[nfbmi-talk] Fw: state plan comments hearings invalid

[joe harcz Comcast]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Johnson, Terry (LARA) 
To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:27 PM
Subject: RE: state plan comments hearings invalid


Thank you for your comment.

 

Terry J. Johnson

Department Specialist

Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs

MRS - Executive Office

(517) 335-5960 - Voice Mail

Email: johnsont4 at michigan.gov 

 

Pursuant to state and federal law, the contents of this message, including any attachments, may be privileged and confidential.  Therefore, you may not dissemiate this message unless you are authorized by law to do so and have secured all necessary approvals.  If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.  Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege or confidentiality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Johnson, Terry (LARA)
Subject: Fw: state plan comments hearings invalid

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: joe harcz Comcast 

To: gastond at michigan.gov 

Cc: Craig McManus RSA ; Carol Dobak ; Jaye Porter MRS Director ; Patrick Cannon MCB Dir. ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org ; Elmer Cerano MPAS ; MARK CODY ; OCR Cleveland Office ; Susan Fitzmaurice ; Luke Zelley TDN ; valarie Barnum Yarger MISILC 

Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:43 AM

Subject: state plan comments hearings invalid

 

July 12 2012 Comments relative to public hearings MCB and MRS

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

 

MT. Morris, MI 48458

 

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

To Several including RSA

 

All:

 

There are requirements for adequate notice and accessability of required public hearings relative to major revisions of VR State Plans. This was not done.

There was no "adequate notice" of public hearings on either the Michigan Commission for the Blind State Plan or that of Michigan Rehabilitation Services.

In fact members of the MCB Board did not get timely notice. And members of the Michigan Rehab Council got worse. There were  no conventional media notices

in any newspaper or radio let alone the varieties of media in advance recommended here. In short both were shams. Dog and pony shows.

 

Moreover, MOST of these meetings were held in facilities that did not meet even Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 basics for program access, and effective communications, 

thus continuing to violate the civil rights of consumers and advocates with disabilities; the very people both MRS and MCB are to serve with this federally

funded sham of a program here!

 

For the reasons mentioned above these public hearings are invalid upon their face.

 

I protest them and urge RSA to withold all funding and not to approve either state plans until they actually follow this and, indeed all aspects of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.

 

(See this from:

 

Technical Assistance Circular

 

RSA-TAC-12-02

 

DATE: February 21, 2012)

 

"Public Hearings and Substantive Changes"

 

As required by Section 101(a)(16)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.10(d) of the implementing regulations, prior to the adoption of any substantive

policies or procedures (or any substantive amendment to such policies and procedures) governing the provision of VR or SE services under the State Plan

or the supplement, the VR agency must conduct public meetings throughout the state, after giving adequate notice of the meetings, to provide the public,

including individuals with disabilities, an opportunity to comment on the policies and procedures contained in the proposed FY 2013 State Plan.  The VR

agency also must actively consult with the director of the Client Assistance Program and, as appropriate, with Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and

Native Hawaiian organizations, when adopting new policies or amending current policies.

 

Substantive changes to VR and SE program service policies and procedures, as distinguished from those that are typically considered administrative in nature,

are those that directly impact the nature and scope of the services provided to individuals with disabilities, or the manner in which individuals interact

with the VR agency, particularly as it pertains to communication with the VR counselor or the delivery of VR services.  Examples of substantive changes

include, but are not limited to:

 

·         any changes to policies or procedures that fundamentally alter the rights and responsibilities of VR consumers in the VR process;

 

·         proposed organizational changes to the VR agency that will likely effect the manner in which services are delivered;

 

·         any changes that affect the nature and scope of VR services provided;

 

·         changes in formal or informal dispute procedures;

 

·         the adoption or amendment of policies instituting an order of selection; and

 

·         changes to the VR consumer financial participation policies.

 

Examples of administrative changes that would not necessarily generate the need for public hearings include, but are not limited to:

 

·         internal procedures that do not directly impact individuals receiving VR services, such as payment processing, or personnel procedures;

 

·         changes to the case management system that only impact VR staff;

 

·         administrative changes in the relationship with the designated state agency, such as indirect cost allocations, internal fiscal review procedures,

or routine reporting requirements;

 

·         changes to RSA's routine reporting requirements;

 

·         minor revisions to VR procedures or policies to fix production errors such as typos and grammatical mistakes; and

 

·         changes to contract procedures that do not impact VR service delivery.

 

Consultation with Stakeholders and Substantive Changes

 

Section 101(a)(16)(B) states that VR agencies, "shall take into account, in connection with matters of general policy arising in the administration of the

plan, the views of" a variety of stakeholders of the VR and SE programs, including individuals and groups of individuals who receive VR services, as well

as their representatives if appropriate; personnel from organizations that provide VR services; providers of VR services; the director of the Client Assistance

Program; and the SRC.  RSA considers changes in the general administration of the State Plan within the meaning of Section 101(a)(16)(B) to include, but

are not limited to:

 

·         any change in policies and procedures requiring the conduct of a public hearing in accordance with Section 101(a)(16)(A);

 

·         any changes that necessitate amending the approved State Plan in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act, implementing regulations and RSA procedures;

 

·         the development of new goals and priorities for the VR agency under the State Plan;

 

·         the manner in which the order of selection is implemented;

 

·         the inclusion of new or additional information in the State Plan as a result of the completion of the comprehensive statewide needs assessment

in accordance with the requirements of 34 CFR 361.15; and

 

·         changes in personnel or staffing described in the State Plan that may significantly impact the delivery of VR services.

 

VR agencies may find public hearings to be an effective and efficient method of notifying stakeholders of such changes and obtaining their input, as required

by Section 101(a)(16)(B).

 

In circumstances in which there is uncertainty with respect to whether a change in the VR program is substantive and hence requires a public hearing or

outreach to stakeholders, RSA strongly encourages VR agencies to err on the side of conducting public hearings and forums to maximize awareness of the

VR program and promote transparency of the agency's policies and procedures.  Additionally, VR agencies should utilize as many avenues for disseminating

information regarding changes to the VR program and to maximize participation by community stakeholders in public hearings.  Whenever possible or appropriate,

state agencies should exploit both traditional and non-traditional media to advertise up-coming public hearings and solicit input from the community. 

Websites, social media, phone trees, and other forms of raising awareness, apart from traditional media such as radio, newspapers, and television, should

be employed to the maximum extent possible and appropriate, and in accordance with the requirements of the regulations governing public hearings found

at 34 CFR 361.20.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: National Federation of the Blind

Cc: ADAPT

Cc: SILC

Cc: MCB Commissioners

Cc: MCB

Cc: MRC and MRC Members

Cc: Office of Civil rights (ED.)

Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services (including CAP()

Cc: several media outlets