[nfbmi-talk] Fw: Amended Response to FOIA Response of 7-20-12 - State Plan Meetings, Public Hearing Comments, Notes, Minutes
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Jul 20 23:28:44 UTC 2012
----- Original Message -----
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Jones, Leamon (LARA) ; Gaston, Diamalyn (LARA)
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 5:04 PM
Subject: Amended Response to FOIA Response of 7-20-12 - State Plan Meetings, Public Hearing Comments, Notes, Minutes
July 20, 2012
Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
Re: Amended Response to FOIA - State Plan Meetings, Public Hearing Comments, Notes, Minutes
Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:
This letter is an amended response to our July 20, 2012 letter which was in response to your July 13, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on July 16, 2012. Please be informed that the Department’s Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.
You have requested information you describe as: “I am writing today to request all documents related to the extremely illegal state plan hearings recently conducted. At a minimum I am requesting all written or spoken public comments submitted to MCB and, if any, the recordings and notes, or ‘minutes’ of these so-called ‘public hearings’ on the state plan, which by the way very few people with disabilities even knew about because MCB LARA made no proper and adequate notice in any form except belatedly on its web site.” A copy of your email is also attached.
Although the Michigan Commission for the Blind did not conduct what you’ve described as “… extremely illegal state plan hearings,” MCB has conducted five public meetings on its draft 2013 State Plan, July 9, 11 and 13, 2012 and can provide you with information to those meetings, as these may be the meetings you intended to identify and, as such, may be of interest to you. Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request pursuant to MCL 15.235, Section 5(4)(b) of the FOIA.
Attached are two documents in regards to the State Plan Meetings which includes the verbal comments at the meetings along with the written comments sent to us in regards to the Draft State Plan.
At this point in time, all of the recordings of these meetings have not been formatted to be able to place them on a flash drive. We will send these records once this is accomplished.
Sincerely,
Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Attachments:
1. Email of 7/13/12
cc: Patrick Cannon
Mel Farmer
Susan Turney
Elsie Duell
Leamon Jones
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:33 PM
To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Cc: Craig McManus RSA; Carol Dobak; OCR Cleveland Office; MARK CODY; Elmer Cerano MPAS; Zimmer, Mike (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Fredric Schroeder (by way of David Andrews<dandrews at visi.com>); valarie Barnum
Yarger MISILC
Subject: request all info related state plan mcb
July 13 2012 Request MCB LARA All Information Related to State Plan Hearings
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
810-516-5262
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
Re: Public Hearing Comments, Notes, Minutes Rehab Act, ADA, Etc.
Patrick D. Cannon
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Michigan Commission for the Blind
201 N. Washington, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 30652
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone (voice): (517) 373-2062
Fax: (517) 335-5140
TTY (517) 373-4025
Toll-Free Numbers:
1-800-292-4200 (voice, answered in Lansing)
1-800-323-2535 (voice, answered in Escanaba)
TTY 888-864-1212
(Sent via e-mail)
Dear Mr. Cannon,
I am a person who is blind, an advocate for those who are blind and those with other disabilities. I am writing today to request all documents related to the extremely illegal state plan hearings recently conducted. At a minimum I am requesting all written or spoken public comments submitted to MCB and, if any, the recordings and notes, or “minutes” of these so-called “public hearings” on the state plan, which by the way very few people with disabilities even knew about because MCB LARA made no proper and adequate notice in any form except belatedly on its web site.
Make no mistake here I am not making a Freedom of Information Act request! I invoke the very Rehabilitation Act itself which funds and establishes the MRC to begin with. I invoke the requirement to make all public meeting and hearing information readily available and accessible to members of the public in a timely and accessible manner including those of course, like myself who are blind. I also invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II, subpart e, communications, primary consideration), and the “auxiliary aids and services” provisions of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act here for as I am blind the printed word is not accessible. An entity such as yours should be intimate with how to affirmatively comply with this request and prohibitions against charging a surcharge or any Stallings or delays.
Now I request the written submissions as simple Word documents and/or e-mail attachments as my “computer talks”. I use a screen reader. This information must be sent to my e-mail listed above. Any responses, including inevitable stalling must also be sent in accessible format.
As per any recordings they may be sent on a thumb drive to my mailing address as an mp3 file.
Again under law you may not charge me one dime for this any more than you can charge a deaf person the cost of interpreter services at these bogus hearings. Which you didn’t have by the way as that would violate the surcharge provisions of the ADA and 504.
But you should and do know of your substantial violations Mr. Cannon as you are the State of Michigan ADA Coordinator, Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind for crying out loud and the former Chair of the United States Access Board!
A failure to timely respond to this let alone remit accessible information will result in complaints to OCR, the US Department of Justice, and legal action.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: National Federation of the Blind, MI
Cc: ADAPT MI
Cc: MCB Commissioners
Cc: MRC Members
Cc: RSA
Cc: OCR, Ed.
Cc: Michael Zimmer, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services
Cc: D. Gaston as Comments to State Plan Itself
Michigan Commission for the Blind
State Plan Comments from the Public Meetings Held on
July 9, July 11 and July 13, 2012
The guidelines of receiving Public Comment were reviewed at the beginning of each meeting.
Lansing Public Comments:
Attendees:
1. Leamon Jones, Chairperson
2. Diamalyn Gaston, Recorder – Meeting Secretary
3. Elsie Duell, Timekeeper
4. Pat Cannon, Director
5. Bob Robertson
6. Elizabeth White
7. Susan Turney
8. Sue Chinault
9. Julia Burdgick
10. Carla Haynes
11. Fred Schroeder
#1
Hello, my name is Joe Sontag, I’m a regular attendee of commission meetings and other commission functions for quite some time and a long time participant of commission activities and some time critic. I don’t have a whole lot to say, particularly I read the state plan and the amendments and the attachments and I gotta say to state that it was probably one of the most dry repetitious things I’ve read in a long time but I do understand that there is a need for that to happen.
Two points I wanted to hit on the first one is that I realize that for bureaucratic reasons if nothing else that there the State plan was written in such a way as to anticipate the fallout from the most recent executive order regarding services to blind people in Michigan. I know that this has been interpreted various ways, and I think I understand why it’s being done it saves the hassle of having to submit a whole bunch of stuff later on. However, I just wanted to point out that I and others are aware that at this moment we still have a commission board as constituted by PA 260 of 1978 as amended and other legislation and I would much rather have seen a situation where the standing commission board had a chance to weigh in on what turned out to be the final draft.
My second point relates to the status of the Business Enterprise Program under the new proposed or very likely to be executive order. My major concern is that the final agency decision will be rendered by the director of the unit under which the proposed bureau would exist and as a person who’s been in the business enterprise program off and on since late 1989, as one who has served as an advocate for operators with grievances as chair of Elected Operators Committee several times, frankly this arrangement scares me to death and it does that quite simply because the very individual who’s in charge of the office that conducts our full evidentiary hearings for cases that get that far will be the very same person who renders the final agency decision. That person is getting input from sources that cannot be known or controlled about the status of various cases with the present Business Enterprise Program and its management and relationships that have developed between certain operators and certain high level staffers in state government right now I find it almost impossible that a person who is out of favor with any member of the business enterprise program staff for any reasons particularly management I find it impossible to think that that individual has a reasonable chance at justice which the person of course has the ability to take it beyond but that implies deep pockets from of one kind or another on the part any individual who take it beyond. I guess, I can’t rest easy with it. I’m thankful that I have other options in life. I’m not going to disappear if things get to a point where I find it impossible to stick around; others are not in that situation and are not as lucky, and I guarantee you that with things as they are currently the proposed plans for handling final agency decisions is only going to lead to more trouble, not less. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this public hearing.
#2
Good afternoon, my name is Fred Wurtzel I’m with the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan and I also would like to thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing this afternoon. Like Mr. Songtag before me I have significant concerns. One of the concerns that I have about this plan is that this is a gigantic change in the relationship between consumers and the agency has provider of rehabilitation services. There will be no longer be a consumer driven board which sets policy for the commission that will be more internalized into the structure of the agency. I don’t think this plan adequately reflects a way to monitor that consumers will continue to have a reasonable level of input into the decisions and policy making of the agency. There’s a term that’s used and I’m going to borrow it this doesn’t necessarily apply here exactly, it’s called maintenance of effort that means if you do something at a certain level at one point with regards to providing services that those services should be maintained at that level through into the future. What I’m anticipating here and maybe promptly so I hope is that this maintenance of effort will see a decline in the ability of consumers’ actively participate in the policy and development in ongoing management of the Michigan Commission for the Blind or as it will be called the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons. I would like to request in my comments that RSA consider some sort of monitoring of the level of consumer involvement in this.
