[nfbmi-talk] dec 8 9 mcb draft minutes
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Sat Jan 14 00:44:27 UTC 2012
DRAFT
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2011
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2011
VICTOR OFFICE CENTER
201 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, 3rd FLOOR
CONFERENCE ROOM A/B
LANSING, MICHIGAN
MINUTES
Thursday, December 8
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Mr. Larry Posont Ms. Lydia Schuck
Mr. John Scott
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
There are 2 Commissioner vacancies.
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF PRESENT
Mr. Pat Cannon Ms. Sue Luzenski
Ms. Susan Turney Ms. Julia Burdgick
Ms. Elsie Duell Ms. Constance Zanger
Mr. James Hull Mr. Josh Hoskins
Ms. Carla Haynes Mr. Bob Robertson
GUESTS/ATTENDEES
Mr. Steve Easley Mr. Dave Robinson
Mr. Fred Wurtzel Mr. Terry Eagle
Mr. Maryann Robinson Mr. Joe Sontag
Mr. James Chaney Ms. Camille Chaney
Mr. Mark Rothenhauser Ms. Hazell Brooks
Mr. Tom Warren Ms. Debbie Taylor
The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was determined.
Attendees introduced themselves both in person and on the phone. Commissioner Posont stated that participants are not obligated to introduce themselves.
Public Comment (Verbatim Transcript)
Mr. Joe Sontag: Hello, Joe Sontag and I just wanted to say that, it’s just my humble opinion but I’m very concerned about things happening in the Business Enterprise Program as usual, not only with respect to my situation, which by the way, has not changed in the slightest since the last meeting or previous. But, with a number of things, the hearings that we are going to be hearing today only show that we have a mighty long way to go as an agency before we can hold ourselves out as the exemplar of what people are capable of doing. What the Business Enterprise Program really is, what it should be and what kind, what kind of service we can provide, what kind of standards we can hold ourselves to and what kind of standards, what kind of service we offer to the community. I also think it’s extremely sad when a staff member of the Business Enterprise Program during public comment at the last Elected Operators Committee program which took place last weekend was observed Christmas shopping as opposed to absorbing the public comment. Perhaps this is why, this is one reason why we have so many recurring difficulties. I also have to say that I must be one of the stupidest operators that there’s ever been because I, not for saying what I just did, but for doing what I did in the past, attempted to run my location in accordance with the agreements that I signed, with the rules and regulations that I learned and so forth. Just as an example, this is from a location that I am very familiar with. If anyone here in this room can explain to me how an operator could show $9,134 in sales and pay only $74.00 in sales tax this is with the understanding that snack bar operations pay typically sales tax based on 47% of their gross sales. Do the math. The number owed under best case conditions is far higher, it’s more like $258 if you round up. And, at this point because there are others, I know we have technical difficulties with the phone, I will yield the balance of my time.
Ms. Hazell Brooks: Hello? Hazell Brooks here. I did have a public comment, a couple things, I just talked to my promotional agent, about a situation that’s going on in Grand Towers and it has to do with the PA 260 and the illegal catering. And, and over the last couple of months work out a deal with some of the, people that are bringing in the outside food that we get. Some kind of financial remuneration for the number of people they have and the amount of what they pay for the catering. I’d like for us to try to go forward and set some kind of standard so the operator doesn’t really have to, pretty much, absorb the labor cost, the food cost and everything for that particular day. I’ve been very successful with that but I really do need the Agency, for us to sit down and maybe develop some kind of plan or develop some kind of language. Not to say its right because it is against Randolph Sheppard but, you know, a lot of the agencies are not, you know, adhering to the PA 260 or Randolph Sheppard. My concerns again, I’m very passionate about PA 260, as you all know, that we can actually have some discussion, some dialogue, I think it’s been kind of put to bed for a minute but I’d like to reiterate some talk in terms of PA 260. Thanks.
Business Enterprise Program (BEP)
Report from BLAST conference
Mr. James Chaney, EOC Chair reported on the trip to the BLAST conference, which was outstanding containing a plethora of information, learning opportunities and times for socializing. He shared that this opportunity should be made available every year and open to operators and Agency representatives, including Commissioners. Mr. Chaney stated he came away with new information about how the operator works, how the Agency works and how to better his business. He added that this should become mandatory training for operators.
Ms. Hazell Brooks observed that there was overwhelming camaraderie between the operators and Agency staff from other states. She added that she came away with more information on set asides, how that money is spent and steps on how to implement spending plans, buying in bulk and getting rebates and, she added, she learned that the BEP Program, as a whole nationally, is one of the largest groups in terms of buying power. Ms. Brooks thanked the Merchants for providing the transportation to BLAST and giving the operators who did attend the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Terry Eagle, also attended BLAST, although he’s not an operator. He shared that many of the attendees he visited with remembered when Michigan was one of the top programs and now Michigan is the butt of jokes at the conference. Mr. Eagle echoed Mr. Chaney’s plea to allow all the operators to attend these conferences. He personally thanked the individuals in the room who assisted him in attending the conference. Finally, Mr. Eagle shared that he left the conference feeling at home with fellow attendees.
Commissioner Posont commented that the next BLAST conference will be held in Chicago and it would be great if more operators would be able to attend.
BEP Report
Ms. Constance Zanger, Business Enterprise Program Manager reported on the new BEP training class just finishing and stated that participants will be beginning on-the-job training the next week. Ms. Zanger gave updates on her written report including two BEP graduates from the June 2011 training class having accepted facilities, the BEP Program releasing their lease on the YMCA, the starting of the Secretary of State remodel and the utilization of temporary operators and keeping their set aside fees up to date. Ms. Zanger added that a new hire opportunity for a BEP Promotional Agent has been approved.
Discussion included questions on the current food service operation trainers the Agency has been utilizing, when the Promotional Agent position was requested and that there was no discussion at last weekend Elected Operators Committee meeting. There was also discussion about the make-up of blind and sighted temporary operators and placement of these individuals.
There was specific discussion on the issues of graduates of the June 2010 class and if there are problems because of their perceived lapse of training. Ms. Zanger reported staff is currently reviewing spreadsheets to see what, if any, further training needs to be made available to those specific operators, although additional training is always available to all operators if needed.
Elected Operators Committee Report (EOC)
Mr. James Chaney, Elected Operator Committee Chair added information about the training of the June 2010 class and the need to move forward based on the needs expressed in the surveys from those students. He also stated that the EOC needs to go in to sites and evaluate BEP sites to see if the sites aren’t making money or if it’s an operator not making money. Mr. Chaney praised James Hull for supporting a new procedure of holding a “customer appreciation/meet the operator” event when a new operator takes over a facility. He shared the operators are expected to come up with a written plan which includes what, when, the cost and the follow up plan. Mr. Chaney also stated that the EOC Ad Hoc committee has been addressing the need of operators coming to the EOC for help when it is needed.
All the EOC motions presented were “information only” for the Board.
Discussion was held about the new BEP position that was approved, whether this position was talked about at the EOC meeting held the previous weekend and why a Promotional Agent was being hired over a BEP Trainer. There was an extended discussion regarding promotional agents and balancing site visits, paperwork, monitoring and upholding the rules and regulations of the Randolph Sheppard Act and the Business Enterprise Program. Commissioner Posont expressed his opinion that a trainer is more crucial to be hired than another promotional agent. Commissioner Schuck added that she thinks the Agency is rushing to fill positions that have been vacated because of dismissal before there is resolution to the matter. There was also a discussion about the extent of the training that promotional agents go through. Director Cannon responded that filling the promotional agent position was a response of meetings held with the EOC Ad Hoc Committee where the need for more involvement and support from promotional agents was expressed. Commissioner Posont asked if the EOC can hold a meeting to discuss the filling of the BEP Trainer position.
Commissioners asked to discuss the catering issue and having three tiers of training and certification. Staff indicated that this has been discussed in meetings but has not gone any further than those initial meetings. Mr. Chaney shared that the operators feel that they go through the catering training but still have to deal with what he termed “illegal” caterings in their buildings. Director Cannon added that after a meeting with Deputy Director Arwood there was talk of creating standards and a special endorsement or certification for operators who were ready to do catering.
Mr. Rob Essenberg, Chair of the EOC Ad Hoc Committee, thanked the Commissioners for giving him the opportunity to speak. He noted that the Ad Hoc committee has had some very lively discussions in the last year and a half to two years and there are some viable solutions as a result. He added that Mr. Eagle will be compiling the recommendations as a result of all these meetings, which will be available soon. Mr. Essenberg said the latest conversations centered around creating a three tier ranking system for locations, with each tier having certification requirements that have to be met before allowing the next tier to be bid on. He added that the training component would be a modular system possibly based at the Training Center. He also touched upon the need for an individual to be in charge of equipment control for the BEP program, overseeing repairs, warehouse control, and equipment returns. Mr. Essenberg said that catering would be part of the modular system.
Commissioner Scott asked what was going to be done about the illegal catering. Mr. Chaney stated there were no repercussions for violators in PA 260. He added being competitive starts with operators receiving the right training and the correct equipment.
Terry Eagle – Board Correspondence
Mr. Terry Eagle gave a verbal report on correspondence that he had sent to the Board. He apologized for his outburst earlier, but added that the Ad Hoc Committee has not been informed of any direction which the Agency intended to take with respect to filling the position, stating that the staff lied and was disingenuous. Mr. Eagle called for the immediate dismissal of Ms. Zanger and Director Cannon. He then went on to reference correspondence he had sent to the Board which was a multi-step proposal designed to address the need for BEP training. He went on to say that it’s time the Agency hired blind people who were already skilled to provide this training. Mr. Eagle talked about equipment repairs or the lack thereof. He then spoke about BEST and how it would be better used then going to hearings.
Mr. Eagle addressed the temporary operator list and how sighted people who aren’t even on the list are being asked to fill in as temporary operators. He asked the Commissioners to consider new management from the top down.
Administrative Law Judge Order for Dismissal – Hazell Brooks
Commissioners asked for clarification on what was to be done on this ALJ Recommendation. Director Cannon stated that the Commissioners need to take some action to affirm the dismissal in order for Ms. Brooks to take any further legal action in her best interest. The ALJ did not have jurisdiction, as stated in the Order, because there was never any dollar amount stated in the claim to be awarded.
Schuck Moved TO AFFIRM THE ALJ ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; seconded by Scott
Discussion: There was no discussion.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Administrative Law Judge Recommendation – Mark Rothenhauser
Commissioner Posont reviewed the recommendation of the ALJ which is to revoke Mr. Rothenhauser’s license. He stated that it bothered him that it took 24 months for the Agency to respond.
SCOTT MOVED TO AFFIRM THE ALJ RECOMMENDATION IN THE ROTHENHAUSER CASE; SHUCK SECONDED.
Discussion: Discussion included the steps the Agency took for the revocation process. Commissioner Scott discussed exhibits and the Judges actions.
THE MOTION DID NOT PASS WITH ALL COMMISSIONERS VOTING NAY
SCHUCK MOVED THAT THE BOARD REJECT THE ALJ RECOMMENDATION IN THE ROTHENHAUSER CASE; SCOTT SECONDED
Discussion: Commissioner Schuck also expressed concern about the two year time frame. Commissioner Posont asked that the Agency utilize the Blind Entrepreneurs Support Team (BEST) and work with Mr. Rothenhauser. Commissioner Scott reiterated his concerns with this case.
THIS MOTION PASSED UANIMOUSLY.
Administrative Law Judge Recommendation – Robyn Kaye
Commissioners asked Ms. Luzenski to read the ALJ recommended decision for this case.
SCOTT MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE ALJ RECOMMENDATION; SCHUCK SECONDED
Discussion: Commissioner Posont shared that the problem with the equipment is an ongoing issue. Commissioner Scott stated he was disturbed by the hearing officer’s report by Mr. Robertson.
THIS MOTION PASSED WITH SCOTT AND SCHUCK VOTING AYE AND POSONT VOTING NAY
Training by Tom Warren
Commissioner Posont gave an overview of his understanding of the role of the Board and a policy making board. Commissioner Schuck asked that if a Board member has knowledge of something in the agency of concern that should be investigated or pursued with facts presented to support the concern where does the Board turn? Mr. Warren explained where the Commission sits within the Department. He explained that if there were difficulties between the Commissioner and staff the logical step is within the chain of command within the Department. Commissioner Scott asked how you direct the Director? Mr. Warren stated that the job of the Commission Board is the policy making body to set the policy goals. The Director’s job is to follow his position description that has been given to him by the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the extent there is conflict between what the Board desires to achieve or see accomplished by way of policy and what the MCB Director has by way of resources and abilities may or may not be harmonious from time to time. The Director may not be able to do all that the Board wishes or accomplish things that they set as the policy. He added that friction is going to exist probably all the time to the extent that you, as a Board, are doing your jobs to set high minded goals and he, as Director is doing his job to deal with personalities and training, and budget and functioning within the staff that he has to direct. Mr. Warren stated he has no magic solution as to what and how to resolve that or how you work together towards that, only to say that if it reaches the point to where you cannot find that common ground then the only avenue he sees is that you work within the structure that has been created within the Department you are placed because the Director of LARA directs the Director of the MCB staff.
Public Comment (Verbatim Transcript)
Mr. Joe Harcz (via the phone): This is Joe Harcz and the first thing I have to report is that we weren’t getting any signal at all, I couldn’t hear, about the first 20 minutes. I clocked it at 1:20 when things started to come back in. The second thing I have to say is I have to agree wholeheartedly with Terry Eagle and his comments. Frankly, there’s been just a tremendous amount of lying in documented fashion going on from the agency. We don’t get budget material, we don’t get things with the public, or information to the public in a timely and accessible manner. Business Enterprise Operators don’t get timely delivery of anything and it goes to Robbie’s case she’s expected to pay bills for stuff that was never delivered. She never got those health certificates, but yet she’s supposed to pay money on this. The Agency is not doing it’s job. But one of the fundamental things that is a tremendous, tremendous problem that violates the rights of due process of all blind people in the adjudicatory process is that LARA and the Michigan Administrative Hearing System and the Michigan Commission for the Blind does not effectively communicate with blind people in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 and that’s been clearly documented in every one of these cases. I’m hearing Administrative Law Judges tell people when they request information in accessible form, including advocates like Terry, telling them well don’t you have a reader. Look the obligation is on the entity, the obligation is for the entity to remit this information in a timely and accessible manner. That’s Americans and Disabilities Act subpart E under Title II – Effective Communications. There’s Supreme Court law that courts have to be fully accessible to blind people and other people with other disabilities and that goes to effective communications. It goes to the gross dereliction of duties of this agency overall. I’ve written a bunch of stuff on this, documented it over and over again. The various state actors in Michigan, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind is inaccessible in whole and in part to people who are blind. We have to hold these people accountable, staff and the Director, because the buck stops at the top for implementing our civil rights. There is no due process and there is no equal protection under the law if people can’t access the information relative to their own cases. (Elsie Duell interrupts instructing Mr. Harcz to pull the phone away from his mouth for a clearer sound) I’m sorry, this is frustrating, my comments are out there on the public record, it’s so frustrating because it’s just lunacy. We’re the Commission for the Blind we’re supposed to be accessible to the blind in every activity in every affair and yet we’re not. We’re supposed to be the lead agency. The buck stops at the top. Thank you I’m done.
Ms. Garnett Prentice (via the phone): This is Garnett Prentice. My public comment is I agree with Terry Eagle. As a member of the EOC we ask that for the financial reports, the budget and we never got any information about the budget. As far as I know we never talked about replacing the Promotional Agent, we need another trainer desperately. There’s where we need help. We need a trainer. Just like Terry said the program, we need one bad. These people who are coming in and out of the class, they’re not receiving the training that they need in order to run the locations and we are losing location after location. I was at the EOC meeting and my personal opinion is that we did not do anything, we did not accomplish anything at the EOC and we’re told one thing and then it never happens. And it’s like, I can see where the trust, there is not trust with the agency and operators. I heard don’t trust the Promotional Agents. Some of the operators we want to be independent business people, we want to be, make a living and we want to give back as much as we have received we want to give back. But there are some people, that take, take, take but never give back and always wants the agency to hold their hand. Well sometimes it’s not the agencies fault in a lot, in some cases even though the records show that the agency does do things. But the operator has to be responsible too and with things that go on. We need another session like Mr. Posont is talking about where all of us got together to discuss this. A lot of times operators are afraid to voice their opinion because they’re afraid of consequences and there shouldn’t be consequences because the agency is there to help the operators and these people that are coming out of the training classes they’re not prepared. And spending all that money for McVety and Associates for training, Terry was right they don’t know anything about blindness. Accountability for the warehouse and for equipment and what our expenditures are and how much set asides have been brought in compared to when a lot of the operators retired. Times are hard money is hard to come by and it’s hard to make a buck today nowadays. But we need to be able to talk to each other and share things and we need a trainer desperately. That’s my public comment.
Mr. Fred Wurtzel: Yes, thank you. I’d like to comment about the trainer position issue that was brought up here today. I asked, when I was administrator to have a trainer position for the Business Enterprise program because it’s, in my view, its where everything focuses around. If you don’t have well trained people that creates more problems for the field staff and so the answer to reducing the workload is to have better training for operators and then you don’t have to do all the things that might have to be done as far as compliance and so forth. So we had, under my administration we had two trainers, we had Carol Corneal and John McEntee. And each of them brought special qualities to the job. Carol was outstanding in catering and presentation and those sorts of things. John was outstanding, beyond belief outstanding, in vending machines not to say that John was necessarily bad at one and Carol was bad at the other one and so forth, but each of them had their strengths. John’s strengths brought quick returns in terms of money. Carol if she had remained on her path would have delivered a lot in regard to catering. We were in a program of developing catering, we had staff going to training conferences on occasion, we had operators involved in catering activities. We were working on it. It was a process. We did have meetings with department staff as suggested earlier today and we would have continued to have more of those meetings had we continued on the same path. John saved us a huge amount of money in the program, would have saved probably enough money to hire another person. Unfortunately hiring decisions in government have nothing to do with money, particularly, they have to more to do with politics about how many employees are in state government and we all know that. I think it would be a mistake, a big mistake to be moving away from the trainer position, I think we had promotional agents that have had 30 or 35 facilities to oversee, it’s too many in my view. It was too many in those days, however, it was done with facility and with success. It’s about management. On the management issue we have data processing systems that should be kicking out information about all the things that we were talking about. Who’s paid this, who’s paid that. We have a data processing system here that can provide the information. We should be working on a data driven system with information for promotional agents to use quickly. A lot of things should be able to be resolved by phone calls, and now with cell phones I was advocating for years for field staff to have cell phones, now they have them now. They have lap top computers. A lot of these things can be taken care of at that level. So I strongly, strongly, recommend that we continue to have a trainer for the Business Enterprise Program. It will produce more quality results then hiring 3 or 4 more promotional agents. Thank you.
Mr. Dave Robinson: Dave here ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners and guests. My comment is, I actually have three different comments to make. One is on that position that is being opened is correct that on the third of December at the EOC meeting there was no mention of that to be contemplated by the Program managers report. It was never even heard of until I mentioned it in my public comment at the end of the meeting. And again, the other thing is, I just want you to keep in mind in the civil service status of positions, the promotional agent position is a higher grade level than the trainer position and why are they going after a position that you have to pay more for when what is really cried for is a position that you can pay less for and I believe that this promotional agent position is going after because there is specifically somebody tagged for that position already in mind. The other comment I had is that on these ALJ decisions and when you are Commissioner and dealing with those ALJ decisions you see what is black and white but often times black and white doesn’t tell the story. You, because ALJ’s have their opinions and their biases and they can slant things a certain way and accept documents and not accept documents in a variety of situations so you’re not really getting the true story. So if you don’t want to listen to the different sides here you ought to do your due diligence in terms of research on these cases in terms of talking to both sides and reading the documents before coming in and making a decision. Because now based on the vote you made today on Robbie Kaye’s decision you basically affirmed the fraudulent activity of the agency and is now subject to being sued for fraud by this operator. And I also agree with Terry and Joe on the issues relative to the ad hoc committee. I think there’s some great ideas out there, I think we can move forward on a lot of good things that could happen if the philosophy was correct and I think that we really got to pay attention to what is going to be the philosophy of this agency. What are we here for, what are we supposed to be doing. And we need to be here for the blind people of Michigan and we got to make sure that the bureaucrats in this State understand that’s why they’re receiving the $26 million dollars to affect employment for blind people not to throw people out of jobs.
Mr. Mark Rothenhauser: Thank you very much. Board members thank you very much for letting me stay on here. I wanted to mention today about the 6 or 7 years that I’ve been involved over at the Capitol building I have never stopped singing the praises of the BEP program and MCB. This is been evidenced, a couple years ago, I believe you folks had a big birthday celebration over at the Capitol and Ms. Turney approached me about getting a cake for this occasion and I went ahead and done that. Part of the problem was that it was determined that there was no money to pay for this cake and, but I thought in the spirit of the whole celebration that I would go ahead and, in effect, eat the cost. So I provided the cake and everything went fine. Another example of me promoting MCB, when our new Governor he had his inaugural celebration on New Years Day, I gave up watching Bowl games, well I usually watch them on New Years Day, I went down to the Capitol and I donated a bunch of hot chocolate to the folks out there and meanwhile while doing that I answered questions about the MCB and did a lot of good promotion then. Customers who come to the snack bar, if they happen to ask about MCB or the BEP I always tell them very good things about it. In effect, I think I’m a very good person to run that joint, or excuse me run that operation. (laugh) that was a slip of tongue. You know it was mentioned that the BEP is the “crown jewel of the program” and I think it could be said the same thing about the operators. However, jewels can sometimes get tarnished a little bit and when they do, well we need to kind of polish them up, you know, clean them up a little bit. Now, I’ve had a bad couple of years over the BEP in my operation and sales have been down. I got myself in the hole with my set aside fees and I just couldn’t get out of that hole and it just kept getting worse and worse and nothing was being done to help me get out of that hole. Well, I made a determination to get out of that hole and the only reason I requested that hearing from the ALJ is because I was trying to buy a little more time to come up with the $1,200 to pay the BEP, which I did and I have copies of cancelled checks and everything and there’s also been a catering gig that I did for 400 people out on the front lawn in celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was approached to do soda, subs and chips for this event which was a lot of, lot of work for 400 people. I mean I was making subs all night the night before. But the event went well and the Director of the event she was so impressed by my work that she sent a rather lengthy congratulatory email to Ms. Zanger and not only did it mention the good work I did but she was impressed with the BEP Program as well. Ms. Zanger wrote in response to that email that this was indicative of all the operators. So in closing I’d like to say that I look forward to working with the BEP and the BEST time on how to restore that Capitol to its glory. And Constance, you know I’d just like to say please work with me, I will work with you and let’s make that place great.
