[nfbmi-talk] Fw: Comment on MRS State Plan

[joe harcz Comcast]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Susan Fitzmaurice 
To: JohnsonT4 at michigan.gov 
Cc: Berquist Carol ; Cagle Cecily ; Chang Eleanor ; Childress Beth ; Cwik Adolph ; mdeahl at ymail.com ; Diamond Sheryl ; Halacka Shon ; Lamar Joanne ; jim at awardsplusengraving.com ; deanna.middlebrooks at gmail.com ; capiv at comcast.net ; apaterni at camw.net ; lisa.rutledge at oakwook.org ; Shirls Felix ; stanlynnclan at excite.com ; carmichaela31 at gmail.com ; joe harcz Comcast ; Valarie Barnum-Yarger ; Dohn Hoyle ; Annette Downey (CLS) ; Paulette Duggins ; Leslynn Angel ; Elmer Cerano (E-mail) ; Judy Lynn Cerano MPA 
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 1:12 PM
Subject: Comment on MRS State Plan


Re: Michigan State Plan Final Draft


1. As the origination date of the 91 page final plan draft is dated July 3, 2012 and today's date is July 12, 2012 and no public notice was provided in a timely manner in a format accessible to people with disabilities to read, consider, and frame a response - I am unable to respond as thoroughly as I would choose to the document itself by 5PM today as required.


2. I protest the validity of any comments received as representative of the disability community at large as the majority of citizens with disabilities have had no opportunity what-so-ever to voice their opinion: Hearing notice was not provided in a timely manner and locations of hearings were not fully accessible as required by law.


3. Given the executive order rescinding the MRC was revoked, and given that no new executive order has been approved, I am exercising my role as a voting MRC Council member. As a member of the MRC, I was provided no official notice of the hearings or the date and time for final comments.


4. I am Strongly opposed to Order of Selection, or any method of placing a category of disability over other categories which meet the Rehabilitation Act’s eligibility requirements.   Rehab organizations in other states that went into OOS had to lay off significant staff because of reductions in VR customers and service funds.  Please review this link for more information:  http://www.michiganrehabilitationassociation.org/about-us/public-policy-committee.


5. No funding should be provided to ensure the continuation of segregated employment programs and this should be clearly reflected in the state plan. (Attachment 4.8(b)(4) Arrangements and Cooperative Agreements for the Provision of Supported Employment Services)


In Lane v. Kitzhaber, 3:12-cv-00138-ST (http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lane_soi.pdf), it says "([H]istorically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.”).  Consistent with this mandate, the integration regulation, by its own terms, applies to all “services, programs and activities” of a public entity, including segregated, non-residential employment and vocational programs such as sheltered workshops.  See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d)."


Supported employment is not a sheltered workshop or a "Community Rehabilitation Organization". I am not knowledgeable about all sheltered workshops in Michigan funded by the MRS, but certainly Goodwill Industries, Kandu, Hope Network, New Horizons, and Rainbow Rehabilitation appear to use RSA funds to develop their segregated employment programs.

Sincerely,


Susan Fitzmaurice, R/CRC
7873 Woodingham
West Bloomfield, MI 48322
(248) 767-2217