Another aspect of this is that we will be going from a separate Commission for the Blind board which serves as the state rehabilitation council for the Commission for the Blind and that will be taken over by a joint rehabilitation council which will serve both Michigan Rehab Services and Michigan Commission for the Blind, again diminishing, severely diminishing input of blind persons. As it is now, three of five persons who make decisions, policy decisions for the agency must be blind. There will be seventeen members, I believe it’s seventeen on the state rehabilitation council and there is no provision on there at all for any blind person to be there. That doesn’t mean that a blind person won’t be there, that’s not my implication; however there is no requirement that any blind person be represented on that rehabilitation council. So we go from 60% of representation on the overall policy making board to potentially 0%. With regards to staff training, staff training has been an issue of concern by consumers. Our concerns are reflected in the off times repeated and as Joe mentioned in the plan the fact that member of measurements on the, within the state plan that the agency wasn’t able to meet its goals. In 2000, the goal for placement was 200, it dropped to 170 then to 160 - next year it’s for 161. According to the Governor in his public comments there were seventy thousand jobs available through Mi Jobs. It’s hard to imagine that with the vast resources of the Commission for the Blind $25,000,000 or so much of which went unspent that we couldn’t find 160 or 170 people jobs and I think this is reflected due to staff training. We have a number of people who are CRC eligible but don’t have CRC’s and so those are a number of issues that I think are important. I will be providing written comments by next Monday.
#3
My name is Terry Eagle and I’m from Lansing and I’m here as president and representing the National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan and an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind and we have some real concerns about this state plan. First of all because of the fact that it comes out of the executive order, it’s our position that the executive order over reaches the governor’s authority and moves into that of the legislative body of the legislature and therefore there will likely be challenges to that on a legal basis. With respect of the State plan we believe that there is a great need for more training among the staff of the Commission for the Blind. It’s been proven that they are not in touch with the skills of blindness, what the abilities of blind people are and their recommendations of things to be put into individual plans and stuff just are not in sync with what blind people need in this state.
As a member of the Merchants Division and our membership we are really concerned about the movement of the abolition of the Commission for the Blind Board which has had judicially the final agency decision on grievances, hearings and I was going to say arbitrations, but they don’t have a final say on that, but hearings on the, in the hearing system of grievances by blind licensees in the Randolph Shepherd and Public Act 260 Business Enterprise Program. Our concern is that the hearing office, we believe is corrupt, we believe that it is non-responsive to the American with Disability Act in Section 504 of the Civil Rights provisions of the Rehabilitation Act when it comes to accommodations for blind persons they refuse to give us materials in a format that blind people can readily use. They insist that all things be done by fax or paper or paper - print paper and they refuse to even communicate with us other than print paper and that’s a serious violation of both the ADA and the 504 provisions. We also believe that since the director of LARA will be the chief individual to make a final agency decision, we believe that there are some serious legal, ethical, and moral issues having to do with that person making a final agency decision considering that that individual is also the head of the Michigan Administrative Hearings System. We think that that should probably also be challenged legally and ethically. So, we believe that because of the lack of due process that blind vendors are getting now, that this will continue and under the new plan and that the fact that we’re not getting our needs met under the law as it stands that that will be complicated and ongoing giving the powers without that of individual blind persons being in the policy and review process. So, I thank you for this opportunity and we will see how it washes out.
#4
I’m Mary Wurtzel with the National Federation of the Blind and my first comment is: Is there really someone in Washington DC that reads this thing? But anyway, no I’m sorry. I always have to have a little levity. But well one thing I noticed is there is a constant repetition of the fact that Michigan, we have a very high unemployment rate so therefore blind people can’t get jobs either. I understand that this is certainly true, but I just felt that, and I’m no connoisseur of state plans, but it just seems that we should come up with more creative ways to come up with strategies to do some of the things that were mentioned in the plan. For instance, it’s true that blind males and sighted males are not achieving as highly in school and it seems to me, I think that it was 9.2 of African American or regular guys. I’m not sure. Oh that didn’t sound right, but anyway, but that percentage was the highest percentage that achieved employment.
Anyway, because a lot of the failure starts to take place in school (especially for boys), it seems that, I realize that the commission has authority, I mean the bureau when people get to be 14 is that right, is that the age for transition, but it just seems to me that somehow there has to be some cooperation even before that because boys are failing in school, blind, sighted, or otherwise and it just seems to me that we can be creative in what we can do to encourage especially the boys. And also I was very interested in the whole; I heard this before about reaching out to the minority groups in Michigan. And when I first heard this, I was very happy that we did that but it seem to me that what we said we were doing to reach out to the Native American community was the same kinds of things that we have been doing and just seems to me that maybe we can sit down and think of some other ways to reach the native American community, and we have a very large of Arab community in Dearborn, and also the Hispanic and African American communities. I would just like to see us develop even more strategies and it just seems like, well when I was reading this, which I was really glad the computer was doing this so that I didn’t go to sleep, but it just seemed like it was pretty ho-hum, and so my comment is just can we jazz things up a little bit in this whole government thing and get a little bit more excited about what we’re doing with state plans and such likes. So that’s my comment.
Escanaba Public Comments:
Attendees:
Leamon Jones
Diamalyn Gaston – recorder and secretary
Larry Posont and driver
Carol Berquist
Christine Pada
Ed Haines
# 1
Hello, my name is Carol Bergquist from Escanaba Michigan. I’m making comment on behalf of the Michigan Rehabilitation Council or the MRC.
The MRC is the federally mandated State Rehabilitation Council designated to work in strategic partnership with the Michigan Rehabilitation Services or (MRS), the public vocational rehabilitation VR program for the general population of people with disabilities. With the signing of the Executive Order 2012-10 by Governor Snyder, the MRC has been abolished. At the same time, the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services (MCRS) has been created and will serve as the State Rehabilitation Council for both the blind and general service bureaus. We look forward to our new responsibilities as prescribed in the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in Section 105. We anticipate the establishment of a strategic partnership with the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) pursuit to our roll of reviewing, reanalyzing and advising the BSBP administration. Our intent is that our membership will serve as the voice of customers with disabilities, ensuring that the VR system for persons with low vision and blindness are receiving services that upholds the spirit and prescriptions of the federal law as related to employment outcomes.
Thank you for this opportunity to make comment.
#2
I’m Larry Posont member of the Commission Board. The only comment that I have for today is that #1 this building is accessible - proper signage and other things and #2 what was the announcement made for this meeting and how was it brought up and where was it sent to? Thank you.
Kalamazoo Public Comments:
Carrie Martin – recorder and secretary
Lisa Kisiel
Shannon McVoy
Christine Boone
#1
Hello, my name is Beth Childress. I am making comment on behalf of the Michigan Rehabilitation Council or the MRC.
The MRC is the federally mandated State Rehabilitation Services designated to work in strategic partnership with Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS), the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) program for the general population of people with disabilities.
With the signing of Executive Order 2012-10 by Governor Snyder, the MRC has been abolished. At the same time, the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services (MCRS) has been created and will serve as the State Rehabilitation Council for the blind and general service bureaus.
We look forward to our new responsibilities as prescribed in the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, Section 105. We anticipate the establishment of a strategic partnership with the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) pursuant to our role of reviewing, analyzing and advising the BSBP administration. Our intent is that our membership will serve as the voice of customers with disabilities, ensuring that the VR system for persons with low vision and blindness are receiving services that upholds the spirit and prescriptions of the federal law as related to employment outcomes.
Thank you for this opportunity to make comment.
Detroit Public Comments:
Attendees:
Leamon Jones
Diamalyn Gaston – recorder and secretary
Cathy Cove
Gwen McNeal.
#1
Hello my name is Dennis Stanford. I’m making comment on behalf of the Michigan Rehabilitation Council or the MRC. The MRC is the federally mandated State Rehabilitation Council designated to work in strategic partnership with Michigan Rehabilitation Services the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) program for the general population of people with disabilities. With the signing of Executive Order 2012-10 by Governor Snyder, the MRC has been abolished and at the same time, the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services (MCRS) has been created and will serve as the State Rehabilitation Council for the blind and general service bureaus. We look forward to our new responsibilities as prescribed in the Rehabilitation Act, amended, Section 105. We anticipate the establishment of a strategic partnership with the Bureau of Services for the Blind Persons (BSBP) pursuant to our role of reviewing, analyzing and advising the BSBP administration. Our intent is that our membership will serve as the voice of customers with disabilities, ensuring that the VR system for persons with low vision and blindness are receiving services that upholds the spirit and prescriptions of the federal law as related to employment outcomes. Thank you for this opportunity to make comment.
#2
John C. Scott - I had the opportunity to read most of the state plan and I supposed it was emailed to me but I didn’t have the time to finish it. I have things that created questions for me. First, there seems to be the assumption that it is now the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons that apparently is going to be the new rubric that will be called once the governor’s executive order, I think it is 20-10-4; I’m not sure, goes through. But that is not the state of affairs at this point. In the, and my guess is that it is being done because by the time the commissioner of RSA approves the plan then maybe that’s what it is going to be. That’s being, I think being a bit presumptuous. I also concern is that there are a number of changes that says where the bureau name is giving, this document has not been changed or last changed by Leamon Jones, I forget the exact terminology; for example April 20, 11 and I know of course that April 20, 11 there were no Bureau of Services for Blind Persons. I’m also took note of what It appears to that the Michigan Commission for the Blind and the Michigan Rehab Services are coming under a general umbrella of what they call a rehab unit that is ultimately under LARA. It seems to be a joining of the two indirect way so rather that a class 2 agency that is ?. The situation with the advisory board of course is troublesome that is mixed in there in terms of that its going to four blind and this and I guess I’m merging the executive order along with this, it going to be four blind people and three sighted people on this advisory board, but they have a personal voice advises means we tell you what we think and then the executive does whatever he thinks needs to be done. I also was a bit puzzled [i]in that, Pat Cannon is named as, I think as assistant director I don’t that just perhaps for the state plan or not. But I did not read anything indicating what are the requirements for becoming the director. The director sits on the state rehab unit as an exofficio non- voting member of that board and the same goes for the person that is director of MRS so they really have no authority other than perhaps some kind input so maybe they can give some advice to this state rehab board. So we have essentially advisory board in all of it comes under LARA so it seems like something that was concise, complete and thorough is become really something that is very possibly a confuse situation. I think since counselors and what is the teacher therapist their responsibilities even though their credential are specified and I think all the requirements for the management should be specified somewhere and I don’t ask them to be under Civil Services but even if it is then of course Civil Service will probably have to be amend it since this is a new creature being created. But I think that the state plan as written is problematic. I also didn’t pick up any enforcementees when this new bureau is not doing what it is suppose to do in terms of providing services for the blind. The question I have then is well what can a citizen do with enforcement. I notice some kind of connection is the CAP. It does not have a stellar reputation either from the experience I had in terms of referring folks to the client advocacy program. So I think this, at least from my recommended reading, partial reading of the state plan itself I think that there is some more that needs to be done, hopefully by the meeting we have I think it is on the 24th. I will have a little bit more that I can say regards to that but that is essentially my statement.
