[nfbmi-talk] last and most patetic gasp
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Nov 30 20:56:51 UTC 2012
Michigan Commission for the Blind
201 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan
Friday, September 21, 2012
RE: Commission Meeting
__________________________________________________________/
APPEARANCES:
MCB Commissioners Present
Mr. Larry Posont
Mr. John Scott
Ms. Lydia Schuck
MCB Staff: Mr. Pat Cannon
Ms. Sue Luzenski
Ms. Alyssa Clark
Ms. Constance Zanger
Ms. Christine Boone
Ms. Carla Haynes
Ms. Elsie Duell
Ms. Julia Burdgick
Mr. Leamon Jones
Ms. Amber Silvey
Ms. Nichole Wright
Mr. James Hull
Mr. Bob Robertson
Mr. Chris Lautner
Ms. Shannon McVoy
Guests/Attendees
Mr. Robert Essenberg
Mr. Michael Powell
Ms. Michelle Powell
Mr. Dave Robinson
Ms. Karen Evans
Ms. Casey Dutmer
Mr. Joe Sibley
Ms. Valerie Bernum-Yargar
Mr. Mark Eagle
Mr. Terry Eagle
Mr. Bob Rafferty
Mr. Joe Sontag
Mr. Joe Harcz
Mr. Mike Zimmer
TRANSCRIBED BY: REGENCY COURT REPORTING
3133 Union Lake Road, Suite A
Commerce Township, MI 48382
(248) 360-2145
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Michigan Commission for the Blind Meeting 4
Lansing, Michigan
Friday, September 21, 2012 - 9:30 a.m.
* * * * *
MR. POSONT: Have we the time? Okay. The Michigan Commission for the Blind, September 21st Commission meeting is now in order. Let’s see if we have quorum. Lydia Shuck?
MS. SCHUCK: Here.
MR. POSONT: John Scott?
MS. SCHUCK: Present.
MR. POSONT: And myself, Larry Posont. We have quorum. Let’s do the introductions. Okay. Staff, and then --
MS. LUZENSKI: Sue Luzenski.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you want the whole audience?
MR. POSONT: Do the staff first, and then we’ll do the audience.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The staff first, okay.
MR. POSONT: Please.
MS. BOONE: Christine Boone.
MS. ZANGER: Constance Zanger.
MS. HAYNES: Carla Haynes.
MS. CLARK: Alyssa Clark.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Julia is in the other room monitoring. Go ahead with the public?
MR. POSONT: Yes, please.
MR. ESSENBERG: Robert Essenberg.
MS. EVANS: Karen Evans.
MR. DUTMER: Casey Dutmer.
MR. SIBLEY: Joe Sibley.
MR. SONTAG: Joe Sontag.
MS. BARNUM-YARGER: Good morning, Valerie Barnum-Yarger with the State (inaudible).
MR. M. EAGLE: Mark Eagle.
MR. T. EAGLE: Terry Eagle.
MR. RAFFERTY: Bob Rafferty.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Elsie, do you need me to check anything?
MS. DUELL: I think we’re good.
MR. POSONT: Okay. The first thing is the minutes on the July 24th meeting. That’s the correct one; right? Okay. I might have them listed around here. Let’s do the June 15th one first. The July 24th one was a special meeting; correct?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: The only --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'll second to put it on the floor.
MR. POSONT: Okay, correct. Thanks.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: The only thing I saw in the June -- June 15th minutes for the Commission Board meeting, I want to make sure that we have -- you, Lydia, asked for a report for the next meeting on the meeting of (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Any other additions or corrections? All in favor say, “Aye.”
MUTLIPLE SPEAKERS: Aye.
MR. POSONT: The motion passed unanimously. Okay. The next is the June 24th -- July 24th Commission Board meeting. Do I hear a motion?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Move to approve.
(WHEREUPON, audio cuts out abruptly)
MR. POSONT: Public comment, okay. Approval of the agenda, any additions to the agenda? John -- Mr. Cannon?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Okay. Public comment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Yeah, please.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Okay. Discussion? All in favor, “Aye.” No close?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: You're a little slow today.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Public comment. Okay. Say your name. Okay. Say your name if you’re -- if you are representing somebody. If you’re not, say your name and where you’re from, please. Want to do the -- want to do the phone first, Sue? Okay. Yeah, we could do that. Let’s see who’s on the phone introduction-wise first, please.
MR. HARCZ: My name is Joe Harcz.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Thanks, Joe. I’ll get you in a minute, please. Anybody else on the phone, please? Anybody else? Okay. We’re going to allow public comment on the phone first, please, so Sue will be timing it. Say your name and where you’re from, please.
MR. HARCZ: Joe Harcz, Mt. Morris, Michigan. This is a funeral. It is not a public meeting. It is a funeral for the hopes and aspirations of all blind people and it is a funeral for all the hopes and aspirations of people who believe in democracy and rule of law, and I say democracy with a small ‘d.’ Sorry, folks. I’m getting an echo hear and I’m hearing myself. However, all the Rehab Act, it has been violated, and I mean everything. Public Act 260 has been eviscerated and the hopes and aspirations of blind people that were promised by both of these things, and both the VR (ph) Program and the Independent Living program have been gutted.
If people think they -- that we can deal with (inaudible) like Mr. Zimmer (ph) -- and I will say his name publically -- or our Governor, or anybody else, right, left, or in between who thinks they have any concept about what these programs are about, then they’ve got a different thing coming. They -- and by the way, RSA has sold us out as well by approving the illegal State Plans of both the Michigan Commission for the Blind and MRS. And actually, modifying, Ms. Yarger-Barnum -- Barnum-Yarger, you know, the aspirations of the Independent Living Program and the State Plan there.
It was supposed to be consumer durable and consumer controlled, and we’re supposed to have some autonomy. Our voice has been eviscerated. Ladies and gentlemen, your voice has been eviscerated. You, members of the Commission, and all -- all the hopes and promises of the Rehabilitation Act have been eviscerated. This program has been turned into a block grant to fund state agencies in non-conformance with anything that is valid toward what we’re supposed to be about. We’re supposed to be about the rehabilitation of the blind and other people with disabilities, and all we are turned into is a cash cow for a state agency that thinks it knows what it -- what it knows. It doesn’t know anything. Mr. Zimmer --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. HARCZ: -- doesn’t know anything, anything about blindness or about the rehabilitation of the blind. That was clear in the MCBVI meeting. He is even afraid -- afraid to go to the Michigan Commission for the Blind training center and work one day, one hour, one minute under (inaudible) --
MS. LUZENSKI: Time.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. The next person on the phone, please. Anybody else on the phone? Okay. We’re going to get the room -- public comment in the room, please.
MR. ROBINSON: Dave Robinson.
MS. BARNUM-YARGER: Okay. I’m here for a couple of reasons today. One is I want to take the opportunity to thank the existing MCB Commission, your staff, and the consumers that you serve for the years of guidance, support, answering many questions that I and my staff have had as we worked at developing our State Plan and including the older blind in the IL program. Your support has been appreciated immensely, so thank you to everyone, current and past commissions for that.
And two, I want to assure you that as we all move forward in the transition process, that the council is committed to working with the blind program, the older IL blind, making sure you have a voice as we develop our new State Plan next year, and we will continue to be at the table and we do ask you that if you feel that you are being overlooked or not heard, you all know our office phone number. Pick up the phone and call.
We expect that and again, thank you very much and do realize that we are committed to continuing our relationship as we move forward. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Next, please. Dave Robinson on the phone?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Speak up, Dave, please.
MR. ROBINSON: Okay. I just wanted to -- it’s unfortunate that the communication on the phone system is so bad, but nonetheless, I would just like to say that it’s unfortunate that we have to go through this transition because of the greedy, egotistical actions of the bureaucrats. I echo Joe’s comments in all aspects and I think that Mr. Zimmer does not understand what the National Federation of the Blind will do and intends to do to deal with these issues at hand, and I can assure you that the organized blind and the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan will do what’s necessary to make sure that good quality services are delivered to the blind of this state, regardless of his inaction or his ideas, or his puppet regime that he has established to try to milk everything out of the blind, including the BEP (ph) Program.
We are not done with this issue and we will not be done with it until the blind receive the rights given to them by law and the services they need to succeed, and we will continue to point out to everyone who are the real culprits of this fiasco, and Mr. Zimmer will be hearing from us for many months to come. That is all that I have to say for now. I thank the Commission Board for the things that they’ve done in the past. Unfortunately, it’s not -- the time was not given to you to really move this program forward, but I commend you for the things you did and unfortunately, for those things that you weren't able to get to, we will continue to make sure that those things happen in the future.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Anybody else on the phone? Anybody else in the public here in the room, please? Terry Eagle?
MR. T. EAGLE: Good morning, everybody. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the commissioners for their public service. I hope that this is only the beginning of their service to the community of blind persons and disabled persons around the state. This is not a done deal as far as we, the blind, see it. Administrations change, but the organized blind will remain and we are committed to do what is necessary to bring about the betterment of lives of blind persons.
I would like to take -- since I’m an advocate of blind persons in the way of enforcing their rights and privileges, I’d like to speak briefly to the Michigan Administrative Hearing System. Anybody that knows me over the last four or five years, I’ve been very outspoken about the corrupt and tampering nature of the hearing system. This has been discussed with Mr. Zimmer at length. In fact, I brought it up during my interview for the directorship, and the inaccessibility of persons who are blind that are challenged to not be able to get documents, including notices of hearings and other communication, is appalling.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act and other -- the Rehabilitation Act all speak to openness and having accessibility through our programs, and this has not be the purpose of the endeavor of the Michigan Administrative Hearing System or SOAHRS, its predecessor. I have spoke -- I have spoken, not personally or directly, but through writing with the director elect as far back as 2008 about the issues of the inaccessibility, the corruption and tampering of documents and other things having to do with due process.
And one of the things that I believe in at my core is that every person who is dissatisfied with our democracy has a right -- a fundamental, constitutional, God-given right to substantive and procedural due process, and that does not exist in this state for blind persons and I am committed to continue that, and I challenge director elect Ed -- Ed Rogers to take this up on behalf of blind persons. Otherwise, we will do what we need to do. If it means going into the courts as it’s been recently demonstrated by Richard Bernstein having to do with the Cadillac Place, we are prepared and we will give them an open window of time to move on this, making the system accessible and impartial, and if they -- if he doesn’t move on it, we will in a legal way. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Next, please. Anybody else in the audience?
MR. SONTAG: Hello, Joe Sontag.
MR. POSONT: Joe Sontag.
MR. SONTAG: Just a few things very quickly. First off, I too echo what -- the remarks of Joe Harcz. I believe -- with the possible exception of the funeral aspect of it. I don’t see this as a funeral. This is -- this is a rough pass in the road, certainly, and I certainly agree that contrary to remarks that were made before the MCBVI convention, Public Act 260 has been significantly compromised. I also find it rather interesting that we were told that there was in fact no legitimate concern about conflict of interest regarding the handling of hearings and the fact that the department director will have the final agency decision-making ability on the State Plan that was filed without approval by this Board.
Mr. Michael Zimmer is the individual who will have the final agency decision in (inaudible) and VR hearings. I’d also like to say that as a once licensed and currently potential operator with a little less than a year standing in the program, the matter of my promotional standing in the program yet has not been addressed. I will say for the record once again that I followed all instructions given to operators with regard to the action taken last year, the point freeze and so forth, and my point totals actually appear to be in decline, so we have not --
I’m short approximately 20 points, which is more than the total time I’ve served in the program and to the extent that my endeavors to follow the rules and provide the service that was expected of me at the last location is any factor in this, I apologize for doing it. I came from training and I came from a way of upbringing that says that when you sign something and you agree to something even orally it means something, so I did it. I recorded the details of the business as they occurred and I paid, unlike some, including my successors in the location. I paid my taxes.
My employees were paid legitimately, as shown, and I received nothing but good words from the three individuals who served as my promotional agents, including Dave Robinson, James Hull, and at the end, Josh Hoskins (ph), and yet I found out after the point freeze and so forth that -- actually, somewhat before, but it was -- well, to make a short story even longer, there was no -- no document -- I was told that the profit percentage of the place was 25 percent, as opposed to its sister facility, which is set at 17. I consistently brought in numbers between 18 and 24 percent, maybe even higher --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. SONTAG: -- and yet I’ve been penalized. I am a bad operator in the eyes of the system, and I don’t apologize for that because to the best of my knowledge and belief, I was doing what I was trained to do, what I was expected to do, and what the law expected me to do and (inaudible). Thank you very much.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Next, please. Anybody else in the public here in the room? Okay. Without -- somebody else? I’m sorry. Your name, please?
MR. DUTMER: Casey Dutmer.
MR. POSONT: Okay, Casey.
MR. DUTMER: Casey Dutmer. I don’t know that I view this as a funeral. It’s kind of a -- kind of a mixed day as far as what we’ve been experiencing over the years, having the Commission Board serving as the chairman of the Operators Committee and various subcommittees in the Business Enterprise Program and working in other aspects of the Commission, and now in a week it’s going to be a bureau and hopefully Mr. Zimmer will keep his word to work with the consumers and move forward, and discuss the issues that still aren’t settled, such as how the Advisory Board is going to function and how many times a year it will be, how it will connect with Michigan state.
We have council that’s added. I do want to say that the one accomplishment that we made with MCBVI was raising the number on the Executive Order from five to seven on that council to give more consumer input, and also getting blind representation on the council regarding the MRS and the Bureau of Blind Services are standing members on the Committee without a vote, and that was something that we were able to negotiate. I do have concerns regarding the Business Enterprise Program. Some of the -- one of the biggest issues I see is the department purchasing issues regarding they want to make the program a better program for the public.
We need to be able to work with the Advisory Council and the Operators Committee and consumers to make sure that the operators aren’t penalized for the department’s purchasing requirements and restrictions. There needs to -- before the operators get ripped up and blaming that the program be defunct or reduced, we need to make sure that the state does what it can do so that the operators can provide the service that they need. Hopefully, we can all work together in a positive way. We can look at this thing as a negative thing and we can have doom and gloom, or we can choose to try and be constructive with the individuals that we have to work with.
All we can do is hope that they will keep their word and move forward with us, and if they do not, if they choose not to, then we’re going to have to work together, various organizations with different points of views and come together and figure out how to move this process forward. We’ve been in this position before. Before we were under Social Services in the 70s, before a Commission Board, we had some success. We had some failures. We had -- now this again is an opportunity for us as consumers to really demonstrate that we do know what’s needed in the blindness community.
