanding data.  Data like the costs for closing 
> cases
> either successful or unsuccessful.  The numbers of intakes and training
> information about the agency's clientele.  They were demanding apropriate
> legal counsel on those arcane points of law that they were responsible to
> carry out.  To me, this is very professional and appropriate.  It was also
> not in the interest of the Director who wished to keep the Board out of 
> the
> loop on what is happening.
>
> On 1 major point, the board was pushing hard to improve the training of 
> the
> rehabilitation staff.  Again, even in the general field of rehabilitation,
> blindness rehabilitation is specialized and different from the general
> agency.  Most of MCB's new-hires were from MRS or did not have much if any
> blindness training or experience.  This was leading to poor services and 
> the
> proposal of poor  and even illegal policies for the agency.  To me it is
> totally appropriate for the board to advocate for quality and targeted
> training.
>
> Now come a whole batch of new administrators with the new administration.
> They see the tension and even hostility created by the Director's 
> inability
> to manage the agency and immediately, as if following an ages-old script 
> of
> paternalistic knee-jerk reactions.  The blame the clientele for being
> dissatisfied instead of grateful that anyone would throw them a few 
> crumbs.
> They, despite much evidence, were unwilling or unable to directly manage 
> the
> Director.  They followed, quite logically, but very wrongly the course as
> you described.  They said well these people are unhappy.  We'll show them
> how it is going to be because we know about administration and never mind
> the purpose of the agency.  We'll figure out a better way and tell those
> amateurish ungrateful poor blind incapable children how it is going to be.
> It was an unprofessional, imature and emotional reaction, but here we are.
>
> now what to do.  Assuming, and I have no reason except my initial reaction
> to your earler post, to believe you have only good intentions.  You point
> out our major weakness.  It is a communication and marketing problem. We
> have a great product.  We want good-paying jobs for lots of successful 
> blind
> people.  Blind people who can live independetly, contribute to the
> community, support their families, pay taxes and be good citizens.  This
> seems like a great product and an easy sell.  Now, our task is to create a
> mechanism to make the product.  This process is nuanced and has it's own
> technology which has been proven, but is mainly unknown to the ordinary
> citizen, administrator or policy maker.  How do we insert such a system 
> into
> state government in a way to get our outcomes and meet the needs of the
> political system?  To me, an astute politician would jump at the chance to
> create such an agency given the positive benefits of success.  We need to
> figure out how to sell such a process to the decision makers.
>
> This is where we all are.  We, the NFB, are a civil rights movement.  We
> view events and actions through this lens.  We are flexible, but in the 
> end,
> to us it is all about equality and equal opportunity.  Any solution or
> course of action will need to take this perspective into account.  Among 
> our
> goals is the means of acquisition of jobs and full participation in 
> society.
> A government agency cannot fully accomplish these goals, but it can create
> opportunities and conditions to make it happen.  I hope you and others can
> come together with us to figure this out.  It will not be easy.  The only
> people who like to be changed are wet babies.  Our governor has created
> change.  It is now up to us to reassert ourselves and retake the change
> process for blind people.  I, for 1 am confident we can do it.  I also
> believe it will take some time and a lot of hard work in the halls of the
> legislature and on the streets.
>
> If you made it this far, thank you for your attention.  I look forward to 
> a
> spirited and productive conversation about how to deal with what seems a
> tragic turn of events.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Fred
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf of Mark Smith
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 1:14 PM
> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission
>
> Hello Fred,
> I am not gloating nor am I being smug, I apologize if this is how my
> Previous message came across.  I am seeing the forest for the trees, 
> calling
> the cards as they have fallen.  Frankly as a advocate for persons with
> disabilities and a person with a visual impairment myself it pains me 
> deeply
> to see the mantel of authority for a esteemed agency be passed to a
> department that is not solely vested to do the work for our community. The
> fact is that the group who is the most vocal in our state has not chosen 
> to
> come to the table so to say like adults.
> When someone who is not deeply vested or has immersed themselves in
> Michigan blind  politics views the situation,  What they see is  a group 
> of
> squabbling children. When an outside elected official views the situation
> along with the  dialog from the consumer groups, finally mixing the recent
> reports the facts do not mesh.  As with any good parent you fire the baby
> sitter and hire a new one.  This is what is happening now.
> The primary purpose of MCB is to empower persons who are blind or
> have a visual impairment so that they can become taxpaying citizens. 
> Please
> do not forget this fact,  do not cloak it in pretty words.  The old 
> analogy
> is to, give a person a fish they eat for a day.  Teach a person to fish 
> and
> they can eat for the rest of their life.  How many times do some people 
> need
> to be re-taught to fish?  I had once heard a quote from  Einstein he  said
> that "to do the same experiment over and over, expecting a different 
> result
> is insanity."  So things needed to be changed, with the lack of a 
> productive
> plan our governor provided one.  I certainly do  not feel that this was a
> proper course of action or positive development for our community. However
> I am capable of reading the table as it is set right now.
> I choose to see this as an opportunity to make a break from the old
> ways.  The castle building that you describe is always going to be in our
> government, this will only change when the fundamental system is altered.
> You are not keeping in mind though that the government is being shrunk and
> only the strong nobles will remain standing after the hammer stops 
> swinging.
