[nfbmi-talk] this hasn't gone anywhere from nfb

[joe harcz Comcast]

Commissioners, 

 

Today the members of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan ask you, on behalf of the blind and visually impaired people of this state, particularly those who are now, or will become consumers of services delivered by the Michigan Commission for the Blind; to assume the role that was created for you when this Board was established in 1978.  In that year, the Michigan Legislature enacted the law that we now refer to as Public Act 260, thereby establishing a Commission for the blind as the entity through which vocational rehabilitation and independent living services would be delivered to eligible individuals living in Michigan.  

 

We are eminently qualified to address you on this subject, because the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan played an essential role in the development and passage of that legislation.  We can tell you with certainty, that This board is meant to represent us, all of us. The consumers of services for the Blind.  This board was also created to hire each  director , and to evaluate the performance of that director and of his or her administration. Far from being strictly and narrowly written, this Commission’s powers and duties are stated in section 8 of the Act in the broadest possible terms, leaving the Board with both the discretion and the obligation to thoroughly oversee the operation of the Commission, as well as the performance of its director.  The only admonition appears to be that the Board should be careful to consider that its actions are consistent with state law, and this is an understandable reminder for a Board that is established to oversee programs and services that are authorized by the Federal rehabilitation act and the federal Randolph Sheppard Act as well as the corresponding state laws for rehabilitation and Business Enterprise programs in Michigan.  Here is what Section 8 says:    

“393.358  Powers of commission pursuant to state-federal agreements. 

        Sec. 8.  The commission, pursuant to state-federal agreements, may cooperate with the federal government in carrying out the purposes of a federal statute or regulation, not in conflict with state law, which pertains to rehabilitation of blind persons; may adopt methods of administration, not in conflict with state law, which are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the agreements or plans for rehabilitation of blind persons; and may comply with conditions, not in conflict with state law, which are necessary to secure the full benefits of federal statute.                 

 

Some how, somewhere, each member of this Board has allowed the powers of the Board to be stripped away and, in so doing, has failed to uphold their obligation to the citizens of this state, to the Governor who appointed them, and to the Granholm administration.  


Today this Board survives as a policy making body, and the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan certainly supports policy making as an appropriate component of its overall role.  But this is just one of many responsibilities  given to the Board of the MCB under the terms of Act 260.   For confirmation of the expanded responsibilities that we believe this Board should be assuming, we need only to look at Michigan’s Open Meetings Law, Act 267 of 1976.  In fact, the open meetings law is actually cited in Section 15 of Act 260 as follows:  

“Sec. 15.(1) The business which the commission, or any committee appointed under this act, may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or committee held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976…”.

 

These Acts are often referred to as “sunshine laws”, because they require agencies within the executive branch of our government to conduct their business out in the open, where the people of the state can see what is being done, in the sunshine.  The Open Meetings Act applies to any public body operating within the state of Michigan.  It defines a “public Body” as follows:  

“(a) "Public body" means any state or local legislative or governing body, including a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council,

which is empowered by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule to exercise governmental or proprietary authority or perform

a governmental or proprietary function…”.

 

As a Board empowered by state statute,    to perform the proprietary function of overseeing the operation of the Commission for the Blind and the performance of its director, this Board is a public body.  P.A. 267 goes on to outline when, where and why public bodies are obliged to conduct their business under the watchful eye of the public.  It also defines the circumstances under which such a body is entitled, and in some cases obligated, to hold a closed meeting.  Looking at the circumstances under which Section 8 permits the convening of a closed session, gives us a good idea of the kinds of issues that are customarily handled by public bodies like the Board of the MCB.  In most cases the closed session is convened at the request of someone who is involved in the issue being discussed, or  to protect the recognized confidentiality of the subject matter.  For example, closed meetings are appropriate for strategy sessions during collective bargaining negotiations, at the request of a negotiating party.  They are appropriate in considering the purchase, sale or lease of real property, in discussing certain litigation matters with the Board’s attorney, or when considering an application for employment at the request of an applicant.  The very first reason listed as appropriate for  a Closed meeting, reads as follows:   

 

Sec. 8. A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:

 (a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation

of, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing

may rescind the request at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission only in open sessions.