Mr. Joe Sontag: Joe Sontag, or Blind Joey Dumb Donkey to be polite as I’m known to some of my friends as my alter ego in this program anymore. Anyway, first off I’m not going to accuse anyone of lying, I do want to provide a little bit of information you do want to take my word for, in the interest of perspective and keeping things straight, on the issue of promotional agent versus trainer in my opinion we definitely need a trainer and here’s where the history comes in just a little bit and there are people in this room who know it better than I do. When I became active in the program in the very late 80’s we had effectively five cafeteria specialist that was working with the program at the time. Similarly at the same time we had at least 100 locations in this program. Locations ranging in complexity to the traditional ancient stereotype blind stand, so to speak. The little cubby hole in the post office lobby to cafeteria operations which would blow the mind in terms of what was done and what needed doing on a daily or hourly basis. So while the (inaudible) is not unimportant, as Fred said, it’s a matter of management very much so. In those days, the promotional agents did not have cell phones, they did not have personal computers, everything was on paper and yet things worked. So, so don’t be taken too far off when weighing those factors. Similarly, you know when an operator approaches the agency for assistance or when the operator finds out the hard way that, hey, hey sucker there’s a problem here or sorry if you thought you were doing okay but you’re really not and your fats in the fire. I don’t know how many other operators have experienced this but if my case is any indication regarding my promotibility or serious lack thereof these days, the best I’ve been able to accomplish was a situation where I we go into a discussion, whether it be an informal meeting or profit percentage review with the operator receiving no documentation whatsoever being expected to take the word of a staff member for every claim made. “oh your problem is your food cost is too high” or “your problem is I don’t care what you thought even though you may have been told by our agent that your profit percentage expectation is 17, it is, in fact 25” and when presented with clear evidence that they were in a better position to confirm or deny that a sister facility was set at 17 they say “no you’re wrong, I’ve always believed it to be 25 and so it is. Not only that but the previous operator was submitting reports that showed 25 percent profit performance.” So this is what we get, when you’ve got this sort of thing going on. I have not done this agency dirt, I agree with everything being said about the BEP being the crown jewel and the operators being a part of that set. But, we’re not only tarnished, jewelry can sometime be broken and our jewels are broken and they’re in desperate need of repair. Thank you.
Ms. Mary Ann Robinson: I want to mention that early on when BEP management was giving the report they said they didn’t know about who was asked to help with training in the 2010 class, Fred Wurtzel was asked, he offered to help and he was very qualified to help with training. The BEP turned him down and it was my understanding the class that turned out was one of the worst that they had. I believe, from what I heard from lots of people in the BEP, the management has dropped the ball in regards to catering, they should support the operator, our legislators are not above the law, if they break it and go outside for catering Pat Cannon and Constance Zanger need to back their operators. They have not done that. They know about promotional agents who had facilities and did the job, Dave Robinson was one of those and who do operators call now for help, him because they know that he knows the program inside and out. Why don’t they go to management? Because many of them have lost respect, have lost trust of the BEP management because they don’t tell the truth. I’ve been coming to these meetings for years and I hear about mistake, after mistake, after mistake that BEP makes over and over and over again. I’ve worked for years, if I made as many mistakes in my job as they have made I would’ve been dismissed after a couple and I can’t even count the number that we’ve heard. And the number of lawsuits and the number of hearings and they will continue until the management of the BEP changes. Thank you.
SCOTT MOVED TO ADJOURN; POSONT SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2011
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2011
VICTOR OFFICE CENTER
201 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE, 3rd FLOOR
CONFERENCE ROOM A/B
LANSING, MICHIGAN
MINUTES
Friday, December 9
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Mr. Larry Posont Ms. Lydia Schuck
Mr. John Scott
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
There are 2 Commissioner vacancies
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF PRESENT
Mr. Pat Cannon Ms. Sue Luzenski
Ms. Susan Turney Ms. Sue Chinault
Ms. Elsie Duell Ms. Julia Burdgick
Ms. Carla Haynes Ms. Constance Zanger
Ms. Christine Boone Mr. Leamon Jones
Mr. Bob Robertson Ms. Amber Silvey
Ms. Sarah Oberlin Ms. Beth White
GUESTS/ATTENDEES
Mr. Tom Masseau Mr. Brian Sabourin
Ms. Elham Jahshan Mr. Elmer Cerano
Mr. Fred Wurtzel Mr. Joe Sontag
Ms. Mary Wurtzel Ms. Valerie Barnum-Yarger
Mr. Tom Warren Ms. Debbie Taylor
Ms. Maryann Dunn Ms. Terri Wilcox
Mr. Nick Wilcox Mr. Joe Sibley
Mr. Larry Keeler Mr. Phil Kozachik
Mr. Ken Stucki
Call to Order, Roll Call and Determination of Quorum
Commissioner Posont welcomed everyone to the meeting and called the regular meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was present with two empty spots on the Board.
September 15 & 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes
SCOTT moved to accept the SEPTEMBER 15 & 16 Board meeting MINUTES; schuck seconded.
Discussion: Discussion included why this meeting was being held in the Victor Building as opposed to the Ottawa Building. Ms. Luzenski shared that there was double booking for one of the days of the Commission meeting in the Ottawa Building and after working with the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) this was the option open to host both days.
THE Motion passed unanimously.
Approval of Agenda
There was discussion on adding the approval of meeting dates for 2012 to the agenda.
Schuck moved to approve the agenda with the mentioned additions; scott seconded
Discussion: There was no further discussion.
THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Posont asked attendees to introduce themselves, but said they are not obligated to introduce themselves.
Public Comment
Mr. Joe Sontag: I have the killer microphone, apparently, right now. Joe Sontag, aka Blind Joey Dumb Donkey once again with three things for everyone this morning. Three things I thought about, reflection on yesterday’s meeting and past events and so forth. Number one I would like this board to consider a couple of ideas that I think are long overdue in the implementation. One of these has been done before with some positive outcomes in my opinion and the opinion of others. That would be to conduct internal hearings open to all stakeholders in the Business Enterprise Program regarding it’s performance, strengths, the weaknesses, how we might improve. This will be particularly valuable if I were able to do the thing myself to such people as building granters such as the State and private sector level. Operators, employees of the agency and any other interested parties who would like to share their thoughts, feelings and suggestions with us. Secondly, I’d like to propose that similar hearings be conducted pertaining to the rehabilitation side of the agency. I’m almost a one trick pony when it comes to this BEP stuff I’ve been so immersed in it for the past twenty years or so, but the rehabilitation side is as important, without that nothing works and no one gets served. In fact, that is largely what is driving my concern and seeing such hearings being conducted pertaining to the rehabilitation side of the program. Number three, last but not least, this on the award of the Grand Rapids Justice Facility, I just have this to say, that concerns have been expressed about the, a number of aspects of this. I personally raised the issue of why the facility was withheld from the bid line for so long when a licensed operator who would have been under the full authority of the Business Enterprise program could have been running it and would have been subject to disciplinary action for failure to report set aside, etc, etc. I have carefully examined the rules and while the rules don’t specifically address temporary operators I’ve got a feeling that it would make an interesting court case if it were to be tried before a court or taken to a hearing of some sort. I’m wondering, too, given the explanation that was given to me, can anyone, is there anyone here to tell me, anything, about any statements or action of the Board last year at this time that suggested that there was a need to keep that facility off of the bid line. I can tell you in summing up or wrapping up that there was interest expressed in this matter openly at the Elected Operators Committee level and all we got was word that the necessary reports and payments had been made. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would have insisted on a great deal more than that. Thank you.
Ms. Mary Wurtzel: I have a comment and this may seem a little wacky to people. I thought about it while we were introducing ourselves this morning. I thought about it because of the consumer conventions and everything, and I guess it’s going to look like I’m going to pick on sighted people but I’ve noticed a lot of times that as a blind person, especially when sighted people are walking in and out of a room or when their somewhere in a room and especially if someone walks into a room after the introductions have been made, obviously the totally blind people in the room do not know that that person is in the room or not. And I can’t make anyone do it but I really would encourage people to think about how you would feel if, even if, if you don’t like the person I suppose you never have to go up to that person and say that you’re present in the room. I just think at some point sometimes it would, at least for me, it would be really nice to know or to have people on the staff of the Commission, not just to sit alone at a table and talk to each other, I may not even know that you’re there, I may not even know where you are in the room. I know that there some really forward people like Fred Wurtzel and Larry Posont who would just run around the room and go hunting up everybody and go saying hi and you know. I probably should get to be a little more that way, but I guess I just wanted to point that out. I am a very gregarious person and I really talk to people. So I really would just ask, not only sighted guys but lets try to talk to each other. Let’s try to, even if there’s times there might be someone in a room that I didn’t know was there that I really would like to speak to. Sometimes you can hear a voice and say oh boy, so and so is here I really want to say hi. So I hope that’s not a stupid thing to say it just was on my mind.
Mr. Fred Wurtzel: Good morning, I think this is my 25th consecutive December Commission meeting and I just, again, want to wish everyone in the room happy holidays and Merry Christmas which is my particular tradition for this time of the year. I’m really happy to see a large contingent from Michigan Protection and Advocacy because I would like to add that organization to the list that Joe was proposing for internal hearings. As I’ve expressed in this meeting before, I’m very concerned that Michigan Protection and Advocacy receives a very large amount of money to serve blind people and in my experience, dating back 20 years, it’s almost impossible to get services from them. They do not return phone calls. That isn’t so bad, if you didn’t get a call back, you didn’t get a call back you can always go right to the National Federation of the Blind and get quality advocacy services and they don’t get paid $350,000 a year or whatever they get paid over there, but if they would call people back. I think the worst thing is I’ve been at the college policy meeting and at the Services Design team meetings where Michigan Protection and Advocacy has been representing the Michigan Commission for the Blinds point of view on various topics. I find that to be extraordinarily out of bounds. If you go by their name, Protection and Advocacy, they’re not doing either. They’re not returning calls which fall under protection and they’re not doing advocacy which would be advocating for (inaudible). They have repeatedly testified that social security funds can be used to pay for rehabilitation services, against the law. They’ve given bad advice and they’re supporting the positions in favor of the agency against the client. I think that’s really incredibly wrong and I think that it needs to be really looked into and scrutinized deeply. So thank you for that time for public comment.
Mr. Joe Harcz (via the phone): Once again we’re having a hard time hearing you people. We get….. (starting over) Okay, this is Joe Harcz, I just have to report that we’re not being able to hear you folks very well. It goes in and out and when I say you folks I’m talking about Commissioners. Yesterday we missed about the first 20 minutes of the meeting and today it’s roughly the same. That said, I have to underscore both what Fred and Joe Sontag said, and yesterday it was said that the Business Enterprise Program was the jewel in the crown of the MCB. BEP is in a total shambles but the real jewel in the crown of MCB or the supposed jewel are the general VR program and the Independent Living program and those are in worse shambles. Talk about not getting phones calls back from MPAS. Clients don’t get things in accessible format, they don’t get return phone calls on a regular basis, we don’t get public accountability of records, you know, the public records, citizens don’t. We don’t know where the money goes, where everything is. All we have are endless litigation going on, you know and it goes right to the top of this organization, it goes to the management and it goes to the incestuous collusion, and there’s no other word to say it, hacks in the system. I have reported for 10 years systemic violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act with ample documentation to Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services including site and facility surveys, including, you know, my calls on the signage issues alone on the very building that you’re in. They think that they can come in and put a handful of compliant signs on at the last minute but not have overall program access. I’ve reported and documented fastidiously failure to respond in accessible format and that includes, by the way, Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services. Now they are funded, and I’ll tell you what else, they don’t even put MCB in their literature half the time. You look in their report and they say that they’ll give client assistant program services for MRS and for independent living centers which they don’t do very well by the way, and yet we’re little sisters left out. When I’ve called in and made systemic complaints, when they’ve finally sent me stuff they send it to me in print. And I have it sitting right here, I know you can all see it, but I can’t. (laugh) That was a joke. This organization, frankly, is a joke and it’s a bad joke. I will waive, I don’t know if the official board correspondence has been gone into because we couldn’t hear it, I will officially waive the reading of that so long as it’s put in the official record. It’s time for accountability of this organization overall, there’s a time for accountability of the entire system for blind people in the State of Michigan. Thank you. I’m done.
Mr. Dave Robinson (via the phone): It’s amazing to me that they can’t even get this simple phone technology right. This is disgusting. Can you hear me?
Ms. Maryann Dunn: As a parent I am here representing other parents across the state. I certainly want to thank the Commission for the vote that was taken last time to eliminate the financial aid form that has caused so many problems for some of our college students. And I also wanted to reflect on my attendance at the last commission meeting and I appreciated the level of civility that I observed. There’s been a lot of concern on the part of the parents in terms of the amount of conflict and the level vitriole that’s passed between the Commission and some of the persons that they serve. So, anyway that that can be remedied us parents would support that. I am here also to support Commissioner Schuck’s position regarding transition, very obviously for parents of blind children in this state. We want to make sure we’re doing everything that we can to ensure that they are, our children, are successful adults. Employed and contributing citizens. So that’s why I am here and I would support, also, the development of survey data that would help us determine the level of quality that clients feel that they are receiving from the Commission. And I would be happy to assist with that from a social science background which is my area of expertise. Thank you.
Ms. Terri Wilcox: Terri Wilcox. I have gotten back a call from my Commission counselor, thank you. However, there seems to be a resistance in the agency in sending clients to the Training Center. My husband and I are interested in doing that so we can have as much mobility and skills to be gainfully employed and I would like to see there be less resistance in sending clients to the training center. Thank you very much.
Board Correspondence
Commissioner Schuck reported that Joe Harcz submitted a large amount of board correspondence with the intention of them being recorded as part of the public record. Through Commissioner Schuck, Mr. Harcz wanted it to be known that when he writes and signs his own name he is speaking for himself although he is affiliated with a consumer group. Commissioner Posont asked for just the dates received and who it was received from be read and that the document be part of the record in whole.
· November 10, 2011 from Greg Wheby
· November 21, 2011 from Michael Powell via Elsie Duell
· November 28, 2011 from Joe Harcz
· November 28, 2011 from Joe Harcz
· December 6, 2011 from Joe Harcz
· December 6, 2011 from Joe Harcz
· December 7, 2011 from Joe Harcz
· December 7, 2011 from Joe Harcz
· December 7, 2011 from Joe Harcz
Commissioner Scott asked that Greg Wehby’s letter be read aloud. This is attached in its entirety. Commissioner Posont affirmed that he spoke with Mr. Wehby about the subjects in the correspondence.
Board Activities
Commissioner Schuck reported that she was able to participate in the banquet at the MCBVI conference. She appreciated the opportunity to meet some of the attendees of the conference. She also attended the NFB convention and stated that there were some great presentations.
Commissioner Scott shared that he wasn’t able to make either of the consumer organizations conferences because of other commitments. He also was only partially able to participate in the Image and Identity team meetings but was delighted that a suggestion he made to send videos out to prospective employers had been implemented.
Commissioner Posont reported that the EOC Ad Hoc committee has been meeting once a month and is ready to give a report. He continued that participants have been thinking out of the box and moving the vending program ahead even with the limitations within State government. Commissioner Posont stated that he has also attended a couple Operator meetings and shared new challenges that Operators are facing. He also represented NFB at the Operator Training Committee where there was discussion about business. Commissioner Posont shared that he attended the ACB convention which was very informative, as was his attendance at the NFB convention.
Award to Jo Ann Pilarski
Commissioner Posont said that Jo Ann Pilarski served the Commission with wisdom, love and respect and during their time together on the Board he could see that she was interested in what was happening with the rehabilitation of the blind in the state and was really an advocate. He went to add that she became very involved with the BEP and the vendors and loved that aspect of being a Commissioner. Commissioner Posont stated that it was very rewarding to interact with her both while they were Commissioners together and before.
Ms. Luzenski read the plaque that will be sent to Ms. Pilarski.
Ms. Pilarski, via the phone, thanked everyone, wished everyone peace and joy for the season and that her phone and home is open and that every person in the organization and the agency all have gifts that have the ability to make blind people’s lives better. She added that she hopes that everyone recognizes their gifts and uses them for the greater good.
ALJ Recommendation – Rothenhauser
Commissioner Posont called upon Tom Warren, Assistant Attorney General to clarify what needs to be done based on the vote to reject the ALJ recommendation on the Rothenhauser case the day before.
Director Cannon reminded Commissioners that at a previous Commission meeting Mr. Warren outlined the steps that needed to be adhered to when Commissioners reject an ALJ recommendation.
Mr. Warren explained that the Commissioners obligation under the Agencies Administrative Rules is to render a final agency decision and in the event of a rejection of the ALJ Recommendation there needs to be reasons stated for rejecting the recommendation based on the findings of fact, the recommendation being authorized by law and being supported by competent and substantial evidence. He went on to explain that when there is a rejection of the ALJ recommendation, in essence, the Commissioners disagreeing with the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, the Commissioners need to state the different findings of fact and different conclusions of law from the competent and substantial evidence submitted to support the rejection of the findings by the ALJ in the final agency decision. He said the record needs to be developed so that it reflects the facts of the case and nothing else, if Commissioners see that the ALJ misconstrued some fact or misread documents and believe that those are critical factors that should have been weighed the other way then they have the authority to state them the other way. Mr. Warren added that no additional information can get gathered outside the record that exists and existed when this ALJ recommendation was made and if there needs to be clarification of a factual issue then this can be remanded back for clarification of that particular issue.
The Commissioners then discussed what findings of fact on which to base the rejection of this ALJ and specific issues they had, whether the petition could be terminated at this point, and the issue with the agency taking 24 months to address the set aside fee issues.
SCHUCK MOVED TO REVISIT THIS ALJ RECOMMENDATION AT A SPECIAL MEETING TO BE DETERMINED; SCOTT SECONDED.
Discussion: Mr. Warren stated that there are no consequences if the Commissioners don’t make this decision within the 60 day time frame but that is a guideline. Director Cannon asked if a motion could be made to reconsider the motion made in this recommendation the previous day without prejudice. Mr. Warren clarified again that the Commissioners are in the position of making the decision by weighing the evidence, giving it the weight it deserves and if the Commissioners see it differently then fine and even if they see the law differently or interpret the law differently that’s fine, but all of this still needs to happen within the confines of the existing record. Mr. Warran stated further that in rejecting the ALJ’s recommendation it needs to be framed as a final agency decision based on facts and law that can be reviewed at the next level. There was also discussion on the matter of allowing 24 months to go by before enforcing the payment of the delinquent set aside fees.
SCOTT WITHDREW HIS SECOND OF THE MOTION.
SCHUCK MOVED TO REVISIT THE ROTHENHAUSER ALJ RECOMMENDATION AT THE NEXT REGULARLY SCEHDULED COMMISSION MEETING AND HE RECEIVE THE SERVICES OF THE BEST TEAM ON AN ONGOING BASIS; SCOTT SECONDED.
Discussion: Commissioner Posont pointed out that in between this meeting and the next Commission board meeting there could be a complete change in the Board and this decision could then be thrown out, along with Mr. Rothenhauser. He expressed concern with the good faith of the agency and the lack of consistency with enforcing the rules. Director Cannon stated that this being revisited at the next Commission meeting gives time to revisit the rule in question and possibly provides an opportunity for the rule to be rewritten and Agency staff would be obligated to continue working with the operator as though the ALJ recommendation never came to the Board as there was no final agency decision made. There was also discussion on regular follow up with Mr. Rothenhauser and the BEST team and correspondence being copied to Commissioner Posont.
AMENDED MOTION:
SCHUCK MOVED TO REVISIT THE ROTHENHAUSER ALJ RECOMMENDATION AT THE NEXT REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING, HE RECEIVE THE SERVICES OF THE BEST TEAM ON AN ONGOING BASIS AND REQUEST THE EOC CHAIR TO KEEP THE COMMISSIONER LIAISON AND AGENCY DIRECTOR TO THE EOC CONTINUOUSLY INFORMED ON THE PROGRESS OF THIS OPERATOR AND HIS WORK WITH THE BEST TEAM; SCOTT SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH SCOTT AND SCHUCK VOTING AYE AND POSONT ABSTAINING.
Break: 10:15
Reconvene: 10:25
Client Assistance Program Report
Director Cannon introduced Mr. Elmer Cerano, Executive Director of Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services (MPAS) and gave some background of Mr. Cerano’s work history, also introducing Tom Masseau and Brian Sabourin, the head of the Client Assistance Program (CAP). Mr. Cerano added that Phil Kozachik and Elham Jahshan from MPAS were in attendance also.
Mr. Cerano started by announcing that Tom Masseau will be leaving in January after 24 years with MPAS to become Director of the Wisconsin Protection and Advocacy program. Mr. Cerano gave additional information about his background and program information about the MPAS program and services. He reported that the program is a private, non-profit program created in Federal law in response to allegations of institutional abuse for people with cognitive impairments adding that since its inception, in the 1970’s, it has expanded to include other populations, which aligns with the categorical funding sources. Mr. Cerano stated that the Client Assistance Program became part of MPAS due to a Federal rule, when Governor Granholm created the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, independent and now funded directly from the Federal government. He added that materials handed out to Commissioners outlined all the services provided by MPAS including services provided to the more than 8,000 calls received a year, providing advocacy, information on expert witness on issues, information and education to policy makers to help advance the mission of advocating and protecting the legal rights of people with disabilities. Lastly, he added MPAS has 5 attorneys on staff to provide litigation services. Mr. Cerano reported that since MPAS is established in Federal law the organization has access authority, including access to individuals with disabilities, their records and the facilities in which they live or receive services.
Commissioners asked questions including where MPAS’ charge comes from which is the Rehab Act for CAP and additional funding from the various Federal departments for individual rights under MPAS. Mr. Cerano when on to explain that the program is created under Federal law but needs to be designated by the Governor to receive the funding to provide services to individuals with disabilities. He went on to explain that the number of people they serve related to the Commission is very low which possibly has to do with outreach. Additional questions included, is it possible to self-fund an advocacy program and issues related to getting a case open at the Commission. Mr. Cerano and Mr. Sabourin also clarified when an individual is eligible to seek services from MPAS and how they establish priorities for services each year and trends.
