[nfbmi-talk] cannon evaluation w comments

[joe harcz Comcast]

2011 Michigan Commission for the Blind Board

Performance Evaluation of Director

based on

Objectives and Competencies Approved December 2010

 

The Commissioners of the Michigan Commission for the Blind have evaluated the agency director and found that he is performing below expectations in almost every area.  Our overall average of ratings for objectives and competencies is 1.35.  

 

This low rating continues a downward trend over the past 4 years.  In 2008, the director received a performance evaluation rating of 2.8.  In 2009, the rating was 2.55.  Last year, the rating was 2.1, and this year the trend has continued.  

 

Order of commissioner comments is rotated randomly throughout document.  

 

Objectives

The commissioners’ average rating for the director’s objectives is 1.38, below expectations.

 

 

Objective 1:  The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) conducted its monitoring review of the Commission in 2009 and submitted its final report to MCB November 5, 2010.  The final RSA report included eight findings which require corrective actions by the agency and MCB staff will be working with RSA’s designated liaison on a regular basis to provide technical assistance in the development of these actions and monitor progress.  The agency director will provide monthly updates to commissioners on interactions with RSA and resulting compliance, beginning January 29, 2011 and post final corrective action plans on the website.  

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·        The RSA report stated what actions of MCB were required.  There was no need to wait months for approval of a plan, in my opinion.

·        I believe there is not enough detail given to Commissioners on a monthly basis through email to evaluate that this progress has been made between RSA and the Commission staff.

·        Monthly emails give no information about efforts toward compliance.  

 

 

Objective 2:  Develop a comprehensive board orientation packet and program that insures that a new board member understands their role clearly.

§                                            Solicit information from the board, consumers, staff, and administrators as to what elements should be included in a comprehensive board orientation packet-program by March, 2011.

§                                            Propose a comprehensive board orientation packet-program to the board for approval by the June 2011 meeting. 

§                                            Implement the board orientation packet-program when ever a new board member is appointed to the board prior to their first board meeting.

§                                            Work with DELEG and DTMB to ensure that each new board member receives a state e-mail address for board correspondence only within 10 days of a commissioner being sworn in. 

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·        I believe this has been done partially. Packets really do not explain clearly that the Board is a policy making Board and not an advisory Board.  The Attorney General’s Office has told the Board that we are a policy making Board under Public Act 260. The management team of the Agency perpetuates the notion to staff that we are merely advisory rather than policy making. I believe that email addresses were provided, but not within the ten day criteria.

·        There has been a year long struggle for Commissioners to get information.  It would be even worse for a new Commissioner. 

·        There is no evidence that the director sought consumer input.  Email accounts took 5 months to set up.

 

 

 

Objective 3:  Plan and conduct up to three in-service workshops for commissioners on subjects chosen by commissioners, such as the Randolph-Sheppard Act, the range of transition services provided to consumers and/or agency interactions and collaborations with senior organizations and agencies, Veterans organizations, etc. Presentations would be conducted by MCB staff and, in some instances, as appropriate, external partners may be utilized as warranted.  The workshops could be scheduled adjacent to commission meetings in March, June, September or December to help minimize costs

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 2

Comments: 

·   This has not been followed. An ignorant Board is an ineffective Board.

·   The workshops were done, but not as effectively as they

could have been.

 

 

Objective 4:  Work with DELEG to secure a facilitator to continue the work of the BEP/EOC Ad HOC Committee and facilitate the MCB Planning and Quality (PAQ) Team through September, 2011.  The facilitator will help plan and conduct six meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and four PAQ Team Meetings, beginning in January, 2011.  Progress reports on the efforts of these two committees will be provided to commissioners quarterly.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 2.33

Comments: 

·        These were met. I do not believe this was met as much with

the PAQ Committee as with other committees.

·        This Commissioner has not been involved, however, comments from involved Commissioners seem to indicate movement in this area. 