We do know what services are necessary and we do know how to improve the Business Enterprise Program, and with the makeup of the blind population there’s going to have to be a lot of innovative thinking on how we do training, how we build the program so it’s successful, because 75 percent of the blind people around are 55 or over --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. DUTMER: -- which gives us 25 percent of younger people, and out of that you’ve got a high -- a fair number with multiple disabilities, so how we do our training, we need to make sure we have the funds and the skills, and everybody with new ideas so we can build this program and the bureau’s other programs so that blind people can be successfully employed. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Next, please. Anybody else in the audience? Okay. Thank you, public comment. Board correspondence, Sue? Can you tell me what you have or --
MS. LUZENSKI: Yes. We have Board correspondence that came in from Joe Harcz, number 12. The message that he sent was (inaudible) --
MR. POSONT: Are we getting a lot of static on the other end? It really sounds like it, doesn’t it?
MS. LUZENSKI: A letter that he wrote about the FOIA request that he made to the United States Department of Education.
MR. POSONT: How long is it? How many -- how many Board correspondences do we have?
MS. LUZENSKI: There is two Board correspondence, and then the note that you sent.
MR. POSONT: The two -- the two that I sent to you?
MS. LUZENSKI: You sent one and I got one from Fred, one from Joe Harcz, and then you sent me one yesterday.
MR. POSONT: I sent you one yesterday with two different things on it; correct?
MS. LUZENSKI: No. It was just one.
MR. POSONT: It should have had two on it. I missed it.
MS. LUZENSKI: I can look it up --
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: -- on the computer, but do you want me to just read the --
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. Joe, I’ll just read the letter that Joe forwarded on to the commissioners. It’s date is September 11th. “Dear Commissioners, today I received a package of information relative to the development of the State Plan from the FOIA of the United States Department of Education OSERS. I’ve sent you in full this and other FOIA previously received. This said the document after my signature line is significant and it coincides with your motions at the last meeting of the MCB Board in that you all called for another meeting prior to signing off on the proposed State Plan with all of its obvious violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 including non-delegable authorities to LARA and conflicts of interests and such. To this day there has been no requested meetings. Simply, I’m wondering what is going on. Sincerely, Joe Harcz.” Then there was a couple of attachments with that.
MR. POSONT: We can bring that up in the next discussion.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. And then we received a letter from Fred Wurtzel dated September 19th. “Dear Dear vice Chair Posont and Board, Mary and I are on our way to Colorado for our son’s wedding as you meet for the last time. Except for this priority event in my life, I would be there to round out my involvement in the Commission for the Blind. The following comments are my own and do not represent anyone else, except where noted. I worked as part of the national Federation of the Blind of Michigan way back in 1977 and ’78 in the legislature to enact P.A, 260 and am very sad about the recent Executive Order which strips blind people of our ability to have direct input into services which benefit us. I, however, am not one to cry over spilled milk, much.”
“For my part, I intend to give the new Bureau Director the benefit of the doubt. Based on comments by Chief Deputy Director Zimmer, I expect the new Bureau Director to be committed to making drastically needed changes to set a new course from the disastrous state he is inheriting. The national Federation of the Blind of Michigan has developed and circulated a report card clearly stating our expectations for BSBP reforms and performance. Our organization will vigorously work to see that reforms are put in place to improve levels of service to Michigan’s blind citizens. We will actively and respectfully work with the new director to accomplish our goals. We will hold the new administration fully accountable for making necessary reforms.”
“In my mind, there are 3 priorities which must be addressed immediately. First is reform of the Business enterprise Program to make it a showcase for the abilities of blind people; including the expeditious re-opening of the Anderson Building Cafeteria operated by a blind person. Second is a full-on effort to place at least 200 blind people in jobs during FY 2012-13 and 250 the following year. Third is a high-profile and aggressive training and training upgrade for Commission employees in the skills of blindness and concentration on the idea that BSBP is in business to “change what it means to be blind,” this time for the better. I have a lot of respect for my former MCB colleagues, they are good people, and there simply have been very low expectations for them by the Commission administration. Until each and every staff person fully embraces a positive attitude toward blind people and blindness we will continue to languish with regard to placements and quality services in the Bureau and particularly BEP.”
“So, I grieve the passing of several decades of an effort to democratize” -- sorry -- “democratize services for blind people. I look ahead with hope that with a new director, who will actively engage blind consumers, BSBP will become an agency to be proud of and which will truly make a difference in the lives of blind people”
“Finally, Mary and I wish to thank the 3 of you for your bold and active effort to reform the MCB. You were on the road to making the agency into the organization we all envisioned in 1978. Your vision and efforts are genuinely appreciated by us. With a little more patience by the Snyder Administration you would have fulfilled these dreams. Unfortunately time and history were not on your side. Please move on and join with us to continue your efforts knowing that at least two persons recognize and appreciate your service to us as blind citizens. Warmest Regards, Fred and Mary Wurtzel”
MR. PAUL: Okay. Next?
MS. LUZENSKI: The other document is from you, Larry, and so I don’t know if it’s considered Board correspondence because you’re writing to yourself.
MR. POSONT: But I want it to be in --
MS. LUZENSKI: It's a motion.
MR. POSONT: I want it to be in the record so it would be on the minutes. On the -- it was a motion from -- a recommendation of a motion, and then there was a second one from James Chaney that he had sent me. I wanted the Board to have it and I wanted it public.
MS. LUZENSKI: We can fit it into our discussion.
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: Was that the phone?
MR. POSONT: Yes, I think I -- that was my phone. I’m sorry. I think that the -- Terry Eagle would fall into the Board responsibilities of transferring the Commission of the Blind to the bureau, and James Chaney would be an issue of the BEP Program discussion. I’m willing to put both of those in at that time if you want to. Did you get that, Lydia and John?
MS. SHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Why don’t we hold those off until each section of those?
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay, I’m sorry. I’m looking for the other James Chaney one. So wait until this comes up on --
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: -- the agenda?
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: And I will -- you know, I (inaudible).
MR. POSONT: Okay. Not a problem. The next agenda item is the Executive Order. Mr. Cannon, would you like to talk about it?
MR. CANNON: Since we spoke about it last, nothing specific in the Governor’s Executive Order 2012-10 (ph) has changed other than the 60 days for the legislature to act upon it and as prescribed in the Executive Order all of its components (inaudible). The Executive Order establishes a seven-member Advisory Commission (inaudible) seven members (inaudible) interestingly different than the previous (inaudible). The terms on this Board have no limits. (Inaudible) all the members of the seven Advisory Commission serve at the pleasure of the Governor and (inaudible) at least four of the seven members must be individuals (inaudible). I don’t think the Governor’s office (inaudible), and also the Executive Order has the expectation (inaudible).
Under the Executive Order, both Michigan Rehabilitation Services and (inaudible) and as referenced here, perhaps one of the more controversial aspects of the Executive Order is that where it says any grievances filed by a BEP operator that go through the hearing process will ultimately be determined by the director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. It’s going to be (inaudible) the long and short of what the Executive Order says. The legislature chose not to impact on it in the 60-day opportunity and all of the aspects of the Executive Order take effect in ten days.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Any comments or discussion from the Board?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) a question. The legislature was supposed to act within 60 days. My understanding, the legislature was only -- what’s the term -- in session one day out of the 60 days, so it’s literally impossible to act under those circumstances. I wonder, in terms of that being an issue, has anybody inquired into that?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That legislature was in session in part of that 60-day process, and then the legislature chose not to take any action to impact on the Executive Order, and that’s consistent with the parameters that gives the Governor, as the chief executive of the state, the option of issuing Executive Orders for side purposes.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Lydia?
MS. SHUCK: This is the Executive Order, not the State Plan.
MR. POSONT: Yeah, this is the Executive Order right now.
MS. SHUCK: I guess the only thing I want to ask is -- I have the text of it here, but so, Pat, the one that came out as, you know, Executive Order ten -- when it was released as ten is still the same. There’s no words changed or anything.
MR. CANNON: No changes whatsoever.
MS. SHUCK: Okay, good. That’s what I wanted to know because I have the text of that. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Okay. On the Executive Order, I want the Terry Eagle correspondence to me and to the Board read, please.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Yes, Terry Eagle.
MS. LUZENSKI: Are you saying that this motion was from Terry Eagle?
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. Because that’s not noted anywhere.
MR. POSONT: Right. Terry Eagle sent it to me, the recommendation to the Board to deal with.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. “A motion to advance pending administrative hearing matters during transition resulting from Executive Order 2012-10.”
“WHEREAS, Executive Order 2012-10, Section I(D) reassigns final agency decisions, arising from disputes and grievances under the Randolph-Sheppard Act and the Rehabilitation Act, from the Michigan Commission Board to the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, and states, ‘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.’, and;”
“WHEREAS, Section IV states, "The directors of the departments impacted by this Order shall immediately initiate coordination to facilitate the transfers and shall develop a memorandum of record identifying any pending settlements, issues of compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations, or other obligations to be resolved.", and;”
“WHEREAS, any such pending grievances and disputes are procedurally governed by existing administrative rules and regulation for fair and uniform resolution processing and procedural due process, and;”
“WHEREAS, it would be patently unfair and unjust to change the rules of engagement during the pendency of any existing administrative grievance or dispute filed prior to October 1, 2012, and;”
“WHEREAS, since no new procedural administrative rules and regulations currently exist, for the resolution of grievances or disputes as a final agency decision.
“Therefore, IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED by the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board, in meeting assembled this 21st day of September, 2012,the Board directs as follows:”
“One, the MCB Director or his designee shall create, or cause to be created, a memorandum of record, listing any administrative grievance or dispute, arising under the Randolph-Sheppard Act Program, or the Rehabilitation Act, and pending prior to October 1, 2012shall be listed in such memorandum of record, including the parties; names, case docket number, date filed, and status; and”
“Two, for those cases of administrative grievances or disputes listed on the memorandum of record, and filed prior to October 1, 2012, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board shall retain final agency decision jurisdiction and act as the final agency decision-maker in special meeting(s) as necessary, in accordance with the applicable administrative procedural rules in effect on the date of the filing of the grievance or dispute, arising under the Randolph-Sheppard Act Program, and the Rehabilitation Act Programs.”
“Three, the MCB Director shall transmit a copy of this motion, along with a copy of the memorandum of record to the Director of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 2012-10.”
And then it just says, “Commissioner recorded vote.”
MR. POSONT: Hearing it and reading it several times myself, is there any discussion of this recommendation, motion, non-motion of it, whatever?
MS. SHUCK: What -- let’s see. What would it -- does it mean that we would reassemble, the three of us would reassemble when any one of those cases comes through and needs a final decision? That’s what they’re saying?
MR. POSONT: That's basically what it’s saying.
MS. SHUCK: Yes. That’s what I understood.
MR. POSONT: And I believe -- I don’t know what statute, but this thing is saying anything prior to October 1 --
MS. SHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: -- still is -- there’s people filing under the commission structure. I don’t know what legality we’ve got, but you know, hey, if we believe that this is the best for the program for blind people, we need to take action and let us and them deal with it and if it ends up in a situation that somebody overrules us, then they overrule us. John?
MR. SCOTT: My thoughts are how can this be done? It’s kind of like -- I guess it’s kind of a hail Mary going down in flames, but I don’t really see the authority to do anything. As of October 1, 2012, this Board will be a novelty, notwithstanding our interests, our zeal, our drive, or anyone around us to the contrary, and as much as I would like to be in support of it, I don’t really see the merit of trying to do this.
I’m not one to collect straws. I’d rather say, “Okay,” and give what the marines call a strategic withdrawal. Right now that’s kind of like charging into the -- into a barrage of bullets coming at us. We’re doomed to fail. I’d rather just withdraw from it, gather -- work at what is the movement going to make after October 1st as blind consumers, and take whatever action that came at that point. Our sentiments are clear. I just -- I don’t see the value of it. I think it’s an undignified way of going down.
MR. POSONT: Lydia?
MS. SHUCK: I wanted to ask just if we were to adopt this, and I mean if we were given the opportunity to make a final decision on the cases, could anybody who enters the -- who has entered the process by the end of September just choose whether they want to be under the old decision or just go ahead with -- I mean the people that are in the pipeline right now. Could they just say, “We’ll go with what the Board says”?
MR. POSONT: I would assume that they’ll be trying to force that, but some of those cases may be challenged if the Board had the authority, and that’s when they filed under that authority.
MS. SHUCK: Right.
MR. POSONT: And Act 260, let’s face it, ladies and gentlemen -- Act 260 is still on the record. It’s still on the record, so this --
MS. SHUCK: Well, that's true.
MR. POSONT: This may turn into litigation by one of the people at that level or who had filed a grievance before October 1, and we don’t have a choice in that.
MS. SHUCK: That's true, and if those people up to October 1st are forced into the new system, and then that’s later determined to be the wrong way to do it --
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. SHUCK: -- then do we have to rehear all of them -- do they have to rehear all of those?
MR. POSONT: I don’t know that. I mean --
MS. SHUCK: That could really delay --
MR. POSONT: I'm not a legal scholar. I believe in blind people’s rights under the system and I believe that rights of blind vendors and blind people have been denied in this state. We had it in the public comment numerous weeks before this, but this, you know, was requested by somebody for us to look at and it’s in the record now. It may give more ammunition. I don’t know that question, for somebody who has grieved to go back and demand that they receive it under the old system. I don’t know that, but I would say that we have to accept it and if we don’t have a motion, we leave it alone, but I -- I’m the type of person, I like challenges. I’d challenge it, but the rest of the Board can choose to vote not to make a motion and it just dies where it is.
MS. SHUCK: You know, being undignified has never been a really big problem for me. If we go down in an undignified manner, I’m not too sad about that, but I guess I’m wondering what other concerns John had because sometimes he sees something that’s --
MR. POSONT: I understand.
MS. SHUCK: -- going to be a snafu later for us too.
MR. SCOTT: In terms of the rights of those individuals who presently have legal action or administrative action pending, anything this Board does or does not do does not affect those and their rights. We lack standing to affect that and essentially that gives me even more reason to say to table this for this reason. Ultimately, if someone proves that the Executive Order is a novelty, then these cases are somehow or another going to come back before us, we must maintain our impartiality and that may be looked upon as -- in some kind of fashion that we lean in favor of somebody -- you know, either one of the litigants, so to maintain neutrality, my position is at this point this -- as well as that motion be tabled, but I would not want to proceed on the idea.
MR. POSONT: I didn’t hear a motion and I didn’t hear a second, so --
MS. SHUCK: We’re discussing out of order.
MR. POSONT: We really are.
MS. SHUCK: So, but I just wanted to add to that, John, so -- or just follow up on that, so John, from your perspective it would be appropriate for the BEP operator who has made the case, who has brought the case.
MR. POSONT: Or a rehab client.
MS. SHUCK: Okay. Or the rehab client to -- to say they -- demand is a strong word, but you know, just say that they want to be considered under the -- under the pre-October 1st rules. But my question then about that, am I understanding that right, John?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: You're saying case by case people would need to do it. They have the standing, but then my question about that is how does -- do you need to get a lawyer to do that and who pays for the lawyer? So I only -- I’m wondering if that’s just going to be prohibitive for people to make --
MR. POSONT: We don’t know that.
MS. SCHUCK: No. I’m just --
MR. POSONT: We can’t make that judgment.