There was also discussion about a specific case who contacted CAP, wasn’t satisfied and ended up with a private attorney. Commissioner Scott asked how is MPAS going to outreach to the blind community. Mr. Cerano stated that the organization could use some assistance in its outreach efforts to individuals who are blind. Director Cannon suggested sending MPAS outreach material to the Presidents of each of the consumer groups. Director Cannon also addressed the earlier question of who determines where CAP is placed, saying that the Governor makes the ultimate decision as a result of a law passed in Congress in the late 1980’s.
Report of Staff Training Ad Hoc Committee
Commissioner Schuck requested that this topic be discussed with Ms. Christine Boone up at the table so she could be engaged.
Evaluation of MCB Director 2011 and Expectation for 2012
Commissioner Posont asked Director Cannon if he would like to go into a closed session for the Director Evaluation. Director Cannon answered that he wished to remain in an open session.
Commissioner Posont shared that Commissioners emailed information to Commissioner Schuck to compile the evaluation material and she will be giving the evaluation report.
Commissioner Schuck stated that she referred to the MCB Action Plan when determining if objectives had been met. Also, Commissioners and Director Cannon identified Tuesday, December 20 at 11:00 a.m. as a special meeting time to discuss 2012 Objectives. Commissioner Schuck stated some thoughts for potential objectives for 2012 and there was some discussion regarding changes in Department objectives.
Ms. Susan Turney responded to some questions Commissioner Schuck had in regards to the posting of the Fiscal Year 2009 Monitoring Report from RSA.
It was stated that the Director Self-Evaluation, which went to Commissioners in the meeting packet, will be attached in its entirety to the minutes.
Commissioner Schuck asked Director Cannon if he wanted to add anything to his self-evaluation. Director Cannon commented that what he wrote on his self-evaluation was concise and sufficient to convey his assessment of the Objectives and Competencies.
Commissioner Schuck reported that the strengths of the Agency is the energy, consumer input, trained staff, long-term Director and the challenge of a change in Administration. She stated the challenges as the Business Enterprise Program, the disarray of the BEP, too many hearings, problems with the 2010 class of BEP graduates, lack of promotion for catering, unavailability of budget information and the BEP operators not having set aside numbers available and a breakdown in communication and data collection. Commissioner Schuck stated that she is disturbed that the Service Delivery and Design Team had been cancelled twice in a row and at allegations made regarding some illegal advice given by CAP at a meeting. Lastly, she said there is a lack of leadership around intractable problems including phone calls not being returned.
Commissioner Schuck also added that all comments made will be included in the Commissioners final report which will be going to the LARA Deputy Director’s office and the Governor’s office. Commissioner evaluations are based on a scale of 1 – 3, with 1 meaning needs improvement, 2 meaning meets expectations and 3 meaning high performing.
Competencies
1. Adaptability 1
2. Align Performance for Success 1.33
· SDDT meeting being cancelled points to a lack of leadership
· Unreturned phone calls
· Lack of response to the Commissioners on the monitoring report
3. Building Partnerships 1.66
· Adversarial relationships with consumers and consumer organizations
4. Building Trust 1
5. Communication 1.33
6. Customer Focus 1
· Competitive closures have been reduced by 15% since the year 2000 while the state population has only dropped .06%.
7. Decision Making 1.33
8. Delegating Responsibility 1.33
9. Developing a Successful Team 1.66
10. Facilitating Change 1
11. Innovation 1.66
12. Leading Through Vision/Values 1
13. Planning and Organizing Work 1.33
14. Strategic Planning 1.66
15. Technical/Professional Knowledge/Skill 1.33
16. Valuing Diversity and Inclusion 1.33
The average score of the 16 competencies is 1.31. Commissioner Schuck stated the Director is not meeting basic needs.
Objectives
1. RSA 1
· There’s not enough documentation on a monthly basis including emails flowing back and forth
· RSA indicated what was wrong, what the corrections were and what the procedures were so there was no need to wait a year to start correcting these items
· Monthly updates are insufficient. There are no reports on efforts of compliance
2. Orientation Packet 1
· The packet was sent out to Commissioners for review but not sent out to the CIC or consumers for comment
3. Inservice for Commissioners 2
4. BEP/EOC/Ad Hoc Facilitator 2.33
5. Staff Training 1
6. Performance Appraisal and Feedback 1.33
· All about MCB managers continuing to do a good job – there wasn’t enough information for Commissioners here, they would have liked more information.
· Commissioners reflected on some of the performance that they saw, for instance being told by a counselor that there is no policy for returning emails, that there’s no timeline. Things like that that which are performance issues, things that come up here that they’re not sure where the feedback’s going.
With respect to the objective of conducting performance appraisals for staff and the Commissioners low evaluation, Mr. Cannon asked Commissioners what was not done to satisfactorily meet the objective. Commissioner Schuck answered that she did not want to turn this into a question and answer session here. Commissioner Scott answered it seemed to be so oriented to the operation of the staff there’s not a question that could be responded to by commissioners because there was not much information in that area. He went on to say that a rating of 1“needs improvement” means he needs to get information to make any kind of judgment and that this 1-2-3 category is so limited anyway. He concluded that not enough information is there so there needs to be improvement in that area for Commissioners to respond to that particular question.
Director Cannon responded that performance appraisals are done within the parameters and guidelines of the Civil Service Commission guidelines and these are supposed to be confidential appraisals between the supervisor and employee. Commissioners only referenced managers and he believe that he explained there that the Department and Governor Snyders Administration changed that to only include group 3 and 4 employees. Commissioner Schuck stated that she feels that what happens with the managers and the Director sets the tone, like a Principal in a school, he sets the tone for the whole school and the tone is troublesome.
7. EEO Programs 1
· The ongoing ADA complaints.
· Also the east-west disparity in provision of services.
Director Cannon said that when he came to the Agency 14 years ago all the upper level managers in the Agency were sighted white males and now there is an excellent mix of diversity among managers. He added there has also been a significant increase in the number of blind individuals on staff and those are not insignificant achievements. Director Cannon added that he is disappointed in a rating of 1 on Objectives 6 and 7.
Commissioners Schuck concluded the review saying that since the objectives are very different in importance and time needed to perform each objective, it isn’t really appropriate to average the ratings. However, since the average has been applied in previous years, Commisioners report this average to be 1.38.
Commissioner Schuck announced the average of the competencies average and the objectives average is 1.35 meaning the Director is not meeting expectations in the competencies and objectives that were laid out for him for fiscal year 2011.
Director Cannon noted, in the past 13 years, his performance ratings have been very positive, for the most part they have exceeded expectations or he has received ratings of high performing. He said there was a time when the categories were worded differently, one was exceeded expectations, greatly exceeded expectations so he’s consistently had ratings that were at least meeting or above expectations and usually high performing. Director Cannon went on to say obviously he was disappointed but thinks he needs to receive these ratings in a constructive way with an eye for going forward in a positive way. He added, while he should perhaps not be surprised at the lower ratings, he still was a little disappointed because he knows that at least one of the Commissioners came into their role as a Commissioner committed to finding ways to get rid of him. Director Cannon stated it’s been said on their own website and other quotes of “if he doesn’t retire by June we will find another way to push him out and it might get dirty.” He suggested this Commissioner take an introspective look and examine his capacity for objectivity particularly as we go into a new calendar year and a new evaluation year. He concluded by saying, he hopes that as everyone works together in developing objectives for the new year that these can be developed objectively with an eye toward doing what is in the best interest of the common goal which is to deliver quality service to all of clients.
Commissioner Scott commented there are systemic, chronic complaints about this agency. Adding, it can be at the individual staff member level, it can be on a managerial level but ultimately the Director has to take responsibility for it. He asked, what’s the saying “the buck stops with the Director.” Commissioner Scott said it needs to be addressed and he wants to make clear that a lot of hard work is being done, a lot of good things are being done and when he came on here he knew little about this agency and he feels like he is constantly in learning mode, but the operation of the agency falls on Pat Cannon’s head.
Commissioner Posont said that when he got put on this job he the complexity was not what he expected and it’s the hardest job he’s had to do that he never got paid for. He went on to say that he’s never done such an in-depth evaluation but he believed did it to the best of his ability. He added that he didn’t want to debate what Mr. Cannon said but he will do the best he can do to serve this Agency, blind people and the blind citizens of the State first because this agency belongs to all blind people, it does not belong to the Director or to anybody in this room, it belongs to all blind people. Commissioner Posont stated that’s the with the services provided, people are looking at us and they’re looking at us as the Commission Board, looking at us as staff people, looking at the Director and everyone is trying to make this agency a better agency to serve blind citizens of this State. He concluded by saying one never know who’s going to be the next client for this agency.
Lunch Break: 12:22 p.m.
Reconvene: 1:13 p.m.
Public Comment – (Verbatim Transcript)
Ms. Valarie Barnum-Yarger: Valarie Barnum-Yarger with the Statewide Independent Living Council. Good afternoon Commissioners, I feel compelled to speak today as the Executive Director of the Statewide Independent Living Council. We are a mandated partner with the Michigan Commission for the Blind as well as Michigan Rehab Services. I have to tell you I was shocked is a good word, as I listened to your evaluation today because I have to tell you that I didn’t expect it to happen. In the 14 years I have been with the Council as a mandated partner we have always, had a request for input as to how is the Commission working with you, do you have any questions or concerns, anything like that that we have provided under general comment and feedback and this year we were not asked, which is fine, I certainly do acknowledge your right to that but I would like to give you some thoughts of mine on the record anyway. One, we value MCB as a partner, they work very collaboratively with us, one of the things is that you may or may not realize is that SILC is pleased to be able to host the regular Service Delivery and Design Team meeting and I noted today that you indicated that there were two meetings that were cancelled and it was bad leadership. I have to tell you that our council takes responsibility for one of those. It was cancelled with short notice because we had a problem at our building and we could not accommodate the meeting and make it accessible. So, one, the fault for that needs to go back on SILC and not on the Commission staff, so I did want to correct that error. And also something that you may not be aware of is you are really accurate in your perception that MCB represents all individuals that are blind in the State and what the Commission does impact all of those individuals, it’s also as a cross disability council but the Commission does impacts all individuals with disabilities because there is power in strength and numbers. I have to tell you that we are thankful that Pat has been willing to join with the larger disability community on so many issues and one of them that he fought desperately hard to have included in Michigan’s State Plan for Independent Living which means that all 15 Centers in the state is working on it is to make the State website and information posted on the website available to everyone. We acknowledge that that’s not acceptable at this point but I wanted you to know there are many other things that you may not see in-house that Pat’s doing that he is advocating for your population in the larger disability community and he’s getting us as partners to move forward and assist all of you in making this a better state with disabilities. Knowing the partnership things that Pat does, I personally felt that you were probably overly critical in part because maybe you hadn’t had the opportunity to hear from some of us that work closely with you as an Agency and I wanted to take the time to express my concern and our support for Pat. He and this agency have always been there whenever we’ve asked for help, he’s given us good suggestions and pointed us in directions that’s helped, not only the blind, but all individuals with disabilities. Thank you.
Commissioner Posont: I normally don’t ask during public comment but where was the breakdown, as you say at the beginning of your comments that input that you had before. I’m new at this, I’m new here too and I’m just trying figure out if there’s something that we didn’t get. I don’t know that.
Ms. Valarie Barnum-Yarger: That’s fine I just wanted you to know that as a mandated partner, there’s another side to it and I wanted you to know that.
Commissioner Posont: I thought we were missing information that we should have had. Two of the three of us have not been on this board more than six months.
Ms. Valarie Barnum-Yarger: Normally the Commission has sent your evaluation form to our office. It’s either gone to the SILC chair or myself and I did, while we were here and you were speaking, ask the SILC chair and he’s going, “no I was not asked for input either”. That’s why I wanted to bring that to your attention.
Commissioner Posont: Ok, thank you. I just wanted to know where something fell down. I’ve only been here since March.
Ms. Mary Wurtzel: Well, the presentation before lunch and I would have liked somehow to have had a little dialogue with those gentlemen but since public comment didn’t come until after lunch I can assume those gentlemen are gone now though. Are they gone? P & A is still here, oh wonderful! Because I was very, very happy to hear the presentation this morning because it corrected some fallacy that I had about P & A, number one. But number two, I know that even as a client of the agency that I tried to use the P & A CAP and it was not a good thing, not a good experience at all. I think that somehow we should have some dialogue, number one, making this experience positive for Commission for the Blind clients and number two, as they were saying, once people think it could be a positive experience which I think there’s something out in our community that says to heck with it, why should I call those people because they’re not going to help me anyway, we have to first not make that be the correct outcome, not be the correct assumption and then we have, I mean I know I would be willing because I know every blind person in the state of Michigan. I would certainly be willing to help with outreach. Thank you.
Mr. Fred Wurtzel: Am I recognized, sir? I thought that what we heard this morning and what we’ve heard again here is, I was pleased with the evaluation this morning and it’s not with me a ‘gotcha game’, and I don’t believe it is with any of the people on the Commission Board but that’s a tactic that this particular person uses to undermine any criticism that he ever has that it’s somebody else’s fault and it’s somebody that he’s not responsible for the kinds of problems that are existing. We know that blind people have been fired from this agency, pushed out of this agency for membership in our organization and objected so much to the thing about affirmative action. Well the affirmative action is dismal when you attack one group and push that whole group right out of your agency. You were generous this morning in your evaluation. I appreciate Valarie’s comments, it’s understandable that with a partner that you would get support from your partners and that’s a good thing. There’s unfortunately, the partners that are related best are the partners that have some part in State government or some mandated role or something like that, but when it comes down to working in partnership with consumers we have a bit of a disconnect to say it mildly so I think that the difference between what Valarie is seeing and what we’re seeing are both right. I think that Valarie is seeing a positive working relationship because that’s where you stand and it depends on where you sit. And I have no criticism for what she said at all but it needs to be taken into account in context. So you’ll probably hear a lot more of this kind of thing as things move forward but I’d like to commend you for your bold action this morning and recognizing that there is a total disconnect between consumers and the administration of this agency. So thank you.
Mr. Joe Sontag: I just want to echo what Fred said for commending this Commission Board for having the courage to submit this evaluation that it did. I think it’s certainly been a long time in coming and I wish to assure Mr. Cannon and anyone else that I don’t think there’s any personal malice toward him, this is not about get Cannon this is not about addressing any personal grievances that we may have had or have with him in the past, this is about turning things around in this agency and making things better for blind people. No matter which consumer group you belong to or even if you’re not associated with any consumer group, as a blind person what this agency does is going to affect every aspect of your life and many of us remember a time when, you know it’s never been perfect, when this agency comprising many human beings, but many of us remember a time when things were much, much better. I remember a time when this agency became involved with the State Independent Living Council, amazing as it may seem, I was chosen as part of that initial involvement when that relationship began in the mid-80’s approximately. And, it was a very interesting and mind-expanding experience for me personally and, while I’m certainly not the worlds foremost authority on SILC, I think it’s made a valuable contribution and will continue to make a valuable contribution to the lives of disabled people in Michigan in the future. This agency has fallen, it’s time for us to rise and we are about to do it folks, I really believe it in my heart and in my soul. Even though I may be a bit player if there’s anything I can do to help it out I stand ready to offer that assistance. Thank you.
Mr. Joe Sibley: Joe Sibley, President of Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired. I want first, do want to say that it was a pleasure to have Commissioner Schuck and Commissioner Posont at our convention this year. I think the more time we spend with each other the more we all understand our viewpoints and even when they differ that’s okay we’re all working for the same cause. Commissioner Scott we had you at our convention last year and that was a pleasure. As for, it’s also been a pleasure to work with Commissioner Schuck and the training ad hoc group. It’s been a fascinating experience, learning about how the training does go on and learning about training in other states, that’s been a pleasure as well. I am concerned still that we have members of our community still have a way of presenting the issues and attacking the issues, where maybe using a pitbull approach is maybe one way to describe it. But we still have a tendency in our community to have people engage in personal attacks and constantly berating this agency, especially attacks centered at the Director. There are some who like to portray the Director as some sort of evil emperor who has it in his heart to destroy the lives of the blind people of Michigan and I think that nothing could be further from the truth from my own personal evaluation. I thought your evaluation this morning, I definitely would not agree with those numbers but it’s your privilege because you are the Commissioners right now, but I am concerned because there’s enough people raising attacks against this Commission and that’s a problem because he has to juggle it all so I think we should give him some commendation for that even though it’s not perfect and this agency is far from perfect. When there’s problems let’s sit down and talk about them, let’s work them out together. We don’t have to engage in personal attacks and trying to destroy peoples careers, if you will and lives. I do think there’s still some in our community that believe in that. I’m pleased with some of the things I’m seeing, including some of the things in BEP as far as the people are actually talking to each other now, to quote Joe Harcz “geez Louise” let’s just talk to each other for a change and work things out together. Thank you. I just want to want to say that we as a community we all come from different perspectives, some of us have different philosophies but we’re all on the same page. I respect everybody in this room and enjoy the opportunities we get to spend together but I think really we need to work together as a cohesive positive unit if we’re going to see this agency continue. Thank you very much.
Mr. Terry Eagle (via email as it was submitted by the sender): Terry Eagle
This pulic comment is in response to the messages and communications I have received urging me to apologize for my vocalness during the Mark Rothenhauser case portion of yesterday's meeting.
I feel no obligation to apologize for my vocal and public action during the meeting in vigorous advocacy for the Board hearing the truth about the corruption involved in the presentation of the documents considered by the Board, and publicly used by John Scott to trash Mark Rothenhauser, and attempt to deflect or shift the blame and burden of proof to Mark, and using documents that were never introduced at the hearing, orI defeated their admission to the record by my vigorous volunteer representation and advocacy for the truth, at a disadvantage, caused by James Hull, Constance Zanger,
Pat Cannon, the conspiring corrupt Administrative law judge's refusal to provide documents in a format usable to me and my licensee client, and I am forced to show up at hearings with a reader I pay out-of-pocket because I know the materials used in a hearing presented by the MCB SLA will continue to not be provided in a format that is usable to defend my client from the failure of program staff to do their mandated job, and their corrupt illegal acts, while they get taxpayer paid readers to advance their corruption.
despite the overwhelming evidence I have exposed, or have attempted to expose publicly and otherwise in writing, only to have that evidence ignored or further shoved under the carpet. And I am to be concerned or worry about Credibility? And I am expected to sit back silently, while the exposed and documented corruption, favortism, and pay-offs continue for some, while the
lives of other blind persons are literally destroyed? Not to mention the enhancement of the lives of sighted persons at the expense of blind persons.
it serves no noble cause or justice to arrive at the correct result for
the wrong reason, while ignoring or turning a Pat Cannon eye to the
corruption underlying the continued injustice that violate the basic and
fundamental due process rights of any citizen and literally destoy the lives and livelihood of so many blind persons as I have seen done over the last four years, by the corrupt actions by Constance Zanger, James Hull, Pat Cannon, Leamon Jones, and their conspiring uncle Tom blind persons who benefit financially, sexually, and through the protections corruptly granted them when they don't follow the exact same rules that are selectively enforced by the persons named and unnamed above.
The showdown with John Scott could have been easily avoided, since I requested a recognizable "Point of Order" having to do exactly to the advive formerly advised by Tom Warren to the Board having to do a complete and record being before the Board before even considering and deliberating on a case. I simply attempted with my valid "Point of Order" request and subsequent comments were to simply point out that of the 14 documents presented to the Board via email by Sue Luzenski, documents six, eight, eleben, twelve, and thirteen were never part of the official record, and further, the email that was repeatedly referenced and used byJohn Scott to
publicly trash) Mark Rothenhauser was obtained through ex parte
communication frome BEP, admitted under the discretionary authority of the administrative law judge.
Hhow many times does it take for a case to come before the MCB Board to get the facts and truth on the table to stare in the face of the Commissioners? I assure this no sick Polish joke or trick question. And the answer should be very obvious-the anser should be obvious-once and only one time. But recent history shows that is not the case. . The truth must come out, be recognized by the Board, and dealt with the Boars about the corruption that occurred in the Rothenhauser case, and it will be done either through
further administrative means or through litigation that the the Board will be forced to address and deal with the consequences of such rights enforcement and corruption by the agency staff once again. So when all is said and done, and the fallout is dealt with the Board, I am confident it will my vocal action at the meeting to get to the truth will ultimately be recognized and judged as correct, and will further be seen as an attempt to protect the integrity and street "creibility" of the Boar, which I strongly sought to do, only to be threatened by John Scott to act agains my client because of my insistence for incorporation of the truth. I frankly don't care about my credibility because I know in my heart what I do and speak seeks to get to the truth, is my divinely inspired mission, and is solely designed to bring about good over evil, and if Jesus could accept the will of our Father, endure and overcome the brutal pain and death of the cross
for me, then I can endure what I must, as I am called to follow in His ways. Jesus was seen during his life as a rebel and judged harshly for his search and demonstration for the truth thruth his words and actions, so I have a great role model to follow and guide mr without worry about my street cred here on earth. And yet, you and the other Commissioners can relax in the comfort that I don't see myself angrily overturning tables as Jesus did to get to the Truth! So put away the proposal for bullet-proof table skirting and and security rent-a-cops. And given my client service record with MCB, I doubt that Voc. Rehab will pay for me to attend the marksmanship training at MCBTC. Oh silly me, I forgot that was abolished as inappropriate for we the blind.
Unfortunately, there is an attempt by the Board to appear so fair and
uninfluenced by any party in any given case, that a common sense approach to get to the truth is totally thrown out the window, only to have the entire process coming crashing to the street or sidewalk, guaranteeing injury to innocent bystanders.
How many times must I state I'd much rather be using my time and talents to be assisting operators with their business success, over revealing the corrupt, evil motives of incompentent staff and administrative hearings system, which to date nobody wants to confront and address. Believe me, I do not see my role as us against the Board-we should be partners on the same page toward thruth in action, the same way we on the Ad Hoc Committee is functioning so well as partners within a process. The contempt toward me and others like Hazell must be curbed, if we are to survive as a viable
agency serving the needs of blind persons, rather than the agends of sighted staff an other sighted persons.
