[nfbmi-talk] it one month to get this

[joe harcz Comcast]

DRAFT

 

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING

 

201 N. Washington Square

Victor Center Building

2nd Floor Conference Room

Lansing, MI

December 20, 2011

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

VIA Conference Call

 

 

MINUTES

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT VIA TELEPHONE

Mr. Larry Posont                             Ms. Lydia Schuck        

Mr. John Scott

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT

None (2 Commissioner vacancies currently exist)

 

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF PRESENT

Mr. Pat Cannon                               Ms. Sue Luzenski

                                                

GUESTS/ATTENDEES 

Mr. Mike DeRose                                               

 

GUESTS/ATTENDEES VIA TELEPHONE

Mr. Joe Sibley                                 Mr. Joe Harcz     

Mr. Joe Sontag                               Mr. Fred Wurtzel

 

CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

Commissioner Larry Posont called the special meeting to order at 11:02 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was present.  

          

 

 

Discussion of 2012 Performance Objectives for Agency Director

 

          Commissioner Schuck explained that she was trying to focus on S.M.A.R.T. objectives:  specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time oriented.  

 

Objective 1

 

          There was discussion about what information will be received by Commissioners as the way the objective is stated is vague.  Commissioners stated they wanted to receive what was going to be sent before it was sent not after.  

 

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 continue to work with RSA’s designated liaison on a regular basis for technical assistance in the development of these actions and monitor progress.  RSA approved MCB’s Corrective Action Plan (CAP), December 19, 2011, and has requested that MCB report quarterly progress on the completion of corrective actions and specific steps taken to address compliance findings, including the submission of any revised policies, procedures, or implementing documents.

 

RSA has requested that MCB’s first quarterly progress report be submitted by April 15, 2012, with subsequent reports due July 15, 2012, October 15, 2012 and January 15, 2013, etc. until the CAP activities resolve the findings identified.  Accordingly, the agency director will also provide quarterly updates to commissioners on interactions with RSA when the information is sent to RSA on the 15th of April, July and October, 2012, and post these reports on the MCB website.

 

Objective 2

 

Director Cannon stated that he is willing to explore the feasibility of gathering of this data and clarified the role of the Consumer Involvement Council (CIC).  Objective 2 was not finalized and Commissioner Schuck asked that this objective be revisited at a later date so the Director can have an answer to exploring the feasibility of gathering this data.  Mr. Mike DeRose clarified that all parties are agreeing on Objective 2 but changes will be made at the end of January when a list is created of what data can be gathered.  Director Cannon stated that the purpose of performance objectives is to identify outcomes and expectations that the Director will be held accountable for, the intention is not to micromanage the Agency.

 

Objective 2:

 

State Plan

In accordance with the Rehabilitation Act:

4.3 Consultations regarding the administration of the State Plan. (Section 101(a) (16) (B) of the Rehabilitation Act; 34 CFR 361.21)

The designated state agency takes into account, in connection with matters of general policy arising in the administration of the plan and its supplement, the views of:

(a) individuals and groups of individuals who are recipients of vocational rehabilitation

 

In order to begin to create a system that promotes consumer involvement and transparency of operations, MCB shall create some regular reports to consumers.  By the end of January the Commissioners will be presented with a list of data that the Agency can provide on an ongoing regular basis.  The reports shall be clear and easy to understand Commissioners request these:  intakes/month/ytd, placements/month/ytd and % of goal for year, beginning and ending balances for rehab, training center, and BEP with % spent/ytd.  Each report shall report cost /successful closure and cost/unsuccessful closure.  Each report shall be provided to the Commission Board in an accessible format and posted on the MCB web page in a conspicuous place.  These reports shall be a beginning for a more robust reporting system which will be enhanced in future Fiscal years.

 

There was a discussion between Commissioners and Director Cannon about the removal of a written objective regarding in-service trainings for Commissioners.  All parties agreed to not include in-service training as an objective but know that if topics arise and there is training needed or requested this can be done.

 

Objective 3

 

Director Cannon stated that staff training is an administrative responsibility which the Director has to answer to the Department and RSA.  Commissioners said that staff training design may rise to level of policy making.  

 

Objective 3:

 

a)  Continue the work of the agency’s committee to review and improve staff training, particularly training of new agency staff.  The committee, led by the agency’s training coordinator, is balanced with a mix of relatively new staff, longer-serving staff, both sighted and blind, managers, as well as 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 work 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.  