MS. SCHUCK: I'm just kind of exploring what it means.
MR. POSONT: Okay. John? We don’t have a -- we did not have a second. We should have had a second to make the motion to have a discussion, but we did not.
MS. SCHUCK: It wasn’t even moved.
MR. POSONT: It's in the record now; correct?
MS. SCHUCK: Do you want me to move? I move that we adopt that so we can discuss it. How about you, John, willing to second there so we can discuss --
MR. SCOTT: I'll second for the purpose --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: I'll second for the purpose of discussion.
MR. POSONT: Okay. We’ve had this discussion so far; right?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. My only addition to it is, and this body doesn’t have the authority to do it. The only thing we can do, and this is like the 1159 --
MR. POSONT: (Inaudible); right?
MS. SCHUCK: (Inaudible)
MR. SCOTT: Somehow or another we had authority to declare their judgment and question the Executive Order, then maybe we could do something, but that’s not something discussed and I don’t think it really went -- it went anywhere anyway. In light of the knowledge I have and (inaudible) we kind of -- RSA kind of threw us under the bus, you know, so --
MR. POSONT: It's clear that RSA sold --
MR. SCOTT: And so, that is where 80 percent of the money comes from. Nearly 80 percent of the money comes from RSA, so it’s kind of like a waste of time and energy at this point.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Terry, can you do it in one minute, please? Wait for the mic, please. I will give him the floor.
MS. LUZENSKI: Test.
MR. POSONT: Go ahead, Terry.
MR. T. EAGLE: Okay, thank you. As the --
MR. POSONT: Make it as brief as you can, please.
MR. T. EAGLE: I will.
MR. POSONT: Okay, thank you.
MR. T. EAGLE: As the author of this, it was really clearly an attempt to ward off future litigation. As everybody knows, we are a society of rules. Just because of Executive Order 2012-10 goes into effect October 1st, it does not change Public Act 260, the provisions of that as the administrator of the BEP Program specifically and those having grievances against the Rehabilitation Services section of the new bureau. Secondly, and most importantly is the Administrative Rules do not change until they’re changed. We’re still under those rules and clearly Rule 56 says that somebody who has a grievance against the Business Enterprise Program, the final agency decision will be made by the Commission Board and therefore, that authority still stands until those rules change and if you -- if you want to pass this on for whatever, clearly the Administrative Order -- the Executive Order spoke to lining up things and getting things -- understandings about how things would be handled in the transition.
This is clearly one of those areas where there is a conflict between the Executive Order and the existing Administrative Rules, which still stand and I think that to not have this in place and let people have their way in that, along with the Administrative Rules, meaning that we’re not going to change the rules in the middle of the stream, is clearly -- it would be egregious and unlawful, and if anybody knows when the legislature passes a new law -- say for example a criminal statute, if somebody is charged from a previous time, that court has to use the old law, not the new law in effect, and this is sort of the same way and this is how the courts will look at it. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. John, any comment? This makes it interesting, don’t it.
MR. SCOTT: There is some ex post facto law, but this is a bit different. The past law is supposed to be destroyed at the discretion of the agency that is going to be the arbitrator of the issue. It is wiped out and in terms of the two, this Board is a novelty after September 30th and I’m trying to really think of a way that we can keep -- somehow keep it open for this particular process. The correlating of the new entity with the agency itself -- not the Board, but I guess the agency itself would go on. I’m just kind of thinking -- I’m kind of wandering. I understand. I’m trying to think out loud.
MR. POSONT: The way I understand it, this was brought to us in a motion. We have to accept it, reject it. We can’t table it, supposedly. I suppose we’re not around, but on the other hand, this might strengthen situations down the road of rights of blind vendors and blind people in the state from our point of view.
MS. SCHUCK: Larry, we do have -- how many, ten? No? We do have a week yet to meet if we wanted to just, you know, go on record for this and take a few days to talk to whoever we know and, you know --
MR. POSONT: The question I have is even after this day’s meeting, the minutes of this meeting should be approved and we have a week to -- Sue, could you have the minutes done in a week?
MS. LUZENSKI: Actually, what has been arranged is this one had transcripts made of the meeting because there was not a process for approval to be made, so the Regency Court Reporting will be receiving -- receiving the audio. Regency Court Reporting will be receiving the audio to make a transcript of the meeting.
MR. POSONT: We’ll have it done by then?
MS. LUZENSKI: No. I mean, we still have the eight days to get it done, and actually I’m not quite sure how many days it’ll take them to get -- you know, eight days by the Open Meetings Act rule.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. LUZENSKI: So it wouldn’t be due to be done until October 4th.
MR. POSONT: Right, okay. So we really couldn’t even pass this -- you know, we couldn’t even approve these minutes it looks like to me, under the statute -- under the current Executive Order. What’s the wishes of the Board, please?
MS. SCHUCK: I wish we’d known in January when we set the meeting date because we could have put it a week ago. We didn’t know about the Executive Order. That’s my wish on your asking for wishes.
MR. POSONT: (Inaudible) always great; right?
MS. SCHUCK: I'm inclined to go with John here because of his understanding. I think I understand the issue and I -- one thing I don’t like about it is even -- even bringing it up -- don’t shoot me saying this, but even bringing it up makes it sound like we expect the next -- the next person who will make the decisions to go against all these people, and I mean I think we should have some confidence in our hearing system and the kinds of recommendations they make, and certainly Mr. Warren has taught us a few things about, you know, what we really would be able to do anyway if something came down to us. I’m hoping that the new -- who is it? Mike Zimmer’s boss is Steve Hilfinger (ph); is that who it would be?
MR. POSONT: Correct
MS. SCHUCK: So Mr. Hilfinger, you know, I’m hoping that he will be inclined to -- that the hearings would be done well and he would be inclined to go with what the Judge sees because it is true -- maybe this is a question for Mr. Warren, but if he wants to not agree -- I mean if he wants to arbitrate -- what’s the word I want? If he wants to decide to reject or modify the proposal -- Sue’s nodding at me. I’m getting it, I guess.
MS. LUZENSKI: It took a year and a half, but here I am.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So if he wants to reject or modify the proposal, he is going to have to have findings of fact and rulings of law to justify making a decision other than the administrative law judge made, so am I on the right track there?
MS. LUZENSKI: That's what we’ve been taught by Mr. Warren.
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Now, Mr. Hilfinger, of course has a lawyer. I mean, you know, when --
MR. POSONT: He has more lawyers than we do.
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah, exactly, so it’s not an issue for him to get advice and all that, and so maybe he would be more inclined to go against -- I hate to say go against, but to decide in favor of the Agency over the client, even if the judge didn’t make that recommendation, but I don’t want to assume that that’s what’s going the happen.
MR. POSONT: Yes, Mr. Cannon?
MR. CANNON: Just a couple of points. One is Mr. Hilfinger is a lawyer.
MS. SCHUCK: Well, okay then.
MR. CANNON: So is Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Ed Rodgers is also an attorney and has for the last at least couple dozen years been functioning as an administrative law judge, so this is a process that he knows well and I’m sure we’ll have some viewpoints as the things unfold in the future. As you ponder whether or not to vote for this, I urge you to consider that as (inaudible) of Governor Snyder, what extent we have authority to overrule this Executive Order.
MS. SCHUCK: There is that, yes.
MR. POSONT: At this -- you know, at this point in time the law has been changed by the Executive Order and that can be changed down the road too.
MS. SCHUCK: We thought are not parties to these --
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. SCHUCK: -- so I can understand with John that someone will need to take -- to say that their case needs to be handled under PA 260 rather than these new rules and I mean it would be good if somebody did that, but I am concerned about how they’d pay for it, but I mean --
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: So I don’t know.
MR. POSONT: The motion has been made. Up or down?
MS. SCHUCK: Well, I’m going to hear John first.
MR. POSONT: John?
MR. SCOTT: Nay.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Just in case you were going to surprise me and say yes, John, I wanted to hear. I will also say no, reluctantly.
MR. POSONT: I say yes. I believe that just the way I see it, it’s a big process.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Next agenda item, we’ve got the --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: State Plan?
MR. POSONT: The State Plan, all right. I put the State Plan on because we did have a meeting on the State Plan. Each of us were called by Zimmer and Norm Sari (ph) out of the Governor’s office. We requested a meeting at the last meeting with the Governor’s Office, the legal staff of the Attorney General, Tom Warren, and Mike Zimmer, and that's all they could do for us. It’s been very obvious from my point of view that the handwriting has been on the wall and choices were going to be this, but the issue that I have is under federal rules. Under RSA it says the agencies of the Board, which is the Commission Board currently, is the sign-on and sign-off for the State Plan.
MS. SCHUCK: Which we did not do.
MR. POSONT: Which we did not do. It was sent to RSA and approved.
MS. SCHUCK: Even individually. I mean at the end of my phone call I didn’t say, “Yes, send out the plan without me ever seeing what changes you made after 6/29,” because I was looking at was 6/29 was the document, I think. But it was sent on -- what I said at the end of my alone meeting with Mike Zimmer and Norm Sari, which was, you know, a great discussion, but I said, “I don’t have any more questions.” This doesn’t mean I didn’t want to see what my fellow Board members thought, what changes were made, and I don’t know, did -- I don’t know what our requirements are as far as publishing a response to the public comments, why we did or did not adopt the changes recommended, so none of that has happened, but it doesn’t appear that RSA is too concerned with complying with that.
MR. POSONT: It looks like RSA is going to comply with whatever the state agency wants, and it’s going to weaken programs around the country because once it starts rolling -- the ball rolls, then nobody has to be accountable for the State Plan. Things can be put in the State Plan without the consumers and the state orders involved. This is a rough, nasty, vicious road that they’re going down. This is going to be an anti-consumer, anti-blind direction that we’re taking and we’ve been working years on trying to make the agency move on to serve blind people, and now the State Plan can be just rammed through. How many years didn’t we have even a State Plan public hearings?
MS. SCHUCK: Right.
MR. POSONT: We didn’t have those until this Board and blind people forced it a year ago, for years, so RSA did not require it before. It is in the RSA requirements, we know that. Also, it is clearly RSA’s intention to water down State Plans. I guess states do what they want to do with the State Plan, and then they’ve done it, so I think we need to go on record with a motion saying we did not approve the State Plan and we were the licensed RSA -- I mean, what is that called?
MS. SCHUCK: Designated --
MR. POSONT: We’re the designated DSA at the time this thing went in, and we have to go on record clearly.
MS. SCHUCK: More than on record, we need to send the letter to the right people. I mean I don’t want it just in our minutes.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Do you want us to write a -- write a letter --
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: -- saying that this was not done and sections of the federal law requires it?
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: It is not done and the agency did it without the approval of the Commission Board.
MS. SCHUCK: Yes, and then we can talk about who that would go to, but at least Craig McMantis (ph) and cc’d to Mike Zimmer, but who is Craig McMantis’s boss?
MR. POSONT: Yeah.
MS. SCHUCK: Is there a new director of the --
MR. POSONT: RSA?
MS. SCHUCK: -- RSA?
MR. POSONT: I don’t think the new director’s name --
MS. SCHUCK: Is there an interim one or something?
MR. POSONT: Who’s the interim at RSA?
MR. CANNON: It's still -- Edward Anthony is the acting RSA for Michigan.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. CANNON: And just so you know, we -- as you know, we met in July in a special meeting on the contents of the State Plan and the commissioner said he had questions and wanted to meet with deputy directors. I don’t know that those meetings took place. It’s my understanding the only change that seemed to be advocated for in those meetings was who signs the State Plan, and that was something that actually had already been decided before you met with him. He is the one who signed the State Plan, which was consistent with the wishes of the commissioners and the State Plan was submitted in mid-August, after we had spoken with Mr. Zimmer. Then a couple weeks ago we had talked about some additional input and we checked the RSA, and as I said to you in my note, in double checking with RSA there is no longer any mechanism for commissioner input into the State Plan.
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah. It was mailed before we said, “It’s good, mail it” and that’s one of the reasons why there wasn't time anymore, because it was mailed before we jointly approved it.
MR. POSONT: Now, if they can do it without the approval of this Board and this Board had the authority to approve it or reject it, they would do it with a new State Plan -- I mean the new people next year. It’ll be just a rubber stamp. It’s going to be a rubber stamp next year now.
MS. SCHUCK: Well, let’s see what happens. Let's not let it be --
MR. POSONT: I understand your point.
MS. SCHUCK: But it’ll be -- it’ll be more of a battle.
MR. POSONT: It's going to be more of a battle, you’re right. I’m not looking for trouble.
MS. SCHUCK: What's with the negative vibes?
MR. POSONT: I'm not looking for trouble. I’m looking for when you start a practice, then it’s a continued practice down the road. I mean, we’re going to be merged with MRS in the State Plan next year. What voice do we have in the State Plan next year as blind people? There’s no requirement, the way I read it, that the -- you know, the Rehab Council Board of any blindness on there, so they’re going to decide for us as blind people and that’s what we tried to get away from in the 70s when we made a separate agency for the blind. That’s the intent of a separate agency, so I mean that’s not negative; that’s just the way it is.
MS. SCHUCK: I don’t know if you movie lovers -- I’m quoting from Kelly’s Heroes (ph); did anyone recognize that? That was a movie line. Okay. Well, too obscure, I guess.
MR. POSONT: So Lydia, do you recommend --
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah. I think it needs to go out saying we didn’t approve it, so write it and send it to me and John, I guess, and then we’ll send it off to Sue to send to the right people.
MR. POSONT: Okay, John?
MR. SCOTT: I'm fully in agreement with that. I’m sitting here thinking Pat indicated that there was change in terms of who was supposed to sign the State Plan. I was totally unaware that -- I know I had no discussions with Zimmer regarding who was to sign the State Plan. I will assume neither one of you did.
MS. SCHUCK: I didn’t.
MR. SCOTT: So if it was submitted that way, it was submitted fraudulently and of course, that means, as far as I’m concerned illegally and the least we can do is write a letter because I know that’s not something I agreed with, I discussed, or had any knowledge of. I had just asked about it and discovered it had already been submitted, and I was a bit surprised but I didn’t know if there was some change because even in the past -- and there’s been complaints about the State Plan being submitted and no discussions in the community, but my understanding is it’s always signed by the chair or vice chair of this commission before its admission. That did not occur.
MS. SCHUCK: Who signed the one previously, did Joanne?
MR. SCOTT: I'm pretty sure it was Joanne who signed it.
MR. CANNON: Previously, it was myself who signed the State Plan, and the feedback I got from Deputy Director Zimmer was that there was an objection raised by commissioners in this meeting that I sign it with Mike Zimmer, so that’s one of the reasons he had learned that he was the only signature on the State Plan.
MS. SCHUCK: Well, yeah. There was that question, but I think -- I’m looking for where the sign it. Do you know where that is, Sue? I mean I’m at the bottom of the document and it doesn’t say this is signed -- who this is supposed to be signed by.