Gaylord Public Comments:
Attendees:
Pat Cannon
Bob Robertson
Beth White
Sue Luzenski
Sarah Oberlin
Larry Posont
Ken Stucki- driver for Larry
#1
Larry Posont - I just wanted it to be known on the record that I’m here.
Michigan Commission for the Blind
State Plan Written Comments
Received by July 16, 2012
These are all of the written comments submitted by the close of business on July 16, 2012.
Public Comment #1
This is the official position of the members of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan concerning the state plan and services to blind people.
Thank you.
Mike Powell
1st-Vice-President
National Federation of the Blind of Michigan
July 16, 2012
Mike Powell
3253 Dolores Avenue
Warren, Michigan 48091
MPOWELL at WOWWAY.COM
2013 MICHIGAN BLIND STATE PLAN COMMENTS
Although Executive Order 2012-10 keeps intact the former commission as a discrete and separate organization with responsibility strictly for blind persons, we are concerned that the executive order may reduce the level of consumer control of vocational rehabilitation and related services to blind citizens of Michigan. The following comments contain our recommendations to maintain proper consumer control of services to the blind.
BACKGROUND
Executive Order 2012 abolishes the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board. The board is a five-person Commission, three members of which must be blind. Following are some of the major functions of the Commission as mandated by statute:
Public Act 260 of 1978
Following is a list of broad powers and their foundation.
1. AN ACT to revise and codify the laws relating to blind persons and visually handicapped;
2. to create a commission;
3. to prescribe its powers and duties and those of other state agencies relative to blind persons;
4. to provide services, education, training, and assistance to blind persons;
5. to regulate concessions operated by blind persons;
6. To transfer powers, duties functions, and appropriations; and to repeal certain acts and parts of Acts.
In the above it is clear that the five-person commission was to be responsible for services specifically to blind persons. The list below sets forth duties of the commission board.
393.352 Commission for blind; creation; appointment of members; chairperson; appointment
and evaluation of director of commission; terms, compensation, and expenses of members;
officers; quorum.
1. Three of the members shall be blind persons.
2. One of the members shall be designated by the governor to serve as the chairperson.
3. The commission shall recommend to the director of the department a person to serve as director of the commission
4. from a list of eligible persons certified and submitted by the department of civil service who shall be classified as a civil service employee,
5. Should that person be rejected, the procedure shall be repeated until a director is appointed.
6. The commission shall evaluate the performance of the director annually and submit its evaluation and recommendations to the director of the department.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Appointment of a blind person to serve as the chairperson of the Advisory Commission:
Executive Order 2012-10 replaces the current policy-making commission board with an advisory commission for blind persons. The advisory commission will be comprised of seven members, four of whom must be blind. Section II of the executive order states in part:
A. The Commission for Blind Persons ("Commission") is created as an advisory commission within the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
B. The Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the Governor. Four of the members shall be blind persons.
D. The Governor shall designate a member of the Commission to serve as its Chairperson. The Chairperson shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
Executive Order 2012-10 states that the governor will appoint a chairperson from the members of the advisory commission; however, the executive order does not require that the chairperson be blind. To maintain credibility of the advisory commission among blind consumers, we believe that it is essential that the chairperson be blind. For this reason we strongly urge the governor to name a chairperson of the advisory commission who is blind.
2. Appointment and supervision of the director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons:
A major function of the current commission board is the power to recommend an individual to serve as the commission director and to evaluate his or her performance. The executive order makes no mention of the process to be used in appointing and evaluating the director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons. We strongly recommend that the governor instruct the director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) to consult with the advisory commission in the appointment of a bureau director and consult with the advisory commission in the ongoing evaluation of the bureau director.
3. Randolph-Sheppard Disputes:
Another critical function of the current commission board relates to the dispute resolution process for complaints brought under the Randolph-Sheppard blind vending program. Under current law, the commission board reviews the findings of an administrative law judge and renders final agency action on behalf of the commission. Section I of the executive order states in part:
E. Any authority, powers, duties and functions relative to final agency decisions for cases arising under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 to 107f, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 732, and the Blind and Visually Disabled Persons Act, 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 to MCL 393.369, are transferred from the Commission for the Blind to the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
We strongly recommend that the governor instruct the director of LARA to delegate the authority to render final agency action related to Randolph-Sheppard disputes to the advisory commission.
4. State Rehabilitation Council:
Under current law, the consumer-controlled commission board carries out the functions of the State Rehabilitation Council. The executive order sets up a single State Rehabilitation Council to serve both the general agency and the agency for the blind made up of 17 persons, a majority of whom must be persons with a disability. Unlike the commission, there is no requirement that any of these individuals must be blind. This is a troubling reduction in representation in the policy-making and oversight activities of the agency for the blind. We strongly recommend that the governor instruct the director of LARA to constitute a separate State Rehabilitation Council for the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons.
Public Comment #2
1. To the best of my knowledge and belief, MCB made no effort to publicize the state plan hearings beyond posting notice on its web site, as if to ensure that only those blind people who make it their business to track closely the activities of the Commission would be aware of the locations, times, and strict rules set down for these hearings.
2. The hearing that I attended was held at a location that did not meet accessibility requirements as to proper signage on all permanent rooms and which has been the subject of accessibility complaints for many years. The hearing that was conducted in Detroit took place at a building that houses offices of the Commission and that has become the focus of a lawsuit brought by a disabled individual who finds many accessibility issues. Other reports that have reached me suggest strongly that MCB and its director have failed to respond effectively to the numerous ADA-based accessibility complaints, even as it continues to allege that it holds all of its functions in accessible meeting places.
3. I am very concerned by the fact that our Commission Board was shut out of any and all activity relating to the development of the state plan document, as far as I know.
4. For reasons stated above, I find it impossible to believe that any claims made by the Commission may make regarding the representative nature of the public comments received at these hearings to be credible.
5. Our governor has issued recently an executive order that will have far-reaching and potentially destructive effects on services to blind people in Michigan. One effect of this executive order was to cause MCB staff to write the state plan document in future tense, hiding the fact that our agency is still a consumer-controled and directed agency and will remain so at least until October first of this year.
6. The proposed state plan reflects a provission of the Governor's executive order that places the power of taking the final agency decission in grievances brought by operators in our Business Enterprise Program in the hands of the director of the the Bureau of Services to Blind Persons' parent department. The person named in the state plan document, Mike Zimmer, is not the parent department's director, but its chief deputy director. It is also true that Mr. Zimmer is in charge of the Michigan Administrative Hearings System (MAHS), the very entity that conducts the full evidenciary hearings required by the Randolph-Sheppard Act. At present, these decissions are taken by the Commission Board, which must act in accordance with Michigan's open meetings act.
Given that the Bureau director and BEP staff will have secret opportunities to introduce off-the-record evidence in each case through undocumented communication with the department director or their designee and given that the overseer of MAHS can influence each grievance hearing, I find an unacceptible conflict of interest in this proposed arrangement.
7. Finally, given the number of problems exposed that are the responsibilities of MCB management, the deteriorating level of service received by Commission consumers, especially those in the Detroit metro area and the contempt shown openly by MCB upper management towards blind consumers generally and the Board that currently has the power to direct it particularly, I hope that those at RSA who are responsible for evaluating the proposed state plan and all related materials do so critically and with a mindset that encourages the asking of searching questions of the Agency and commenters alike.
Sincerely,
Joseph Sontag
1204 Morris Avenue
Lansing MI 48917
E-mail: suncat0 at gmail.com.
Public Comment #3
July 15 2012 More Comments and More Violations in State Plan
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
To: D. Gaston via internet
All,
I quote from Executive Order 2012-10:
“ Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement of the Director of the Commission for the Blind are transferred to the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
“
These are clearly non-delegable authorities to non VR entity under the Rehabilitation Act and are an invalid exercise of the Designated State Agency cited in:
“TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CIRCULAR
RSA-TAC-12-03
DATE: April 16, 2012
“
Specifically here:
“In addition, regulations found at 34 CFR 361.13(c) require that certain functions be reserved solely to the staff of the DSU and that these functions may not be delegated to any other agency or individual (34 CFR 361.13(c)(2)). At a minimum, these “non-delegable” responsibilities relate to decisions affecting:
eligibility, the nature and scope of services, and the provision of those services (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(i));
the determination that individuals have achieved employment outcomes (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(ii));
policy formulation and implementation (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iii));
the allocation and expenditure of VR funds (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iv)); and
the participation of the DSU in the one-stop service delivery system in accordance with Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the regulatory requirements specified in 20 CFR Part 662 (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(v)).