-         Compile and analyze the results of the December, 2011 survey of new staff members since April, 2010, to identify unmet needs for training and orientation of new staff and draw upon these suggestions to improve the procedures.

-         Review and analyze recommendations from Commissioners ad hoc committee on training and draw upon these suggestions to improve the procedures.

-         Distribute new survey to new staff hired in 2012 at the beginning of employment, then again in three or four months, to help ascertain improvement achieved and apply PDSA principles to continuously improve the training and orientation process.

 

b)  The Director will develop an enhanced and expanded training protocol.  

 

The progress on this initiative will be reported to Commissioners quarterly. 

 

Objective 4

Discussion by all parties included agreement on the wording of this objective and scheduling a future report by Susan Turney on the progress of this objective.

 

Objective 4:

 

The Director shall oversee the development of an indexing system for all Commission Board agendas, motions, policies and minutes to allow board records to be searched by topic, date or keyword.  The search tool, index and all content will be searchable and accessible through the Commission's website and via the telephone.  Completion of this project will be a performance objective and is expected to be complete by 9/30/2012.

 

Working with the MCB Image and Identity Team and the agency’s Communications and Outreach Coordinator, explore ways to expand and improve the MCB Website to make it more accessible and user-friendly, and increase the amount and frequency of programmatic, administrative and budgetary information.  The Image and Identity Team, comprised of agency staff, consumers and stakeholders, will provide advice and guidance to the agency webmaster at meetings in March and June, 2012, and following implementation of accepted, manageable and prudent proposals, the agency will report progress to Commissioners in September and December, 2012.  

 

          There was a discussion about scheduling a future date to finish the objective discussion and how many objectives are acceptable from human resource standpoint.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

          Mr. Joe Sontag:  This is Joe Sontag and believe it or not I’m not going to say anything pointed about BEP this time.  I just to say this time, once again I just want to express how happy I am with the way this Commission Board is functioning that we have a Board that is taking charge sitting firm on the idea of being of service to blind people in the State of Michigan and not just certain blind people and their friends or a specific organization.  And secondly, I just wanted to say that I very much look forward to the day when we can stop having arguments about information.  We’ve been hearing for years about the level of transparency in this organization and how it’s the best in the country when it comes to transparency and almost anything else that gets discussed for that matter.  Frankly we have a long way to go and I believe very strongly that we get passed the point where we argue about information and how frequently it can be produced, how frequently it should be produced, who should get it, who shouldn’t get it, we’re going to be much farther ahead.  I can recall a time when as a kid just learning how these things worked I could get anything I wanted that was legal to release to the public, just for the asking.  Just pick up a phone, go to the appropriate person and get it.  Now, now everythings, even information that I, as a participant in an agency program should be entitled to by law, as a given in an accessible format, I have to go through Freedom of Information Act or have to argue with people about whether it is or isn’t an FOI request and so forth.  We need to get passed that ladies and gentlemen.  And finally, I just want to say that in regard to the number of objectives I understand that the more you tack on the more difficult it can be to comply or to meet the objectives.  I also understand that there are serious needs that have been out there that have existed for a very long time that are only now beginning to be seriously addressed. I say more important than the absolute number of objectives is the dedication of the people on both sides of the table in terms of meeting those objectives and serving, the people there charged with serving rather than the absolute number.  Thank you very much.

 

Mr. Joe Harcz: yes I’m going to echo a little bit of that, but you know I would.  Look, on that Objective number 2 I believe    it was, since I don’t have it in front of me, these are already requirements under the Rehab Act.  To supply information related to the State Plan in a timely and accessible format to Commissioners and Consumers, members of the public.  It’s Pro Forma.  We’re going to have a new State Plan update.  That fiscal year’s in July, you know.  This information that’s being requested should, by law, be standard.  This doesn’t go to an internal civil service objective, that’s a requirement of the Rehab Act.  The other thing is when we have battles and somebody has to ask on a monthly basis for things like draft meeting minutes that are required by law, rather than just having them posted to a website that we already have and posted to the MCB 2020 Listserve that’s indicative of the problem.  When we, we don’t have a lot of the consumer packet information, consumer or commissioners don’t get information in a timely manner to act on their due diligence and that’s been documented over and over and over again.  We do not follow the basics of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 in these regards.  I get better information from other entities, from private entities, in a more timely, more accessible manner.  And generally I just ask for simple email.  The final thing on the communications issue continually telephony is broken down in whole or in part.  That happened at the last Commissioners meeting and that happened the year before, you can ask Ms. Pilarski about that.  During the evaluation process there was music coming through, there was 18 minutes of missing information and that’s an ongoing problem and an ongoing problem with effective communications and access.  The final thing and it goes back to information nobody knows, nobody knows where the money is being spent and we get excuses left and right.  The Director is responsible, the agency is responsible for administering federal funds and making those expenditures available to the public, let alone to Commissioners.  You guys shouldn’t be having to ask for that, there’s nothing financially related since June and that’s up on the website and by the way that’s not in a Word file and that’s not in HTML, that’s in Excel files.  