MR. CANNON: It is an online submission and there is a box for a signature and room for only one signature.
MS. SCHUCK: What I spoke him about, I didn’t talk about who signed the document. What I spoke about is why although it was being submitted October 1st, it couldn’t -- we didn’t know who the director would be of the bureau, and so I questioned why that was on there and that’s what I was questioning, I believe, because what we were talking about I had seen on here, so whose name is there? That’s not the signature box. That's the who’s the designated representative and/or who -- I’ll find the page before I say it.
MR. SCOTT: The page -- I do remember discussions with Mr. Zimmer regarding BSBVI. I’m wondering how that name was on the document since the BSVP was not even in existence at the time.
MS. SCHUCK: Right, right.
MR. SCOTT: And I was questioning if it’s going under the name -- he gave me some kind of explanation that I didn’t fully understand why it was BSBP, kind of like (inaudible) said, then I said if Pat Cannon is not going to be directed on how you submit it under his name, I raise that question, but I have -- it was just a question I was asking. I didn’t say I was against Pat Cannon signing it. I didn’t say I was for him. I was wondering how could it be done, and then I find out it’s done -- I guess supposedly I was raising an objection. I didn’t raise an objection. I didn’t understand how they were doing this and that never was fully explained to me.
MR. CANNON: Thank you, John. I hope the explanation is satisfactory. The way RSA has explained it and the folks from the state Attorney General’s offices, the State Plan is the 2013 State Plan effective October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013 and as such, it is submitted as though it was October 1st and that’s why it says the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons and so forth. That would be of the agency’s (inaudible).
MR. POSONT: Let’s deal with the letter and that’s what we can do at this point; correct?
MS. SCHUCK: Mm-hmm.
MR. POSONT: We agree to the letter, us three?
MS. SCHUCK: Mm-hmm.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Let’s go. I would say that we should go to the next item. I mean we can discuss this all day long and we’re not going to get anywhere.
MS. SCHUCK: This -- I mean here in the Rehab Act I’m reading it and it’s continually talking about a joint report -- evaluation and joint report annually of all the items in e(1) and I just don’t think a solo phone call with Mike Zimmer comprises my agreement to a joint report.
MR. POSONT: Okay. We’ll work on it.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. POSONT: Next? What’s the --
MS. SCHUCK: The CIC report.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Is there a CIC report, Sue?
MS. LUZENSKI: Well, there is. Phyllis Magbauna (ph) could not be here and she’s the CIC chair, and then Susan Turney (ph), who is the staff liaison was going to read her notes and she cannot be here, so stuff trickles down apparently and I am going to be reading the CIC report --
MR. POSONT: (Inaudible)
MS. LUZENSKI: -- I do. I was not at the meeting, so bear with me. I do have draft meeting notes, and then I do have a paragraph that was written up about the meeting that was held on July 19th, so here we go.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: “The July 19th MCB Consumer Involvement Council CIC meeting in Lansing was chaired by MCB CIC liaison Susan Turney at the request of CIC chairperson Phyllis Magbuana. During the meeting major topics of discussion included Executive Order 2012-10. The benefits of MCB consumers being referred to veterans administration programs for additional services, transportation issues in the Detroit area for people who are blind or visually impaired, the future BSBP Advisory Board and how to apply or recommend individuals for the Board, the 2013 State Plan, and news line. Joe Harcz made a motion that the CIC bylaws be amended to include a blind veteran and Fred Wurtzel seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CIC members requested a copy of Governor Snyder’s appointment form to the BSBP Advisory Commission. After the meeting, Susan Cherney sent the form to all CIC members, both in its original format, as well as each CIC member’s individual preferred format,” so -- and that meeting was July 19th, held from 9:00 to noon.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: If you have questions, I can look through the notes to see if I can find the answers.
MR. POSONT: I do understand that the question was asked last weekend if CIC was going to be a part of the BSBP and a comment was made that they didn’t know.
MS. SCHUCK: Just a point of technical procedure, but shouldn’t the meeting be chaired by someone -- one of the consumers?
MS. LUZENSKI: It's chaired by Phyllis Magbuana, who is a consumer.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: But she could not be there.
MS. SCHUCK: Don't they have a vice chair or some other -- I mean there are six people or something, aren’t there?
MS. LUZENSKI: Um.
MS. SCHUCK: But no -- okay. So --
MS. LUZENSKI: So Phyllis apparently asked Susan to run the meeting on her behalf.
MS. SCHUCK: Even so, I just --
MS. LUZENSKI: There’s only one staff liaison.
MS. SCHUCK: Right. Editorially though, she’s not a member of the Committee. She’s a liaison and she doesn’t vote, so anyway, I just -- you know, on a matter of opinion, I think Susan should have deferred to one of the Committee members, but that’s water under the bridge.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Next?
MS. SCHUCK: Consumer council.
MR. POSONT: The Business Enterprise Program, Constance Zanger. Is she in the room, please?
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah. Can I ask a question about that on the agenda? We don’t -- do we have the Operators Committee on here?
MR. POSONT: We do not.
MS. SCHUCK: And our -- I see Rob is here.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. SCHUCK: So, yeah, okay.
MR. POSONT: Are you coming up, Rob?
MS. SCHUCK: That was my question, was Rob going to talk too.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Okay. I do --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: Super, thank you. That’s what I was wondering about, or whether it was --
MR. POSONT: Let me just say that the information that was in the packet was good information. I think it’s the stuff that we were asking for in the past and they’re delivering it about the BSB and sections of that. Ms. Zanger, you’re on the floor, ma’am.
MS. ZANGER: In addition to the written report provided to the commissioners and/or your response to the agent, the Business Enterprise Program has two items for its oral report today. First is the Business Enterprise Program training manager class. Seven students are enrolled in the next training, which will commence on October 8, 2012 and conclude on March 8th, 2013. The training will take place in Farmington Hills, the location of the last three classes. Training will be provided by the BEP program manager, the assistant program manager, Gilda Hahn (ph), who will provide the Serv-Safe training and certification, and Bill Butler who will provide the vending machine training.
In addition, Jerry McVetty (ph), Kevin McLaughlin (ph), and Carolyn Ritrick (ph) will be providing operational training. Among the topics covered in the training are the four pillars of success, a tradition established by Fred Wurtzel, rules and regulations; conduct on state property; civil rights; the scope of the hospitality industry; business planning; developing your mission and vision; time management; human relations; sanitation; recordkeeping, bookkeeping and recording; catering, marketing and merchandizing; customer-driven philosophy and the customer service approach; vending machine training; management tools; leadership tools; nutrition, diet, and healthy eating; pricing and portion control; menu planning; production planning; controlling direct expenses; budget development.
There will be a presentation by the elected Operators Committee and we will be inviting the consumer groups to make presentations. And presently, there is a serious interest in the April 20, ’13 class. It’s been expressed by several of our consumers and unless something untoward occurs, there will be an April 20, ’13 manager training class. Also, as you know, the House of Representatives cafeteria update has been completed and the required Health Department occupancy approval has been received. The facility is back on the bid line using the process established in the current promulgated rule. As of this writing, a qualified BEP licensee has not yet been identified. The opportunity will remain on the bid line until a qualified BEP licensee is identified.
A very important factor must be noted at this point. From September through December of this calendar year, the legislature will be in session only 21 days out of 76 business days in that same period. Clearly, this is not a very conducive environment to being a new business, nor is it a conducive environment in which to place a temporary operator. That’s the conclusion of my oral report.
MR. POSONT: Can we talk about the -- John, you asked me to put the training of the October class on the agenda. Do you have anything in addition to what she said?
MR. SCOTT: Yes. I got information on the requirements to become part of that class and Carrie Bradley, who was showing interest in April. At that time there was supposed to be have been a class and not enough people for it. Then it was changed to October and she has complained and sent me carbon copies via e-mail of trying to get information from Mr. James Hull regarding the October class, and I take it she’s not a member; correct?
MS. ZANGER: No, she is not.
MR. SCOTT: In she has for a long time been trying to get back into the program because she was part of it at one time, and she was told she had to wait five years, which was incorrect from my understanding. Can you -- can you tell me -- tell me why information cannot be conveyed to her and why she’s not part of this class?
MS. ZANGER: It's my understanding that Mr. Hull has been in communication with Ms. Bradley. If that’s not the case, I’ve certainly not heard from Ms. Bradley. I don’t -- I don’t believe that at the moment she has completed all of the prerequisites for the training.
MR. SCOTT: And those are the prerequisite that had to be in by September 1st. I think there were a number of items; is that correct?
MS. ZANGER: Yes, yes.
MR. POSONT: Mr. Cannon?
MR. CANNON: Constance, before you go further on that, because we’re talking about someone who is a current client of the commission, I question the appropriateness of talking about it in a public meeting because of the confidentiality requirements of the Rehab Act.
MR. POSONT: Well, it’s probably more than likely 50/50 here. In this situation we can talk about it as a Board because we’re not going to be around anymore anyway.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's not --
MR. POSONT: It's not going to get -- exactly. It’s not getting --
MS. SCHUCK: Well, let’s throw it on the table. Are there any other rules we’ve been really longing to break? I’m kidding. I’m just kidding.
MR. POSONT: You know, I just believe this is one more item that’s in the many items that we’re having problems with within the programs, not just BEP. We can't keep stringing clients along forever. We’ve got to be able to get in or get out. They’ve got to get services or don’t get services. We have people who have been denied services in this agency and those problems aren’t going to be solved by October 1st. Some of those things are legit, some may not be legit, and in my point of view some are and some are not, but there are still problems in the structure of state government to run the Business Enterprise Program.
I personally believe that there is some discrimination. If there was a legal fund, I think we could drain it. It’d have to be a large legal fund. I think we could drain it just in this agency and probably in the agency coming. With that, I just feel sorry for people that have to go through hoops in an agency that’s supposed to be for blind people. The intent of the Commission for the Blind was driven by consumers and the breakdown of this agency is not the consumers.
We are a rehabilitation agency and I’ve said several times that this whole issue of BEP and other things, we’ve become a welfare agency. That’s why probably some people wanted us in DHS and we didn’t want to be there. We want to be a jobs program and that’s what we need to be. That’s what it says under the Rehabilitation Act, developing jobs for blind people so they can be taxpayers not tax-takers, so the Business Enterprise Program is one of those too. With that, I don’t know what I can say and what this Board can say, but I’m disappointed in the intent to keep putting people through the wringers and this is not the only person.
The second part of her report, the State Plate (ph) -- before we get to the State Plate, I want the letter from James Cheney written to me as the chair -- or vice chair of this Commission Board and what actions he’s taking, because if we’re not going to be around, we may as well lay it on the table.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. This is a letter that was written to Ms. Carla Haynes in our office. “Dear Carla Haynes, this letter is written as a grievance to be filed effectively Friday, October 31st, 2012 against the State Licensing Agency, SLA, Star Snack and Department of Technology Management and Budget, DTMB. The issue is that there is a direct competition involving both concessions, Café DeVille (ph), and Star Snack in the Cadillac Place. My underlying issue with the Star Snack is that it illegally sells coffee and hot foods, with have caused the Café DeVille sales to decline significantly for the past three years.”
“For the last three years, I have had several verbal discussions with my promotional agent, Joe Pelly (ph) to find a solution for this problem. Joe Pelly and I came to the conclusion to have discussions with Sam Juad (ph), owner of Star Snack, located next door to Café DeVille, as an attempt to solve the problem. Sam Juad then decided that he should bring in his own lawyer to help and witness any discussions and/or negotiations. Consequently, no negotiation was closed and James Hull, assistant BEP manager, requested that he would represent me further with any negotiations.”
“I have honored his request only with the exception he would keep me informed of any progress or status. I have contacted James Hull on several occasions by phone and e-mail requesting updates on this issue between the Café DeVille and Star Snack. It was then stated by Mr. Hull that the issue had been sent over to the Attorney General, AG. To my knowledge and Mr. Hull’s statement, the Attorney General has not responded and it has been several months. During some previous discussions with the State Licensing Agency, SLA, it was told to me that Star Snack’s lease will expired December, 2010. Later, I have discovered that Star Snack has been allowed to a contract which contains three one-year options that is due to expire in December of 2013.”
“Being the patient person that am, I have turned down other opportunities and decided to keep my responsibilities at Café DeVille. However, I was recently sad to learn that Star Snack’s contract will not expire until 2017. I just don’t know what to believe now, since there are many conflicting stories regarding the lease contract. However, the Department of Technology Management and Budget have allowed Star Snack illegally to renew the contract, which is against Public Act 260.”
“As we all remember, Public Act 260 rules, Public Act 260 393.359 states that concessions in state buildings or on state property operations by blind persons plans locations of concessions. Section nine, ‘A concession in a building or on the property owned or occupied by the state shall be operated by a blind person, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, marital status, or religious preference, except in cases provided for in section ten. The building division of the Department of Management and Budget shall submit plans relative to concessions in state buildings or on state property to the Commission, which shall have the final authority relative to the location of concessions.’”
“393.360 Act, inapplicable to certain concessions. Cited person operating concession under contract or lease, or operating concession not applied for by blind persons. Section 10(1), ‘This Act shall not apply to a concession operated in connection with the State Fair with the use of state fairgrounds, with a state educational institution, state penal institution, military establishment, armory, or state park.’ Two, ‘A cited person operating a concession under contract or lease at the time this Act becomes effective shall not be required to surrender their rights before the contract or lease expires.’”
“Three, ‘A cited person operating a concession which has not been applied for by a blind person may be permitted to continue in charge until the concession is applied for and a qualified blind person is chosen to operate the concession.’ FYI, before Star Snack is renewed in 2010, here are some previous solutions that I have proposed that may rectify the situation. One, when Star Snack’s lease expires in 2010, it shall not be renewed or two, if the lease is renewed and Star Snack will continue to sell coffee and hot foods, either Sam Juad and/or the Department of Technology Management and Budget shall pay Café DeVille monthly compensation to allow Star Snack to continue services at the Cadillac place, or three, Star Snack will not any longer be allowed to sell coffee and hot foods.”
“Since it has been several months and I have not received a response regarding this issue, it has left me with no choice but to file this grievance. Additionally, I hereby request that facility number 204, Café DeVille, will not be placed on the bid line until this issue has been resolved.” That’s the end of the letter.
MR. POSONT: Memories may be short in the Vending Program, but my memory is long. I went into the State of Michigan Plaza in 1975 with two direct competitions in the building. When those contracts were up, the State of Michigan took them over and on the first one with the cafeteria bar situation, it was a long term lease. It was about ten years when they had one, but when that contract was up, the state did not reissue it because we had blind vendors that wanted it, and the same thing in the (inaudible) case. She took it to court and we prevailed -- we, the Agency for the Blind, so there is no difference at the plaza building, those contracts and the contracts at the old G.M. building or the Cadillac Place now.