“
Bottom line here is that the entire MCB State Plan and the Executive Order creating it are an invalid abuse of federal law and an open knowing misappropriation of federal VR funds to a non-vocational entity (DSA/LARA).
Sincerely
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: MCB Commissioners
Cc: MPAS
Cc: MRC
Cc: NFB, ACB
Cc: RSA
Cc: several
Public Comment #4
Conflict of Interest and Non -delegable Authorities
July 15, 2012
Comments on MCB State Plan
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
All,
note the following from the ludicrous Michigan Commission for the Blind State Plan:
“2. The name of the designated state vocational rehabilitation unit is:
Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (“BSBP”), under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 USC 701 et seq. The Bureau of Services for Blind Persons serves as the State Licensing Agency under the Randolph Sheppard vending facilities for blind in federal buildings act, 20 USC 107 to 107f. Any authority, powers, duties and functions relative to final agency decisions for cases arising under the Randolph Sheppard Act, 20 USC 107 to 107f, the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112, as amended, 29 USC 732, and the Blind and Visually Disabled Persons Act, 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 to MCL 393.369, lies with the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.”
First of all and once again the signaturre on the pre-print is not the Director of LARA which isn’t a Vocational Rehabilitation entity in the first place, but that of LARA Deputy Director Michael Zimmer. Now, Michael Zimmer runs the Michigan Administrative Hhearings System where Business Enterprise Operators and in fact VR clients can take complaints. Currently the Michigan Commission for the Blind board under PA 260 and rules makes the final agency determination for the SLA as a safe guard in due process and equal protection under law, all of which has been routinely violated over the years by MAHS to begin with in documented fashion including substantial violations under Zimmer’s direction of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the very Rehabilitation Act all are violating here.
Moreover, this is at cross purposes for if the illegal Executive Order 2012-10 takes place it would eliminate PA 260 which establishes the State Priority to begin with.
I know this sounds confusing. That is because it is a mish mash of multiple violations of both state and federal laws to numerous to count.
But, clearly the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs cannot serve the interests of blind folks here and their rights to fundamental due process and equal protection under law when the self-same entity runs the quasi-judicial proceedings and then also makes “the final agency determination”. There can be no impartiality by any measure here. It is a codified conflict of interests making the Designated State Agency judge and jury all wrapped up in the same package.
This is a VR program for people who are blind after all.
In addition, regulations found at 34 CFR 361.13(c) require that certain functions be reserved solely to the staff of the DSU and that these functions may not be delegated to any other agency or individual (34 CFR 361.13(c) (2)). At a minimum, these “non-delegable” responsibilities relate to decisions affecting:
eligibility, the nature and scope of services, and the provision of those services (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(i));
the determination that individuals have achieved employment outcomes (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(ii));
policy formulation and implementation (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iii));
the allocation and expenditure of VR funds (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iv)); and
the participation of the DSU in the one-stop service delivery system in accordance with Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the regulatory requirements specified in 20 CFR Part 662 (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(v)).
Thus this is simply a gross conflict of interest, institutionalized denials of blind in due process proceedings that will be arbitrary and capricious, and more non-deligable authorities over federal VR funds illegally sought by the Designated State Agency.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: RSA
Cc: NFB MI
Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services
Cc: Michigan Americans with Civil Liberties Union
Cc: MRC
Cc: several attorneys at law
Public Comment #5
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of Western Michigan University’s Rehabilitation Counseling/Teaching program, I am pleased to comment on the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons FY 2013 State Plan. The FY 2013 State Plan clearly demonstrates the long standing relationship between Western Michigan University and BSBP for the development and continued education of rehabilitation counselor/teachers to assure quality services for Michiganders with the disability of blindness.
As seen in the FY 2013 State Plan, BSBP is a collaborative partner with Western Michigan University’s Rehabilitation Counseling/Teaching program. Both WMU and BSBP are committed to assuring that Michigander's with the disability of blindness are receiving the best possible services to meet their disability specific training needs. In this regard, the State Plan demonstrates BSBP's commitment to training "qualified" rehabilitation counsleors in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act through it's active involvement on the rehabilitation counseling/teaching admissions committee, Rehabilitation Counseling/Teaching Advisory Board, instructor and guest lectures, and clinical supervision of rehabilitation counseling/teaching interns.
Given the impact of blindness on the functioning of an individual without skills in blindness, BSBP's state plan section on Comprehensive System of Personnel Development assures that rehabilitation counselor/teachers are prepared to not only provide needed vocational rehabilitation and counseling services, but also to understand the training and psychological needs of persons with congenital or acquired blindness. Michiganers with the disability of blindness are well served by BSBP's ongoing dedication to assuring dually trained (specialization in blindness) rehabilitaiton counselors as evidenced in the FY 2013 State Plan.
Further, BSBP’s commitment to Michiganders with blindness is demonstrated in the FY 2013 State Plan by it’s ability to establish productive and ongoing relationships with multiple agencies throughout Michigan. These relationships are included in the FY 2013 State Pan and include, but are not limited to supported employment vocational services, independent living services, and transition services. Access to these partnerships is a key function to vocational rehabilitation services in a public vocational rehabilitation program - BSBP has clearly excelled and committed in this area.
Western Michigan University’s Rehabilitation Counseling/Teaching program is committed to supporting BSBP’s expressed commitment to working collaboratively toward the goals of preparing qualified personnel in accordance with the Rehabilitation Act requirements. Further, Western Michigan University’s Rehabilitation Counseling/Teaching program fully supports BSBP’s efforts to recognize and embrace the diversity of Michiganders both in service delivery and personnel.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the comments herein on the Bureau of Blind Persons' FY 2013 State Plan, please feel free to contact me.
Jennipher Wiebold, Ph.D., CRC
Rehabilitation Counseling/Teaching Program Coordinator Associate Professor Western Michigan University
Public Comment #6
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Patrick Cannon MCB Dir.
Cc: Craig McManus RSA ; Carol Dobak ; OCR Cleveland Office ; MARK CODY ; Elmer Cerano MPAS ; zimmerm at michigan.gov ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org ; Fredric Schroeder (by way of David Andrews<dandrews at visi.com>) ; valarie Barnum Yarger MISILC
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:32 PM
Subject: request all info related state plan mcb
July 13 2012 Request MCB LARA All Information Related to State Plan Hearings
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
810-516-5262
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
Re: Public Hearing Comments, Notes, Minutes Rehab Act, ADA, Etc.
Patrick D. Cannon
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Michigan Commission for the Blind
201 N. Washington, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 30652
Lansing, MI 48909
Phone (voice): (517) 373-2062
Fax: (517) 335-5140
TTY (517) 373-4025
Toll-Free Numbers:
1-800-292-4200 (voice, answered in Lansing)
1-800-323-2535 (voice, answered in Escanaba)
TTY 888-864-1212
(Sent via e-mail)
Dear Mr. Cannon,
I am a person who is blind, an advocate for those who are blind and those with other disabilities. I am writing today to request all documents related to the extremely illegal state plan hearings recently conducted. At a minimum I am requesting all written or spoken public comments submitted to MCB and, if any, the recordings and notes, or “minutes” of these so-called “public hearings” on the state plan, which by the way very few people with disabilities even knew about because MCB LARA made no proper and adequate notice in any form except belatedly on its web site.
Make no mistake here I am not making a Freedom of Information Act request! I invoke the very Rehabilitation Act itself which funds and establishes the MRC to begin with. I invoke the requirement to make all public meeting and hearing information readily available and accessible to members of the public in a timely and accessible manner including those of course, like myself who are blind. I also invoke the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II, subpart e, communications, primary consideration), and the “auxiliary aids and services” provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act here for as I am blind the printed word is not accessible. An entity such as yours should be intimate with how to affirmatively comply with this request and prohibitions against charging a surcharge or any Stallings or delays.
Now I request the written submissions as simple Word documents and/or e-mail attachments as my “computer talks”. I use a screen reader. This information must be sent to my e-mail listed above. Any responses, including inevitable stalling must also be sent in accessible format.
As per any recordings they may be sent on a thumb drive to my mailing address as an mp3 file.
Again under law you may not charge me one dime for this any more than you can charge a deaf person the cost of interpreter services at these bogus hearings. Which you didn’t have by the way as that would violate the surcharge provisions of the ADA and 504.
But you should and do know of your substantial violations Mr. Cannon as you are the State of Michigan ADA Coordinator, Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind for crying out loud and the former Chair of the United States Access Board!
A failure to timely respond to this let alone remit accessible information will result in complaints to OCR, the US Department of Justice, and legal action.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: National Federation of the Blind, MI
Cc: ADAPT MI
Cc: MCB Commissioners
Cc: MRC Members
Cc: RSA
Cc: OCR, Ed.
Cc: Michael Zimmer, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services
Cc: D. Gaston as Comments to State Plan Itself
Public Comment #7
July 13, 2012 Comments MCB Proposed State Plan
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
To: D. Gaston MCB (and others)
Dear Ms. Gaston,
I am commenting on the following section of the Michigan Commission for the Blind’s draft state plan:
“Attachment 4.2(c) Input of State Rehabilitation Council
Required annually by all agencies except those agencies that are independent consumer-controlled commissions.