 

 

Objective 5:  Continue the work of the agency’s committee to review and improve staff training, particularly training of new agency staff.  The committee also includes representation from the MCB Consumer Involvement Council (CIC), the Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired (MCBVI) and the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) of Michigan.  The committee’s works includes a focus on enhancing the understanding of blindness and issues facing blind persons, which is intended to assist staff in serving clients most effectively.  The progress on the committee’s recommendations will be reported to Commissioners quarterly, with its final report to Commissioners in December, 2011.  

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·        Action in this area is too slow.  A major concern is Newsline, which can serve to greatly enhance access to current events and employment opportunities.

·        I believe that the internal committee on training staff has failed totally because of the attitudes and beliefs of those representing the Agency in these meetings. Individuals attend the meetings and agree on items, but make trouble later via email. They will not speak out in the meeting. Staff Training is one of our most crucial long term items to address.

·        Director did not embrace consumer intent for this committee.  While survey produced may be helpful, much more work is needed.

 

 

Objective 6: Demonstrate strong commitment to performance appraisal and feedback through the development of goals and objectives and performance expectations; provide fair and objective performance evaluations; ensure timely submission of evaluations for subordinate staff and/or self evaluations.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments: 

·        The courts have shown that the director has made unfair decisions in firing staff.  Uneven services and unclear policies statewide show that performance expectations are not clearly communicated to staff.  Firing and subsequent rehiring of training center director has had a chilling effect on staff.  We were given no information on other areas of this objective before evaluation.

·        The continuous flow of complaints regarding phone calls, advocacy by CAP, and negative attitudes of staff members, particularly in the Southeast Michigan area is troubling. 

·        Hiring and firing practices have been unequal in the last year. It is obvious that individuals are evaluated differently due to political affiliations.  Firing and subsequent rehiring of training center director has had a chilling effect on staff.  We were given no information on other areas of this objective before evaluation

 

 

Objective 7:  Provide positive direction in the implementation of EEO programs, such as EEO, Diversity, Discriminatory Harassment, and ADA, through training and monitoring, in order to ensure compliance with all federal and state civil rights statutes.  Also ensure that equitable practices are adhered to in the areas of selection, hiring, assignments, discipline, and training.  Demonstrate commitment to workplace safety through the establishment of safety policies, procedures, and safe working conditions.  Respond timely to reporting requirements for information on these practices.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·        The disparity in services between the East and West sides of the state, misrepresenting the Law, Promulgated Rules, and other Civil rights violation by certain staff is intolerable.  The responsibility for such falls on the Director.

·        Training center director was unfairly fired.  Patterns of inequitable practices are evident.  

·        The Director has totally failed in complying with ADA standards.  Examples include: meeting rooms and accessibility of information in a timely manner and a lack of information being sent in the preferred medium of each client. There is a lack of equity in hiring, discipline, promoting, and firing and training of Agency staff. This is found in all aspects of the Agency, not selectively in one branch.

 

 

Competencies

Commissioner’s average rating on 16 competencies = 1.31, below expectations

 

1.          ADAPTABILITY: Maintaining effectiveness when experiencing major changes in personal work tasks or the work environment; adjusting effectively to work within new work structures, processes, requirements, or cultures.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments:

·        The chaos in the BEP program and the misadventures surrounding the MCBTC are strong indicators of systemic problems.  The fact that they continue shows indifference at best and only personal malice can be considered worse. 

·        When adversity occurs the director strikes out to look good and everyone else must take the blame.

·        There are major problems in BEP and with budgets, and with RSA monitoring and CAP, and no evidence of anything other than a wait and see attitude.  

 

 

2.          ALIGN PERFORMANCE FOR SUCCESS: Focusing and guiding others in accomplishing work objectives.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments: 

·        The RSA report of 2009 clearly shows a lack of direction.  Waiting all year to move forward in a positive way means basically no change has occurred.

·        I do not see the Director performing this task.

·        We have heard from staff that the simple issue of returning phone calls is an intractable problem.  Leadership is lacking, so others cannot follow and achieve work objectives.  

 

     

3.          BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS: Identifying opportunities and taking action to build strategic relationships between one's area and other areas, teams, departments, units, or organizations to help achieve business goals.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.66

Comments: 

·        There are serious partnership issues with consumer groups, increasingly adversarial tone of the agency, lacking referrals to youth programs, catering issues ignored.  The director is not forming partnerships desired by the agency’s customers, blind consumers.     