Somebody dropped the ball by allowing Star Foods to have another contract. We had the right in that building and we probably had the right in that building under the Subway shop too, and both times we’ve missed it as an agency. That shows you -- I don’t know that it shows. It shows to me that there’s nobody interested looking out for the interests of the vending program, because we have precedence on our side. We have law that somebody took us to challenge it and we won both times -- or at least once, so on my behalf, this is one more mistake of this current agency and the Business Enterprise Program to deny blind people job opportunities.
I would assume there’s enough people in that building. There’s probably not many in there as they wanted in there originally, but I think they took out all 2,500 people from the plaza building, but I’ll just say that from my point of view and as an advocate for blind people, and specially in the vending, I spent 30 years in the program. I know what it is and what it -- its good points and the bad points, and I would hope that James Chaney continue with his hearing and process it, and maybe there are some other ways that we can make it work. Clearly, if he got a contract it was a -- the agency for the blind didn’t do their job.
Rob, do you know any more about this? Okay. Will you turn on his mic, please? I’m asking you because I know you and James talk on a regular basis. It is on.
MS. DUELL: Test.
MR. ESSENBERG: I have spoke with Mr. Chaney on numerous occasions regarding this topic and was -- had been talking to him back when he was trying to negotiate with Star Snacks to pay him money so that they could keep their product in that facility. I thought at one point we were pretty close to working out an arrangement where Star Snacks would pay him so much a month so that they could sell those products in his -- continue to sell those products in his facility, but it never went anywhere. It fell through. I think that’s when they started negotiations along some other lines.
Personally -- I’m not speaking as the Committee here, but personally, I agree that Star Snacks should not be selling coffee and food products in that facility, and we have no way -- they’re claiming that they’re under the Department of Agriculture, so we can’t get them on health code violations because they don’t have the operating equipment in there. They’re claiming that they’re under the Department of Ag, which I don’t think is kosher either. They’re selling food.
If it’s in the facility, in think it should be the Health Departments, so I am in agreement with Mr. Chaney that since at least 2010, if it can be determined what percentage of sales he has lost due to the selling of those products in that facility, I think he should be compensated for it, and if we have anybody possibly moving into that facility now that it should be done.
MR. POSONT: Well, this Board, as we talked earlier, aren’t going to have much to say about it, but I just want to say that it’s going to come through the hearing system, I would assume. I hope that Mr. Chaney looks at some other -- you know, some other areas. His location went up for bid; correct?
MR. ESSENBERG: His location did go up for bid and last week and prior to that, he did accept another location, so he has accepted another location. He has into another location and his has been on the bid line for a week, so right now we have two locations in limbo, because he’s still operating that one and the other one has been accepted by him and being run by a temporary operator.
MR. POSONT: Was there an operator that bid on his location?
MR. ESSENBERG: There was, but I don’t believe she has -- the person has accepted that facility as of yet. I think she has until noon today.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Well, it’s a -- I know one thing. I have the history of the law when we went through it in the -- I believe they must have did it in about ’85. That’s what I show for her and she had a handicap or retarded or (inaudible) son who was in that situation, and she said that she was, you know, supporting him on that, but the law prevailed and she stayed a little longer than she would have, but we did prevail and received the location. Elaine Johnson ran that location for years. I don’t know who was in there last when the State of Michigan building closed. It was there, so, with that angle I hope that -- I understand -- do you have anything from the Operators Committee, Rob?
MR. ESSENBERG: If you would like, yes.
MR. POSONT: Okay, I’m sorry.
MR. ESSENBERG: That's okay. First of all, I’d like to thank you and Mr. Cannon for your service and I’m sorry to see you all going. I wish you were staying around, but thank you for your service. Just a couple of bits of information. An EOC meeting is tomorrow down in Sterling Heights and I believe you can participate by phone also tomorrow for that meeting. The Board of the EOC (ph) has been -- we’ve drafted two pieces of correspondence to Mr. Zimmer regarding the issues that you all were talking about this morning. Our first correspondence was requesting a meeting prior to the appointment of the new BSBP director and the Order taking effect in October to meet with Mr. Zimmer as a board -- our entire Board to discuss with him the rule changes, what we would like to see in the rule changes as they occur because they’ll have to be rewritten because of the language in them.
I have been informed or have knowledge that they are going to request or going to want several rule changes different than just changing the language in it and removing the commission name from the different rules, so we are trying to get a meeting prior to this happening to discuss those changes before the director came in. He sent us a letter back saying that he preferred to wait until the new BSB director was in place. He requested that we set up a meeting with him and the new director in mid-October to go over those rule changes.
He didn’t want to proceed on them quickly. He said he wanted to proceed on them slowly. We then wrote him back another letter saying that that was not our only reason for wanting to meet in our initial letter, that we were having major issues with the -- with LARA (ph), or with BEP, but the issues were coming down from LARA purchasing that we were having a very difficult time getting new equipment and getting repairs accomplished within our facilities, and that these rules that were coming out of LARA regarding these two issues were contrary to the way our rules say that we can do those, so we wanted to have a meeting as soon as possible with him on those two topics specifically, even if he wanted to wait on the ultimate rewrite and change of the rules.
I have not heard back from him on those topics. I know Mr. Chaney and I have discussed and we want to get the Board and the subcommittees moving forward quickly here within -- between now and the workshop, and even at the workshop to work on what the EOC -- what the operators would want to or what they’re willing to do as far as different business practices, because that seems to be their buzz word that they want to make this more business oriented. We also want the same thing. We want them to be more business oriented. We want the contract removing vending machines gone. We want us to be able to purchase -- get repairs and purchase equipment when we need the equipment. We can't wait months on end to get repairs and equipment if we’re trying to run a business. If you want us to run a business, then we should all act like businesses. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Rob, I know that I’ve heard quite a bit of discussion about the repair issue that we currently have right now.
MR. ESSENBERG: Yes.
MR. POSONT: And the process or requirements, and Zimmer said at the meeting last weekend that they’re going by -- this is stuff that came through from the audit -- in through the last audit. Have we seen that last audit? Has that been public?
MR. ESSENBERG: We have not seen the audit. It is not public, even though they are touting the audit as why they’re making these changes, but we have not seen the audit yet and they’re not allowed to mention the audit, actually.
MR. POSONT: I would assume the audit issue is because there are a lot of things in the audit they don’t want out publicly, because I know many people have thought about questions with their many facilities and people were heard. I would assume if they’re questioning the audit, I understand you guys are having real trouble getting repairs and Bill Butler has been ordered to pay. He has to go through Wolverine; is that it?
MR. ESSENBERG: Yes, yes. They looked at the contract with Wolverine and they determined that the contract says that they are -- Wolverine is supposed to provide all repairs. We were under the impression they were just supposed to provide warranty repairs, but they’re determining it’s all repairs and we have to go through Wolverine to get repairs, and they no longer had a repair person, so Bill had to make a deal with Wolverine to now go through Wolverine to get the repairs done, which is now going to cost us more money because Wolverine is going to take a cut.
MR. POSONT: So Bill is going to get his pay and Wolverine is going to get her pay; right?
MR. ESSENBERG: Yes. Yes, but now it’s costing us more.
MS. ZANGER: Excuse me. May I offer clarification, please?
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. ZANGER: The issue with repairs and Bill Butler’s relationship with Wolverine America, LLC has been clarified and we can arrange directly with Mr. Butler to do vending machine repairs.
MR. POSONT: So that’s changed too? All right.
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: And every other vendor can do that too?
MS. ZANGER: No. If the vendor wants a repair, they need to contact the Commission and we’ll make the arrangements.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. SCHUCK: It's not Wolverine for every vendor? I see. I’m sorry.
MR. POSONT: So Bill Butler can get repairs done through them now, but --
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MR. POSONT: -- it wasn’t that way; correct?
MS. ZANGER: There were a few weeks.
MR. POSONT: Yes. Rob, anything else relating from the Operators Committee? What’s the agenda tomorrow, any other big budgets going to be up?
MR. ESSENBERG: The usual reports regarding, you know, PA reports. We have an update on the State Plate, but it won't be anything more than you’ve heard here today on the State Plate. The Committee reports -- the subcommittee reports, although there have been very few subcommittees that have met over the summer, so those reports are going to be very sparse. That is part of our issue, that we are not getting the participation among operators on subcommittee reports after we’ve had a lot of subcommittees who haven’t even had quorum to be able to conduct any business. I know of at least --
MR. POSONT: It takes a lot of time to do sub-work and subcommittee, and then bring it to the full Committee. I’ve done it and it takes a lot of commitment for people to do it.
MR. ESSENBERG: I'm not sure what’s going to be on in the morning. We can add new business topics. I know there’s been a couple people that wanted to add things, but I have no clue as to what they want to add at this point.
MR. POSONT: Do you have an agenda for tomorrow?
MR. ESSENBERG: Yes. There is an agenda for tomorrow.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Anything else? Before we get to the State Plate, I want to -- okay. Is there anything else on the state place? I want a discussion of the Commission Board on the State Plate.
MS. ZANGER: Excuse me. Just a quick comment, please, about the prior topic of vending machine repairs and --
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. ZANGER: -- the change in the process. It’s state law that the findings or any work papers or any recommendations out of the Auditor General are held in confidence until the Auditor General issues the final report, and that final report has not yet been issued, so we too await the final report.
MS. SCHUCK: People who can make things happen are making things happen based on what --
MR. POSONT: The report?
MS. SCHUCK: -- they know of it without having seen the final report, so that’s just kind of aggravating, isn’t it?
MR. POSONT: It shows you that -- well, Rob, there’s been a subcommittee to start working on revamping the rules?
MR. ESSENBERG: We haven’t met. We -- (inaudible) is the head of policy rules, has not held any meetings on that. We’ve had some discussions among the few operators on the phone, but no official meetings on the rule rewrites. I know the agency did start the process of rewriting the rules for their draft of the rules, but once we had written a letter to Mr. Zimmer requesting a meeting on that process and he said that he wished to hold off until mid-October on that, they were told that they were to hold off on that process too, so nobody has done anything more than that as far as the rewriting of any rules.
MR. POSONT: Okay. I appreciate it. I think that gives an answer. Any other -- do we have any knowledge we need more about the State Plate issue?
MS. SCHUCK: I just have a question. So the State Plate will stay closed until there is a -- someone qualified to make a bid?
MS. ZANGER: Until a qualified licensed operator is selected. Someone did bid on the facility. We offered that facility to them and they declined that offer. We are providing vending services in that building to them until such time as we can reopen.
MS. SCHUCK: And the “we” is an operator in another building as a servicing vendor?
MS ZANGER: In another facility, yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay, I see.
MR. POSONT: Under a temporary agreement.
MS. SCHUCK: And then, you know, I won't hold you to this, but do you see people, you know, down the pipeline? Do you see somebody getting close to being ready to operating?
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay, that’s good. That’s good. Are we on to new topics for BEP, because I have a different question?
MR. POSONT: Oh, you’ve got --
MS. SCHUCK: Not the State Plate. I have another question.
MR. POSONT: I want to talk about the State Plate until -- I believe the intention originally was good. I believe that down the road it will be showing that the State Plate -- the State Plate was held up because of discrimination because of blind people. I believe -- and I don’t have any proof of this, but I just read between the lines. With the issue of the Executive Order and trying to move over DTMB (ph), and RSA did stand up for that one part that the (inaudible) Program had to be under the same DHS -- DH whatever it is, as the rehab part of the agency. I believe this vending program is in jeopardy. I believe that there has been a deal made for the State Plate, and I’m saying that as a blind person reading between the lines and I think we as blind people on or off this commission have to be very closely watching what happens in these vending locations because the issue of the Cadillac Place, the issue of what meetings I had with this administration early last year, and what meetings you had, Rob, and other people in the Committee, and their tone and their actions on this program, we better be aware. Both organizations of the blind need to understand that this is a prime location and they may not be open that many days between now and the end of the year, but somebody would like to have that facility. I even heard the other day on the radio -- and this was read in the news the other day, and I couldn’t understand it, but it could be a possibility. They say there is another Biggby -- Beaners (ph) or whatever you want to call them going in downtown. Where are they going to put another beanery downtown? Why I say that came to my attention is because one day I was in the State Plate in the Anderson building and Beaners was giving away coffee and cookies, so you can read between the lines. You can read that the federal dollars were spent on the State Plate and many other locations in this program, but I’m warning people that you better watch it because they’ll pull this program out, or this program has been given to somebody else and other issues happening in this state currently right now concerns me. Is that negative? It’s the facts and that’s the environment that we’re living in right now, so I’m saying to people in this room the State Plate is not guaranteed to be for blind people. I want that on the record so somebody can say, “We have” -- “We’ve been warned” and I think that both organizations of the blind better be warned too, and that’s not being mean; that’s not being negative. That’s just the facts. >From that, I’m willing to move. Lydia, do you have another item for the BEP?
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah. I just want an update on the progress of the inventory of equipment throughout BEP. Where are we on that?
MS. ZANGER: As the licensed -- excuse me. As the promotional agents are doing their annual assessments, they are doing the physical inventory of equipment to verify. Beyond that, our plan to work with a third-party independent contractor to conduct the inventory, we’ve been asked to hold on that process by the department.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. And that was the Commission Board’s request to have that independent inventory, or was --
MS. ZANGER: Well, I don’t recall that it was. It certainly was our plan.
MS. SCHUCK: It came within from you? Okay.
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: I just remember talking about it here, and so I didn’t know which way it went. Okay. So that is on hold. That is very interesting. Okay. Well, let me just follow that. I think the last thing I knew, you had submitted -- basically, you would have put out an RFP or something if they had okayed it. Is that what --
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: -- you had asked, “Can we put this out for bid to have this job done?”
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: And they said hold on that?
MS. ZANGER: Actually, what we did was we wanted to put out a document that found -- to find who would be interested in actually doing that job because it’s a pretty big job and there are a lot of companies who do inventories, but not equipment like ours and not products like ours, so we were doing kind of an inquiry initially to find out who would be available and interested to do that job. Had we had LARS approval, then we would have issued an RFP (ph).
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. I can't help wondering on two of these things why one of our rehab clients isn’t trained to do the inventory and sent out to do it, help to form a small business and take on the job. And then the other one is why one of our rehab clients -- could one of our rehab clients be trained to be going out and doing repairs, at least in a certain geographic area. Do we have rehab clients that we could help form a small business to conquer some of these things that we want to get done, you know, and take care of two things at once, get the job done and -- and provide some work skills to one of our rehab clients? I’m just sure they’re there, that it could be done, so okay. I’m good.
MR. POSONT: No more, Connie -- Ms. Zanger? Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Just the question -- my recollection is that Mr. Chaney took over from another gentlemen that was having trouble at Cadillac Place because of Subway; is that correct?
MS. ZANGER: Ron Fellows was operating Café DeVille before James Chaney came there.
MR. SCOTT: And when Mr. Chaney came in, I guess Subway is no longer there; is that correct?