Mr. Joe Harcz (via the phone): Joe Harcz, geez Louise. Man I have a lot of comments but you probably knew that was coming. The bottom line when it comes to legal rights and discrimination, people who are blind and or otherwise disabled, we’re required to have access to all facilities, programs, services and benefits to the State and we’re supposed to have effective communication. January 26, 1992, we don’t get that. Clients don’t get that. I don’t get that. We don’t get that throughout the entire state and this goes to what Ms. Yarger-Barnum, Barnum-Yarger said. I put forward documented evidence of the lack of compliance with the ADA. Documented evidence has been put forward over and over again with LARA, relative to what Terry just wrote where petitioners and other people do not even get information upon request. Tyler v Manhattan said, and that’s a major case that went into both effective communications and physical access back in 1997 that the Title II entity is required to act affirmatively in these regards. We’ve got buildings that we use daily that don’t have the appropriate characters and raised Braille signage. We’ve got restrooms that aren’t labeled. We’ve got people that can’t, people wanted to talk about outreach, and system access, we got people that don’t get anything in any format, even according to our consumer satisfaction surveys. And we have on a listserve a key administrator saying that we bat 300 isn’t that good enough for baseball? No these are civil rights laws it ain’t good enough. This stuff was supposed to have been done yesterday, this is not a matter of debate. This is a matter of the law, systemically, systemically, people who are blind in particular have their civil rights violated on a daily basis. We have the Director of this commission was the State ADA coordinator, we have Elmer Cerano and others who have, in their hands, because Joe Harcz, geez Louise sent it to them, the DTMB surveys on all the state facilities including the ones you use for most of our public meetings. It’s documented, documented, we haven’t followed the ADA. It’s documented that there are major access problems with State websites including documentation on them. Image based files left and right and then we have administrative law judges say oh well don’t you have a reader. I’ll say what I said last year, ladies and gentlemen, the Michigan Commission for the Blind is the first place to be fully, 100% accessible to the blind. Now, if MPAS wishes to systemically take care of these issues, I invite them to sue this agency and the parent agency, LARA to get it cleaned up.
Mr. Dave Robinson (via the phone): Yes, I wanted to just make a couple comments. One is that during this morning’s correspondence reading, or lack thereof reading, there was communication to the Commission Board from the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan regarding a specific issue and I don’t remember anybody waiving their right not to have it read into the record for that issue. And that was the correspondence from Mike Powell, our first Vice-President. And it was just totally ignored. The other point that I have is that as a member of the board of directors of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan I want to commend the Commission Board for their evaluation. We as a Board, the NFB of Michigan, in our recent board meeting voted a no confidence vote of Pat Cannon as the Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind and we hope that things will be done, that we can move this Commission forward in another direction with a philosophy of trust and cooperation and, you know, there’s a lot of good people that work at the Commission for the Blind but there’s also a lot of good blind people out there that aren’t getting services and they’re getting shafted by the Commission for the Blind who has $26 million to help provide services to the blind of the Michigan and, yet, are not doing their job. So when we go on record as saying are we against the Commission for the Blind, no we’re not against the Commission for the Blind, we are for the blind of Michigan and we will do what we need to do to make sure that the services and the rights and the obligations are fulfilled to its maximum. I believe that it’s important that we as the blind stand up, take note and we don’t need to apologize for what we believe in and we don’t need to apologize for how we say it or the position we take. We can’t work with people we can’t trust and we will never, ever again trust the management of the Commission for the Blind at least the current management of the Commission for the Blind. That’s all I want to say.
Ad Hoc Committing on Agency Spending
Commissioners spoke with each other and determined that they put this item on the agenda in error and was possibly a reference to more training being needed on budget and agency spending.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Commissioner Posont stated that the plan was to have staff up at the table and Commissioners asked for any additions to the report and then Commissioners can ask questions on the report or anything else staff talked about.
Mr. Leamon Jones, Consumer Services Director stated that he had no new information to add to his written report submitted to Commissioners. Commissioner Schuck asked how staff had been educated on the change in the college policy. Mr. Jones reported that all managers have been told and they in turn will notify staff of this change. Commissioner Posont shared that he didn’t believe that was the most effective way to communicate with staff the changes which were made.
Commissioner Schuck asked Mr. Jones about scheduling of summer programs, when it begins and, specifically, if there was a program that will be utilized that is similar to the QUEST program. Mr. Jones stated that the summer program planning begins in January. He shared that there is no summer program that is similar in nature to QUEST and that program ceased because participation dwindled. He added that there are a variety of other programs offered though. Commissioner Schuck requested that a program be developed for blind youth with multiple disabilities, such as her daughter, who are not college bound and cannot participate in the college assessment.
Commissioner Posont stated that if staff supports a program then the program is a success and also that planning for summer programs need to be done sooner so that parents can be planning for the summer earlier in the year. Director Cannon clarified that all the summer programs are not just for college bound youngsters, but Commissioner Schuck stated that she was speaking about residential/overnight programs. Ms. Christine Boone clarified that programs for youth with multiple disabilities are offered at the Center.
Commissioner Posont asked Mr. Jones about two job announcements that he received that were open to State employees only and how the determination is made for a job posting to be open to State employees only or open for the general public to apply. Mr. Bob Robertson, MCB’s human resource liaison stated that he defers to the manager doing the hiring for a determination of how the job posting is listed. There was discussion regarding this between Commissioners and managers including Commissioner Posont stating that not opening up positions to the general public to allow blind people to compete sends the wrong message to all employers. Ms. Boone and Mr. Jones both stated their reasons why the recent job postings were listed as open to current State employees only.
Ms. Christine Boone reported on updates on the Training Center renovation, a change in the move in date and issues that have arose from a problem with the installation of the water heaters. She also recounted a discussion she had with the head of DTMB and the confirmation that renovating the Training Center was more cost effective than constructing a brand new building.
Commissioner Schuck asked about innovative programs at the Training Center. Ms. Boone responded that she came up with a list of activities held that were confidence building as a request from Director Cannon. She added that activities included train trips to Chicago, horseback riding, canoeing, kayaking, paddle boats, swimming, Kalamazoo nature center excursions, tandem bicycle riding, snowshoeing and skydiving and a future activity will include rock wall climbing. Commissioner Posont stated that agencies should focus on becoming known for a specialty and the marksmanship class would be the class and should be brought back. Ms. Boone said she was asked about this and she answered that she had not raised it with staff, that it was not her intention to pursue the marksmanship class or gun safety and target shooting. Ms. Boone was asked by the Commissioners and the Director to ask the staff for their ideas about confidence building activities. She shared that as a result of those conversations with staff the idea of the climbing wall came out and the gun safety and target shooting class was brought up but she didn’t plan to pursue the marksmanship class. Commissioner Posont asserted that the culture of Michigan is hunting and the appearance that the agency is not willing to take this issue head on is sending a message that blind people can’t do it. He believes that it can be overcome and that the public and clients will speak up about this. He added that the Agency needs to do this class and will be known for it in this country and will be looked at as a positive.
Director Cannon stated that the Agency Administration and the Department Administration did not and will not support the reinstatement of the marksmanship class on the Training Center grounds. He added that he would support the exploration of taking students who choose to as an option to a place that teaches gun safety and target shooting and he is aware of a place that does this activity. Director Cannon and Ms. Boone debated whether DNR does this type of activity for individuals who are blind, as they do hold a class for people with disabilities.
Commissioner Posont asked to make a motion to ask the Agency to look into a gun safety class, Director Cannon stated that it’s not necessary as he has already asked staff to do that, and Commissioner Schuck asked that this topic be reported on in the March meeting.
Commissioner Scott asked what kind of guns were being used at the DNR classes being held. There was other discussion about whether other Centers were holding classes like this, the benefits, if there are any University’s that have gun classes and the discussion concluded with Director Cannon asking Ms. Boone to explore possibilities as long as it is not on Center grounds.
Ms. Elsie Duell added to her report that staff is working with the System 7 vendor to make improvements and a meeting is being held the next week with Libera staff and Agency staff to work on issues. Commissioner Posont pointed out that the Board has not received financial reports for several months. He added that he believes that the budget is controlled by Al Pohl’s office but the BEP apologizing for not having reports is not acceptable anymore and this needs to be changed. He also stated that he wants all the ADA issues behind us and the reports that are due the Commissioners on a regular basis. In response, Director Cannon responded that all offices of State government have gone through personnel changes, including Al Pohl’s office and as of yet no end of year budget figures have been finalized. He concluded by saying that the Agency’s budget is controlled by the Department and the Department’s budget is controlled by the Governor’s budget office and the budget authority won’t be delegated, it lies with Al Pohl’s office.
Commissioner Scott asked if sighted and blind people were having issues with System 7. Ms. Duell answered that, yes, many staff are having issues and she is hoping that some of the issues will be resolved at the meeting next week. She added that the BEP reporting program is on the list of items needing to be fixed as staff is aware that this isn’t working correctly.
Ms. Sue Chinault added to her report that the Oakland County subregional library will be converted to the same computer system as the other subregionals. Commissioners had no other questions.
SCHUCK MOVED TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS; SCOTT SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Director’s Report
Director Cannon referenced the written report which included an article on the Client Internship Program, facebook being used as a job search tool by the U.S. Department of Labor, legislation being introduced to eliminate sub-minimum wages and the success of the Gaylord mini adjustment program which served 26 clients and 9 individuals in the employment readiness seminar. He also updated Commissioners that a follow up survey will be conducted of the 37 participants of the Client Internship Program asking who is employed and how employment is going. Director Cannon also offered an update on the staff training ad hoc committee survey created that will be going out to all staff hired since April, 2010.
Director Cannon commented on the Director evaluation given during the morning, saying that it was done in a courteous and respectful manner, which he values. He also addressed the subject of name calling, stating that he has not participated in name calling, but over the last year he and staff have been called numerous names including bully, scofflaw, liar, hack, punk and illiterate. He asked that the name calling stop.
SCHUCK MOVED TO ACCEPT THE DIRECTOR’S REPORT; SECONDED BY SCOTT.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Schuck asked Director Cannon some questions about New Horizons and the Detroit office Manager serving on their Board of Directors and she questioned whether this was a conflict of interest, stating that this person should not be on the Board and asked for Director Cannon’s response to this. Director Cannon responded that several staff serve on boards on their own time, meeting in the evening. He added that New Horizon’s attorneys have reviewed everything that has come before the board since the staff person has been on there and at no time did any item come before the board relative to funding or services with respect to MCB or MRS clients. Commissioners stated their concern with the appearance of impropriety.
Commissioner Schuck questioned Director Cannon about the Lee’s Inn, an alternate place where the Training Center staff and clients were going to move to during the Training Center renovation project. Questions included why it wasn’t secured and if staff was sent to work at the Lee’s Inn before a lease was signed. She went on to ask that for the record and clarification was anyone sent to work at the Lee’s Inn and does anyone who reports to the Director know of anyone who worked at the Lee’s Inn.
Director Cannon answered that the Lee’s Inn was not an option because the owners decided to sell rather than lease, that, to his knowledge, no staff was sent to work at the Lee’s Inn but an inspection was done, staff possibly toured the sight but no one was sent there as their work sight.
Commissioner Posont asked the Director if a conversation could be had on the BEP position spoke about the day before. Director Cannon agreed that there could be a conversation, stating that one was already started between James Hull and James Chaney. Commissioner Posont expressed dismay at the shortened time of some of the training elements for new BEP operators.
Commissioner Schuck again went back to the question of the Lee’s Inn property asking if any money was spent making adjustments to the Lee’s Inn property, including on procurement cards. Director Cannon answered that not to his knowledge was any money spent, other than an inspection. Commissioner Schuck further asked if any money was spent on a procurement card, would it have been the Training Center Director at that time who authorized that money spent. Director Cannon answered that Al Pohl’s office would have caught any inappropriate expenditures in an audit from that office, but to his knowledge no such issues have arose. Commissioner Schuck went on to again ask who would have authorized any purchases made to spend on the Lee’s Inn. Director Cannon asked if Commissioner Schuck had receipts which led to this inquiry and she stated that she did not, only some information.
Staff Training Ad Hoc
Commissioner Schuck gave an update on the Staff Training Ad Hoc committee reminding attendees of who was a part of the group, adding that they spoke with other training centers and talked to Jennipher Weibold from Western Michigan University. She stated the committee is recommending that the Director charge Christine Boone and Bob Robertson with developing an enhanced and expanded protocol for existing field staff in Kalamazoo and staff members who work at the Training Center. New staff will be absorbed into the training protocol as they join the agency and this will be on a trial basis, eventually being rolled out to the whole agency. She added some additional details from the report which are attached to these minutes.
SCHUCK MOTIONED THAT THE COMMISSION BOARD ACCEPT THE CHARGE, CONSIDERATIONS AND TIMELINES OF THIS PROJECT; SCOTT SECONDED
Discussion: Director Cannon stated that there was a lot of good suggestions in the proposal and it will be looked at for consideration. He went on to say that staff assignments are not a Commissioner function but he will speak with staff about this proposal and has already spoken with Ms. Boone about adding a third week at the Training Center for staff orientation. Commissioner Schuck went on to explain in more detail how Kalamazoo staff will eventually have four weeks of training and new staff, by 2013, will automatically get four weeks of training. Director Cannon stated that the new training needs to be relevant, substantive and effective and suggested that Commissioners create an objective for him for 2012 based on these criteria. Commissioner Scott clarified, rhetorically, that the training purpose is to get a better understanding on what it means to be blind and live life.
New Business
Commissioners asked to go over 2012 Commission meeting dates. The following dates were adopted:
March 23 Kalamazoo Training Center
June 15 Lansing
September 21 Lansing
December 14 Lansing
SCHUCK MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE PROPOSED DATES FOR THE COMMISSION BOARD MEETING; SCOTT SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
SCHUCK MOVED THAT LARRY POSONT CONTINUE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION BOARD; SCOTT SECONDED
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
SCHUCK MOVED THAT COMMISSIONERS ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 2 MINUTES AT THIS TIME; SCOTT SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Comment (Verbatim)
Mr. Fred Wurtzel: Regarding the promotional agent issue, one of the things you need to keep in mind that if you go to a promotional agent it requires a college degree which eliminates a number of BEP operators from being able to have the job and that is why we had the job description. It wasn’t ideal, I wish I could have gotten more flexibility from civil service than we did. Regarding the shooting sports, whatever it is, I don’t believe it’s up to the Department Director or whoever to set policy for the Commission. If it’s legal to do it, it’s legal to do it where we have a place where people can do it conveniently. It ought to be done and whatever needs to be done if we have to go to the legislature, we have to go to the legislature and I’d be happy to lead such a charge to go to the legislature and see that is gets done. Because if that’s what this board wants to do this board is in charge of services to blind people, nobody else, this board. That’s the end of it. That’s the end of mine too.
Ms. Mary Wurtzel: See I told you every time Fred talks, I have to. It’s been that way for 35 years. I just want to say and I, this may not be popular but this is Mary Wurtzel speaking and I’m not speaking for any organization or anything but I just want to say that I was raised to have respect too and as far as I know I have never called names and I don’t really think that’s the way to get positive things to happen. I’ve still stayed married to Fred, it’s okay. But I just want to say that I wish everyone a really wonderful holiday and I, you know, things are, as people I guess they say things today it is what it is so we have to just go forward, I mean, in some kind of a positive sense or else we are going to continue to hurt ourselves, we’re going to continue to hurt all of us. It’ll be a day when I can stand up here and say that I never did anything wrong, I’ve never said anything wrong, I mean, if anyone in this room I think someone that was born this time of year, we’re celebrating said that. If there’s anyone here that hasn’t said or thrown the first stone, I wish you all a happy holiday, this is just Mary Wurtzel’s opinion.
Mr. Joe Sontag: Thank you sir. Yep it’s me again. I just have to say on the subject of name calling and related things it works both ways. I have heard and read some choice words directed at Director Cannon and others and as unpleasant as it might be, I too have been the target of some rather interesting name calling, especially as I attempted to sound the alarm about a number of BEP issues going back as far as 2005. It was such a depressing experience for me that I darn near left the program at that moment. Such things as Joe McCarthy, such things as chicken excrement, and I’m being polite and an accusation when I explained, what was clearly some fraudulent activity on the part of an operator for manipulating the point system, I got told that I obviously had a vendetta against that individual and if I was smart I would stop worrying and complaining about that individual and concentrate on running my business better so that my numbers would look as good as that operators. I make no apologies for my behavior at the time and I’ve kept my cool in spite of it. I’ve done my level best to continue to work for a better program. At this point, as far as I can tell based on communications, documented communications, my career’s all but over with the Business Enterprise Program. I will continue to hang around and do what I can to make things better even if my career goes no further.
Ms. Terri Wilcox: I support confidence challenge activities such as marksmanship, such as anything that will encourage blind people to realize it’s respectable to be blind. And I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas.
Mr. Larry Keeler: I agree with Terri. The marksmanship business is pretty cool. I didn’t have the benefit of the center, I had the benefit of living on the north side of Kalamazoo to learn these things. Not the best environment, but hey I did learn that kind of stuff. Other things swimming, fishing all that kind of stuff, rock climbing, that would be kind of cool, not just the marksman class but anything that challenges blind folks, anything that challenges us to get out of our cage. I’ve heard people, on another issue I keep hearing people, let’s be nice to each other, well that’d be nice I just think we should be fair first. Thank you.
Mr. Dave Robinson (via the phone): First of all I’d like to extend to everyone a Merry Christmas and also I’d like to talk about the fact that I had mentioned in my last public comment regarding our correspondence to the Board which was expected to be read into the record but wasn’t today. I’d like to have that done officially, we sent it to the Board for that specific reason. Also I’d like to make sure the Board has received the resolutions passed by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. They were sent to you to be acted upon and to be dealt with and I haven’t heard one word about that today in any conversation whatsoever. We are the organized blind of Michigan and so we need to see what the Commission is doing to respond to what our concerns are.
Mr. Joe Harcz (via the phone): Geez Louise. Joe Harcz. Yes we’re dealing with a federally funded entity and we’re public officials. I am continually discouraged, not just with the Commission, but with an entire state agency in receipt of federal funds saying they can’t come up with numbers. They cannot apply to themselves what they ask daily of say, operators. I mean if we don’t get financial statements and whatnot or operators or if an applicant doesn’t get this piece of paper or that piece of paper, you know what happens, people get denied services. We’re dealing with millions of dollars, multiple state entities and to demand for transparency of government accountability and accounting, basic accounting, where’s the money, where’s it go in a timely manner is the right and obligation of every citizen to know, let alone citizens who happen to be blind. Governor Snyder, the previous Governor, everybody talks about transparency in government, we’ve just had the City of Flint taken over by a state receiver, we’ve had Detroit Public Schools taken over by an emergency manager, and other cities and towns. I might suggest that LARA get taken over by an emergency financial manager. Thank you.
Adjournment
SCHUCK MOVED TO ADJOURN; SCOTT SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20.
_____________________________ ______________________
Date:
Terry Eagle – Board Correspondence
From: Terry Eagle [mailto:terrydeagle at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 9:09 PM
To: '"Larry Posont"'; '"Lydia Schuck"'; '"John Scott"'
Subject: BEP Training Program Issues and Reform Solution Proposals
.BEP TRAINING ISSUES AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
The BEP Training Program has been in an upheaval since John McEntee went on medical leave and subsequent retirement. At least the last two training classes and their graduates were riddled with problems that contributed to the graduates being frustrated and faced with overwhelming problems resulting from the lack of acquiring fundamental skills and information essential to begin and successfully operating a business. The frustration and problems exist because the training has and continues to be conducted without qualified trainers and clearly defined skill set and information goals, objectives, and measurements for assessing achievement of essential skills and information.
Below is a plan outline to begin addressing the training program shortfalls, with emphasis on quality skill building and information acquisition vitally essential for successful operation of a BEP facility.
1. Need a qualified BEP Trainer or training coordinator
In order for the Business Enterprise Program to attract qualified individuals assessing the qualifications of potential program candidates, , keep pace with industry trends and ongoing training needs of program licensees, it is essential that program attract and employ either a qualified trainer, or a qualified training coordinator
Solution 1A. - Currently the MCB administration has reported publicly that the agency is unable to pursue the hiring of a trainer because of a state employment hiring freeze, or it is being evaluated as to the use of the vacant FTE (full-time employee) position formerly held by BEP Trainer John McEntee being utilized for other BEP or MCB purposes.
One solution is to commit to fill the vacant position to a trainer or training coordinator through the civil service system, seeking a waiver of the hiring freeze, and used exclusively for the training needs of potential BEP licensees and current licensees.
Solution 1B. - Contract with a trainer or a training coordinator.
This option would overcome the state hiring freeze, would provide the opportunity for qualified blind individual or blind-owned firm to compete for the contract, rather than having to employ from a lay-off list, or other negative civil service requirements. In addition, this option makes for greater accountability through evaluation of results and contract renewal or termination.
2. Evaluation and reform of training structure and curriculum.
Solution 2A. It is highly recommended the MCB Board use their authority and clout in quality policy-making function by holding statewide regional oversight hearings to identify BEP training issues , deficiencies and strengths, and elicit feedback suggestions for quality training reforms, and collateral BEP topics that positively or negatively impact initial as well as ongoing training within the program.
Solution 2B. - Establish a BEP training reform AD HOC Committee.
This ad hoc committee shall be charged with evaluating and recommending positive substantive changes to the assessment of potential BEP licensees, the classroom and on-the-job-experience structure and curriculum.
Solution 2C. - Contract for the evaluation and reform of the structure and curriculum of the BEP training program.
This option is favorable because it can attract and ensure that the reform process is managed by a blind individual or blind-owned firm, acutely familiar with the issues of blindness, unique challenges of training of blind persons, and special needs. The time can be significantly reduced for completion of the training program evaluation and reform process.
3. Effective training program structure reform
Solution 3A - This component could be accomplished by either an ad hoc committee or by contract within the reform process.
The goal is to establish the most effective structure of the initial BEP training, as well as ongoing licensee training.
4. Effective training program curriculum.
Solution 4A - This component could be accomplished by either an ad hoc committee or by contract within the reform process.
Solution 4B - The goal is to establish the most effective curriculum of the initial BEP training, as well as ongoing licensee training.
5. Evaluation and reform of the on-the-job training experience.
Solution 5A - This component could be accomplished by either an ad hoc committee or by contract within the reform process.
This goal is to identify and reform that OJE to be most effective for identifying and attracting the best qualified trainers, and structuring the OJE to evaluate skill and information achievement, and identify deficiencies, and structure methods to address and eliminate deficiencies.
6. Post-training evaluation and remedial training.
Solution 6A - This component could be accomplished by either an ad hoc committee or by contract within the reform process.
This goal is to establish a post-licensure and placement follow-up and evaluation to identify and appropriately address identified deficiencies prior to closure of the vocational case to employment.
Official Board Correspondence
From: G Wehby <gregwehby at ameritech.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:45 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Subject: To Commission Larry
Larry,
You may remember talking with me several times after I lost my vision in January 2010. Since then, I have had 9 surgeries and a corneal transplant with the conclusion that my vision will remain >20/400 in my right eye and no light perception in my left.