·        The Director works well in this area when the individuals involved have good, long term relationships. However, individuals who have criticism for the Agency or clients who are meant to be served by the Agency do not receive exemplary service. The Director does this well when it benefits him.

·        There has been a showing of skill in this area.  Perhaps a bit too much.  I believe the presence of a MCB manager on the board of an agency ordered severed from partnership with MCB by the RSA is impolitic and reprehensible.

 

 

4.                BUILDING TRUST: Interacting with others in a way that gives them confidence in one's intentions and those of the organization.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·   The issue of trust in the State Agency for the Blind is questioned by many people. Actions of the Director affect all individuals concerned, from staff to clients.  The Director bullies his staff to make him look good and the staff not so good.  The trust in the Agency is at the lowest level since I have been around the Agency.  This is a close knit community.  Everyone knows that what happens in the Commission for the Blind affects all blind citizens of Michigan.

·   In every area that we can measure, trust is eroding.  Closed and cancelled meetings are a concern.  Illegal aspects of the college policy ended only through consumer pressure and board action.

·   The reversals of decisions on the appeal level and the rumor of an atmosphere of fear shows much need for improvement. 

 

 

5.          COMMUNICATION: Clearly conveying and receiving information and ideas through a variety of media to individuals or groups in a manner that engages the audience, helps them understand and retain the message, and permits response and feedback from the listener.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments: 

·        The Director presents well and has an excellent Public Relations person, but does not respond well to negative feedback.

·        The Director’s skill in discourse is impressive, but the endless complaints abut the same problems, clearly indicates there is little substance in his words. 

·        The director suggests that consumers call him when they have a problem, but does not return calls.  Manager indicates that there is no solution to intractable phone call problems.  Leadership is needed here.

 

 

6.          CUSTOMER FOCUS: Making customers and their needs a primary focus of one's actions; developing and sustaining productive customer relationships.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments:

·        There have been successes, but those who succeed too often seem to succeed in spite of some counselors.  The letter from one customer calling MCB the “Michigan Commission Against the Blind” clearly shows a need for improvement. 

·        The correct words are spoken but there is no follow through.

·        The agency has reduced its goal for competitive case closures by 15% since 2000.  The director has not embraced consumer input. 

 

 

7.          DECISION MAKING: Identifying and understanding issues, problems, and opportunities; comparing data from different sources to draw conclusions; using effective approaches for choosing a course of action or developing appropriate solutions; taking action that is consistent with available facts, constraints, and probable consequences.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments: 

·        Director did not provide examples of success in this area, and decisions we have seen indicate eroding trust between agency and consumers.

·        I believe the Director does this well to get by in a given situation but does not do well in situations where he is not comfortable.  For example, the Director does not show competency in some skills of blindness.

 

 

8.          DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY: Allocating decision-making authority and/or task responsibility to appropriate others to maximize the organization's and individual's effectiveness.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments: 

·        Delegation gives the director someone else to blame when lack of leadership is really the issue.

·        When there are constant complaints about a delegatee, it is incumbent upon the delegator to investigate and take corrective action when required.

·        Authority is only given to staff if that authority will allow them to take the blame and the Director to appear faultless.  For example, many problems in the Business Enterprise Program over the last three to five years exhibit this trend.

 

 

9.          DEVELOPING A SUCCESSFUL TEAM: Using appropriate methods and flexible interpersonal style to help develop a cohesive team; facilitating the completion of team goals.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.66

Comments: 

·        As long as the team building goes his way.

·        The present teams seem to be operating efficiently.  The year end results of “real” customer successful closure is yet to be seen.

 

 

10.     FACILITATING CHANGE: Encouraging others to seek opportunities for different and innovative approaches to addressing problems and opportunities, facilitating the implementation and acceptance of change within the workplace.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·        As long as the Director can take credit for the change, it is encouraged. An example of this is using stimulus money for internships. This was a good program. Another example involves two separate training committees for staff. One is internal and the other is the Ad Hoc committee through the Commission Board. Many times the staff will not supply input during meetings but will write up concerns in emails that question what the Committee is doing between meetings.  There is a lack of sincerity because of fear of intimidation from the Director. The Director may or may not like the direction of either training Committee.