MS. ZANGER: No, that’s not correct.
MR. SCOTT: It's still there because --
MS. ZANGER: Subway has been there since the state -- was there before the State of Michigan took over the building.
MR. SCOTT: So there’s this additional problem now with -- what’s the vendor, Snack Bar?
MS. ZANGER: Star Snacks.
MR. SCOTT: Star Snack, so now you have an additional problem on top of what Mr. Fellows had?
MS. ZANGER: Well, there were several other businesses, food service businesses in the building since the State of Michigan has taken over that building, and initially Star Snacks was Star Pharmacy and during one of the lease periods, the ownership changed and it became -- it transitioned from Star Pharmacy to Star Snacks, so Star Pharmacy was in that building when the State of Michigan took over the Cadillac Place.
MR. SCOTT: And so, the business was sold. Okay. No further questions.
MS. SCHUCK: Well then, is that the reason why they say they’re under agriculture, is because they were initially a pharmacy?
MS. ZANGER: No, because they’re classified as a convenience store and convenience stores are licensed and inspected by the Department of Agriculture.
MS. SCHUCK: Oh.
MR. POSONT: Do they still -- do they still have prescriptions?
MS. ZANGER: No.
MR. POSONT: Oh. Did they ever have prescriptions?
MS. ZANGER: Not when they were Star Pharmacy. I mean, excuse me. Not when they were Star Snacks, but certainly when they were Star Pharmacy, yes.
MR. POSONT: They did? Oh, okay.
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
MR. POSONT: That something I don’t --
MS. ZANGER: There are consumers here too now.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Mr. Zimmer?
MS. ZANGER: And there’s a few other people. Leamon and Bob (ph) is here now, so a couple --
MR. POSONT: We’re at the end of BEP do we want to approve Ms. Zanger’s report?
MR. SCOTT: Motion to approve.
MS. SCHUCK: Second.
MR. POSONT: Second. All in favor say, “Aye.”
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MS. SCHUCK: Aye. Sorry for my delayed --
MR. POSONT: Thank you. All right. The next one is lunch. Thanks, Rob.
MR. ESSENBERG: You're welcome.
MR. POSONT: Tell James we said hi.
MS. SCHUCK: James is here.
MR. POSONT: James Hull?
MS. SCHUCK: James Hull is here.
MR. POSONT: I mean James Chaney.
MS. SCHUCK: Oh, James Chaney. I’m sorry.
MR. POSONT: (Inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: (Inaudible) phone line.
MR. POSONT: What's the next item on the agenda? It’s lunch.
MS. SCHUCK: Administrative reports after lunch.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MR. CANNON: It will be ready any time we would like to go over it.
MR. POSONT: Can you do it now? We’ve got some time yet before lunch, don’t we?
MR. CANNON: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Sue, what’s the arrangements for lunch and what time are they going to serve it?
MS. LUZENSKI: Lunch is -- lunch is going to be set up at about 11:45 and actually in our second floor large conference room.
MR. POSONT: Second floor, large -- okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: And it’s for anybody on the agenda who would be reporting and commissioners.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Mr. Zimmer, do you want to make a statement? All right. Thank you. Mr. Jones? Who is coming up? Okay. Good morning, Leamon (ph)
MR. JONES: Good morning.
MR. POSONT: How are you doing today?
MR. JONES: Great. (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: I think the last time I saw you was in Escanaba. Was it Escanaba that I saw you?
MR. JONES: I'm trying to see if it’s been since then, but I think that was the last time.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Gaylord? It could have been Gaylord or Escanaba. They all kind of blend in after awhile, don’t they?
MR. JONES: I wasn’t there.
MR. POSONT: It was one of those.
MR. JONES: Okay.
MR. POSONT: I’m getting older, right, Pat? Okay. Leon, you have the floor, sir.
MR. JONES: Good. In addition to the written report, I’d just like to bring to your attention some updates in regards to the Consumer Services Program and in the -- in regards to the summer transition activities, you’ll note the number of programs we are participating in. One additional thing is that Camp T (ph), although we did not have a specific program at Camp T this past summer, we did have a number of individuals that worked at Camp T and conducted camp, camp counselors at Camp T. There were six individuals there of the Commission who participated in activities at the camp, Camp T, so there’s one additional thing that we had some involvement with.
One additional thing that you’ll note in our activities with that summer program, one the Macomb Center program, we provide some of its activities and provided more job shadowing, employment kinds of activities as well as employment for a number of the participants there. We had two different groups. One was five in that program, and then the other had seven and that group that had seven, a number of those individuals were able to obtain employment. I thought that was a good idea to get into to allow those individuals to experience what work is.
In fact, one of the participants said, “Work is really hard,” and I thought that was really good because they began to realize what we are really trying to get across to them, how important it is for our students to get a chance to have some work experience during high school and I thought that was an excellent point. Another aspect of the program, we’ve been working very closely with Homeland Defense and working -- there are a number of jobs that are anticipated to be coming out of that particular part of the federal government, so we are positioning ourselves in order that once they begin to hire we will be able to have students or have individuals ready for employment within that area there.
We have a variety of types of occupations. We’ve built a relationship with another telemarketing company where they provide training for individuals in customer services and they work with a variety of companies like some of the insurance companies, some of the cable companies, and these individuals can work from home or they can work from the office. This will give some additional opportunities for our consumers to work, you know, and obtain employment.
Another one is the Stadler (ph) Training Program. Just this past summer there was a presentation made by a representative from Stadler. We’ve been working with them over the years, but one of the additional aspects of their program is they have developed a customer service training program and they work with the hotels and placing individuals in the hotels, and so we are finding individuals -- finding opportunities there for many of our consumers, and so that’s a program that is ongoing and we are having some success in placing individuals in.
Those are many of the activities that have been occurring, as you had made mention before from the other activities is the State Plan and State Plan submission has not taken place. We’re waiting for RSA to either say yes or no, so hopefully that’ll be soon. We’ve got a week for that to happen in order for us to be in compliance with that, so that is basically the report. We are continuing to focus on looking at local training programs, and particularly with the community colleges and working with Michigan Works because they are contracting with many of the community colleges to provide short-term training programs and this is for individuals who are not college students.
We know that our college students who continue -- that rate will continue to grow, but the key is assisting individuals who have had some work experience, and yet are not interested in going back -- going to college, but would like to have a career, and some short-term careers are being provided through the community colleges and that’s what we’re working with through Michigan Works in order to secure those opportunities. That’s the long and the short of my report, if there are any questions?
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Any questions from the Board? Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: I have some.
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: I was trying to find the file on here. I’m sorry. Yeah, we have age 16 and up. It looks like 648 students in the school district last school year; age 14 and up, 830. One hundred and twenty-one of the 830 -- 121 are in Oakland; 61 are in Macomb; 104 are in Wayne. I’m just giving you the big ones. Kent -- Kent, 71; 40 in Genesee; 60 in Detroit. Anyway, we did have -- we have fewer students in transition programs this summer, about a ten percent drop if I remember. It was about 115 last year, I think, and 102 this year.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. SCHUCK: And I’m glad -- I’m really glad for those 102. I know that all 830 of these are not necessarily have skills or the qualities necessary to be in a program, but I do know that in some of these more populous areas, I’m just really pushing that we get this -- we let people know we’re here because, you know, there are more people -- more transition-aged students 14 and up in the Oakland School District alone than were in all of our transition programs this year.
MR. JONES: I agree. I can respond to that too and I would like to.
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah.
MR. JONES: Oakland -- the Oakland School program is the first year that we have had an organized program, and yet we know that there are a large number of individuals in Oakland Schools. We worked with Oakland County for many years and this was the first year that we were able to develop a formalized, organized summer youth program and there were a number of individuals that expressed interest in participating in the program, but then in the summer they had other kinds of activities that they wanted to be involved in, so I think what will happen with Oakland, and that’s what we are anticipating, as we continue to make the program available that we publicize the program, that parents are aware of it.
The importance of parent night -- we have a parent night so parents understand and see the purpose of the program. Many of the activities this year with the Oakland program was to provide information regarding colleges and the various colleges, vocational schools, etcetera and so forth. We’d like to expand this so that we are not only just that type of an activity, but there would be other activities leading to various kinds of options -- employment options such as some vocational kinds of training and those things.
A large of number of individuals, again, as I said, and those individuals who attended the program were basically college-bound students. Our program wants to be more -- is striving to be more flexible so that it will increase the numbers that are participating.
MS. SCHUCK: All right.
MR. JONES: So we’re looking forward to improvement in that area.
MS. SCHUCK: We do have -- I mean, because we have a college program, I know that that runs into problems. I mean, that was 23 students that did the summer program, which is great, but they do the summer program just one year. That means from age 14 to 19 or 20, or whenever they graduate they could be doing a summer job program, so and I guess some students would do the summer. They might do the two week thing more than once, but they wouldn’t do the college experience more than once, do they? Is it pretty much just once?
MR. JONES: I would hope not. It’s not every year you would go back and --
MS. SCHUCK: (Inaudible).
MR. JONES: -- (inaudible) let’s find something different. They have the option of going through the summer program -- the four week summer program at our center or the two week assessment -- college assessment, and then also college prep so some of those -- that’s where some participated. The intent is to work with the school and the school districts, as well as Michigan Works activity. There are programs that are year-round and to involve students in those kinds of programs so that, you know, they meet maybe once a month or twice a month with some activities just to keep the people -- keep the students interested in and exploring various kinds of vocational options. That is something that is being explored with Detroit and that program, the year-round program is being explored and it seems to have more potential because we have worked with -- we have more success within Michigan Works and Wayne County than we’ve had in some of the other counties.
MS. SCHUCK: Well, I would be more concerned in places where -- Oakland is probably a wealthier school district too, and places where there is not a lot of extra money, there is only 60 transition aged kids in Detroit it says, and I’m guessing because they’re going to center-based programs outside of the Detroit schools. Do you think that?
MR. JONES: That's a --
MS. SCHUCK: They're going to Oakland or Macomb or some --
MR. JONES: That is a question that we ask ourselves, you know. Some of the small numbers that are in some of the areas, where are the students? And yet, the numbers that you’re looking at are from the APH count.
MS. SCHUCK: That's right.
MR. JONES: I know, and so we ask the same question and we asked the school districts -- the intermediate school districts where are these students.
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. JONES: They say, “We don’t know.”
MS. SCHUCK: And it’s true. With the APH count, they’re counting every kid who wouldn’t want to take a VI support program or to kids who are multiply impaired and all that too.
MR. JONES: They do break it down, as you noted, for those that are rated and unrated. We --
MS. SCHUCK: That's true, yes.
MR. JONES: We strive to provide services to all populations, not just the rated ones, but also the unrated, as many as possible that would like to participate. So many times there are a lot of other variables that impact some, particularly work. They start to go to work and their parents are concerned about student work. If my son or daughter worked, that is, how would it impact their SSI -- their social security, and so a lot of those factors are there. You have to continue to work with them to assure them that they can use work incentive and those kinds of things, and it will not affect their SSI benefits.
MS. SCHUCK: So if you’re trying to get a hold of parents to come to a parent night, how do you do that? How do you find them?
MR. JONES: What we do is we have a number -- we have liaison workers that work with these particular districts, Wayne -- not Wayne -- Oakland and Macomb. They work with the students throughout the year, and so they have contact with the parents because -- parents of ages 14, when they are registered for commission, the parents have to sign off the application, and so that’s one way of contacting them and we start from that. Then we inform them of the activities that are going to take place throughout the year so that they are aware of it, and the ultimate program is the parent night.
Some have their parent night in the fall and some have them in the spring, but they make sure that they send out notices and ask them to RSVP, and we anticipate it to grow through Macomb. The number has grown because we’ve done this over the years, but Wayne County, they know that at the beginning of the summer they are going to have a parent night and honor those who graduate, and so that number has grown, and so it’s just kind of a repeat and as you continue to do that, you provide information, so that’s how you get the numbers up.
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah, and try to keep --
MR. JONES: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: -- keep doing the things you’ve done before and add to it. I know that it’s considered a really good transition practice to provide childcare and transportation for parents, and I would urge you to do that so they know that their needs can be met so that they can go to this meeting.
MR. JONES: Yes. We’ve talked about all of those kinds of issues. You know, sometimes it’s finding a way to do that. We have provided light snacks at those meetings and that (inaudible) so we continue to look for ways to try and get other agencies to help cover some of the cost for those activities. (Inaudible) cost and some of it is just difficult.
MS. SCHUCK: I know that transportation issues made it too hard for students in rural areas to come in to urban areas, even if it’s just a half hour outside of Grand Rapids, but have you -- have you provided or offered transportation and childcare to parents so that they could attend meetings? Has the Commission done that yet?
MR. JONES: To my knowledge, no. We haven’t. That's something we’ve talked about.
MS. SCHUCK: I urge you.
MR. JONES: Okay. It’s something we’re taking under consideration. We have looked at that and in some instance, we have provided -- you know, during the programs we provide transportation. We provide transportation, but as for parent night, we haven’t got that far yet, but we can look at that and see if there is a way.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. I think it’s research-based supports that are practiced.
MR. JONES: I agree. We know that, you know, if you provide them with a meal, maybe allow them to bring their young siblings with them, and you know, they can also eat, so that has helped to increase the numbers as well.
MS. SCHUCK: I'm sure that would make a difference if you have people to feed between work and getting to the meeting, and all that.
MR. JONES: Right, right.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So I’m trying to make us go right until our time. I’m just kidding, but I just --
MR. POSONT: Lydia?
MS. SCHUCK: Yes. Two short --
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: One, I saw the video. Was it Macomb Students that the Sue Cherney stent to us? That was great.
MR. JONES: I think it was Detroit.
MS. SCHUCK: That was Detroit, okay. And then just a question. How many were in the Ingham/Eaton program this summer?
MR. JONES: My memory says six.
MS. SCHUCK: Six?
MR. JONES: Six.
MS. SCHUCK: All right.
MS. LUZENSKI: It's 11:45. He was just setting up.
MS. SCHUCK: Since we were ahead, I don’t want them all to think, “Oh, man. It’s Lydia alone.”
MR. POSONT: If you don’t know, Lydia is working on her PhD in transition; right?
MS. SCHUCK: Yes, and I will be here, yeah.
MR. POSONT: You're really finding out these issues real quick.
MS. SCHUCK: Yes. Well, then there -- I also know there was discussion at the MCB conference about transition and youth issues being important as we go forward, so that was one of the reasons.
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: I'm so glad that Mike Zimmer came in before I could ask all those questions. Yeah, that’s really it though.
MR. POSONT: You've got to understand what the numbers mean and everything, and that helps too. Anything else from Mr. Jones?
MR. SCOTT: Only this brief question. There was a possibility of enforceability (inaudible). This bill -- well, let me -- okay. A number of years ago, the National (inaudible) Blind Detroit Chapter sent in a member to serve as a teacher’s aide to Marquette Elementary helping blind children who were made to put a cup of water in the microwave and heat it up for tea. One of the things she pointed out to me was she was a bit alarmed that parents were not sending their blind and visually impaired children to school.