I applied to be a commissioner for the Commission for the Blind about 2 months ago but I have never heard anything. No yeah and no nay.
I also think you should know that in Grand Rapids there is a growing discrimination against disabled persons with service animals. I was one of them and no one in law enforcement seems to want to uphold the law. It's a shame. I was turned away from a resturant in front of my family.
Greg Wehby
(616) 901-8030
Official Board Correspondence
From: Duell, Elsie (LARA)
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:04 PM
To: Jones, Leamon (LARA); Gaston, Diamalyn (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Subject: FW: letter to commission for the blind board
Attachments: October 12 announcement.doc; Information about merchants' training at
convention (2).doc
Importance: High
Good morning,
I received this email today and I’m not real sure why it came to me or what I’m supposed to do with
it. Therefore, I’m sending it to you, Leamon, in Pat’s absence for any further action.
Let me know if you have questions or need anything additional.
Elsie
Elsie Duell, Manager
Administrative Services
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Department of Labor And Regulatory Affairs
201. N. Washington Square, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 30652
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-6224
duelle at michigan.gov
www.michigan.gov/mcb
From: Michael Powell [mailto:mpowell at wowway.com]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:50 AM
To: Duell, Elsie (LARA)
Subject: FW: letter to commission for the blind board
Hello Ms. Duelle.
I am forwarding you the email that I sent to the Michigan Commission for the Blind board.
I would have sent it with the original but I didn’t have your address at the time.
Thanks.
From: Michael Powell [mailto:mpowell at wowway.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 7:52 PM
To: 'laschuck at juno.com'; 'president.nfb.mi at gmail.com'; 'jcscot at sbcglobal.net'
Cc: 'arwoods at michigan.gov'
Subject: letter to commission for the blind board
Michael Powell
1st-Vice-president
National Federation of the Blind of Michigan
3253 Dolores Ave
Warren Mi 48091
(586)754-1325
November 20, 2011
Board of Directors
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Dear Commission Board members,
On behalf of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan I am writing this letter As 1st-Vice-President along with Dave Robinson, who is a member of our state board of directors. We are writing to you to describe an incident of prejudicial treatment and censorship perpetrated against our organization by one of the Commission staff. This violation of our first amendment rights should not be tolerated and we request that action be taken to correct such behavior.
On October 10, a request to place an announcement regarding our Merchants division training seminar and annual state convention on the operator information line was made. This request was made to the Business Enterprise Program secretary. When the announcement was placed on the operator line it was edited to give no reference to the annual convention of the NFB of Michigan. This was done without the permission of the one who submitted the announcement.
As a result of this editing, a new announcement was submitted to the BEP secretary on October 12, that extended an invitation to all BEP operators to attend the annual Convention of the NFB of Michigan. Subsequently, we discovered that this announcement was rejected completely.It was not placed on the operator information line as requested. It was further determined that Constance Zanger, BEP program manager, was the one that ordered the first announcement to be edited and the second one not to be placed on the operator information line.
After some inquiries to determine why the announcement about the annual convention was not placed on the operator information line, Ms Zanger wrote to our member who submitted the announcement, claiming that it was not placed on the operator information line because it was already on the Commission activity list and web site. We contend that the operator information line is an additional source of providing information to blind persons in our State, and that the State Convention of the NFB of Michigan may be of interest to BEP operators. Other activities including the Braille-a-thon, have been placed on both the operator information line and the web site etc. We believe that this action further demonstrates a pattern of practice of discrimination on the part of Ms. Zanger against the NFB of Michigan and its members.
We have enclosed the supportive documents referred to in this letter,and we hope that you will do what is necessary to institute corrective action in this matter, and assure us that this type of treatment will never occur again.
Thank you for your time and attention to this very critical violation of the public trust.
Michael Powell
1stVice-president
National Federation of the Blind of Michigan
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 2:44 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Arwood, Steve (LARA); Larry Posont MCB
Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; nfbmi-
talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: official correspondence on blind hunter
Official Board Correspondence on Blind MCB Michigan Hunter
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
810-686-2673
joeharcz at comcast.net
To: Sue Luzenski, Pat Cannon, and Michigan Commission for the Blind commissioners and
More
All,
After my signature line please note a little dialogue and story about hunters who are blind with James Hull, who is a blind hunter and who works for the Michigan commission for the Blind.
Now, I think this would make a marvelous article in the mainstream media and within the blindness related media about the capabilities of blind folks in all walks of life. Mr. Hull seems to be a role model in these regards. Certainly this story is very inspirational.
In fact I think that once the “marksmanship” course is reinstated at the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center Mr. Hull should indeed be a guest instructor.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
(Attached messages:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hull, James (LARA)" <hullj at michigan.gov>
To: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 11:07 AM
Subject: RE: you'd like this story
Thank you for the story, it was very interesting. FYI, I shot a 4 point in October during bow season and just returned from rifle season with a large three point in my possession.
Thanks for the story,
James
James Hull
Assistant Business Enterprise Program Manager
Michigan Commission for the Blind
ph: 517/373.2064
fax: 517/335.5140
-----Original Message-----
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:59 AM
To: Hull, James (LARA)
Subject: you'd like this story
Blind Hunter Enjoys Success in the Field
Braille Monitor February 2007
(back)
(contents)
(next)
Blind Hunter Enjoys Success in the Field
by Larry Porter
>From the Editor: The following story first appeared in the November 19, 2006, edition of the Omaha, Nebraska, World-Herald. Richard Crawford is a longtime Federationist and second vice president of the National Federation of the Blind of Iowa. The article below is a hunting story, but it is also a fine example of how to demonstrate our philosophy about blindness in all that we do. Richard did his part in this interview, but the reporter also did a fine job of
writing our positive message into his story. Here it is:
Richard Crawford pictured here with his deerAmong Richard Crawford's prized possessions is a .45-caliber pistol that his father-in-law carried during World War II. Crawford, fifty-six, a financial planner in Sioux City, Iowa, has completely refurbished that beloved pistol. The handle has even been fitted with ivory grips. The pistol is not for show. It isn't on display in some fancy wall mount or glass-enclosed cabinet. No, even though he is blind, Crawford uses the pistol for target practice.
For years Crawford has taken his pistol to the farm of a friend who is a doctor. The target this day was a battery-operated Christmas bell, which Crawford declared expendable because of its annoying tone. "It drove my ears nuts because it was a little flat," Crawford recalled. "I put six shots pretty darn close to that bell. My doctor friend had a brand-new .357 magnum. He handed it to me and told
me to try it. I pulled the trigger and hit that bell. A dead shot."
The amazed friend asked Crawford how he had done it. "This doctor had a blind son, who was young at the time," Crawford said. "I said, `Doc, it doesn't happen if you stay in the house.' I was trying to teach him a lesson. It wouldn't happen for his kid if he stayed in the house."
A retina disease claimed Crawford's sight when he was ten. "As a child," he said, "my folks were too dumb to know that their blind kid wasn't supposed to run chain saws, change oil in trucks, change spark plugs, rotate tires, and work around the house. My dad taught me to do things like electrical wiring and plumbing. He didn't know he wasn't supposed to teach a blind kid those things. He didn't let
these so-called sighted professionals put me in a box.
"I tell the joke that my brother always wanted to use me for second base, but at least I was in the game. It drives home the point."
It was the opening morning of Nebraska's rifle deer season, and the three men tried to be quiet as they climbed the ladder to the tree house that serves as a deer stand. It was well before dawn, and at that point two of the men were disabled because of the darkness. But not Crawford. Being blind, he was in his environment. "Listen to the turkeys," Crawford whispered to Ernie Glup of Tekamah, Nebraska, a semi-retired dirt contractor on whose farm Crawford was hunting, and Dr. Everett "Buzz" Madsen, an Omaha eye specialist.
Crawford's companions strained to hear the turkeys. Not until five minutes had passed--after the turkey chatter had grown increasingly louder--could they hear the birds. By then Crawford knew how many birds were in the trees and their locations.
Madsen is president of the Nebraska chapter of the Safari Club. He and Glup have hunted together for more than twenty-five years. They were here this morning because Madsen had asked Glup to donate a deer hunt for a disabled person to be auctioned during the Safari Club's annual banquet. Madsen bought the hunt himself with the intention of finding a handicapped person to take to Glup's farm. He told Dr.Howard McCutchan, a Harlan, Iowa, optometrist, about the hunt.
"If you're going to take a handicapped guy," McCutchan said, "why not take a blind guy. I've got a friend who is just crazy enough to try it."
Crawford grew up in Grinnell, Iowa, where his father owned a tree service business. At age ten he went to the Iowa School for the Blind in Vinton, but he was booted out after his ninth-grade year. "I was just so darn ornery," Crawford said, laughing. "The superintendent had a policy that he didn't punish a kid the first time he'd do something wrong. But he used to say, `Crawford, would you quit figuring out new things to do?' I was finally asked not to return."
Crawford implored the Grinnell public school officials that he be allowed to attend high school there. "I begged them to let me try public school," he said. "That was back before handicapped kids were being integrated into schools. The superintendent looked at my grades. Since I had mostly Ds and Fs, he wasn't very impressed. He looked at my brother's grades. That didn't impress him either. But he finally agreed to let me try it."
Crawford made the honor roll that first nine weeks. He then settled into becoming a strong C student, heavily involved in school politics, drama, sports, and other activities. He found that wrestling was the sport for him. He averaged about nineteen wins--a dozen by pins--each of his three seasons. He qualified for the state tournament as a senior. "Do you know when I won most of my matches?" Crawford asked. "In the final thirty seconds. I couldn't see the clock, and I didn't quit early. I'd pin 'em when they flat ran out of gas or when they looked up at the clock and said, `Whew! I've about got it.' Then I'd flip 'em and stick 'em. To make up for not being able to see, I spent time getting in better physical condition. You could be bigger and tougher, but if you ran out of gas and I still had some energy left, I could beat you."
After McCutchan called with the news that a deer hunt might be in the offing, Crawford began to figure out how to make it happen. Answers to questions finally led him to Ted Hart of Mount Pleasant, Iowa, whose brother built an offset scope for a 30.06 rifle. That rifle, along with a companion who could see through the scope and tell Hart when to shoot, allowed him to realize a dream.
After getting the approval of Madsen to be the recipient of the hunt, Crawford borrowed the rifle and went to Glup's farm to practice. Glup stood to the right of Crawford, almost head-to-head, as they prepared to fire. Glup peered through the scope and placed the crosshairs on a forty-five-degree angle exactly 3/4 inches up and to the right of where he wanted the bullet to hit. Although Crawford held the rifle against his shoulder, Glup placed his right hand beneath the forearm to guide and steady the aim.
"We got to where we could hit a target at one hundred yards and group the shots pretty close together," Glup said. The second time Richard came, we actually got up in the tree house and practiced from there. That's when I really became very comfortable about it. I knew he could kill a buck."
Crawford's family was poor, and supper often was rabbits, squirrels, and pheasants provided by his hunter father. But those days in the field with his father also filled Crawford in other ways. He fell in love with the outdoors. This blind youngster would never stay in the house. Crawford even hunted pheasants after blindness blackened his world. "They make a ton of noise when they take off," he said. "It
scares the pewaddle out of you if you're not ready. But by sound-and if you get lucky--you can shoot a bird."
Crawford hunted with his brother and with friends. One day a friend took him out and he shot a bird. Unfortunately it was a hen. "The guy said, `What are you going to do if the game warden stops us?' I told him it wasn't my problem. `What do you mean, it's not your problem?' I said, `Do you really think a game warden is going to believe a blind guy shot that hen? It's your problem.'"
Crawford specializes in solving real problems. For instance, he loves to roar down snow-covered Colorado mountain slopes on skis. "I hire a guide to ski behind me," Crawford said. "We wear headsets-- surveyor walkie-talkies that are voice activated. He talks me down the mountain. He tells me the slope is cutting off to my right, that trees are on the right so stay to the left, that people are coming from the left. I can see the mountain in my mind's eye.
"It's much better now. Before, he could just holler three commands--left, right, and stop. Back then I just hoped he never said, 'Whoops!'"
The early-morning light began to nibble at the darkness, and dark blobs slowly became trees and bushes. Glup and Madsen watched for deer to appear at the edge of the woods that bordered the meadow. Suddenly Crawford pointed toward a patch of timber about fifty yards from the tree house. "I couldn't tell what Richard was pointing at," Glup said. "I got to thinking--can this guy see a little bit? Finally, four does stepped out of the timber right where he had pointed. I asked him why he had pointed. He said, `I heard them coming through the trees.'"
The three saw dozens of deer that day, but all the bucks were small. At 4:45 p.m. a bigger buck stepped into the meadow. Madsen's range finder indicated the deer was 180 yards away. Glup bent into the scope. Crawford nestled the butt of the rifle into his shoulder and reached for the trigger. The shot rang out, and the two who could see began to verbally paint the scene for Crawford. He had to sift
through the shouts and babble, but he understood that the buck jumped when the bullet hit, took a few steps, then fell to the ground.
"When I heard, `It's down,'" Crawford said, "it was such a rush. Money can't buy that feeling. It was a natural, God-given feeling that was just wonderful."
Sara Crawford, who can see, was asked how she met her husband. "On a blind date," she said, laughing. "I know that sounds terrible, but it's true."
A computer screen sits on Crawford's desk in his Smith Barney office. He taps a command, and some financial figures pop up that his clients can read. But his screen is a green strip below the keyboard that provides a Braille printout. The blind boy who
once was so proud to earn Cs now manages money for clients who live in twenty-seven states and five countries.
Crawford has been told that within five years the transplant of miniature cameras in his eyes could give him sight. "If it happens," he said, "it will be wonderful. But the good news is that it doesn't matter. What else can I have in my life? I've got all the money I want. I have good health, a great family, good kids. I couldn't script a better life, even if I could see.
"The Apostle Paul teaches us to be content in all things. I think the lesson is simply that I can't control the deck of cards in life, but I sure can control how I play the hand."
After the buck dropped, the three men in the tree house whooped, hugged, and pounded on each other in jubilation. "We truly went a little wild," Glup said. "As we walked down to where the buck was, Richard said, `Fellas, we need more people like you to help people like us.' That's when it really got emotional." The emotion is still thick.
"This is more than a blind guy shooting a deer," Crawford said as tears welled in his sightless eyes and his voice began to quiver. "It was a bonding. Together we made it happen. The best part was when we were loading the deer into the truck. We knew this friendship was bonded. It will last a lifetime."
http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm07/bm0702/bm070209.htm
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:33 AM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB
Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: official mcb board correspondence for next meeting
RESOLUTION 2011-01
RESOLUTION RELATED TO PROGRAM ACCESS AND MCB
WHEREAS, all Vocational Rehabilitation entities, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind, (MCB) have long ago been required to provide “program access” to all the facilities it uses on a daily basis and to hold hearings, meetings and events in fully accessible facilities, even to the point of signing assurances with the Rehabilitation Services Administration annually that it does fully comply with these long-standing obligations; and
WHEREAS, one of those long-standing requirements was, and is to have raised character Braille signage mounted on every permanent room, nearest the latch side of each door in accordance with American with Disabilities Act Guidelines (3.40.1, 4, 5, and 6); and
WHEREAS, all such barriers were to have been removed under the required ADA transition plan by no later than July 26, 1995, yet exist to this very day in most, if not all, facilities used by the MCB; and
WHEREAS, Patrick D. Cannon was the former Chair of the United States Access Board which establishes the standards of the ADAAG, the State of Michigan ADA Coordinator responsible for implementation and the Director of MCB responsible for full compliance and knowingly so; and
WHEREAS, the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are civil rights laws requiring affirmative action; and therefore these inactions by Cannon constitute not only gross dereliction of known duties and deliberate indifference to these civil rights laws, but also must be considered malicious and intentional acts of mass discrimination; and
WHEREAS, members of, and indeed the entire state affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, have promoted the full application of these requirements repeatedly over the years along with documenting violations; and
WHEREAS, the NFB-MI has long promoted Braille, including its use in the built environment, for reasons obvious to all:
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that forthwith the NFB-MI lodges a formal Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education, along with supporting documentation, on behalf of all its members, and indeed all people who are blind in the State of Michigan, against Patrick D. Cannon, individually, and against the Michigan Commission for the Blind as an entity; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a part of this Complaint, the NFB-MI urges OCR to promptly enforce our individual and collective civil rights and to make the class whole as its charge.
RESOLUTION 2011-02
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
WHEREAS, all entities of State and local government are required to follow the effective communications requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990, including the obligation to affirmatively, let alone upon request, remit information sin alternate formats to people who are blind; and
WHEREAS, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that all recipients of federal funds provide auxiliary aids and services to those who are blind; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court found in Tennessee v Lane that state and local courts are not immune from these obligations and, indeed, have high responsibilities in these regards, for lack of access fundamentally denies “due process and equal protection under the law”; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Administrative Hearing Systems (MAHS) is both a Title II entity, federal fund recipient and an administrative law program where blind Business Enterprise Program participants and advocates, as well as others, routinely appear to seek justice and receive due process and equal protection under laws, including Public Act 260 of 1978 as well as major aspects of the Rehabilitation Act; and
WHEREAS, MAHS, in documented fashion and principals therein, have denied advocates and respondents who are blind repeatedly information in accessible formats and in a timely manner; and
WHEREAS, these are systemic, chronic, pervasive and fundamental violations of the civil rights of all Michigan citizens who are blind, as a class, by failure to act affirmatively in
these regards; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has also been complicit in not only ensuring that MAHS follows these laws, but rather, has repeatedly violated these very same provisions of the law in these administrative proceedings which are in and of themselves conscious and malicious acts of discrimination perpetuated repeatedly against numerous blind individuals;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled on November 6, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that forthwith, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan will lodge a Complaint against the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (MAHS’s parent), MAHS, and The Michigan Commission for the Blind within the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, and the civil rights office of the United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NFB-MI will seek any legal support in these matters from other resources, including our National office.
RESOLUTION 2011-03
COMMISSION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
WHEREAS, over the years, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board has received quality secretarial and administrative support; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding this support, it is inappropriate for the Commission Board to co-mingle administrative support with that of the Commission Director; and
WHEREAS, the Rehabilitation Act clearly calls for separate and independent administrative support staff directed and controlled by the Board; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board in its September 2011 meeting passed a unanimous motion to establish separate clerical support for the Board;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo,
Michigan that this organization calls upon the Michigan Commission for the Blind to take all appropriate, affirmative and expeditious steps to secure adequate and appropriate secretarial and
administrative support as called for in the Rehabilitation Act, and adequate enough to assist the Michigan Commission for the Blind board in carrying out its duties and responsibilities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization commends the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board for taking action to establish separate secretarial and support services.
RESOLUTION 2011-04
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND MINUTES
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has been in operation since 1978; and
WHEREAS, until the repressive present regime, the commission met approximately eleven (11) times per year and is responsible to develop policy which affects blind Michigan citizens; and
WHEREAS, it is very difficult to ascertain all relevant Commission policy pertaining to any specific topic or related topics; and
WHEREAS, open and transparent government and the efficient operation of the Commission Board call for ready access to all policies and related discussions;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization call upon the Commission Board to enact policies to organize a searchable public database of Commission motions and minutes that is available to Commissioners, staff and the public via the internet.
RESOLUTION 2011-05
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE
BLIND
WHEREAS, Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that all Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) communicates effectively through “appropriate modes of communication: with all customers;
and
WHEREAS, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Subpart e, Communications) requires that all entities of State and local government provide information to all people who are blind in their most effective format and in a timely manner, including, of
course, all those engaged with the Michigan Commission for the Blind; and
WHEREAS, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires the same; and
WHEREAS, it has been documented over the years that MCB does not, in all cases, remit timely materials in Braille, audio, electronic, or large print even after continued requests from
customers, Business Enterprise Program licensees and members of the public who are blind; and
WHEREAS, these documented and ongoing breaches of civil rights laws delay, deny and otherwise inhibit delivery of required services and “due process and equal protection” under these laws and thus constitute systemic, chronic and pervasive acts of discrimination against people who are blind in the State of Michigan; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is the leading advocate for the rights of all the blind of Michigan, and believes such violations of the law by the MCB denies blind persons of their right to equal access and such violations could be readily corrected by the MCB;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan files a Complaint forthwith to
the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights against the Michigan Commission for the Blind detailing the chronic acts of discrimination and demanding prompt compliance with all applicable laws in these regards.
RESOLUTION 2011-06
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MICHIGAN
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, the oldest and largest organization of all the blind in the country; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is actively involved in many activities that improve the lives of blind people in Michigan, including civil rights, advocacy, the education of blind children and adults, good training and job placement for the blind, information and technology access; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program (BEP) operates a phone information line called the Operator Information Exchange Line which is supported with state and federal funds and is designed for the purpose of providing useful information to BEP operators; and
WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan attempted to place an announcement about its up-and-coming annual State Convention on the Operator Information Exchange Line for the BEP operators in Michigan; and
WHEREAS, management of the BEP, without permission from the Federation’s representative, edited out the portion of the announcement which contained information about the state convention and only included information about the NFBM Merchants division training seminar; and
WHEREAS, a second submittal about the convention was rejected outright by BEP management; and
WHEREAS, BEP management subsequently admitted denial of our announcement on this Information Exchange Line which is supported by federal and state funds because such information was available elsewhere; and
WHEREAS, to our knowledge there are no known laws, rules, policies or guidelines restricting the placement of information on the operator information exchange line; and
WHEREAS, such censorship is a violation of our first amendment rights to free speech; and
WHEREAS, such blatant discrimination of the NFBM by a state employee is a violation of our right to public access;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization condemns and deplores such discriminatory action on the part of Michigan Commission for the Blind BEP management; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that sanctions be placed on the employees responsible for such behavior; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this organization takes all necessary steps to stop this discriminatory behavior of BEP management, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind establishing a written policy instructing all staff that such discriminatory actions against the NFBM in the future will not be tolerated.