 

In other words, it is appropriate that the subject of disciplining or dismissing certain employees of a public entity such as the Commission for the Blind, should come before a Board like this one, before the discipline or dismissal is carried out.  

 

Now, with all of this information as background, we come before this Commission Board to discuss our grave concern over the severe loss to the blind of Michigan caused by the firing of Christine Boone from her position as director of the Training Center. We need not take time and space here to discuss Christine's stellar reputation among rehabilitators of the blind around the country, Her rapport with both clients and staff and partners of the MCB, and the tremendous positive force she has been and could continue to be, in  helping blind persons to know and expand their personal potential, CAPACITIES and sense of self-esteem.  Not only does her departure represent a devastating loss to current and future consumers of blindness rehabilitation services, but it is a real setback to the developing cultural awareness of the potential of blind persons in Michigan.


Under Public Act 260 of 1978, the Commission Board evaluates the director of the MCB, and makes recommendations to the director of the Department of Energy Labor and Economic Growth.  We urge you, the commissioners of the Michigan Commission for the Blind, to take action under this mandate!  In evaluating the on-going performance of the director, we call upon you to determine that Director Cannon made an error that is too costly to let stand.  The future of services   for the Blind in Michigan demands that you recommend that Christine Boone be restored to her position as Director of the Training Center.


As a member of the MCB’s management staff, Mrs. Boone reported directly to Mr. Cannon.  If Mr. Cannon was thinking of disciplining, reprimanding or firing Mrs. Boone, it would have been incumbent upon him to consult with the Commission Board before doing so, just as any management employee must consult with a superior in a similar situation.  In this case, Mrs. Boone was responsible for administering a significant and important part of the Commission for the Blind and her departure has left approximately one third of the Commission in turmoil, without leadership and devastated by the sudden, arbitrary and unilateral action of Mr. Cannon in dismissing her and destroying her good name.  If Governor Granholm’s proposed early retirement   plan takes effect, the Training Center will lose 70% of its teaching staff by September of this year.  How can the Center manage such a crisis, and a crisis it truly is, without the strong leadership of an experienced rehabilitation professional who is liked and respected by staff, consumers and community partners.    

 

As we said earlier, Section 8 of P.A. 260 gives this Board the responsibility and the right to “adopt methods of administration, not in conflict with state law, which are necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the agreements or plans for rehabilitation of blind persons;…”.  Pat Cannon, the commission's director, has chosen to fire Christine Boone.  It was Pat Cannon who called her to come here to direct our training center, and by all accounts, the operation of that Center noticeably improved under her directorship.  The improvement was positive for the staff and beneficial to Center students.  The director and the board appeared to be pleased with her performance.  In short, in directing the Training Center, Christine’s administrative style turned out to be very good for the “efficient operation of the plans for rehabilitation of blind persons in Michigan”.  There is no record of this commission board, or of the director   having reprimanded Christine Boone in an open meeting of this Board, and there is no record of a closed session having been convened for the purpose of discussing the possible discipline or dismissal of an employee in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings law, P.A. 267 of 1976.  If it is true that Pat Cannon chose to dismiss Mrs. Boone and did so without consultation with this Board as required by both Act 260 and the Open Meetings Act, then Mr. Cannon has overstepped his authority, and 

The Dismissal of Christine Boone Must Be Overturned!  

 

If Mr. Cannon consulted with this Board in an undocumented closed meeting, or if he engaged in ex-parte communications with any member or members of this Board… in other words, if he spoke privately with one or another member of this Board individually about Mrs. Boone’s firing, this would also be a blatant violation of Act 267 of 1976 and again, 

The Dismissal of Christine Boone Must Be Overturned!  

  

It is our considered opinion that the director had a misjudgment in releasing Christine Boone.  There is a whole lot of evidence to support that opinion.  There are a whole lot of  people living in Michigan and a good many rehabilitation professionals and leaders throughout this Country who agree with us as well!  It is the responsibility of this Board to correct this injustice By reinstating Christine Boone.  

 

In the words of one retired state agency director, director Cannon can gracefully save face now, by back peddling as fast as he can, and this Board can give him the push in the right direction.  You, the Board, Are 

IN CHARGE OF THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND.  NOW DO THE RIGHT THING!