Now, Detroit Public School, DPS was sending vehicles right to their homes to pick them up and take them to the school, but they were not sending them out to board the vehicles to get to the school, and to me that is indeed a problem because they already have a problem starting out being blind or visually impaired, and then they’re not getting the education they should get. In our mind, is there anything that can be done to work on a program of parents who apparently don’t have the notion or idea that education is important, particularly for a child that has a disability? Because I asked about truant officers and I guess they don’t have that anymore.
Basically, my attitude was the parents need to be locked up, but nothing can be really done about that, but that was my answer the question, but of course I don’t have the authority.
MR. JONES: Let me address one part of your question about the children not being able to do some of the basic ADL kinds of activities. In conjunction with low incidents in outreach, you know, the former school for the blind, the agency works with them and they work with the school districts in providing that kind of service to students. The one thing that they really encourage is parent participation because if they’re teaching the child how to do the basics, you know, how to make a sandwich and how to -- how to eat water, whatever that is asked, they want them to be able to do that once they get home and they want the parents to buy into that, so they have been working with students in Detroit for some time with that program.
In fact, they carry the program across the state, but I know that’s one area that they have been working with and seeing low incidents of outreach and seeing some improvement in that area, so it’s one of the areas that they’re working on, along with technology. They have also been working with the district in providing technology for the students. They work with the teachers, and particularly work with the teachers so that they are aware and understand the importance of students using technology.
The part about encouraging parents to send their children to school, that’s an excellent one. That’s difficult because unless we know about it, somebody knows about it, we don’t know if they are out there or not. The one thing that I think will really help, that is when you have a parent night or you have a program and parents see that students have graduated and they have been successful, they come back and they share with the group the things that they have done, the ongoing activities that they’re doing and how important it is for the students to get, you know, the technology, to understand technology, and how it can help them while they’re in college and/or when they go two work.
It sells their program much more than what we can do, and I’ve seen that in a couple incidents. We had a program back in the spring -- this past spring with Oakland County and we had some participants there who came back and they spoke about their experience in college, and how that the teachers were working with them. You know, sometimes they felt like, “I don’t need this. I don’t want this.” They encouraged them to get all that you can because it’s going to be -- because it’s going to be beneficial to you. We had the same thing with graduates at the summer program in Detroit.
They came back and they shared some of their college experiences. They shared -- one person shared that they had been, you know, working and the technology, the skills, and the academics that they had got that the school had provided them. Really, it laid a foundation for them to be -- to complete college and to be successful, so those kinds of things are what really sells a program, our program, the school program, and parents hear that and that encourages them then to support their students or their child -- their children so that they too can see the same kinds of opportunities.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So now I came up with two more things I want to ask. So if PA 260 says that the Department of Ed is going to give you a list, do you get that -- the list of all the names and addresses, contact information?
MR. JONES: It says they’ll give us a list. They can’t give us addresses. They can only give us names --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. JONES: -- that’s what they give us. And I mean numbers -- numbers, numbers, numbers. Not names, but numbers.
MS. SCHUCK: They can only give you numbers, okay.
MR. JONES: They only give us numbers, right.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. All right. And then the other question -- two quick questions were are we working with Project Search right now?
MR. JONES: Yes, we are.
MS. SCHUCK: How many kids have we got, commission kids, do you know?
MR. JONES: That's a great --
MS. SCHUCK: That's pretty detailed.
MR. JONES: Yes. At this point we have two people in -- it’s two in Detroit, I believe. There is one in Oakland and I’m not sure if there are any in Kent. They’re working with Kent with Project Search, as well as in Kalamazoo, but at this point I don’t think either one of those have any students in it. I think they’ve identified somebody in Kalamazoo, but they’re not in the program.
MS. SCHUCK: And then, last question, I promise. Do you know how many we have at MCTI (ph) right now?
MR. JONES: You know, I don’t want to say the number. At this point, I don’t think we have anybody, but --
MS. SCHUCK: I know we don’t always, so.
MR. JONES: Yes, from time to time. We had two people previously, but they are not there now, so.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Thank you so much.
MR. POSONT: Anything else for Mr. Jones? Do I hear a motion to accept his report?
MR. SCOTT: So moved.
MS. SCHUCK: Second.
MR. POSONT: All in favor say, “Aye.”
MS. SCHUCK: Aye.
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MR. POSONT: Okay. I think it’s lunchtime. I have one question. It was asked to me earlier. Is there a place to release a dog in the area?
MS. SCHUCK: Relieve?
MR. POSONT: Okay, relieve a dog. Does anybody know? Do we have one, Sue? Where do we direct our clients?
MS. LUZENSKI: Well actually, a block down across the street from the Radisson on the river there is a grassy area, but right outside our door to the right on the curb there are a few spots with trees, and I have seen people take their dogs out there. There is gravel and bark, I believe, around the base of the tree and I believe that’s -- like Deb, I’ve seen her out there with her dog before.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay.
MR. POSONT: Any other thing before lunch? Meeting adjourned until 1:00? 1:00?
MS. LUZENSKI: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Thank you very much.
(WHEREUPON, a brief recess was taken at this time)
MR. POSONT: The afternoon meeting is in order, September 21st. Let’s do public comment first. Let’s --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Is somebody on the phone?
MR. HARCZ: We have more (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen you. I wish (inaudible) Joe, seriously.
MR. POSONT: Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute on the phone, please. Everybody on the phone is unmated right now. We’re going to have public comment, so say your name and where you’re from, please.
MR. HARCZ: Okay, Joe Harcz.
MR. POSONT: Joe, you have the floor, please.
MR. HARCZ: All right. I’m going to go (inaudible) one primary thing. What are ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. We have laws of this land for a reason. We have the Rehabilitation Act for a reason. It is supposed to be for the rehabilitation for people with disabilities and for people who are blind. The vocational rehabilitation and for our rights to independent living -- I’m sorry, this is a little bit confusing to me because I’m getting an echo on this, and I hope my time is not taken away because of this.
MR. POSONT: You're coming through here, Joe.
MR. HARCZ: My call right now formally, and I am -- I am -- I call for RSA not to approve Michigan’s State Plan for both vocational rehabilitation, not just MCB, but the -- the MRS and our State Plan for independent living. They are bogus. They violated the laws of this land and they violated everything that’s in the Rehabilitation Act. Until -- until the state gives the death penalty, which is what this is all about, they’re never going to reform. We cannot continue to fund the states that are violating our basic human and civil rights, and the rights that are endowed in those -- in those Acts and the obligations.
I also -- I also want -- I’m sorry. This is very confusing to me because I keep getting an echo back. It’s really horrible on my end, but we have, you know, federal dollars, tens of millions that are plowed into equipment alone that are (inaudible) unofficial Board correspondence (inaudible) that didn’t get even mentioned. What was -- what is this all about? It is what Terry Eagle -- it is what other people have talked about. It is a misappropriation of funds. Funds are supposed to be going to the rehabilitation of people with disabilities, to people who are blind and they are being (inaudible).
They are going to favorites. They are going to areas where they don’t belong. You know, the State Plate got brought up this morning. It isn’t for the benefit of a bunch of legislatures. The State Plate and the BEP program, and these other programs are supposed to be for the benefit of the blind and to give us equal opportunity and equal employment and actually it’s affirmative action because we’ve been displaced so long. Finally, I’m going to say --
MS. LUZENSKI: (Inaudible)
MR. HARCZ: I'm sorry. Did somebody say something?
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. HARCZ: Okay. We talk about the equality of the blind, of people with disabilities, and they go hand in hand. We have brilliant people amongst us, people that can give to each other and give to our communities. They are being robbed. I heard from the commissioner -- one of the commissioner’s daughters --
MS. LUZENSKI: Time.
MR. HARCZ: -- brilliant musical capabilities over the phone. That was treasure. I’m sorry. This is very confusing to me.
MR. POSONT: Thanks, Joe.
MR. HARCZ: I've probably gone over my 30 seconds. She doesn’t even get the appropriate educational opportunities that are required by law.
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Joe. Next, please, public comment on the phone. Anybody else on the phone? Hello?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: I’m just making sure that they don’t want to do it. Going once, public comment on the phone. Is there somebody on there? Going twice. In the room, please. Anybody in public comment in the room here, please? Hello? Say your name, please. Casey will bring you the mic. Do we know where the mic is at? Okay.
MR. DUTMER: It works.
MR. POSONT: Okay. You’ve got the floor, Casey.
MR. DUTMER: Thank you. Just a comment on some of the items that were brought up this morning. In hearing the discussion of the State Plate, it reminds me of when I was chairman of the Operators Committee in 2001. A very similar issue has come up regarding Constitution Hall and the Operations Center, Constitution Hall particularly. Management budget, they have their ideas of who they want to put in there. If it weren't for -- and Pat will remember this, we negotiated with FIA. Constance Zanger was involved. Other administrators of the BEP, but it wasn’t until the Operators Committee chairman and my vice chairman, Carol Osmey (ph) got involved and began to talk about the livelihood that these careers meant, we knew that we had to make changes and try to make things better.
We still have the same issues today that we had back then regarding why this threat of private entrepreneurship is being put over our heads as a possible option in some of these buildings, so I think we have some priorities that we have to work on and one of them is training of the staff. Training of the staff is more than just about training staff how to deal with blind people and blind issues and all that. Training the staff is about -- also about not every client is capable of doing a job of any kind. Maybe some will be successful, some will not. Not every client is capable of going into the BEP program, so we need to understand that not all client are successful and not everybody is going to be a business operator of any kind.
We need to train our counselors and staff to be able to accept that because we need to have -- and I said this at our convention, the MCBVI convention. We need to have the VR program supporting us by bringing the BEP program good clients because if we don’t bring in good, successful, innovative, energetic clients that want to succeed, we will lose this program. We have to work together as an agency. When -- we could do a good job real quickly on this better accessibility, accessibility and signage in the buildings and accessibility in the hearings process, accessibility with the website, but throughout all Michigan government.
We could -- we could -- we could do that relatively easily if we wanted to. Jobs, we need more jobs and work to get more jobs to the blind community, and we also need to reform the Business Enterprise Program. I would hope the Bureau would be involved with the commitment of having consumers be involved in the developing process as we do some of these things. I would also entertain the idea to the Commission Board that maybe a letter be written to Mr. Zimmer requesting that maybe two or three people of the Advisory Commission be a part of the hearings process decision making until new rules are established.
I would also hope that blind consumers and blind operators especially, but also consumers will be involved in the changing of the rules so that people know what they’re -- what the changes are going to be. We (inaudible) lesson that we need to be involved as consumers. We need to be a part of the process. If the state is asking for measurable outcomes from us, we need measurable outcomes from them. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Say your name, anybody, please.
MR. SONTAG: Joe Sontag, Mr. Chairman.
MR. POSONT: Joe, you have the floor, sir.
MR. SONTAG: Thank you. First off, I would like to say that I agree with a lot of what Casey said, especially about BEP, the rule making process and so forth. When we’re talking about the rules that are currently promulgated and applicable or whether we’re talking about new ones, in my humble opinion, and I’ve said this before, one of the biggest things that got this program into a pile of trouble and continues to do so is the fact that the rules are not followed by staff and by a good number of operators, some of whom are regarded as our best.
There is no enforcement of critical rules that affect how this program operates and that affect how this program is perceived by state government, generally by such agencies as the Unemployment Agency and the Treasury Department in particular. I have had employees in the last three businesses that I operated in the Business Enterprise Program. During that time, which covers a period of -- oh, gosh, about 13 years or so, most of my career, three -- no less than three of my former employees that I heard from later indicate that they were either working for someone else in addition to myself or working for other operators in our program in our larger locations and being paid 100 percent under the table.
One of these operators is known to have hired an accounting service to prepare forms so that they have the right numbers going on their reports, but they all leave with something entirely different. One person is getting paid $300.00 a week flat rate to help somebody with a vending route, and it’s no accident that there are at least a couple of these cases that we’re talking about folks who were showing unusually good profit performance in their locations. They show zero employees, zero payments to unemployment insurance. Some say they’ve got worker’s come, but who knows.
We’ve had trouble in this program with that kind of enforcement in the past, regardless of the fact that there has always been a promulgated rule that requires operators to follow the law, and some expectation that staff periodically check up on people. Frankly, this program very nearly came improper at one point in the mid 90s when a particular incident came to the attention of the deputy director of the then Department of Labor. The rules aren’t enforced mostly and I just think it’s -- I think it’s ridiculous. Those of us who do our leave best to live up to them, we get burned. Those who don’t, well sometimes they get burned for other reasons, but oftentimes they get regarded as stars.
It’ll happen again with the new rules if the current management practices of the BEP are allowed to continue. If we continue to --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. SONTAG: If we allow folks who are supposed to be managing the program to say, “These rules aren’t enforceable. You’re asking us to do things. First you complain that there is a trust issue with this program, and then you complain that there is not enough rule enforcement. You can’t have it both ways.” Well, yes we can and the program will be much stronger for it. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Next, please, from the audience. Say your name. I’m going to call three times and if I don’t get anybody, then we will go on to the agenda. Going once.
MR. T. EAGLE: Terry Eagle.
MR. POSONT: It wasn’t an auction.
MR. T. EAGLE: It was up for auction.
MR. POSONT: I don’t know what it was.
MR. T. EAGLE: I’d like to place a bid on the State Plate, another bid on the State Plate. Now that I mention State Plate -- thank you for that opening, Larry. I think -- I’ve been here offended by Connie Zanger’s comments that nobody qualified bid on the State Plate. I bid repeatedly on State Plate and if we don’t have a person -- if a person with ten years of cafeteria experience and a bachelor’s degree, which is way, way, way, way beyond the requirements needed for academic to get into the cafeterias and get certified -- if that isn’t enough, then I think this program does need to go to the private sector and at some point, I’m going to have to throw my support to Peckham (ph) or somebody else to do what obviously the blind people of this state are not willing to stand up and fight for, and the administration and the Operators Committee are selling out on blind people.
When you have a person like myself bid on a place and I’m only being held back because of my political views and my affiliation with the National Federation of the Blind, and the fact that I want the rule of law followed, then there is something wrong. This is exactly why we’re in the position we are now with Public Act 260 being totally eviscerated and the BEP program is in jeopardy, serious jeopardy, and there are going to be more lawsuits. I can tell you that. It won't be just over State Plate, but there will be lawsuits over the hearing system and other things if our new director does not step up and put the blind people first and the consumer center as part of the showplace or centerpiece of the new bureau, because we as blind people and I as one who has been discriminated against over and over by the Operators Committee, Constance Zanger, James Hull, Pat Cannon and others, as long as that is allowed to go on, we have no hope for blindness and the blind getting ahead.