RESOLUTION 2011-07
CHALLENGE EXPERIENCES
WHEREAS, successful, quality rehabilitation for the blind includes such mandatory skills as Braille, Cane Travel, Daily Living Skills, Technology, and Manual Arts; and
WHEREAS, these skills represent a minimum, or can be considered, core competencies for a person to become prepared to live successfully in the world as a blind person; and
WHEREAS, in order to fully benefit from these skills each person must have a philosophic view of blindness which encompasses these skills plus an intrinsic belief in oneself which informs an approach to life based on confidence and empowerment; and
WHEREAS, successful rehabilitation programs include “challenge experiences” that require the student to aggregate and consolidate the individual skills to accomplish a goal that challenges and stretches the students’ self-image as a blind person. Examples of such experiences include rock climbing, water skiing, sky diving, participation in large social events such as state fairs, Marde Gras, etc.; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center (MCBTC), in response to student demand, created a marksmanship challenge activity which served the ambient cultural needs of Michigan’s outdoor hunting and sports environment; and
WHEREAS, this marksmanship program was aborted in a drastic and destructive manner brutally repressing the spontaneous self-empowerment of blind people who were exercising their self-empowerment, thus undermining and stunting the full possibilities of a quality rehabilitation program; and
WHEREAS, now that the misguided, mean and regressive actions to repress the positive goals of the National Federation of the Blind as expressed in positive and progressive rehabilitation administration have been repudiated and shown for what they are, anti-consumer and anti-NFB; and
WHEREAS, it is now time to resume progress toward progressive, positive and creative rehabilitation that empowers blind people and creates an environment of encouragement and high expectation leading to personal freedom and confidence which will therefore lead to success in vocational and community pursuits; and
WHEREAS, the MCBTC must assume its rightful role as the planning, organizing and motivating engine within the Michigan Commission for the Blind rehabilitation programs;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization demands in the strongest terms possible that the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board take immediate and affirmative steps to enable the MCBTC to develop signature challenge programs reflective of the unique environment and needs in Michigan and that they reflect the diverse interests of Michigan citizens; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board act in its December meeting to initiate a planning process that will produce a plan for creative and effective challenge activities to be presented to the Commission for consideration in the March 2012 board meeting that incorporates the philosophical and skill building requirements as cited above; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board incorporate this planning and implementation of an acceptable challenge program into the MCB Director’s Performance Plan for 2012, and that the Board monitor progress towards this goal and take appropriate action if the goal is not achieved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization demands the reinstatement of the marksmanship class at the MCBTC.
RESOLUTION 2011-08
NEW HORIZONS
WHEREAS, Gwen McNeal has been on the Board of Trustees of New Horizons since 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) through McNeal, continues to do business with New Horizons to this date including contracting for evaluations and engages New Horizons personnel on other cash match agreements, including one with Oakland County Schools; and
WHEREAS, in the Rehabilitation Services Administration’s (RSA) 5-year Monitoring Report, RSA found that the Michigan Commission for the Blind, the Macomb Intermediate School District, and New Horizons Rehabilitation Services engaged in an illegal “cash match” agreement whereby New Horizons kicked in funds for federal match, and then received a no-bid contract (see Finding 6); and
WHEREAS, MCB Regional Manager Gwen McNeal was the responsible agent for this and even gave an award to New Horizons in 2008; and
WHEREAS, this, by any reasonable definition, constitutes a conflict of interest between this MCB Regional Administrator and a Community Rehabilitation Program; and
WHEREAS, this clearly violates state ethics guidelines and may well be a violation of state and federal laws;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan abhors this sort of apparent conflict of interests; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that forthwith NFB-MI informs, in writing, Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Office of the Inspector General in the United States Department of Education, and the Michigan Attorney General’s Public Integrity Office about this situation and requesting a thorough investigation into these and other practices.
RESOLUTION 2011-09
COLLEGE POLICY/MEANS TEST
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has a history of requiring college students who receive Social Security benefits to financially participate in the cost of their vocational rehabilitation services as documented in the 2009 Monitoring Report issued by the Rehabilitation Services Administration; and
WHEREAS, this is illegal under the Rehabilitation Act of 1998 regulations to ask college students who receive Social Security benefits to financially participate in the cost of their rehabilitation services; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind was asked to revise this specific policy by the Rehabilitation Services Administration to comply with federal laws and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind spent a considerable amount of time changing and updating the entire college student policy without specifically addressing the issue of asking college students who receive Social Security benefits to financially participate in the costs of their vocational rehabilitation services; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind insisted on creating a Means test as a part of this new college policy; and
WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind refuses to revise agency policies and procedures regarding the vocational rehabilitation services it provides to college students to comply with federal laws and procedures; and
WHEREAS, the lack of revising and implementing policies and procedures for providing vocational rehabilitation services to college students that comply with federal laws and procedures is a direct reflection of the lack of leadership provided to the Michigan Commission for the Blind through the agency director;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, That this organization calls upon the Michigan Commission for the Blind to immediately cease and desist the use of any Financial Needs Form that requires the financial participation of any college student and creates a Means test for college students who receives Social Security benefits; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization calls upon the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board of Directors to seek appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including, the termination of the agency director based upon his inability to adopt and implement policies and procedures for administering vocational rehabilitation services to college students that adequately reflect federal laws and procedures.
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 8:58 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB
Comm.; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: official board correspondennce nfb mi for record
December 6, 2011
Official Board Correspondence Re NFB Comments June MCB Meeting
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
joeharcz at comcast.net
Dear Commissioners,
Since the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan was given short shrift at the MCB meeting at issue and our 45 minutes was shrunk to 12 minutes I am submitting the attached as
official board correspondence to be read into the public record in full at the upcoming MCB meeting.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: Luzenski
Cc: Cannon
Cc: NFB MI
Cc: MCB 20/20 list serve
Attachment:
These documents were presented to the Commission for the Blind Board on June 17. They were written and edited by members of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan.
My name is Michael Powell. I am the 1st Vice-President of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. We are the oldest and largest organization of blind people speaking for the blind and working to change what it means to be blind.
I have been attending commission meetings on a regular basis since 2005. I observed that the commissioners, while being good and well intentioned people, always took the agency's view as the final word on how things were going for the blind in Michigan. Whenever the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, or any individual for that matter, would raise an issue, it usually met with the comment that, "of course, there is always room for improvement and we can try to do better." We continued to point out problems and possible solutions. The Commission Board functioned as a rubber stamp for whatever the state agency Director and his staff recommended.
This deteriorating relationship culminated in 2010. In the May 2010 issue of the Braille Monitor, our national publication, it was noted that, "Whatever else can be said about the quality of services, administrative irregularities and managerial manipulation at the Michigan Commission for the blind, nobody doubts that the relationship between the state's blind consumers and their principle rehabilitation service provider has been poisoned."
Shortly after our 2009 state Convention, Dave Robinson, one of our members, was fired from his job with the Michigan Commission for the Blind. He seemed to be targeted because of his membership in this organization. Christine Boone was now the only one of our members still employed by the Commission. We were seeing disturbing patterns of behavior on the part of the Commission. When Mr. Robinson took the matter before the state Civil Service Commission the Hearing Officer came to the same conclusion. This opinion is now part of the public record and can be read by anyone who wants the information.
On January 26, 2010, we learned that Christine Boone was going to be fired from her position as the Director of the Michigan Commission for the blind Training Center. That firing was largely due to information gathered from statements made in a presentation at our state Convention. This was a blatant attack on the Federation. The firing of the training center director has had a detrimental impact on the quality of services to Michigan's blind citizens seeking rehabilitation and training in the skills of blindness. These skills enable them to pursue goals of education, employment and independent living. It was also a denial of Ms. Boone's right to due process.
On Friday, January 29, 2010 the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan picketed the Michigan Commission for the Blind. A later demonstration was also held in Kalamazoo.
At the March 19, 2010 meeting of the Michigan Commission for the Blind we presented our position on this matter and other issues involving the Commission in the form of several documents. This information was not entered verbatim into the public record of your meeting. All Commissioners were presented with copies of the material.
Some individuals have not appreciated our approach to problem solving. Many years of discussion with the Commission Board have produced minimal results.
When the blind are being mistreated or denied proper services we will take appropriate action. The National Federation of the Blind will not hesitate to advocate, without apology for Michigan's blind citizens.
Since I last spoke to you on March 19, 2010 much has taken place. A new director was hired for the training center whose only background in rehabilitation of the blind was her being an employee of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. John Scott, a member of the NFB of Michigan, was appointed to the Commission Board. Before he could be fully installed the Board voted to go into closed session. In view of the current climate of mistrust, this was inadvisable and a violation of the Open Meetings Act. John Scott did not yet have voting privileges. We objected to this wrong decision by issuing a law suit. We felt that there was not good cause to justify a closed meeting. Through a decision made by our State Board that lawsuit was subsequently withdrawn.
What can we expect from the new Board that is currently in place? The people of the state of Michigan, through your appointment from the Governor, gave you a sacred trust. The people of Michigan believe that you are capable of setting policies to meet the needs of the blind because of your background, activities, experience, and commitment. It must be the Board that sets the policy to be implemented by those who provide the services and the training
that will empower people who are blind to participate actively in their communities and pursue goals of education and employment. Wwe expect that you will use the knowledge you gain through association with us, your experience and understanding of the problems faced by blind people, knowledge of the service delivery systems in this state, and personal life experience as blind people, parents and advocates for blind children to see that those employed to provide services do their jobs and attain the highest quality results.
We have compiled a document outlining problems you can address and suggestions of possible solutions to these problems. We also want to state that our president Larry Posont is seeing this information for the first time. As Vice-President I chaired the part of our last state Board Meeting that discussed and wrote this document. We did it this way because we take these matters very seriously. We stand ready to help you in any way that we can. Today can be a new day in serving the blind people of Michigan. All we ask you to do is to seize the opportunity and take it. For our part we will continue to advocate for the needs of the blind.
When we believe things are wrong we will ask questions and seek remedies. We are the National Federation of the Blind. This is who we are. This is what we do. And we make no apology for it. Access is a Civil Right, NFB MI Presentation to the MCB for June 17, 2011
Access to information from a public entity like MCB is as fundamental as America itself. As, people who are blind cannot by nature of disability read conventional print both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the very act that creates MCB) require that information is made accessible to blind employees, members of the public, and consumers of MCB services. This information must be made available in the most effective format for the individual including Braille, audio, digital, or large print formats.
Federally funded state agencies such as MCB must also act affirmatively in providing accessible information, cannot charge any additional cost for providing it in accessible form, and must provide information in a timely manner.
Equal access to information is a civil right and failure to provide it either pro forma or upon request is a fundamental civil rights violation. Yet, we the NFB offer Michigan note severe violations of the ADA and 504 in this regard for years.
While commissioners do for the most part receive accessible information when it is remitted, they most often do not, as documented in the public record receive vital information in any format, or in a timely manner. Several commissioners in the public including Eagle and Taeckens have complained about not receiving timely data about this agency's actions. In fact state plan information including annual supplements was only provided to most commissioners when one of our members received them for the entire decade through the Freedom of Information Act and then distributed them to commissioners.
The lack of timely information related to the RSA monitoring covering four years, and which was after all a monitoring to see
Whether or not MCB was following its state plans and the Rehabilitation Act is legendary by now. Commissioners did not receive anything for more than a year. In fact they still have not received all data related to the required corrective actions, now many months passed due.
There are many more instances where commissioners do not receive timely and accessible information that is part of the public record.
Needless to say receiving nothing months, or even years after the fact hardly is timely delivery of accessible information.
Another fact is that Michigan's MAIN system to this date is not fully and independently accessible to any blind employee of the State of Michigan. Not, even to MCB Director Cannon, who is also the State ADA coordinator. Cannon acknowledged this basic issue at the last NFB MI convention, but has never taken one action to fix it.
In addition, many components of state web pages are not accessible; and again, Cannon has ignored complaints.
Moreover, BEP operators have reported over years issues with receiving timely and accessible information about their operations and that includes information related to ALJ and other due process proceedings. A denial of timely and accessible information in these regards is also a fundamental denial of due process. At the last MCB meeting it was also reported that BEP trainees did not all get timely and accessible training materials either. This is a mind blowing publicly documented act of gross discrimination by an agency that is supposed to bad advocating for training and educational information for college students and so forth. Yet, they don't provide it in their own program.
Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require that all information related to public meetings and all facilities used for them are accessible. Every document made available to members of the commission must be made available to blind people in alternate formats and upon request in a timely manner.
Moreover all meeting sites must be accessible including the one structural communications element in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG(), which is the requirement of raised character and Braille signage on every permanent room including room numbers. Director Cannon knows of these requirements. He was the Chair of the United States Access Board. Many complaints about violations have come to him including a 2008 survey of state owned facilities conducted by DTMB.
MCB is required to hold public hearings and relate information about those public hearings in a variety of media regarding its Tri-annual Comprehensive Needs Assessment.
Not only has this never been done, but current Commissioner Posont received a print letter related to the one last year in his capacity as President of NFB MI signed by none other than Patrick D. Cannon!
The absolute worst and most chronic violations of the ADA and 504 however aren't just these, but the continued violations of the rights of consumers of MCB to receive all information related to their affairs in a timely and accessible manner, including rights of appeal and other due process rights. Numerous complaints have been made to this board, to CIC and other agencies in this regard including CAP and Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services. But, in spite of MCB's contention that it follows the ADA in these matters even its own 2008 consumer satisfaction survey denoted that a substantial percentage of even so-called "successfully closed" consumers never received one item in accessible format from application to closure. They received nothing:Nnot even the application itself or even an IPE let alone assessments, evaluations
and other critical items that indeed ensure accountability, due process and informed consent. What more needs to be said that is not said in that survey?
Make no mistake these and other violations over the years constitute not only deliberate indifference to these civil rights laws by Director and Michigan ADA coordinator Cannon and MCB over all, but constitute willful, intentional and malicious mass violations of blind people's civil rights as a class.
We, the NFB of Michigan wish to reach across the table to members of MCBVI. ACB has fought for the rights of the blind to receive accessible information from cases against the Social Security Administration through work along with NFB on Accessible texts and joint work on things like accessible ATMs and voting systems. We ask
them to join us in making MCB fully accessible.
Now, with these considerations in mind the NFB MI strongly urges the MCB Board to take the following action steps:
1. That the MCB Board urge the Director of the new Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to immediately fill the required, but vacant "ADA Coordinator" position within LARA and with someone who knows more about the ADA than its initials. Moreover, we urge this board to call on Governor Snyder to remove the totally ineffective Patrick Cannon as State ADA Coordinator and to inform him that the position is also conflicted as Cannon is a documented perpetrator of chronic ADA violations.
2. That this board files this document and any associated documentation of ADA violations over the years with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights as a systemic complaint on behalf of blind persons as a class and that it urge OCR to conduct a full scale compliance review of MCB.
3. That this board directs the Director to immediately contact the DBTAC Great Lakes Technical Assistance Center for a thorough staff and public training of obligations, and responsibilities related to the ADA. Our members have contacted key personnel their and they would be delighted to do this.
4. That the MCB Board contact Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services and advise them that they wish for access to information and facility access for people who are blind or visually impaired throughout every state agency including MCB to be one of its top priorities for enforcement actions.
It is well-documented that, generally speaking, there is a 70-80 percent unemployment rate among blind people of working age. To give this some perspective, during the Great Depression of the 1930's the worst economic event in American history, the unemployment rate for the general population was around 25 percent. It is also documented that blind people who successfully complete programs in rehabilitation services have an approximate 30-35 percent unemployment rate. Even this lower figure still exceeds the general population unemployment rate during the Great Depression and is more than 3 times the current "high" unemployment rate of around 10 percent.
Blind people and other people with disabilities have gone to Congress and explained these stark facts. Congress has been generous in appropriating funds to provide services to blind people to assist us in finding work.
With figures obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Commission for the Blind the following facts have been uncovered. It is no wonder that the Administration has been reluctant to share this data with the Commission board despite the Board's request at its March meeting. In Michigan, in 2010, the Michigan Commission for the Blind had around $28 million to serve blind people. One might reasonably ask, "What has the MCB done with this very large amount of money to serve blind people?" Is every unemployed blind person now employed? What would you, a concerned citizen, do with $28 million to help your fellow blind person to get a job? Anyone who has had any kind of meetings or has an open case with the Commission will tell you that virtually without exception, the Commission staff believe the agency is underfunded and cannot afford to provide the necessary services to assist every client to find employment in their chosen field. The facts simply do not bear this out. Given the very large budget surpluses, MCB has ample funds to fully help all clients.
Here is what the legislature wants MCB to do with taxpayer money. 393.354 Of the Commission law says in Sec. 4. (1) The commission shall maintain a program of services to assist visually handicapped persons to overcome vocational handicaps and to obtain the maximum degree of self-support and self-care.. .the following is added to make sure everyone is clear about the intent of the legislature.
(k) Provide other rehabilitative goods and services as appropriate to each individual circumstance.
How many times must the law say that the Commission is to make maximum efforts to help blind people get good jobs? Not the minimum, not a minimum wage job, not a sheltered workshop, the law says the maximum effort in accordance with the blind person's abilities and interests. A reasonable person would agree that maximum effort would be to utilize all the resources available to accomplish these items.
A paraphrase of The Bible tells us that where the treasure is, there is the heart, also. It is telling that the cost categories which pay salaries, rents to state government, state retirement, and so on, are the accounts which are the most exhausted. Any account directed to providing direct services and employment to blind people is woefully underspent. One might reasonably wonder why those items that spend money for governmental items are nearly fully spent, fully spent or significantly over-spent while client service accounts are significantly underspent. Is this a reflection of the priorities of the agency? Are these funds treated as a convenient ATM to fund outside interests?
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$28,798,133
$20,552,909
71 percent
According to these figures the MCB had nearly $29 million to spend. It only spent 71 percent of this money.
Here are some examples of the spending priorities within MCB as published by the agency for the 2009-2010 fiscal year
CASE SERVICES
$5,431,115
$4,279,761
79 percent
It is difficult to explain that the agency failed to spend around $1 million while telling clients there are no funds for their services. This is the heart of the agencies programs to assist with employment for blind people. This is the reason the agency exists. Case services is where the real work of the agency is accomplished. Without case services, there is no reason for an agency for the blind. We are talking about 21 percent of the money available to help get jobs went unspent. Remember, there are 70 percent of
us who want to work and don't. Furthermore, if a client who receives Social Security benefits is successfully placed and ceases to receive Social Security benefits, the Commission is reimbursed 100 percent of the rehabilitation costs.
SALARIES AND WAGES
$6,539,308
$6,199,397
95 percent
Ok, now we see that 95 percent of salaries and wages are spent while only 79 percent of case services funds are spent. Remember the part about where the heart and treasure are? Commission employees deserve good pay and good working conditions. There are a lot of very good employees within MCB. We ought to hire more counselors and placement people to reach and get jobs for more blind people. However, in this politically charged environment of cutting government spending, the above numbers with fully spent salaries and underspent case services do not support the premise that the agency is understaffed, even though we all know that caseloads are too high in some areas.
We call upon you, the Commission Board to take charge of the budget and the budget process and get the agency priorities in order.
Revision of Commission board by laws
It is the position of this organization that the board needs to revisit and revise their by laws. Even though some revisions were made in 2009, the by laws fall short in a number of areas. Most critical of these is the extraordinary power it gives to the Commission director. Other areas include the time needed for Commission board members to receive background material on issues they will be deliberating and the limited time for response and presentation of issues from the blind public citizens of Michigan as has occurred here today.
We request that the Commission board initiate a review of the by laws and make the following changes:
#1. The role of the Commission director be only limited to support and not have the ability to veto meetings and set the agenda as outlined in Section 5, 12 and 13.
#2. Sufficient time be provided to the Commissioners to review all material including minutes of meetings, administrative reports, and transcripts of hearings on cases of litigation.
#3. Clarification of the time and manner for public comment.
#4. Removal of Commission staff handling the minutes or correspondence for the Commission board and assigning it to an independent support position as outlined in the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act.
Other issues may need to be addressed as determined by the Commission board. We hope that in taking this necessary step the Commission board can establish standards and guidelines that will allow it to fulfill its proper role as established under P.A. 260.
There was a recent job announcement for a counselor position in Nebraska. We wish to call your attention to the training requirement for staff in Nebraska.
All new hires will complete 600 hours of immersion training in Lincoln, at NCBVI expense, at the Nebraska Center for the Blind to learn the alternative skills of blindness (cane travel, Braille, assistive technology, activities of daily living, etc.); those completing the training will be certified as Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors for the blind.
Though we are not in possession of all hiring statistics, we are aware that many of the recent hires for MCB have not been trained in a college program for blindness rehabilitation professionals. We also are aware that many of the recent hires come from the Michigan Rehabilitation Services agency which has a profoundly different caseload and philosophy of rehabilitation, a philosophy that has shown nationally that blind people do very poorly when they are served by a general rehabilitation agency. Rehabilitation is not simply rehabilitation. Blindness is different, in its affect from almost all other disabilities. Society falsely views blindness as a death, a tragedy, an insurmountable barrier to being a first-class citizen. The work of a rehabilitation agency is that of social change for the community and encompasses a much wider range of skills, beliefs and attitudes than those skill areas like cane travel, braille and talking computers.
In sworn testimony in an administrative hearing, a Michigan counselor testified that she had a total of 4 weeks training in blindness skills, including college and MCB. All rehabilitation is not created equal. Blindness brings with it unique issues that call for unique solutions: solutions that can only be fully understood through intensive emersion training. Some of these solutions are technical in nature like labeling, marking and so forth. Primarily, however, these solutions have to do with attitude, philosophy and a true belief in the efficacy of alternative techniques of blindness. This is not an indictment of staff who have not received such training, after all, MCB employees have met all hiring and training expectations. The deficit is in the management's expectation regarding expertise in blindness skills and attitudes. Further the training deficit is graphically and vividly expressed in the poor outcomes with regard to placement rates and the ongoing violations of the rehabilitation act as expressed in the federal monitoring report and the continual illegal advisement of MCB clients that the are required to use their SSI or SSDI funds for rehabilitation costs.
MCB needs to embark on a long-term (5-year) and intensive training program for new and existing staff to begin to change the culture of the agency to build it into a culture of high expectations and above average quality outcomes in terms of placements, starting wages, acquisition of advanced degrees, high GPA's for students and competitive literacy rates for all readers who successfully complete rehabilitation programs through MCB. These Quality Assurance (QA) deficits were specifically pointed out in the monitoring report.
The federal monitoring report found:
. A significant number of new MCB staff members lack expertise and are pursuing training in order to meet the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development (CSPD) standard.
. MCB has difficulty hiring qualified individuals that meet the CSPD requirements for the VR counselor and rehabilitation teacher positions.
RSA solicited input from MCB to identify the following continuing education needs of its staff:
a.. developing and implementing service delivery evaluation processes;
b.. skill-building to improve the achievement of competitive employment outcomes;
c.. strategies to decrease recidivism; and
d.. developing and implementing effective strategies to improve internal and external communication.