> Consolidation and making the system as cost effective as possible is the
> mantra today.  This move as I mentioned in my previous message is the most
> logical for the government now.  The thought of your destruction of civil
> liberties was never part of the decision process.  You are making it
> personal when it is not so. Come to the table in the frame of mind to make
> things work for the community, solidarity is the answer and the point of
> power right now.
> Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Fred Wurtzel
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:52 AM
> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> I do not know who you are.  You sure sound smug and a little gloating.  I
> guess we ought to expect this from people who do not understand the nature
> of why there is an agency for the blind.  It is not simply a conduit to
> spread federal money to self-interested bureaucrats for their 
> agrandizement
> and empire building.  This money is to empower people who have little or 
> no
> power.  It is exactly this lack of power that allows the faint
> acknowledgement of people's goals for first-class citizenship to be so
> casually disposed of.  This is 1 more insult and insult to blind people in 
> a
> landscape of centuries of similar insults.  We have dignity and we will 
> not
> accept this as our fate.  We have fought this fight before and we will 
> fight
> it again.  We may suffer other setbacks, but we will not ever give up on
> recognition of our right to first-class citizenship.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Mark Smith
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 11:14 AM
> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission
>
> Hello Larry,
> Both groups advocated this move by proxy.  If no one provides a
> positive critically thought out solution, you are part of the problem.  I
> have more than 500 messages from this list from the past few months that
> absolutely unequivocally call for the destruction of MCB in its current
> incarnation.  I do not see one positive critically thought out solution. I
> see only the rare call by Christine boone providing a bit of well thought
> out clarification or if necessary admonishment of a member in a gentle and
> kind way.
> Coming from the business world this move that the Governor is taking
> appears to be a  solid one.  He is taking what appears publically to be 
> two
> agencies that are not functioning in an efficient manor, moving them to 
> the
> most logical place where they will leverage the assets of one another 
> along
> with enhancing their own already established organizations.  In addition 
> the
> removal of a program that has smelled of nepotism and insider trading  is
> being placed where it makes the most logical sense, the department who
> handles the states ways and means.
> Only a short sighted person would or could say that the MCB board is
> NOT the most dysfunctional group that has ever existed.  One only has to 
> sit
> in a meeting for about two minutes to realize that it is run by amateurs 
> and
> attended by a group of circus clowns.  The lack of human dignity and 
> respect
> alone calls for its destruction.  The most eloquent and efficient way to 
> do
> this is to dismantle the entire organization.  Take what is working, give 
> it
> to a different management team,, then eliminate the parts that are
> disfunctioning , establish a new legally appointed board to satisfy the 
> law,
> and move on.
> So you got your wish, the change that you have been calling for is
> here.  The bureaucrats in this state are currently hunkering under their
> desks right now just wondering where the next hammer blow is going to come
> from.  The word on the street is that no one has seen this many laws fly
> through the legislature this fast  in a very long time.  Go lawyer up and
> bring up a case.  Before it gets anywhere , you will see the law change.
> The most interesting evidence for the promotion of that change  will be 
> your
> own words and arguments that you have been lodging against MCB for oh 
> about
> the last ten years or so.
> The only question left is; is this going to be good for the blind
> and persons with visual impairment community in our state?  This is a very
> treacherous and mine field ridden question.  On one hand if it is business
> as usual I think that it is going to be very bad for our community.  I 
> feel
> that the credibility is in the toilet bowl and the voice is horse, people
> are sick of hearing the bitching and griping without any real answers that
> call for bringing the community together.  On the other hand it could be
> something that rises like a phoenix from the fires of destruction welding
> our community together in a positive way.  Power is in solidarity not in
> division.  Stop the juvenile antics and come to the table like 
> professionals
> with critically thought out questions and possible reasonable solutions,
> ready to negotiate and give and take a little.  Sound a lot like what our
> federal government should do as well. Lol Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
> On Behalf Of Larry D. Keeler
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:01 AM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Decentralization of the Commission
>
> It is my oppinion that none of us from iether organization of blind
> comsumers advocates this shocking move by our estemed Governor.  I didn't
> nor will ever vote for him.  That aside, to my knowledge, NFB never
> advocated the abolishment of the Commission.  We constantly called for
> reform in order to serv its clients, blind folks the way it waas meant to.
> I am stunned that this is happening!  I am not really sorry about its
> director being out of a job but otherwise, I think this is appalling!  How
> can us blind folks fight for ourselves when our services will be devided
> across the board?  If our Board of Commissioners is abolished, how can we
> continue having a real say in how our tazx dollars get spent on blindness?
> I also know many folks in the Commission who are decent folks and truely
> want to better our lot.  Having dealt with DHS in a semiproffessional and
> personal capacity, I truely don't have a clue how they plan to have access
> to the services they are supposed to be providing.  And what of BEP?  For
> all its faults, it has provided many blind folks iether with a means to 
> make
> a living or as a start to move up and really be able to contribute to the
> tax pool.  Again, I want to make it clear that in my perception, us in NFB
> never!! called for decentralization!!  I believe we will always fight
> against coruption and abuse of the system whereever it occurs!  Dhis
> decentralization is disastrous for all of us!
> Intelligence is always claimed but rarely proven!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mark.smithyman60%40g
> mail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f.wurtzel%40att.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/mark.smithyman60%40g
> mail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f.wurtzel%40att.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/jj%40bestmidi.com
>


_______________________________________________
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/rehahnanimallover%40att.net 





More information about the nfbmi-talk mailing list