Identify the Input provided by the state rehabilitation council, including recommendations from the council’s annual report, the review and analysis of
consumer satisfaction, and other council reports. Be sure to also include:
List of 2 items
• the Designated state unit's response to the input and recommendations; and
• explanations for the designated state unit's rejection of any input or recommendation of the council.
list end
*The BSBP functions in accordance with the State Rehabilitation Council.
This screen was last updated on Jul 27 2009 9:31AM by Leamon Jones
“
First of all does anyone look at the dates on this garbage? Mr. Jones hasn’t updated this for three years which is a total admission in and of itself that the agency violated this provision year in and year out.
Moreover, the current MCB Board and it is still current has not done this or even had the time or ability to do this.
Further as documented elsewhere we’re referencing an SRC that does not exist and even the existing Michigan Rehabilitation Council didn’t get notice of these substantial changes to both state plans.
By the way the Executive Order 2012-10 is not in effect even if it is legitimate to begin with as it won’t go into effect before August 27, 2012 if it does.
Regardless this documents past and present violations of both the Independent commission’s role in State Plan development and that required of an SRC, let alone the utter and gross incompetence of Mr. Jones paid in excess of $100,000 in these regards.
.
This is the most Kafkaesque and ludicrous exclusion of consumers, and stakeholders from the process and documented at that that I’ve ever seen.
Thus once again the entire state plan is invalid on its face and I urge RSA Deputy Director Anthony to not approve the state plan here or that of Michigan Rehabilitation Services until it comes into compliance with all applicable portions of the Rehabilitation Act including provisions for consumer control and input into the functions of this agency.
Sincerely and Nothing about Us Without Us,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: Craig McManus, RSA
Cc: Carol Doboc, RSA
Cc: Current commissioners MCB
Cc: MRC Members
Cc: National Federation of the Blind
Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services
Cc: Michael Zimmer
Cc: Patrick D. Cannon
Public Comment #8
Complaint OCR RSA Public Hearings Violate ADA/504
July 13, 2013
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
810-516-52612
Re: Public Hearings MCB Lack of Access
All,
Note the following location is being used for a public hearing on the bogus and illegal State Plan by the Michigan Commission for the Blind today:
“Detroit
July 13, 2012, 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Cadillac Place
3038 W. Grand Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48202
Room L150”
Now this facility houses offices for the Michigan Commission for the Blind and other entities. It was required to meet the program access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Decades ago. It is also required to ensure that all public hearings especially those as critical to people with disabilities are fully accessible. Yet, this very building and the state actors are being sued for assorted violations of the ADA/504.
Bottom line is this facility does not meet the renovations and alteration requirements of the ADA denoted in that suit.
Moreover, as I am blind I will also note that this facility does not have required raised character and Braille signage on every permanent room, including room numbers in accordance with ADAAG Sections 3.40.1, 4, 5, 6 which is a program access issue.
In short this Michigan Commission for the Blind is not accessible to the blind.
Now this is a complaint to the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education to immediately start action against the Michigan Commission for the Blind and its Director, Patrick D. Cannon for these and other chronic, and malicious violations of ADA and 504 which I’ve documented here and over the decade.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: RSA
Cc: NFB MI
Cc: MCB
Cc: MPAS
Cc: Richard Bernstein, Esq.
Cc: ADAPT MI
Public Comment #9
Complaint OCR RSA Public Hearings Violate ADA/504
July 13, 2013
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
810-516-52612
Re: Public Hearings MCB Lack of Access
All,
Note the following location is being used for a public hearing on the bogus and illegal State Plan by the Michigan Commission for the Blind today:
“Detroit
July 13, 2012, 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Cadillac Place
3038 W. Grand Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48202
Room L150”
Now this facility houses offices for the Michigan Commission for the Blind and other entities. It was required to meet the program access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Decades ago. It is also required to ensure that all public hearings especially those as critical to people with disabilities are fully accessible. Yet, this very building and the state actors are being sued for assorted violations of the ADA/504.
Bottom line is this facility does not meet the renovations and alteration requirements of the ADA denoted in that suit.
Moreover, as I am blind I will also note that this facility does not have required raised character and Braille signage on every permanent room, including room numbers in accordance with ADAAG Sections 3.40.1, 4, 5, 6 which is a program access issue.
In short this Michigan Commission for the Blind is not accessible to the blind.
Now this is a complaint to the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education to immediately start action against the Michigan Commission for the Blind and its Director, Patrick D. Cannon for these and other chronic, and malicious violations of ADA and 504 which I’ve documented here and over the decade.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: RSA
Cc: NFB MI
Cc: MCB
Cc: MPAS
Cc: Richard Bernstein, Esq.
Cc: ADAPT MI
Public Comment #10
July 8 2012 ADA 504 Etc. Request
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI
To:
Patrick D. cannon
Former Director Michigan Commission for the blind
Michael Zimmer Current dictator Michigan commission for the blind
Via e-mail
Mr. Cannon and Mr. Zimmer,
I am writing you both today to request all documents related to basic ADA and section 504 (Rehab Act) compliance with the requirements to:
1. Make all facilities used by the current Commission for the Blind fully compliant with the program access, new construction and alteration requirements of both the ADA, Title II and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
2. Ditto for all requirements to make the facilities used for upcoming public hearings relative to the State Plan fully accessible in accordance with the above mentioned laws and the Americans with disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.
3. Ditto for meeting affirmatively all requirements for notice including in “appropriate modes of communications” the public hearings denoted and to begin with tomorrow, also all affirmative provisions required to effectively communicate with the blind, deaf and blind/before at such meetings including of course again notices. ((Re: Tyler v. Manhattan, re: Title II, ADA, effective communications, re: “auxiliary aids and services provisions of Section 504).
These public hearings are invalid on their face as they violate fundamentals of the aforementioned laws and the constitutional guarantees that they are based upon.
Send me, a blind person all of these things in accessible format (re: do it as a simple word document which my screen reader can read prior to aforementioned meetings.)
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: NFB MI
Cc: OCR, Ed.
Cc: DOJ
Cc: several attorneys at law
Cc: RSA
Cc: MRC
Cc: MCB Commissioners
Cc: MCBVI
Cc: several media outlets
Public Comment #11
Request Recording MCB State Plan Hearing July 9 2012
And ADA/504 Complaint
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI
48458joeharcz at comcast.net
To
Patrick Cannon, Michigan commission for the Blind
Michael Zimmer, Michigan LARA
Via e-mail
Sirs,
I am writing today to request the recording of the State Plan Hearing held yesterday at the State Library in Lansing. I make this request in accordance
with known responsibilities to make such recordings available under both the public hearings requirements of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Title I)
and the “auxiliary aids and services” provisions in Section 504 of that same act.
You may send this recording as an mp3 file on a “flashcard” to my mailing address listed above.
By the way the meeting violated the program access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title II, and similar requirements for accessible
meetings required by the Rehabilitation Act in that there was no and I repeat no raised character and Braille signage in accordance with the Americans
with Disability Act Guidelines (3.40.1, 4, 5, 6).
I don’t understand what this state doesn’t realize about the long standing requirement to have all permanent rooms, including room numbers so identified
and most especially for agencies that offer vocational rehabilitation services and hold said public hearings like the one yesterday. It is inexcusable
that this facility which houses the Braille and Talking Book library and was used for this public hearing so egregiously and maliciously violates the
ADA now nearly twenty two years after it was enacted.
Thus this stands as a complaint and documentation of a complaint for systemic, willful, and malicious discrimination against the entire class.
It also invalidates these so-called public hearings!
Yu Mr. Cannon as the former head of the United States Access Board and State of Michigan ADA coordinator should be ashamed for such ongoing acts of discrimination!
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: MCB Commissioners
Cc: MCBVI
Cc: OCR, Ed.
Cc: DOJ Civil Rights Division, Disabilities Rights Section
Cc: NFB
Cc: Richard Bernstein, Esq.
Cc: Mark Cody, MPAS
Cc: Great Lakes “TAC”
Cc: RSA
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
Public Comment #12
All,
This building houses daily Michigan Rehabilitation Services and Michigan Commission for the Blind Offices. Program access to such facilities was required
as of January 26, 1992. Yet they are not compliant to this day. Moreover, this facility is required to have raised character and Braille signage on every
permanent room including room numbers (ADAAG 3.40.1, 4, 5, 6). It does not.
Moreover all Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies are required to hold public hearings in accessible facilities. Both the Michigan Commission for the Blind
and the Michigan Rehabilitation Services are holding public hearings this very week on its so-called, and highly illegal state plan in this very inaccessible
building.
The ADA is a civil rights law. We people with disabilities have the right to access our government facilities!
It is incredible at the amount of documentation I’ve given over the last decade on these issues without any compliance!
Sincerely,
Joe HarczNational Federation of the Blind
ADAPT
Woman sues state, says Detroit office building hinders handicapped | The Detroit News |
July 11, 2012 at 1:00 am
Woman sues state, says Detroit office building hinders handicapped
List of 3 items
• By Robert Snell
• The Detroit News
• 0Comments
list end
Detroit— A Farmington Hills woman sued the state in federal court Tuesday, alleging workers with disabilities are denied equal access to a state office building in Detroit.