1. Quality Assurance
Observations: MCB does not have comprehensive and integrated QA processes and, therefore, cannot evaluate the agency's financial and programmatic performance on a continuing basis.
a.. VR counselors are not evaluated on the quality of the employment outcomes achieved by individuals on their caseloads.
b.. MCB does not have standards for measuring the performance of vendors, nor does it have a system for ensuring the accountability of, and the consumer satisfaction with, vendor performance.
a.. MCB and its commission spend extensive time soliciting consumer input, but do not have a systematic method to incorporate this input into QA processes.
Recommendations: RSA recommends that MCB:
1.1 develop and implement an agency QA system that promotes
accountability, evaluates MCB and vendor performance, and serves as a baseline for measuring agency progress in achieving strategic goals;
1.2 integrate into the QA process activities and input identified through the Vision 20/20 initiative, the findings contained in the CSNA, agency performance and financial data, the results of consumer and employee satisfaction surveys and the service record reviews, and other information necessary to align resource allocation with agency needs; and
1.3 modify the employee performance appraisal system to align with the tenets of the new QA system.
We hope that staff will encourage, embrace and advocate for more training in blindness and quality assurance to help achieve the kinds of outcomes you all have for your clients. There is no doubt that better results will be achieved with the same effort through the robust application of high standards and deep expertise in blindness skills and positive attitudes about blindness and blind people. We believe MCB staff goals are similar to ours:, good jobs for lots of blind people.
After all though, it is up to you, the board, to lead the way and set high training standards, including emersion, for MCB staff.
Commission presentation
Many of us remember a decade ago when the Michigan economy was thriving and tax revenues to the State were plentiful. The State workforce was robust and each department had a full compliment of employees enjoying a good salary. The Business Enterprise Program operators were enjoying strong sales because state workers were spending. The traveling public had money to spend on snacks and pop because they were not paying $4 for a gallon of gas. For many reasons beyond our control this economy was not sustained. Hard times became the norm.
As businesses failed, state government revenues declined and the cost for everything, including food and beverages increased, profits for BEP operators began to dwindle. In the mid 2000's operators began to bid out of locations that were no longer profitable. Other operators entered these facilities in hopes of turning them around. Most did not succeed. Operators in these undesirable locations attempted to move to a facility that could still render any kind of a profit or leave the BEP altogether. It was then that operators began to urge the BEP management to take a look at the BEP facilities to determine the viability for employment of each location. This was never done, and is still not being looked at today.
It has been boasted by the BEP management that all they have to do is to have a reasonable expectation of an operator earning at least 120% of the prevailing federal minimum wage to make a facility a viable operation. Our question to them is how do you know the facility can reasonably expect the operator to earn 120% of the federal minimum wage? No review of a facility for its economic viability has been done. Most of the facilities operated under the BEP are ones created long before the year 2000; substantially before the economic downturn. This occurred long before the state work force decreased and the traveling public limited their driving because of rising gas prices. We can definitely say that the BEP is not keeping up with the times.
It is common knowledge that many of the BEP facilities listed on the bid line have been there for some time. Many of them have sighted people operating them just to keep them open. We wonder how many BEP allocated Federal dollars are being spent on sighted people receiving and keeping a job. The question then is why are these facilities on the bid line for so long? Perhaps we ought to ask the operators?
Recent review of the facilities on the bid line indicates that 10 of the 13 have sales under $75,000 a year. Several of these locations need more then just the operator to run the business. With the cost of goods, employee costs and other fixed cost such as insurance, workers compensation, telephone, liability etc. no profit could be realized. The operators know this. They are familiar with the circumstances at the facility and they have not and will not bid on them because they have been proven to be unprofitable. The agencies solution to the large number of facilities on the bid line is to train more people to be operators. This results in new, recently trained, inexperienced operators taking locations that are not viable thus causing the new operator to fail. The BEP management then points to the operator and says he or she was a failure rather then looking in the mirror and asking themselves what they could have done to prevent the failure.
The BEP, as part of the Commission for the Blind, is a program to provide employment opportunities for blind persons. Employment means a job that will provide a living wage. The facilities being offered to operators and potential operators are far from jobs. As the months go by the situation continues to get worse. Even facilities being run by blind BEP operators are suffering from the economic downturn, and profits are declining. Yet the
BEP management still requires the operators to maintain a certain profit or be deemed out of compliance and risk losing their license to operate a facility. These profit requirements were established decades ago and have never been updated to reflect the changing times. In the past couple of years the BEP management has chosen to ignore the pleas of many and take an attitude of punishment of the operators rather than an attitude of support and finding solutions to the current business climate.
We call upon the board to launch an investigation into the viability of facilities in the BEP and what the reasonable profit level should be for each operating facility. Furthermore, the BEP needs to immediately implement a plan to consolidate current locations and add new locations that can be offered to current and potential operators where they can make a living. Criteria assuring placement of only trained blind persons into the available locations at all times must be established and maintained. We see no reason for such delays in providing employment opportunities for the blind and we believe that BEP management is neglecting their responsibilities to provide a viable employment program for the blind of Michigan or deliberately destroying the BEP opportunity completely. Whichever it is, the blind will not allow it to continue and we request the
Commission board to take action that will restore the BEP to a meaningful employment opportunity for the blind.
No rehabilitation agency can satisfy all of its clients, all of the time. Therefore, Congress included section 112 in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and created the Client Assistance Program (CAP). The mission of
CAP is clearly spelled out in Section 112. CAP shall provide assistance and advocacy to clients and applicants for services, in pursuing legal, administrative, or other appropriate remedies to ensure the protection of the rights of such individuals under this act, and to facilitate access to the services funded under this Act through individual and systematic advocacy. In Michigan, the Client Assistance Program is housed within Michigan Protection & Advocacy. The NFB of Michigan has heard from many people, both members and non-members, that the CAP staff is either non responsive to telephone calls and inquiries, or that the CAP director advocates for the agency in almost every instance, leaving clients and applicants for services to stand alone if they wish to grieve any action or failure to act on the part of the Commission.
We call upon this Board to request a full report from the CAP director, to be provided in person at an upcoming Commission meeting, with a written copy to be given to Commissioners at least 14 days inn advance of that meeting. The report should include, at a minimum, the following statistics for the past 2 year period relating to MCB:
Number of people contacting CAP;
Number of calls returned to those people by CAP staff;
Number of CAP brochures provided in alternative formats;
Approximate Number of CAP brochures provided to potential MCB consumers;
Number of individuals to whom additional information is provided by CAP staff;
Number of cases opened to advocate for clients or applicants for services;
Number of administrative reviews at which CAP staff represented legally blind individuals;
Number of ALJ hearings attended by CAP staff representing legally blind individuals;
Number of successful outcomes for clients and applicants represented by CAP.
College students are still experiencing the same problems they encountered before the new College policy was adopted. Students are still having difficulties receiving services to help pay for tuition, textbooks, and reader services not provided by the college or university. If receiving a college education is the leading predictor in whether or not a person becomes gainfully employed, then when will the MCB start providing college students the services they need in a timely manner as defined by Public Act 260 and the Rehabilitation Act as amended?
The Governor of Michigan appoints the MCB Board of Commissioners to hold the agency accountable when creating policies that effect consumers. However, where was this accountability when the agency was looking to adopt a new college policy? If the Commission Board was doing its job as defined by Public Act 260, then why did it allow the agency to adopt a college policy that does not fully comply with federal law?
The Rehabilitation Act is clear, the MCB cannot create a means test for college students who receive social security benefits including Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance. However, this is exactly what the new Financial Needs and Resources form does as a part of the new college policy. The NFB of Michigan calls upon the Commission Board to review the new college policy, and remove the Financial Needs and Resources form.
During the 2010 state convention, we adopted a resolution regarding the new college policy. It reads as follows:
Whereas the MCB has adopted a new policy regarding the services it provides to college students, and;
Whereas the MCB severely limited the participation of consumers including college students and college administrators in the review of this new policy, and;
Whereas the new college policy includes a Statement of Financial Needs and Resources asking students how much they have contributed to disability related services including Personal Equipment, Medical Expenses, Personal Assistants or Attendants, and transportation, and;
Whereas such a statement of financial needs and resources eludes to the adoption of a means test, and;
Whereas the NFB of Michigan has previously adopted a resolution opposing the use of a means test for providing services to college students,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the NFB of Michigan in convention assembled this thirty-first day of October 2010 in the City of Dearborn Michigan to condemn and deplore the use of a financial needs form by the MCB when administering services to college students, and;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization call upon the MCB Board of Directors to take a more active role in standing up for the rights of blind consumers when adopting and reviewing new policies as defined by Michigan Public Act 260.
Today's college students will be tomorrow's leaders, so why not give them all the resources possible? As members of the MCB Board of Commissioners, you hold the power to help make the dreams of these students a reality. Please do not let petty politics get in the way of students receiving the education they need to become the leaders of tomorrow.
--
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 3:15 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB
Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: official board correspondence rsa monitoring still incomplete
Official Board Correspondence RSA Monitoring Incomplete
December 6, 2011
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr,.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
To MCB Commissioners
Commissioners and The Public,
The RSA Monitoring has not been completed to this date (see attached). And nor have commissioners or myself been supplied with data in any format to this date.
This is simply an outrage. A documented outrage. And I stand by the contention that Director Cannon should be fired for this alone and his total mismanagement and non-compliance with RSA monitoring requirements,.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Attached:
This still isn’t done to this date, November 16, 2011 now one year after RSA required corrective actions. In fact MCB continues to abuse the Michigan FOIA in this regards in addition to not accounting for federal funds and how it administers these programs critical for blind youth in transition in these counties.
For this alone Patrick Cannon, as Director of MCB should be fired. Simply, it is gross dereliction of known duties, documented and it has extreme negative impact on these programs let alone not being a good steward of taxpayer’s funds.
Moreover, the Regional Supervisor should be scrutinized for the development and oversight of these programs as well as the associated school district personnel and third parties like Peckham.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>From RSA Monitoring Report:
Finding 2: In FY 2009, MCB entered into three agreements called “Certified Expenditure Agreements” with local school districts for the purpose of using expenditures incurred under these agreements for meeting its non-Federal share requirement for the VR program. The certified expenditures under these three agreements, totaling $416,112, were for school staff, fringe benefits, supplies, and travel. The agreements were silent as to the services to be provided by the cooperating agencies and the consumers to be served; however, in practice, RSA was told by staff that the local school districts provided the same services under the agreements to their
usual consumers that they customarily provide in the ordinary course of business. For example:
* Eaton Intermediate School District (ISD) transition staff informed RSA while onsite that the Orientation and Mobility (O&M) and Visual Impairment (VI) consultants provided the same services to all students with disabilities participating in the program – not just MCB consumers. According to the Eaton ISD transition staff, only 3 of the 11 students – 27 percent – receiving O&M consultation services under the cash match program were MCB consumers. Similarly, only 3 of the 17 students – 18 percent – receiving VI
consultation services under the cash match agreements were MCB consumers. Although the written agreements indicated that MCB was not certifying any of the Eaton ISD staff’s time for match purposes, the Eaton ISD transition staff told RSA that MCB certified 100 percent of the O&M consultant’s salary and 50 percent of the VI consultant’s salary as providing services to MCB consumers.
* The agreement for Ingham ISD identified three individuals as certifying 100 percent of their time – totaling $204, 946 – spent providing services exclusively to MCB consumers. However, according to a spreadsheet provided by MCB that spanned October 2008 through July 2009, one of the individuals providing services pursuant to the cash match agreement at Ingham ISD verified that she worked only 244.55 hours – 15.85 percent of the 1,533 total hours worked – in providing services to MCB consumers.
Finally, the various agreements stated that service providers under the agreements would be “technically supervised by” MCB and would comply with all requirements governing the VR program. According to MCB staff, the agency has engaged in these and similar agreements for several years.
In order for MCB to use expenditures incurred by another public agency for purposes of satisfying its non-Federal share of 21.3 percent of the expenditures under the State Plan, the non-
Federal expenditures must be incurred by the cooperating agency pursuant to a valid third-party cooperative arrangement that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 361.28. In particular, the regulations require: 1) the services be new services, not customarily provided by the agency, or expanded services with a VR focus; 2) the services be provided only to VR applicants or eligible consumers; 3) the VR agency maintain supervisory control over the expenditures and staff providing the services; and 4) all State Plan requirements be met.
The three agreements between MCB and local school districts failed to comply with Federal requirements governing third-party cooperative arrangements for several reasons. First, as stated above, the agreements were silent as to the individuals to be served and the services to be provided under the agreements. Due to the lack of specification in the agreements, RSA learned from transition staff in the school districts that the school districts continued to provide their customary services to their usual consumer population, not VR services to VR consumers, under these agreements, in violation of 34 CFR 361.28(a)(1) and (2). Although MCB consumers were among those served under the agreements, they were a small minority of the individuals receiving the services. Federal regulations require that the services provided under the cooperative agreements must be provided only to VR consumers (34 CFR 361.28(a)(2)).
Second, MCB did not supervise the expenditures incurred or the staff providing services under the agreements, as required by the language of the agreements and 34 CFR 361.28(a)(3). For example, MCB could not verify the number of hours staff worked, the tasks performed, or the actual expenditures incurred under the agreements. In a spreadsheet provided by MCB, it is clear that the staff providing the services under the Ingham agreement spent very little time serving MCB consumers as compared to other students with disabilities, yet MCB accepted the staff’s certification that they spent 100 percent of their time serving MCB consumers. Third, the
school districts failed to meet the State Plan requirements, as required by 34 CFR 361.28(a)(4), by not providing VR services to VR consumers. Expenditures incurred under the VR State plan must be solely for the provision of VR services and the administration of the VR program (34 CFR 361.3). For the foregoing reasons, these agreements do not comply with 34 CFR 361.28; therefore, the non-Federal expenditures incurred under these agreements are not eligible sources of match for MCB under the VR program.
In addition, upon reviewing the three agreements and supporting documentation, RSA learned that MCB was using third-party in-kind contributions as a source of match. For example, the
MCB certified $16,000 and $12,300 in supplies and travel expenditures incurred by Eaton ISD and Ingham ISD, respectively, for match purposes under the VR program. MCB’s use of in-kind contributions violated 34 CFR 361.60(b)(2), which prohibits the use of third-party in-kind donations for match purposes under the VR program.
Corrective Action: MCB must:
2.1 cease reporting non-Federal expenditures as match funds under the VR program when those non-Federal expenditures fail to comply with 34 CFR 361.28 or 34 CFR 361.60(b);
2.2 amend those agreements that will be used by MCB as a source of non-Federal expenditures for meeting its non-Federal share obligation under the VR program to ensure they comply with 34 CFR 361.28;
2.3 submit a written assurance to RSA within 10 days of receipt of the final monitoring report that: 1) all future third-party agreements, for purposes of meeting MCB’s non-Federal share under the VR program, will comply with 34 CFR 361.28; and 2) MCB will not use in-kind contributions for meeting its non-Federal share under the VR program in accordance with 34 CFR 361.60(b); and
2.4 complete and submit the following source of match spreadsheet entitled, “Certified Expenditure Agreements,” that provides summary information on the total amount of certified funds MCB received from the public agencies through these agreements and the total amount used by MCB for VR program match in FYs 2005 through 2009:
Certified Expenditure Agreements
(FYs 2005 through 2009)
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
Total certified funds MCB received from public entities for match
Total certified funds from these agreements used for match in specified FY
Total certified funds from the agreements, incurred in the provision of allowable services to eligible individuals in accordance with 34 CFR 361.28, used for match in specified FY
2.5 MCB must submit written documentation to support the amount of certified expenditures reported in the above chart as being allowable under the VR program. The supporting documentation must demonstrate that the expenditures were incurred during the provision of allowable VR services to MCB consumers.
Agency Response: MCB’s match procedures are based on prior RSA consultation and reviews and MCB has historical documentation to support this claim. MCB disagrees with the RSA finding that the three agreements between MCB and the local school districts (Certified Expenditure Agreements) are unallowable certified expenditures. It is our determination that these agreements fully meet the requirements of 361.28. The services provided in these three agreements were not the usual services of the school districts.
MCB disagrees with the RSA statement that MCB did not supervise the expenditures incurred or the staff providing services under the agreement. MCB’s blended staff is supervised by the manager within the region. The time sheets for the personnel that provided services for MCB’s consumers under the certified match agreements are housed at the ISD district offices. The certified agreements that are signed by the school personnel identify the specific instructional time provided to MCB’s consumers. Copies of the agreements are attached indicating the supervision by the MCB staff. MCB meets with the staff bi-monthly to review progress of the program, as well as to discuss with the staff the objectives of the specific individualized programs. The ISD staff that are identified in the agreements are the ones that provide the instructions for the consumers in their expanded curriculum relating to career exploration, vocational information, comprehensive mobility instructions, work readiness skill training, job placement services, including job coaching, when necessary, and job follow along services. These agreements also provide pre-employment activities, which includes resume development, job shadowing, and mentoring during the summer months. These services are provided to eligible MCB consumers.
With regard to completion of the chart as required by corrective action 2.4 above, MCB has limited staff and resources and cannot work on issues which go back to October 1, 2004 (beginning of FY 2005). The agency’s highest priority is working on current issues. The documentation is available onsite for RSA reviewers.
RSA Response: RSA has re-reviewed the three agreements in light of MCB’s comments. While RSA understands that MCB disagrees with the RSA statement that MCB did not supervise the expenditures incurred or the staff providing services under the agreement, the problem is that neither the three one-page agreements – which were ambiguous as to the supervision MCB would provide -- nor our conversations with staff from those cooperating agencies while onsite support MCB’s claim. Furthermore, even if MCB could document that it supervised the expenditures incurred and the staff providing the VR services under the agreements, as required by 34 CFR 361.28(a)(3), the agreements still failed to satisfy the other requirements for a third-party cooperative arrangement at 34 CFR 361.28(a)(1), (2), and (4). Most importantly, the information that RSA learned onsite, as described in this Finding, indicates that the services provided under the third-party cooperative agreements – O&M and VI consultations – were the same services provided to all students with disabilities. In fact, only 27 percent and 18 percent of the students participating in the O&M and VI consultations, respectively, were MCB consumers. Furthermore, the spreadsheet MCB provided shows one of the staff persons only provided services to MCB consumers 15.85 percent of her time, yet 100 percent of her salary was certified as non-Federal expenditures for match purposes. Allowable expenditures under the VR State Plan must be solely for the provision of VR services to eligible consumers or the
administration of the VR program (34 CFR 361.3). Providing services to non-consumers is not an allowable expense under the VR program. Given that MCB did not supply documentation to support its claim that the school districts provided only new or modified VR services to MCB consumers exclusively in accordance with the requirements set forth at 34 CFR 361.28, the Finding stands and corrective actions must be taken.
In addition to re-reviewing the agreements, we also reviewed a letter written in April 1996 by the then RSA Regional Commissioner regarding the certified staffing agreements. While the letter
did not express concerns about the certified agreements as they existed at that time, the letter was based on third-party cooperative arrangement legal requirements that existed in 1996. Those regulatory requirements changed in 1997, the year after the letter was written, and have remained virtually unchanged since then. With regard to the issue of in-kind contributions discussed in that same letter, the information provided by the regional office did not accurately reflect the legal requirements that existed then and now. RSA has always maintained the position that third-party in-kind contributions are not an allowable source of match under the VR program even though they are allowable under EDGAR (see 60 Fed. Reg. 64475, 64494 (December 15, 1995) and 62 Fed. Reg. 6308, 6333 (February 11, 1997)). Although the prohibition for using third-party in-kind contributions as a VR match source was found in a different regulatory provision (34 CFR 361.24(c)) in 1996 then its current provision (34 CFR 361.60(b)(2)), the prohibition has remained virtually unchanged over the years.
MCB still must complete the corrective actions outlined above. In light of the fact that more facts are needed to determine the amount of certified staff expenditures that would be deemed allowable under the VR program, we have revised the chart that MCB must complete, pursuant to corrective action 2.4. The revised chart not only asks for the amount of certified staff expenditures MCB is counting towards its VR match requirement per year, but also asks MCB to
determine the amount of those expenditures that it believes were incurred in the provision of allowable services to eligible individuals in accordance with 34 CFR 361.28. MCB also must submit supporting documentation as evidence of the amount of certified expenditures it reports in the chart as being allowable under the VR program (corrective action 2.5). The chart also asks MCB to determine the amount of in-kind contributions it used, per fiscal year, for VR match purposes. RSA will provide the specific TA requested as needed. RSA requests that MCB be more specific about the TA it needs.
Technical Assistance: MCB requests clarification on services to applicants vs. eligible consumers and allowable outreach activities.
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 3:37 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB
Comm.; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: offical board correspondence
While the NFB of Michigan Board of Directors can, and should speak for itself this is an informational post for the public record.
The NFB of Michigan Board of Directors officially and in and on the public record voted unanimously a vote of "no confidence" with and regarding to the activities of MCB Director Patrick D. Cannon of Haslett, Michigan.
Moreover, the MCB Board and the public has on the public record the wishes of NFB Michigan to have Patrick D. Cannon fired, retired and/or otherwise removed from office in several past resolutions and
actions.
I'm only making these notices public now as the Directors evaluation is coming up and the will of the people, we the people should be considered and acknowledged in these regards.
By the way if so-called rival groups like say MCBVI have contrary resolutions or board actions that are contrary to those in the public domain like those of N"FB MI then I wish for them collectively to produce them and make them transparent with all the requesite votes of membership, etc.
I say this in anticipation of the likes of Joe Sibley, et al or any other representative of the affiliatestating things not voted upon by their board or he convention assembled as their own constitution suggests and thus acting in an ad hoc manner.
Now, mind all these are observations of one who is a member of NFB MI but not a Board member, and one of a former member of MCBVI which I observed from the inside acted in a certain extra-legal manner
when I was a member and when it (MCBVI) did not follow or does not follow its own resolutions to this date.
It doesn't matter though for I act in this letter and in other similar matters as an individual with all the rights, duties, responsabilities, and so on endowed upon all citizens regardless of affiliation in dealing with any governmental actor or entity.
I would call for Cannon's removal because he is a clown for example as an individual. I would but then again clowns are funny and Cannon and his perfidy is not so.
Sincerely,
Joe Harcz
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:22 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB
Comm.; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; mcb2020-
L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV; Joe Sibley MCBVI Pres.