·        As stated earlier, there seems to be no appreciable change as demanded by RSA.  

·        The agency has more federal money to spend than ever before, yet we have reduced our goal for closing cases competitively.  Field manager remains on board of agency cited for questionable practices with regard to federal money spent.  

 

 

11.     INNOVATION: Generating innovative solutions; trying different and novel ways to deal with work problems and opportunities.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.66

Comments:

·        I believe that the Director does have a tendency to do these things.

·        We had no new ideas to fund in RSA category of innovative practices.  Illegal firing and subsequent rehiring of training center director has had a chilling effect on new ideas in the agency.

 

 

12.     LEADING THROUGH VISION/VALUES: Keeping the organization's vision and values at the forefront of associate decision-making and action.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1

Comments: 

·        There does not appear to be a goal change, at least in the BEP program.  It is worsening.  

·        Agency should be both consumer and public-oriented.  Instead the agency is staff-focused in its outlook. 

·        The director does not present clear enough agency direction.  Many people perceive that skills of blindness should be provided by the agency so that blind individuals can become employed tax paying citizens. Currently, the agency gives just enough blindness skills to allow a person enough independence to collect Supplemental Security Income instead of being an employed tax paying citizen.

 

 

13.     PLANNING AND ORGANIZING WORK:  Establishing courses of action for self and staff to ensure that work is completed efficiently.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments:

·        The staff generally seems to do, what it does, well.  In some respects, it is quite impressive.  On the other hand, it is overwhelmingly clear that a course change is necessary.  This is obviously the responsibility of the director. 

·        Many projects are started without much follow through and eventually the new project gets dropped altogether. This is extremely common in the BEP program.

·        Catering issue seems to have been dropped.  It is not clear that change in college policy has been adopted.  Field staff apply policies unevenly across the state, a leadership and training issue for all staff.

 

 

14.     STRATEGIC PLANNING: Obtaining information and identifying key issues and relationships relevant to achieving a long-range goal or vision; committing to a course of action to accomplish a long-range goal or vision after developing alternatives based on logical assumptions, facts, available resources, constraints, and organizational values.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.66

Comments: 

·        Strategic plan objectives 8 (pay equities), 11 (transition age youth), and 13 (Vision 2020) initiative have not been adequately addressed.  Agency displays lack of enthusiasm to use 2020 listserv constructively.  Agency is reactive rather than proactive in most areas.

·        Vision 2020 in principle has lofty goals.  I believe the right attitude on the part of customers, staff, stakeholders, can make a difference in societal attitudes, but there are miles to go within MCB.

·        Most if not all of the 2020 objectives regarding improving the operation of the agency were ignored.  Some of the ideas were brought up a second time and ignored again.  There are no long term goals for the agency.

 

 

15.     TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE/SKILL: Possessing, acquiring, and maintaining the technical/professional expertise required to do the job effectively and to create customer solutions.  Technical/professional expertise is demonstrated through problem solving, applying technical knowledge, and product and service management for the functional area in which one operates.

 

Commissioners’ average rating: 1.33

Comments:

·        Director does not appear to have some of the basic skills of blindness that a leader of his position should have.  Director is not a role model with low or high tech.  

·        The Director has impressed me with his general knowledge of rehab, however, he lacks a lot of technical knowledge.  I believe he could make a big difference, if he relied on the talented, gifted, dedicated, people with knowledge for guidance, rather than surround himself with those who will tell him what they think he wants to hear.

 


16.  VALUING DIVERSITY & INCLUSION: Actively appreciating and including the diverse capabilities, insights, and ideas of others and working effectively and respectfully with individuals and groups of diverse backgrounds, styles, abilities, and motivations.  

 

Commissioners’ average rating:  1.33

Comments:

·   Disrespectful attitude toward consumers is pervasive.  Uneven delivery of services statewide indicates inclusion is not practiced.  See objective 7 above.