Michigan Economic Development Corp. employee Jill Babcock said wheelchair ramps are too steep outside the Cadillac Place building on West Grand Boulevard, and the facility lacks available handicap parking.
The building, which formerly served as General Motors Corp. headquarters, was renovated in 2002 but failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act, according to the lawsuit. Babcock wants to force the state to comply with the disabilities act.
rsnell at detnews.com
(313) 222-2028
Public Comment #13
July 12 2012 Request Public Hearing Information Rehabilitation Act Etc
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
joeharcz at comcast.net
ToPatrick Cannon Michigan Commission for the Blind
Michael Zimmer, Michigan Department Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
(Via-email)
Sirs,
in accordance with Relevant Sections of Title I and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended I am writing to request in a timely and accessible format all notes, “minutes” and recordings of the following public hearings on our State Plan:
“Lake Superior Room
Escanaba
July 11, 2012, 2:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Escanaba Office
State Office Building
305 Ludington
Escanaba, MI 49829
Conf. Room 2nd Floor
Kalamazoo”
I request all notes or “minutes” as simple Word documents sent to my e-mail address listed above,.
I also request any recording be sent to my mailing address on a flash card as an mp3 file.
Aside from the above referenced laws I, as a blind person also invoke The Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, subpart e, communications, primary consideration in these regards.
A failure to respond in a timely and accessible format, or to not remit said documents and recordings is actionable,.
In addition an attempt to use any state law to delay or deny the application of these aforementioned federal civil rights laws is a violation of the general provisions of both the ADA and Section 504. In other words federal civil rights laws trump abused state laws.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: MCB Commissioners
Cc: RSA
Cc: OCR
Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocy Services
Cc: MRC Members
Cc: NFB
Cc: ADAPT
Cc: MCBVI
Cc: DOJ
Public Comment #14
The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs does not even come close to meeting this:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2800
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CIRCULAR
RSA-TAC-12-03
DATE: April 16, 2012
ADDRESSEES: STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCIES
STATE REHABILITATION COUNCILS
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE & CONTINUING
EDUCATION CENTERS
AMERICAN INDIAN VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
CONSUMER ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS
SUBJECT: Organizational Structure and Non-Delegable Responsibilities of the Designated State Unit for the Vocational Rehabilitation Program
PURPOSE: Through this technical assistance circular (TAC), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) provides guidance on the federal requirements governing the organizational structure of, and the non-delegable responsibilities to be performed by, the designated State unit (DSU) for the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program, authorized under Title I, Part B, of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (Rehabilitation Act). RSA has determined that clarification of the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions is needed in light of inquiries from VR agencies and the results of its recent monitoring activities.
The guidance contained in this TAC covers each of the federal requirements and further explains:
· the meaning of the term “other rehabilitation” for the purpose of satisfying the organizational requirements for the DSU within the designated State agency (DSA);
· the calculation used to determine the percentage of DSU staff required to perform the vocational or other rehabilitation work of the DSU;
· factors to consider when determining if the DSU is located at a level comparable to other major components of the DSA; and
· additional factors related to the assessment of the DSU’s ability to perform its non-delegable responsibilities.
This TAC retires prior guidance issued through RSA-PI-75-31, RSA Policy Statement on Interpretation of State VR Organizational Requirements of the Rehabilitation Act as amended, June 3, 1975; RSA-PI-77-26, RSA Policy Statement of Interpretation of State VR Organizational Requirements of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended July 26, 1977 (addendum to RSA-75-31); and RSA-PD-96-02, Special Education Programs as "Other Rehabilitation" for Purposes of the Application of the Provisions of Sections 101(a)(1)(B)(i) and (2)(A)(i) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, November 7, 1995. These prior issuances contained outdated citations, described regulations that are no longer in effect, or included information that is restated in explanatory guidance to current regulations. However, any still valid statements of policy found in these older issuances are incorporated in this TAC.
FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS: Since 1920, when the VR program was first authorized under the Smith-Fess Act, federal requirements governing the organizational requirements for the VR program have changed significantly. The Smith-Fess Act required that the VR program be administered by State Boards of Vocational Education. The 1954 amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (VR Act), the authorizing federal legislation for the VR program at that time, created another organizational structure option for States in administering the VR program. Specifically, those amendments permitted the VR program to be administered by a state agency that was primarily concerned with VR and other rehabilitation. In other words, an independent state agency could be established to administer the VR program and other programs for individuals with disabilities.
The 1965 Amendments to the VR Act contained the last significant change in the statutory provisions related to the state administration and organization of the VR program. In response to a perceived need for greater flexibility at the state level, the 1965 Amendments also allowed the VR program to be administered by a state agency that contained at least two other units administering a program of education, health, welfare, or labor. Congress clearly intended to achieve a balance between state flexibility in the administration of the VR program, while at the same time preserving the integrity and autonomy of the program by imposing the organizational unit requirements described below, which were subsequently incorporated into the Rehabilitation Act and have been maintained since that time.
Section 101(a)(2)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR 361.13(a) require that the VR State Plan shall designate a state agency as the sole state agency to administer the plan. The state agency designated to administer the VR State Plan must be either: 1) a state agency primarily concerned with VR, or VR and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities; or 2) a state agency that includes a VR bureau, division or other organizational unit (Section 101(a)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(a)).
If the state agency contains a VR bureau, division or other organizational unit, Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(b) require that the VR bureau, division or VR organizational unit must:
· be primarily concerned with VR, or VR and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities, and be responsible for the VR program of the DSA;
· be administered by a full-time director;
· employ staff on the rehabilitation work of the organizational unit all or substantially all of whom devote their full time to such work; and
· be located at an organizational level and have an organizational status within the DSA comparable to that of other major organizational units of the DSA.
In addition, regulations found at 34 CFR 361.13(c) require that certain functions be reserved solely to the staff of the DSU and that these functions may not be delegated to any other agency or individual (34 CFR 361.13(c)(2)). At a minimum, these “non-delegable” responsibilities relate to decisions affecting:
· eligibility, the nature and scope of services, and the provision of those services (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(i));
· the determination that individuals have achieved employment outcomes (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(ii));
· policy formulation and implementation (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iii));
· the allocation and expenditure of VR funds (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iv)); and
· the participation of the DSU in the one-stop service delivery system in accordance with Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the regulatory requirements specified in 20 CFR Part 662 (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(v)).
TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE: Although RSA can best determine whether a state is complying with the organizational requirements for the DSU and DSA through the conduct of monitoring (Final Regulations 62 Fed. Reg. 6308, 6316 (February 11, 1997)), it is important that state officials and personnel responsible for the administration of the VR program understand each federal requirement to ensure that the state has in fact created the proper organizational structure that enables the DSU to exercise its non-delegable responsibilities for the VR program. Therefore, in an effort to assist States outside of the monitoring process, this TAC first provides guidance on each of the organizational requirements and then addresses the non-delegable responsibilities of the DSU.
Administration of the VR Program and “Other Rehabilitation”
The DSA or the DSU, in those States where there is a DSU, must be primarily concerned with VR, or VR and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities (Section 101(a)(2)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(a)(1) and (b)(1)(i)). According to these requirements, the primary function of the DSA or the DSU, if one exists, must be the delivery of VR or VR and other rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.
Although the statute and regulations permit the DSA or the DSU to administer programs other than the VR program that assist with the rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities, the relevant provisions themselves neither define nor describe the meaning of the term “other rehabilitation.” However, the preamble to the 1997 final VR program regulations clarifies that “other rehabilitation” “includes, but is not limited to, other programs that provide medical, psychological, educational, or social services to individuals with disabilities” (Final Regulations 62 Fed. Reg. 6308, 6316 (February 11, 1997)). The preamble to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for these final regulations also contains examples of programs or services that constitute “other rehabilitation,” including independent living services, programs for individuals with developmental disabilities, services for individuals who are deaf or hearing‑impaired, services for individuals who are blind or visually impaired, Social Security disability determinations, or another type of program related to individuals with disabilities (NPRM 60 Fed. Reg. 64476, 64481 (December 15, 1995)).
In light of this regulatory guidance, the determination whether programs located within, or services provided by, the DSU constitute “other rehabilitation” for purposes of the VR organizational requirements is dependent on the provision of services or supports provided by those other programs to individuals with disabilities, as well as the linkage between those services and supports and the VR program. For instance, a DSU may be located within a DSA that provides human services. Although the concept of “other rehabilitation” is very broad as described above, not all human services can be considered to come within its scope. For example, the provision of medical, psychiatric, or social services to individuals with developmental disabilities, mental illness, or with alcohol and drug addictions would fall within the scope of “other rehabilitation” because the primary purpose of those services is to benefit individuals with disabilities. On the other hand, the provision of other types of human services, such as those for the aging, child welfare, child care licensing, and crisis/emergency response would not fall within the scope of “other rehabilitation” for purposes of the VR organizational requirements because the primary focus of each of these programs is not the provision of VR or other rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities. The fact that these programs may, on occasion, benefit individuals with disabilities, does not alter the fact that the primary focus of these programs is to benefit a wider population.