 

Mr. Fred Wurtzel:  My first comment has to do with, well actually all my comments have to do with the general attitude of the Director.  The Director is, at every turn, resisting providing information to consumers and to the Commission Board and doing all he can to thwart and undermine the actions of the Commission Board to do its job to set good policy for the Michigan Commission for the Blind.  It’s a consumer driven organization and he keeps continually resisting providing information.  I think what both the Joe’s said is absolutely correct and I just find it amazing that a person is being, their performance ratings and objectives are there and they’re being so belligerent in front of the people who are supposed to be setting their performance standards and their performance objectives.  I find it insulting to Commissioners, I find it insulting to consumers the way that the Director is behaving so belligerently on behalf of the agency.  I find it to be absolutely, amazingly incredible that the Director of the Agency does not even know what information is available.  He doesn’t even know if he can tell you how many intakes were made last month or how many people were closed last month.  Closures are what the agency is about.  That is the only reason that there is money given to the Michigan Commission for the Blind.  Might I remind you its over $20,000,000, I’m telling you $20 million with six 0’s, and the Commissioner, the Director doesn’t not even know how to tell you how many closures there were in a given month.  The very job the agency is in business to do.  I find this to be absolutely dereliction of duties misfeasance and nonfeasance.  It’s amazing and it’s beyond the pale of what I can consider to be acceptable performance on behalf of someone getting paid over $100,000 a year to manage a $20 million dollar budget.  It’s incredible.  There seems to be a misconception here about the Commissioners being in a position of recommending things.  Commissioners don’t recommend things, the Commission is an advisory board, the Commission is a policy setting board.  I understand about chain of command but there’s no reason that the Commission board cannot tell the Director the kind of programs it wants and how the kinds of outcomes it wants and the Directors job is to go forth and do those things.  I don’t think that Pat’s continual attempt to undermine the authority of the Commission Board should be accepted or condoned or allowed to continue.  Thank you.  

 

Mr. Joe Sibley:  Here again, this is my view and I don’t, as I said at the last Commission meeting I don’t necessarily agree, I know all three of you Board members and I know it was not your intention in the performance evaluation of the Director to make it look like a “gotcha” scenario, but I did want to make the case that I am hearing back publicly both from people in my organization and not in my organization that there’s still a concept that the longstanding problem with the NFB members of Michigan and the antagonistic view toward the Director that this is an opportunity.  I don’t think that’s the case, I believe you guys actually evaluated everything carefully but I just wanted to say that, this public comment, that I am hearing back on that, that would be the case.  I do still kind of disagree with your evaluation of the Director, I think the marks were a little harsh.  I think there are very positive things in the Director’s performance that need to be evaluated as well as the problems in the Agency.  I don’t see him as an antagonistic person, I don’t agree with everything he does, and the way he does everything, of course not, but I, and I think I’m in the minority on this call right now, but I want to say that I do believe the performance evaluation of the Director was below, from my viewpoint, of what he actually deserves.  I still think we need to focus on having a less antagonistic view from all consumers and all agency staff.  This goes to staff and to consumers and to clients have less antagonistic us against them view and we need to really focus on how we can reach a middle ground, reach compromise.  I mean, our United States Congress is not doing a very good job of that I think we have an opportunity to work together, make compromises and find out what’s the best objectives.   What’s the best way to do things within budget, within staff realistic available, what can they reasonably accomplish and also accomplish in the goals that we need to accomplish.  We really need to focus on working better together and trying to develop a less antagonistic view as we try to solve the problems with this agency.  There are problems, yes absolutely, we need to address them, but I say again, as I keep hammering again and again, we need to talk to talk to each other and we need to be less antagonistic.  Thank you very much.

 

Commissioners and the Director set a next date to meet to discuss the rest of the objectives on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. via the telephone.  

 

SCHUCK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING; SCOTT SECONDED.

 

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY

 

The meeting adjourned at 12:14 p.m.

 

 

____________________________      ____________________

Larry Posont                                             Date