Subject: official boardcorrespondence
ofbdc and more
Open Letter and Official Board Correspondence
December 7, 2011
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
joeharcz at comcast.net
To: Commissioners Michigan Commission for the Blind
Re: Official Board Correspondences and Public Record
Dear Commissioners and Citizens and Advocates,
I, Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr. have submitted many items as so-called official board correspondence to this board now and in the past. Now, the new by-laws require that such are Reade into the record. I, personally realize that this board is trying to remedy issues
of the past as am I in these regards. Regardless, though while anything I’ve sent to this commission and past correspondences are available under FOIA and are a part of the public record in effect and affect and in fact and deed I waive personally the notion that each and every so-called “official board correspondence” is read in the record in the interest of brevity. Though I do demand that each and every entry so labeled is entered into the official public record and as a part of both required “draft minutes” and official final meeting minutes under the Michigan Open Meetings Act and responsibilities and obligations under the Michigan FOIA, the ADA, Section 504 and indeed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title I as amended. Moreover, these things are easily accomplished as such so-called “official board correspondences” are included as simple addendums to minutes like other organizations routinely do, but which MCB has never done and can’t even get motions and votes straight in my experience…But I do digress over past wrongs, violations of law, equity and proprietary or, even Roberts Rules of Order guidelines,here.
Now, this is an appeal to my brothers and sisters in the movement…
There is no doubt that Patrick D. Cannon and his minions has been a reckless and divisive force in our community and there is no doubt that he has violated civil rights and violated his position; manipulated past boards of MCB, and done all sorts of frankly illegal and pretty nasty things to blind folks here in Michigan. I’ve documented many offenses over years and have suffered from him and his minions the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as Hamlet put it myself.
Now, I’ll say this and I’ll say this for the record:
“Cannon will finally have his open and objective review/evaluation conducted by the MCB Board on this Friday. I enencourage one and all to allow for this public proceeding to take place without comment from the audience.
Personally, I’m putting duct tape over my lips so I won’t interject.
Colleagues, this man is to be adjudged about his performance for the first time by un-conflicted and impartial advocates of the blind.
Let the chits fall where they may.
I, not being one good at restraint in the pursuit of justice and against the capricious flames of deceit, infamy and ignoble behavior by this public Official two urge restraint by one and all during the meeting.
Let Mr. Cannon “hoist himself with his own petard”…
In other words he will be blown up, metaphorically speaking with his own bomb which by the way is what “petard” and not “retard” means.
But, I digress….
My point or suggestion is for one and all to let the evaluation of Cannon to be engaged in the public light of day without interruption.
This is a personal appeal. I am no officer with force of anything to direct anyone to do so. I wouldn’t be inclined to tell folks to do this or that as a mandate anyway.
That is not me, but I will suggest and again, only suggest that we let this public evaluation play out as it does without interuption from the public audience.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
cc: Luzenski
cc: Cannon
cc: Arwood
cc: NFB Mi
Official Board Correspondence
From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 12:06 PM
To: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA); John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB
Comm.; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; mcb2020-
L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV; Arwood, Steve (LARA)
Subject: official board correspondence remove cannon
Official board Correspondence the Big Lies
December 4, 2011
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
To: Members Michigan Commission for the Blind
Dear Commissioners,
Adolph Hitler’s Chief Propagandist, Josef Goebbels termed the notion “Big Lie”. The principle of this evil was to tell a lie often enough and soon the people will believe it. Today in modern politics some call this principle “spin”, or “spin control” where information is massaged, perverted, or otherwise controlled to effectively create a “big lie” scenario which helps keep some interests in power. We have seen this within the Michigan Commission for the Blind. Aside from the usual “weapons of mass deception” the Commission under the Directorship of Patrick Cannon not only abuses the Freedom of Information Act and other tools of transparency, but also cynically abuses the right to receive information in a timely and accessible manner to we who are blind as an additional arrow in the quiver which he has employed over more than a decade now against we who are blind and the taxpayers of the State of Michigan as well. . These things have been documented over years and the proof is on archived list serves including NFB MI and the MCB 20/20 list serve itself.
Indeed it is in the public record of minutes of MCB meetings in spite of delays over producing them and disseminating them including draft meeting minutes which are delayed for public inspection for months on end in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act and corollary obligations under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended. Alone. Regardless, allow me to document some horrendous lies in the public domain and on the record today.
Here is one big lie from the MCB Report received December 1:
“Earlier this year, staff began distributing the MCB Budget to
Commissioners on a monthly basis. However, during the last two months of the fiscal year, LARA’s Finance division was unable to provide staff with the monthly budget as they had in the past due to end of fiscal year and change in LARA staff. The budget report that is included with this report was generated by MCB staff based exclusively on expenditures.
The State is currently in the middle of the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2012 and staff will be generating an MCB fiscal year spending plan and match analysis before the end of the first quarter.”
Now the agency has stated that commissioners have been given monthly reports, but that is simply a lie it is now December 4 and today here are the latest financial data posted on MCB’s own web site:
“Linked at the MCB web site at:
May 2011 Budget Projections
Block quote start
Commission for the Blind (11210), FY 2011 Financial Report - May 2011
Youth Low-Vision Program (11220), FY 2011 Financial Report - May 2011
Department Grants, SBPH (BTBL) - State Aid to Subregional Libraries (08301), FY 11
Financial Report - May 2011
MCB ARRA (11211), FY 11 Financial Report - May 2011
Block quote end
June 2011 Budget Projections
Block quote start
Commission for the Blind (11210), FY 2011 Financial Report - June 2011
Youth Low-Vision Program (11220), FY 2011 Financial Report - June 2011
Department Grants, SBPH (BTBL) - State Aid to Subregional Libraries (08301), FY 11
Financial Report - June 2011
MCB ARRA (11211), FY 11 Financial Report - June 2011”
Note, that I have requested more up to date financials several times but in brazen violations of the ADA and 504 I haven’t even received a response to requests to this information. Regardless there is no financial data made available to commissioners let alone the public since June as this entry itself documents.
Big Lie Number Two
Now, this from the Director’s self evaluation goes to the core of the Big Lie in fact and deed:
1. “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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – Through numerous
communications and outreach initiatives, MCB has spread the word about blindness, the agency and its services to numerous media outlets dozens of times this past year. Additionally, the agency has conducted several targeted outreach efforts to eye care professionals, community partners and others about MCB services. Internally, the MCB Insight publication is one of the ways to keep Commission staff informed about events and issues affecting the Agency and its clients. One of the communications highlights of this year was the MCB Achievement Honor Roll Awards luncheon, which showcased the achievements of MCB clients, employers and community partners – an event which achieved considerable media attention statewide.
Section I.5 COMMISSIONER RATING =
“
As denoted in many instances including the budget/finance issue alone there is a dearth of timely and accessible information of any significance and has been for some time. But, regardless, do the Director and the Public Relations folks at MCB not recall the mainstream articles in the Kalamazoo Gazette concerning the grave injustice, including by the way a link to the Arbitration report, regarding Christine Boone’s dismissal and the elimination of the lauded marksmanship program at MCB TC? Does the commission not recall similar articles and news coverage dating from January of 2010? Does it not recall the three critical articles in the Braille Monitor from last year to most recently about this issue, failure to comply with the ADA, and abuses in the BEP system?
Oh and we haven’t seen much coverage about the Robin Hill case, or Hazell Brooks case or David Robinson’s case. I guess this is “fair and balanced” reporting right?
Do we not also recall the technical breakdowns of MCB meetings themselves that are now archived on MCB’s web site? Do we not recall the $5,000 fiasco of the video recording of a recent MCB meeting and why isn’t that posted on the MCB web site by the way complete with its closed captioning and video description?
Oh by the way how are communications including return phone calls and information in accessible formats including IPES handled by this administration? Pretty dog gone badly by more than ample evidence.
Given this and aforementioned documentation about again the lack of meaningful information about its functioning how can the assertion of effective communications be anything but “pathological” self-delusions?
It certainly is documentation of spin over substance.
Big Lie Number Three:
Again from the Director’s eevaluation tool here:
“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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – All EEO requirements of the Civil Service Selection Process are consistently adhered to as the Commission hires, trains and/or promotes individuals. Because of its aggressive recruitment and outreach procedures, MCB has been successful in achieving a high rate of diversity of agency staff and is among the leading blind rehabilitation agencies in the Nation in terms of hiring and promoting blind persons. MCB’s internal Safety Committee has also undertaken several steps to enhance the safety of agency personnel, including safety training, establishing safety monitors in every office, training those safety monitors, and procedures for safely dealing with blood borne pathogens. Finally, excellent diversity training was provided for all participating staff by Dr. John Lee from Michigan State University.
“
Ok I can only say, “What is Cannon smoking here?” I have documented along with others that none of the facilities used by MCB including those for daily work and for public hearings meets the program access requirements of the ADA due by no later than July 26, 1995 and clearly documented by the DTMB survey conducted in 2008 which has been made available to numerous parties. Moreover, it has been documented over and over again that the agency does not meet the effective communications requirements of the ADA for customers, blind members of the public, BEP operators (note the cases in the upcoming meeting alone), and even commissioners. Moreover, there are still significant access issues with all of the Michigan dot gov web site, access issues related to System Seven (even denoted in the recent MCB Report), and with MAIN to this date impacting blind and disabled employees of MCB as well as of the public.
As far as protections from “harassment” I think the Robin Hill, Dave Robinson, Christine Boone, Hazell Brooks, Terry and Mark Eagle, and numerous assaults upon rights of BEP operators over recent years speak for themselves and again that is in the public record. The fact that MCB is out approximately $2 million in settlements during the last fiscal year alone and have expended valuable resources in all the legal defenses stand again as documentation that this rating is not only ludicrous but simply delusional by any standard.
Oh, yes and again in the BEP program alone why is it that the last three Promotional Agents hired by MCB are all sighted, white males with no prior BEP experience? Wow that’s diversity in action for you!
Oh, yes and the extra-ordinary and documented unequal treatment of African-Americans in the Southeast region and the unequal distribution of resources is pretty legendary about now even to the most obtuse. Need I mention “bullet proof drapes” as the agency response to Richard Clay and Advocates for the Blind to underscore this contention? Or need I only point out the documented deficiencies in various assorted RSA monitoring over
years in this regards?
Anyway the former ADA coordinator and former head of the United States Access Board apparently wouldn’tknow the ADA or other laws if they came right out and bit him on his backside.
Again to claim a “three” rating in the face of all this documentation and more is either
Ok I’ll end now for the sake of brevity and because going step by step over the abuses of power and the big lies perpretrated over years have been documented over and over again inspite of past
and even recent attempts to stifkle transparency and to engaged in actual censorship.
Bottom line is this:
Pat Cannon has violated in documented fashion over his tenure multiple laws and those are under his direct control they included again in documented fashion violations of:
-The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as Amended including numerous violations of Title I and V
-violations of the Public Act 260
-Violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
-violations of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, or causing thoseviolations to take place by subordinents
-violations of the Open Meetings Act, or causing them to take place
-violations of the Randolph Shepard Act directly and causing them to take place through subordinents
These alone are cause for removal and I, Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr. do hereby unilaterally call upon the Governor, Rick Snyder, and Cannon’s immediate supervisors to remove him from office for causees here enumerated and for others in the public domain.
Moreover, if these allegations or others I’ve remitted in the public record are untrue then I chachallenge openly for Mr. Cannon to sue me in appropriate court of jurisdiction for defimation or libel. Make my day I could use some money.
Thank you commissioners for hearing this out.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: file
Cc: several list serves
Cc: S. Arwood, LARA
Cc: NFB Mi
Cc: MCB List Serve
clinical denial, or just another exercise in the “big lie” approach, or both.
Director’s Self Evaluation
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION AND
COMMISSIONER RATING
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
PATRICK CANNON
January 1 – December 31, 2011
RATING SYSTEM:
HIGH PERFORMING = 3
MEETS EXPECTATIONS = 2
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT = 1
SECTION I: COMPETENCIES
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – Effectively dealing with the complexities of the new administrations re-organization and MCB’s immersion into the new Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) are examples of the appraisees adaptability.
Section I.1 COMMISSIONER RATING =
2. ALIGN PERFORMANCE FOR SUCCESS: Focusing and guiding others in accomplishing work objectives.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – Regular meetings of MCB’s Planning and Quality Team (PAQ) proves to be an effective management tool in guiding all staff in pursuing identified items in the MCB Action Plan.
Section I.2 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – MCB’s highly successful Client Internship Program provided numerous opportunities to establish and strengthen partnerships with administrators and managers in several other state department as well as other private sector entities as well as providing meaningful work experience opportunities for participating clients. As a result of these efforts, several participants obtained permanent jobs and managers and co-workers at placement locations developed a greater understanding of the ability of blind persons in the workplace.
Section I.3 COMMISSIONER RATING =
4. BUILDING TRUST: Interacting with others in a way that gives them confidence in one's intentions and those of the organization.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – The appraisee continues to sustain trusting relationships with agency managers and staff as well as leaders in various state departments, Federal governmental units, private sector entities, employers and consumer organizations.
Section I.4 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – Through numerous communications and outreach initiatives, MCB has spread the word about blindness, the agency and its services to numerous media outlets dozens of times this past year. Additionally, the agency has conducted several targeted outreach efforts to eye care professionals, community partners and others about MCB services. Internally, the MCB Insight publication is one of the ways to keep Commission staff informed about events and issues affecting the Agency and its clients. One of the communications highlights of this year was the MCB Achievement Honor Roll Awards luncheon, which showcased the achievements of MCB clients, employers and community partners – an event which achieved considerable media attention statewide.
Section I.5 COMMISSIONER RATING =
6. CUSTOMER FOCUS: Making customers and their needs a primary focus of one's actions; developing and sustaining productive customer relationships.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – Staff throughout the Agency are well aware of the Commissions mission to assist blind persons in achieving employment and independence, words which drive our professional staff and agency services. Managers and staff sustain effective working relationships with consumers, employers and community partners, consistent with the agency mission, philosophy and vision.
Section I.6 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 2 – The objectives of this competency have been well met.
Section I.7 COMMISSIONER RATING =
8. DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY: Allocating decision-making authority and/or task responsibility to appropriate others to maximize the organization's and individual's effectiveness.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – The MCB Executive Management Team (EMT) meets regularly to track issues and challenges facing the agency in its service delivery objectives and the effective leadership of our managers and administrators assist in ensuring high quality and daily operations.
Section I.8 COMMISSIONER RATING =
9. DEVELOPING A SUCCESSFUL TEAM: Using appropriate methods and flexible interpersonal style to help develop a cohesive team; facilitating the completion of team goals.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – MCB’s Planning and Quality Team (PAQ) is the key vehicle in ensuring a successful team approach in pursuing and achieving numerous items on the MCB Action Plan, which contains several objectives under four primary goals.
Section I.9 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – Budgetary threats, a new administration and a new department are just three examples of numerous opportunities MCB has had in accepting and adjusting to change. Amidst these challenges, the agency remains effective in its service delivery priorities.
Section I.10 COMMISSIONER RATING =
11. INNOVATION: Generating innovative solutions; trying different and novel ways to deal with work problems and opportunities.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – High unemployment nationally and in the state commanded an innovative approach to addressing issues impeding the success of Commission clients. The establishment and implementation of the Commissions Client Internship Program is an example of a creative success which led to work experience opportunities for 37 clients and permanent jobs for approximately 1/3 of those individuals, with more successes on the horizon.
Section I.11 COMMISSIONER RATING =
12. LEADING THROUGH VISION/VALUES: Keeping the organization's vision and values at the forefront of associate decision-making and action.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – The key premise of this competency has been very well met through numerous approaches internally, particularly the MCB PAQ Team.
Section I.12 COMMISSIONER RATING =
13. PLANNING AND ORGANIZING WORK: Establishing courses of action for self and staff to ensure that work is completed efficiently.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 2 – The principles of this competency have been well addressed.
Section I.13 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – MCB’s Planning and Quality Team, which is comprised of MCB managers, agency staff as well as consumer and stakeholder representatives, is the key vehicle in carrying out the Commissions ongoing strategic planning and visioning efforts. The MCB Action Plan is the vital management tool which assists the Agency in tracking its success and challenges.
Section I.14 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 2 – With the ongoing support of the EMT and the PAQ Team, this competency has been effectively demonstrated.
Section I.15 COMMISSIONER RATING =
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – This competency has been particularly well demonstrated through the Agencies attempts to include consumer participation in several ongoing opportunities such as the Planning and Quality Team, the Service Delivery Team, Technology Team, Diversity Team and the Image and Identity Team. The agencies commitment to diversity is evident through the diverse makeup of the agency staff as a whole and its management team.
Section I.16 COMMISSIONER RATING =
SECTION I COMPETENCIES OVERALL RATING:
SECTION II: OBJECTIVES
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 2 - The objective has been met, with regular interactions with RSA officials and monthly updates to Commissioners. MCB’s Corrective Action Plan (CAP) has been shared with Commissioners, although not yet posted on the website as the document is still in draft form, awaiting final, formal RSA approval.
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 2 – The objective has been well met, with orientation for two new commissioners being conducted and process evaluation solicited and received. Further suggestions are currently being sought in order to improve the orientation process for the new appointees. Commissioners have also been issued State of Michigan email addresses for conducting commission business.
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – This objective has been very well met as we’ve responded to commissioner requests for in-service training. Topics covered include the state budgetary process, the MCB list serve, the MCB website, State of Michigan email system and Commissioner Email addresses.
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – The department was most helpful to the Commission, providing the services of Holly Grandy Miller to facilitate the continuing work of the Ad Hoc Committee through the summer, when the facilitator role was assumed by an Operator, Rob Essenberg. Bob Robertson continues his facilitator role with the PAQ Team as it was determined that an external facilitator was not necessary.
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – This committee has worked effectively to strengthen the agency’s orientation procedures and is currently in the process of surveying all individuals who began their work with the Commission in the past 18 months to ascertain their satisfaction with orientation procedures and soliciting feedback on the orientation effectiveness. Further, as a result of this committees work enhancements have been made in the training and orientation process for new staff, including a new low-vision component, self defense and driver safety training.
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 –MCB managers continue to do an excellent job of developing performance objectives for all employees and conducting subsequent performance appraisals. Earlier this year, however, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) issued a directive to scale back the performance appraisal system to include only supervisors, managers and administrators. Consequently only those individuals considered to be Group 3 and 4 Civil Service employees remain in the system. Managers may continue to evaluate all employees on established objectives, but the evaluation results will not be a formal part of the appraisal system.
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.
APPRAISEE SELF EVALUATION: 3 – All EEO requirements of the Civil Service Selection Process are consistently adhered to as the Commission hires, trains and/or promotes individuals. Because of its aggressive recruitment and outreach procedures, MCB has been successful in achieving a high rate of diversity of agency staff and is among the leading blind rehabilitation agencies in the Nation in terms of hiring and promoting blind persons. MCB’s internal Safety Committee has also undertaken several steps to enhance the safety of agency personnel, including safety training, establishing safety monitors in every office, training those safety monitors, and procedures for safely dealing with blood borne pathogens. Finally, excellent diversity training was provided for all participating staff by Dr. John Lee from Michigan State University.
Michigan Commission for the Blind Ad Hoc Training Committee
Progress Report to the Commissioners, December 9, 2011
Presented by Commissioner Lydia Schuck
Meeting approximately monthly since May, we reviewed some of the staff training programs in various states. We found that
· Many states use a form of immersion training for staff, including Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and other states. Nebraska requires a 600 hour training under sleephades during regular work hours.
· In some states, new staff in training at the training center are directly supervised by the center director.
· Indiana uses online training modules as part of new staff training and professional development for other staff.
· Field staff in Iowa train for four to six months at the training center and then for 2 month as their work site. This reflects the fact that some states have established an in-house training systems and do not seek employees who already have a Master’s degree in Rehabilitation, looking instead for new employees who have a Bachelor’s degree in a related field.
· Some states have regularly scheduled in-service professional development as part of a plan for continuing education of staff.
We also heard from Jennipher Wiebold, a researcher from Western Michigan University, who described her research to us. We anticipated that this would help us in our discussion of new staff training, but it turned out that her model of requiring sleepshades every waking hour is designed to test change in attitudes toward blindness itself. Her study did not examine the advantages of immersion training for staff development. It is not expected for our staff to be under sleepshades for hours outside their work hours, so Dr. Weibold’s work is not directly applicable to our committee’s considerations.
Charge: The committee recommends that the Commission Board direct Director Cannon to charge the director of the training center, Christine Boone, and the human resources director, Bob Robertson, with developing an enhanced and expanded training protocol for existing field staff in Kalamazoo and staff members who work at the training center. New staff will be absorbed into the new training protocol as they join the agency. This is to be a trial training demonstration. After a suitable period of time, it will be rolled out to the whole agency.
Considerations: The Ad Hoc training committee has identified the following considerations that must be addressed by the training protocol when it is presented to the Commission Board.
a. The committee would like to see immersion training continue for all staff in all job positions if the developers of the training protocol believe it serves staff training interests.
b. The consumer involvement council has in the past expressed concern over the needs of different kinds of consumers. Therefore the committee suggests that developers consider additional or different training focusing on the needs of different kinds of consumers, including low vision, deafblind, youth, persons who have autism, senior citizens.
c. The initial development of this process should determine whether a facilitator is needed to move this planning process along.
d. The developers should address the unique geography of our state, and also the limited housing capacity of the Kalamazoo training center.
e. The committee recommends as much time under sleepshades as possible, within the regular work hours of the staff.
f. The committee recommends that new staff be assigned to the training center director as supervisor until staff transition to permanent work locations after center training.
g. The committee recommends that the expanded and enhanced initial training protocol for new staff should be a longer than it is currently, preferably 4 weeks or more, per staff member at the training center. This is based on the fact that most states we examined used longer immersion training for staff.
h. The developers should design additional professional development experiences that can be used as outreach to Commission staff in field offices that are very far from Kalamazoo, or that have a large enough group of staff to make group training effective at the field location.
Timeline: The Ad Hoc Training Committee recommends that the Commission Board adopt the following schedule for development and report on the new training protocol.
· Christine reports by email to the Commission Board in January.
· Christine reports by email or phone in February, in preparation for March Commission Board meeting
· Report in person in March at Commission Board meeting. By March board meeting the developers of the new staff training protocol should tell the Commission Board what training is needed by those key training staff from the training center who will provide the new training to existing staff in Kalamazoo. For example, tech teachers may need new training to expand their skills to train other staff.
· By June, the developers should tell the Commission Board what is planned through FY 2013. This development and initial delivery of expanded and enhanced staff training is expected to be a three to five year process with a plan-do-study-act structure. A longer timeline of three to five years will eventually be developed.
The Ad Hoc Training Committee, established by the Commission Board of the Michigan Commission for the Blind recommends that, at the December 9, 2011 Commission Board meeting, Commissioners adopt the Charge, Considerations, and Timeline for this project.
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list