Consequently, the DSU must determine the primary purpose of the other programs that fall within its purview to ascertain if those programs constitute “other rehabilitation” within the meaning of VR organizational requirements. Only then can the DSU ensure that substantially all of its staff are engaged in the provision of VR or other rehabilitation services, despite the inclusion of these other human service programs under its purview. As explained further below, an understanding of whether the scope of the programming administered by the DSA or DSU, if one exists, indicates that it is primarily responsible for the provision of VR and other rehabilitation services is critical for determining if all, or substantially all, of the DSU’s staff are employed full-time on the VR and other rehabilitation work of the unit.
Full-Time Director
Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(ii) require that the DSU, if one has been established within a larger DSA, employ a full-time director. Pursuant to this requirement, the DSU director must devote his or her full time to the work of the DSU, which would include the VR program and any other program under the purview of the DSU. While the director is not required to devote his or her full time to the VR component of the DSU’s work, title I funds must be used only to support the work of the director as it relates to the VR program.
Although this statutory and regulatory provision is as important to the proper organizational structure and administration of the VR program, its language is clear and RSA has received no inquiries or encountered any issues of non-compliance during the monitoring process with respect to its implementation. Thus, no further explanation or guidance concerning this specific requirement is warranted at this time.
Staff Performing VR or Other Rehabilitation Work
The DSU, where one exists, must have “a staff employed on the rehabilitation work of the organizational unit all or substantially all of whom are employed full time on such work” (Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(III) of the Rehabilitation Act). VR program regulations clarify the meaning of “substantially all” by requiring that the DSU have “a staff, at least 90 percent of whom are employed full time on the rehabilitation work of the organizational unit” (34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(iii)).
The Rehabilitation Act recognizes the state’s flexibility regarding the manner in which it organizes the DSU and allows for the centralization of its administrative functions. Nonetheless, it remains consistent and clear that the DSA and the DSU, if one exists in the state, must be primarily concerned with the VR or VR and other rehabilitation needs of individuals with disabilities. Although the work of the DSU can encompass activities that extend beyond VR and other rehabilitation, the Rehabilitation Act and the VR implementing regulations prescribe that "all or substantially all staff" – e.g., 90 percent -- of the DSU must devote their full time to the rehabilitation work of the unit, i.e., VR or vocational and other rehabilitation. This intention is further supported by guidance contained in the preamble to the 1995 NPRM, which reads as follows:
This requirement means that if the organizational unit provides other rehabilitation services, in addition to vocational rehabilitation, the 90 percent staffing requirement applies to all unit staff providing rehabilitation services, not to just the vocational rehabilitation staff (NPRM 60 Fed. Reg. 64476, 64481 (December 15, 1995)).
In other words, no more than ten percent of the DSU staff can devote any portion of their time to other programs and activities carried out by the DSU that do not constitute VR or other rehabilitation, as described above.
To determine that the DSU employs a staff at least 90 percent of whom are working full-time on the rehabilitation work of the unit, RSA considers the entire DSU, as defined by the state in the VR State Plan, and all of its activities. RSA then determines which of those activities constitute the VR and other rehabilitation of individuals with disabilities. Once this determination is made, RSA then takes into account the total staff employed by the DSU and the manner in which they are apportioned to each of the DSU’s activities to determine the percentage that work full-time on the rehabilitation work of the DSU, as opposed to the percentage that are engaged, full- or part-time, on the non-rehabilitation work, if any, of the DSU.
The Federal requirement refers to 90 percent of the staff, not 90 percent of the staff’s work hours, that must be devoted to the performance of matters related to VR or the other rehabilitation work of the DSU. This distinction is important when considering DSU staff who expend any time working on the provision of services or activities that do not constitute VR or other rehabilitation, such as universal and core service activities within Workforce Centers. The DSU must maintain careful time distribution records for any staff, again no more than ten percent, who spend any time working on matters that are not related to the VR or other rehabilitation work of the DSU. These time records are essential to ensure that this requirement is satisfied, as well as compliance with cost allocation requirements under the federal cost principles found at 2 CFR Part 225.
For example, a DSU’s staff may be co-located in the state’s one-stop centers and it may meet its cost sharing obligations, in part, by paying for a proportionate share of the reception services provided by one-stop staff, or by assigning DSU staff to perform reception duties while again ensuring that the time of these staff is properly allocated to the VR program. Because the receptionists in the one-stop centers perform “universal” activities for all individuals served by the centers, not only individuals with disabilities, they cannot be considered to be engaged in the provision of VR or other rehabilitation services. Therefore, if the DSU chooses to assign its staff to assist with the reception duties at the one-stop centers, it must be careful that the number of staff assigned to these or other such duties, even on a part-time basis do not exceed ten percent of its total staff.
Furthermore, RSA recognizes that staffing of a state agency is a dynamic process in which the number of staff or full-time equivalent (FTE) positions can change on a frequent basis. In an environment where funding may be limited, it is not uncommon for hiring freezes and budget concerns to result in vacant FTE positions that may not be filled or that may be eliminated. Consequently, when reviewing a DSU’s compliance with this requirement, RSA only considers staff who are actively employed at a specific point during the review and does not consider vacant positions or FTEs assigned to the DSU, as those positions are not actively contributing to the provision of VR or other rehabilitation services within the DSU. The language of Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(III) and the regulations at 34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(iii) supports this approach through the use of such words as “staff” and “employed.” Additionally, when discussing this requirement, the preambles to both the 1995 NPRM (60 Fed. Reg. 64475, 64481(December 15, 1995)) and the 1997 Final Regulations (62 Fed. Reg. 6307, 6316 (February 11, 1997)) refer to “all unit staff providing rehabilitation services” (emphasis added). Therefore, when making the determination that a DSU is in compliance with the requirement that 90 percent of its staff work full-time on VR or other rehabilitation activities, only staff actually employed by the unit will be taken into consideration.
Finally, some DSUs include within their structures community rehabilitation programs (CRP) that employ both staff who provide rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities and staff who engage solely in the production and manufacturing activities of the CRP. When determining whether substantially all of the DSU’s staff are engaged full-time in the provision of VR and other rehabilitation services, only those individuals employed within the CRP who provide rehabilitation services are considered to be performing VR or other rehabilitation activities, and not those individuals engaged in its production work.
Organizational Level and Status of the DSU
Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(IV) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(iv) require that the DSU, where one exists, must be “located at an organizational level and [have] an organizational status within the designated State agency comparable to that of other major organizational units of the designated State agency.” This particular requirement has remained unchanged since its inclusion in the 1965 amendments to the VR Act and, along with the other requirements discussed above, affirms a cardinal principle concerning the organization of the VR program – that the VR program is an integral categorical program, not to be merged with other organizations of state government.
The requirement that the DSU be located at a level and have a status comparable to that of the other major units of the DSA, in effect, places constraints upon the alternatives available to the State in designating an agency to administer the VR program. As clearly articulated in the Congressional Oversight Hearings of November 30 and December 10, 1973, the objective of these constraints is to prevent the submersion of the VR program within the structure of the DSA, which could reduce the program’s scope and effectiveness. The requirements have been consistently interpreted to mean that the VR unit must have clear, direct supervision of VR staff with regard to program policy, operations, and related program matters.
When evaluating whether the DSU is at a comparable level to other major organizational units within the DSA, it has been the long-standing policy of RSA that such an evaluation will take into consideration such factors as:
· the directness of the reporting line from the VR director to the head of the DSA;
· the title, status, and grade of the VR director, as compared with those of the heads of other organizational units within the DSA;
· the extent to which the VR director can determine the scope and policies of the VR program; and
· the kind and degree of authority delegated to the director of the DSU for the administration of the VR program.
Each of these factors should be considered when determining if the DSU is located at a level comparable to other major units of the DSA, and not submerged within the organizational structure of the DSA to such an extent that the DSU director is limited in his or her ability to have input into legislative and other matters affecting the VR program in a manner that is more restricted than that of other directors of comparable programs. However, with respect to the consideration of the title, status, and pay grade of the DSU director, RSA has not historically been involved in providing direction to the states regarding personnel matters, except as they relate to the requirements for a comprehensive system of personnel development. Absent a functional impact, differences in title, status and pay grade between the DSU director and other directors in the DSA may not raise concerns in connection with the federal requirements at Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(IV) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(iv). On the other hand, if such differences reflect a devaluation of the DSU, this factor should be considered, along with the others mentioned herein, to determine the state’s compliance with the federal organizational requirements for the DSU and the ability of the DSU to carry out the non-delegable responsibilities specified in 34 CFR 361.13(c).
Ideally the DSU director reports directly to the head of the DSA. However, given the complexity of some state government structures, the head of the DSA may find it necessary to require that the DSU director report to a deputy within his or her office instead. Such an organizational structure is permissible within the requirements of Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(IV) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(iv), so long as the DSU director and the directors of the other major components are treated similarly. Under such arrangements, the deputy within the DSA’s office typically functions as a conduit of information and facilitator of communication between the DSU director and the head of the DSA, as well as with the heads of the other major units.
Unlike the above-described organizational structure, some state government structures include a level of organization outside the head of the DSA’s office that incorporates the DSU within its own structure, thus creating an additional organizational layer between the head of the DSA and the DSU. While additional organizational layers between the DSA and the DSU may be permissible, their presence can complicate the determination of the proper placement of the DSU. When evaluating this intervening organizational level in light of the factors listed above, especially that of the directness of communication between the head of the DSA and the DSU director, RSA considers the role of the head of the intervening organization in terms of the administration of the VR and other programs located within the intervening level. Specifically, RSA considers whether this individual’s role interferes with the DSU director’s ability to perform the non-delegable functions listed at 34 CFR 361.13(c). For example, RSA will examine the involvement of the head of the intervening organization in decisions related to legislative, budget, strategic planning, policy development, and the allocation of resources (including staff) of the VR program, particularly as compared to the involvement of the heads of intervening levels in matters administered by the directors of other major components within the DSA. Under circumstances where the DSU director does not provide input on such matters directly to the head of the DSA, but rather does so through the head of the intervening organization, RSA will consider whether the input provided by the VR director is marginalized prior to being transmitted to the head of the DSA. The marginalization of such input could have a negative affect on the ability of the DSU director to carry out the non-delegable responsibilities for the VR program set forth at 34 CFR 361.13(c).
In summary, RSA considers many factors when analyzing whether the DSU is located at a level comparable to other major components within the DSA. Except for the factor pertaining to the VR director’s ability to carry out the non-delegable functions required by 34 CFR 361.13(c), none of these factors are dispositive on their own. Instead, they all work together to help RSA determine whether the organizational structure established by the state meets the spirit and intent of the federal requirements.
Non-Delegable Responsibilities
As stated earlier in this TAC, Section 101(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of the Rehabilitation Act and 34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(i) require that the DSU be responsible for the administration of the VR program. The statute does not describe the nature and scope of this responsibility or how it is to be carried out by the DSU. However, the VR program implementing regulations, found at 34 CFR 361.13(c)(1), require that certain functions be reserved solely to the staff of the DSU and that these functions may not be delegated to any other agency or individual (34 CFR 361.13(c)(2)). These “non-delegable” functions relate to decisions affecting:
· eligibility, the nature and scope of services, and the provision of those services;
· the determination that individuals have achieved employment outcomes;
· policy formulation and implementation;
· allocation and expenditure of VR funds; and
· participation in the One-Stop service delivery system in accordance with Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and the regulatory requirements specified in 20 CFR Part 662.
RSA has long interpreted these provisions to require that the specified functions and activities be carried out by the DSU’s own staff (NPRM, 60 Fed. Reg. 64475, 64482 (December 15, 1995) and Final Regulations, 62 Fed. Reg. 6307, 6316 (February 11, 1997)). In addition, the VR unit must have clear and direct supervision over VR program staff with regard to program policy, operations, and related program matters.
The non-delegation provisions are intended to, “[strengthen] the role of the State unit by requiring that the unit have a substantial role in all decisions affecting the administration of the VR program whenever management functions within the State agency are centralized” (60 Fed. Reg. at 64482). Retaining these non-delegable functions within the DSU:
Ensure[s] that State agencies that consolidate staff to administer multiple State and federally funded programs do not entrust these key VR programmatic decisions to individuals who lack experience in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities…[T]he benefits derived from DSU retention of these functions – enhanced program efficiency and effectiveness – outweigh any costs that may be associated with the non-delegation requirements in the final regulations (62 Fed. Reg. at 6316).
When certain functions, such as human resource development or financial management, are placed at the DSA or departmental level, it is important to assess the manner in which the DSU exercises a strong voice or provides effective input into the policy, planning, operations or similar program decisions made in these areas. While certain purely administrative functions may be performed by personnel outside the DSU, centralization of functions on the state agency level is impermissible if it results in interference with the decision-making capacity of the administrator of the DSU to direct the VR program in the state, given that the DSU has been designated as the entity responsible for administering the VR program under the VR State plan (34 CFR 361.13(b)(1)(i)).
The following program management activities are among those that typically are carried out by an organization that is responsible for the day-to-day operational administration of a public VR program:
· development of legislative proposals and regulations regarding VR program funding and services;
· program planning and evaluation;
· personnel management;
· implementation and use of management information systems; and
· fiscal and statistical reporting.
When centralization of these or other functions occurs, questions may arise as to whether the DSU has retained an effective voice in the making of key policy decisions to ensure that the DSU has sufficient responsibility for the administration of the VR program, as required by 34 CFR 361.13(c).
In making judgments about the nature and degree of DSU involvement in these activities for the purpose of assessing compliance with the non-delegable functions, RSA recognizes that the Rehabilitation Act provides considerable flexibility to the state in the administration of the VR program and that the responsibility for the administration of the state Plan rests with the DSA in accordance with 34 CFR 361.13(a). However, the DSU is responsible for the administration of the VR program under the State Plan (34 361.13(b)(1)(i)), and for the operation of the VR service delivery system (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(i)). In assessing the nature and extent of the DSU's authority in carrying out its responsibility to administer the VR program, RSA will determine whether the DSU director indeed has the authority to administer the VR program and, if so, the extent of that authority, i.e., if it affords the DSU adequate input with respect to the administration of the centralized functions. RSA will review the degree of authority and involvement of all of the DSU’s functions taken together, and not with respect to one or more of the functions alone.
Regarding the allocation and expenditure of VR funds (an area where questions concerning the DSU’s authority are more likely to arise), RSA will determine whether the DSU has responsibility for the approval of expenditures, the development and approval of contracts, budgeting for the program, development of the cost allocation plan and the procurement process. As the head of the DSU, the entity solely responsible for the expenditure and allocation of VR funds pursuant to 34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iv), the DSU director must be privy to all financial information about the VR program, not just informed of such information by the DSA, and should be in direct control of the decisions affecting the VR program. Decisions regarding staffing levels, priority setting, and the awarding of contracts fall within the scope of the expenditure and allocation of VR funds. Therefore, decisions related to these matters require the DSU to determine where to spend its resources for the benefit of the program and to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities within the state. As such, these decisions must ultimately be made by the DSU. For example, while the DSA may centralize contracting processing, decisions involving whether to contract for a service, the amount to be contracted, and the service to be procured, must be retained by the DSU since those decisions pertain to the allocation and expenditure of VR funds and the provision of VR services, both of which are non-delegable functions of the DSU (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(i) and (iv)).
In addition, the director and staff of the DSU must have sufficient information regarding the fiscal resources available for use in the VR program, especially in those states where the DSA has centralized the payment and fiscal reporting processes for the entire agency. Because the DSU is solely responsible for the allocation and expenditure of VR funds pursuant to 34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(iv), the DSU remains responsible for ensuring the accuracy of financial reports and the satisfaction of all fiscal requirements, including match and maintenance of effort. Furthermore, the DSU must have sufficient information about the financial resources available to the VR program in order to avoid the inadvertent and unnecessary reallotment of funds, or, most significantly, the return of funds to the U. S. Treasury -- actions that could occur if the DSU does not maintain control over the expenditure and allocation of VR funds.
Finally, the VR program regulations at 34 CFR 361.23 and Section 121(c) of WIA, along with WIA implementing regulations at 20 CFR 662.300, require that a memorandum of understanding governing operations of the One-Stop service delivery system in a local area be developed and executed between the Local Workforce Investment Board and the One-Stop service delivery system partners. Because the DSU is solely responsible for its role as a partner in the one-stop system (34 CFR 361.13(c)(1)(v)), it must negotiate its own contracts with the other one-stop partners. This responsibility may not be delegated to another individual or agency, including the DSA (34 CFR 361.13(c)(2)).
SUMMARY: The federal requirements governing the organization of the VR program provide considerable flexibility to the states in recognition of the wide variety and complex nature of the programs and services within their purview, while establishing a framework in which VR services are delivered through an autonomous and distinct unit. This framework enables the officials and personnel of the DSU to conduct those non-delegable functions critical to the administration and operation of the VR
program. It is these persons who possess the knowledge and experience necessary to make decisions regarding the effective and efficient use of VR program resources to address the unique needs of individuals with disabilities as they engage in the pursuit of quality employment.
CITATIONS: Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Section 101(a)(2)
Vocational Rehabilitation Program Regulations, 34 CFR 361.13
INQUIRIES: Carol Dobak, Chief
Vocational Rehabilitation Program Unit
(202) 245-7325
Carol.Dobak at ed.gov
Edward Anthony, Ph.D.
Deputy Commissioner
cc: Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind
National Disability Rights Network
Public Comment #15
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
Public Comment #16
Gov. Snyder's executive order 2011 –2
candelaria jelinski cande28j at me.com
Hello Gov. Snyder's this is in regards to the Executive Order for the michigan commission for the blind. I would like to see the board stay intact and the commission for the blind stay the way it is ran now! My name is Candalaria Jelinski and my son & I both have retinitis pigmentosa and glaucoma, conditions that will not get better and someday we will both be completely blind ourselves , as this is a genetic condition that will affect my family's far far into the future. The commission has helped us both accept this transition from a life with sight to now a life living with blindness. We both are currently active clients of the Commission that are now pursuing higher education. And your executive order directly affects us and so many others , like our war vets returning home blind . , my son . my family and our future as contributing citizen's in our society. The only ones to know the true needs of blind people are the blind themselves . Thank you
Sent from Candelaria & Aretha my guide dog
Carla Miller Haynes
LARA Michigan Commission for the Blind
201 N. Washington Square, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 30652
Lansing, MI 48909
Telephone: 517-373-2063 or Toll-Free 1-800-292-4200
Fax: 517-335-5140
www.michigan.gov/mcb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Amended Response of 7-20-12.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 171008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120720/4c68ff3b/attachment.doc>
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list