I recall a time when two-thirds of my staff were either blind and/or developmentally disabled and many of those people went on to be excellent operators or get other competitive employment. That’s what we need to go back to. People tell me that when I get talking about the good old days, they say well, things are different today. Things are not different today. We still have the same challenges budgetary and everything else that we had back in the 80s when I was on the Committee, and we passed things to make the budget work like the repair deductable and setting into place profit expectations. Those were all works that Larry and I helped put into place back in the 80s and it was because of the budgetary constrictions and recession and all kinds stuff that exist today, so I don’t believe that when we ran the program that things were different.
They weren’t any different than they are today. We still have the same challenges and we have the same --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. T. EAGLE: We still have the same challenges with people being discriminated against. There is no reason why Sherry Bradley -- Connie Zanger sat here and said she didn’t meet the prerequisites. She had been in the training program before. What other prerequisites does she need? I know another operator that went through the training program and trained with my sister, and was ripping her off $20.00 a day. She said enough and turned it over to the BEP staff, Constance Zanger, and nothing was done about it. That person is still in the program, so there is a lot of discrimination and stuff that’s going to be addressed legally if it isn’t done in an appropriate administrative way. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Terry. Next, please. Next, please. Anybody else in the public comment? The last one will be later. Next, please? Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: Can I take minute? Usually we talk of commissioner activities since the last time or whatever, and I don’t need to tell you any commissioner activities, but I didn’t have my chance this time. I always thank the people who have come and the people on the phone because people who left work and other committeemen’s to come, I really appreciate you being here, and people who take the time to be on the phone calls too, so thank you everyone who is interested in the work of the blindness community.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Okay. Elsie, are you next in line or is it Christine? Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: There is a person on the phone that wants to make public comment. The phone has been muted, so.
MR. POSONT: We’ll open it up.
MS. LUZENSKI: We can open that up.
MR. POSONT: Please do.
MR. POWELL: We okay?
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: Yes.
MR. POSONT: What's your name, sir?
MR. POWELL: Michael Powell. I just want to say that we’re really sad to see Public Act 260 go and you can walk though any state building and see how ineffective the Commission has been. We still don’t have -- I think it’s a misconception that just because you have accessible bathrooms in state buildings that it meets ADA requirements. We know that Braille signage and raised character signage has never been put -- fully implemented and put into state buildings, and when people make comments such as the director of the Commission that that’s one of the easiest things to implement, when he was the ADA coordinator, if it was so easy, why didn’t he ever implement that?
I think there’s going to be some challenges made to the state and if the federal government doesn’t enforce its own policy, we have to challenge them as well because the blind are tired of laws being made that are supposedly to cover them, and then they’re not enforced. If our federal government doesn’t enforce it, why would any employer want to hire any blind person when they don’t have to because the federal government and the states don’t even enforce the regulations that they implement and say they’re for our benefits? They for our benefit on paper, but that’s all they are, so if they want challenges, they’re going to get them. We may have lost our voice as consumers in government, but we will definitely address this from the outside of the agency if that’s what we have to do.
The Federation is alive and well, and we will address these issues. We have resolutions. Some of them, the Commission Board wasn’t able to take action on that we had this year and I’m a little disappointed in that, but I can understand because of the scheduling and because of the Executive Order and a lot of things happened at once, but you will continue to hear from us and things will either change or there will continue to be warfare, and this is not a threat. It’s just saying, “Why don’t we obey the laws of our nation?” That’s all I have.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Anybody else? How many does it show that’s on there, Susan -- Sue?
MS. LUZENSKI: There --
MR. POSONT: Can you tell?
MS. LUZENSKI: Yes. About a dozen people.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Anything else on the phone or in the room? Okay, thank you. Who is next on the -- Elsie is next.
MS. SCHUCK: Elsie is still next.
MR. POSONT: You're still next.
MS. DUELL: Okay. In addition to my report that I submitted, I just wanted to add kind of an overview since this is like the last time this Board gets together the way it does, and that is that I’ve been here for a year and a half and when I came in, my boss said I had three priorities, budget, technology, and system seven. I want to give a final report of those three areas that I’ve been working on for the last year and a half.
Last year we ended a fiscal year at 81 percent of the budget spent. My goal was 100 percent this year, but we’re only going to fall around 95 percent because last week we were at 93 percent and we only have five days left of spending for the fiscal year. As far as technology goes, part of the technology was audio streaming and although we were doing good, I think I showed back up at this meeting and the phones went somewhere low. I think it might be this room too.
MS. LUZENSKI: (Inaudible) in the other buildings that we’ve been in.
MS. DUELL: Right.
MS. LUZENSKI: And we’ve been in this room for a long time.
MS. DUELL: Right. So we’re better, but not yet perfect. Prior technology was MCB computers for staff and as an administrative services area, I feel it’s our responsibility to make sure that our staff have what they need to do in order to serve our customers, so we purchased computers for everyone in the agency in order to make sure they had the latest technology. We upgraded Internet Explorer, Ape, and Jaws (ph) to Jaws 13 because a lot of people were getting locked up and a lot of that has been eliminated. We moved from Office 2003 to Office 2010 and training has been provided for all of the Jaws users and so far so good.
This is another piece of technology, but not one we’re extremely proud of. We moved to DCDS (ph) electronic timekeeping because it’s not -- we needed to do it for security purposes with the state, but we’re waiting for an upgrade to come along one day, so that’s what’s been accomplished in technology and for system seven, Julia went back 30 years to update data based on new tools that have become available in system seven. We were submitting our federal reports due the next quarter, and something fell off the charts and so I said, “Well, let’s do a clean sweep. Let’s just keep going back until we don’t see data anymore,” so she went back and spent about a week going back 30 years to bring all of our data into a consistent format that we believe now has integrity so that our federal reports don’t keep changing, but they have integrity.
In addition to that, a lot of the IL cases, Alyssa, under the audio streaming, Susan back here, went back and updated almost 800 cases in the IL program so that it can also have integrity. By updating these cases and bringing the data into integrity, it allows us to be able to run a federal report at any point in time, even historical reports and keep seeing the same data. So that’s -- those are two major things that we accomplished with system seven and of course you know we put a help desk in place -- a (inaudible) help desk, which freed up Julia and gave her time to do other things and make better use of her time. Let’s see.
We also have worked with the library, DTPL in coordinating their VTM (ph) support with the call server and let’s see, and then we are going to be working more with Constance Zanger with the BEP program, especially in light of recent retirement, helping her to get the data working with Libra in a better shape too. Then finally, we’re working with the training center, helping them to develop a system that they can begin to track the clients that -- the clients that come into the training center to be able to have data that they can use for future program growth. So that’s what we’ve done in all of those three areas in the last year and a half.
MR. POSONT: Are you saying -- I heard you earlier saying that you can do timecards, everybody including the blind?
MS. DUELL: Timecards, no. What I said was one piece of technology that we moved to that we were not extremely happy about moving to was going to DCDS, which is the State of Michigan’s timekeeping program and the reason why is we had to move to it for security reasons, but they haven’t made it accessible yet.
MR. POSONT: So blind people who work for the agency cannot still do their time?
MS. DUELL: Well, yeah. They can do their time and we do have some leaders in the pack. I mean, Lucy Edmonds has been extremely helpful, at least to me personally understanding how to do it. It’s not the easiest thing in the world, but it is definitely doable. I would like to see it better and I know that the people who are gone would like to see it improved. We’ve been told that it will be improved.
MR. POSONT: Okay. And 18 months ago when you came in, system seven was controversial. I haven’t heard as much about it lately. It must mean something is happening. Silence, everybody?
MS. DUELL: That was off the record.
MR. POSONT: Well, you know, at least you don’t have people saying it’s not working. It’s starting to develop to be working and it’s a process that -- I look at computers as a process and we’re not a small outfit anymore, and we’re kind of trying to move ahead.
MR. CANNON: Elsie I couldn’t hear you.
MS. DUELL: The whole report?
MR. CANNON: No, you said something.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. DUELL: I said I silenced everyone who was complaining.
MR. CANNON: Thank you for sharing.
MS. DUELL: No problem. I believe that -- I really believe that putting in the Libra help desk helped a lot because they were able to give ansers that we had not had the skills to give the answers for. Julia was extremely good, but there were still parts of the system as it was getting upgraded that we just didn’t have the perfect answer for, so being able to call and get an answer I think helped a lot.
MR. POSONT: Good.
MS. SCHUCK: And you know, there are other blind people working for the State of Michigan in our agency, so you know, like for timekeeping and all that, and anything with Jaws if we can make it work here, then we can be the showpiece rather than just dragging along. It makes it better for other blind people.
MR. SCOTT: (Inaudible) that there is -- you went back (inaudible). How far back in time does that go?
MS. DUELL: No. What I said was we went back 30 years in data, so we put in whatever 30 years was -- excuse me, 1983. I can't remember, but anyway, 30 years back so that we can do a clean sweep of the data. What -- let me give you a little bit more information and that might help you understand. Libra has these data checks built into the system and in order to continue to improve the integrity of the data, they create more data checks so every time they give us a release, they may have more data checks in the release, so at some point I wanted to just make sure that all the data check pools apply -- were applied to all the data in system seven, so we went back.
We kept going back as far as we could find data and I didn’t think we’d end up going that far back because we just kept going in five year chucks, and then ten years, so we went back to 30 years and just corrected anything. We ran the data through the data checks, basically, and corrected anything that had came out and told us was not correct. For instance, it will say some records might have the application date out of order from the plan date, so we would go in there and make sure that those dates were in sync.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. POSONT: Hopefully, it’s going to hit one of these days where we’re rolling it with steam, right?
MS. DUELL: Yes. I hope we’re there.
MR. POSONT: Or closer to it.
MS. DUELL: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. DUELL: Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Any other thing from you?
MS. DUELL: No, that’s it.
MR. POSONT: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Do we have a motion to accept her report?
MR. SCOTT: I move to approve the report.
MS. SCHUCK: Second.
MR. POSONT: All in favor?
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MS. SCHUCK: Aye.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Christine, director of the training center.
MS. SCHUCK: Do you have a mute button?
MR. POSONT: Isn't that normal to have football -- rain in football time?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is that?
MR. POSONT: Isn't it typical to have rain on football night? I mean, that’s high school football; right?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. BOONE: This is a better mic than this one, Elsie.
MS. BOONE: Okay. Good afternoon, commissioners. I don’t like this. I’m not facing them. Okay, there.
MR. POSONT: We’re looking at you.
MS. BOONE: I know, but anyway. Thank you for having me and I want to -- let’s see, talk about a couple of things that happened and continue to happen at the training center. We are winding up the construction. I mean, the construction people are all gone. Now we’re dealing with warranty issues, things that keep breaking down. I know they’re brand new, right? So we’ve already had four heat pumps go bad. We have 83, so I guess the percentage isn’t that bad, and the people have been pretty good about replacing those. We are about to have our field -- the field where the geothermal thing is that supports our heating system is to be seeded with wildflowers this fall, and so that will be nice.
There’s been a lot of delay. We were supposed to get a sprayer to spray the weeds. It costs over $600.00. I know that’s not a lot of money, but we had a very, very difficult time getting that approved, not by Pat. He was fine. It was the LARA Finance Office wanting to know what we were using to spray, what kind of weeds we were spraying; maybe we were using something hazardous and we said, “Well, that’s what our people do every day” and it was frowned on anyway. So we finally got that approved yesterday, so we should have a sprayer soon to be able to spray the weeds so that the wildflower seeds can be sown, and I tell that story just because sometimes people wonder why things take so long in state government. That was to buy a $600.00 sprayer. I mean that should have taken five minutes and it took lots of people lots of time.
Technology, we have a beautiful technology center. Unfortunately, when the project to build the technology center was undertaken, there wasn’t a means of adding FTEs to the commission. The effort was made, but it didn’t work, and so the plan obviously was to open a technology center so that we could bring in people who were not center clients and train them while the center program was going on, and despite Pat’s continuing efforts, we were not able to add FTEs, so we are looking at different options that we could use so that we could run some outstate programs if you will, and when the new director comes in I’ll be anxious to discuss those with him.
In the meantime, we do what we can and certainly our current students have benefitted a lot from the environment. They’ve also benefitted from the change in our procedure where we no longer have beginning and advanced computer skills. We just have one class for everyone, so each person can move right on through. They don’t need to switch teachers. We had a guy, a couple of our recent students wanting to do Apple and we have one teacher who is very proficient at that, and so that teacher receives those students and that works out really well, so our students are coming a long way. The biggest problem we have with students and the center program in general continues to be a problem that I believe is unique to Michigan, and this was confirmed by a staff member -- or I should say echoed by a staff member of ours who went out of state for training last week.
We have had so many good jobs available here to people that have not required anything beyond a high school education. With a high school education, you can work in a factory; you can work on an assembly line; you can make excellent money, great benefits, raise a family, send your kids to college, the whole thing and those jobs, as you know, have disappeared. So when older people come to us who need jobs, many of them -- and I’m talking even 35, 40, 45, you know, well within the working age, many of them have zero computer skills, none. They graduated from high school before computers were really compulsory and they don’t know how to use the computer. They don’t know how to type at all.
And so, when you start that training at the same time as you start your blindness skills training, the computer part takes much longer than the rest for many, many people. Some people have some training and that helps tremendously, but a lot of our folks have none and so, we started -- just starting to talk to some of our colleagues in the field about this and about, you know, the possibility of having people get some computer training before they come to the center, just so that they know what they’re walking into because this is a huge barrier that our people have to overcome, whereas in most other states people have, you know -- more people have gone the college track in high school because the options in the non-college track were really, really slim, and so they’ve learned at least basic typing.
So this is our reality and we need to deal with it. We have had some students who have learned a lot and they’re doing really well. It’s just a time issue, and that’s another reason why we really want to get our technology center operational so that people can actually graduate from their center program, and then either come back and participate in an advanced computer program and just do that, do the computer four hours a day for three weeks and get their final push that way. We had two people go to training at the Louisiana Center for the Blind. The region five case -- hang on a minute -- technical assistant and continuing education, that was the replacement for the -- our staff, the rehab -- rehabilitation (inaudible) program.
Anyway, the case center in region five helped us to pay for this training, so our shop instructor, Lee Greenacres (ph), went to Louisiana last week and one of our (inaudible) instructors, Jenny Doan (ph), who also teaches some computers, want to Louisiana this week. We’re really happy about this because we think that a different perspective is helpful for our staff. This is especially the case in our training centers, since every single one of our teachers without exception graduated from Western, and no matter how good a program is, diversity is a really good thing. It’s important.
It is important to have racial diversity. It is also important to have diversity of thought, diversity of background, diversity of understanding, diversity of experience and we don’t have those things, not through any fault of our staff, but simply because we are right across the street. We get so many Western applicants and so very few applicants from other places, so we had a really good experience. He learned a lot and he had a lot to say and noticed the same phenomenon. He said so many of the people at Louisiana, he said they have very -- they have many clients who have disabilities in addition to blindness, just like we do, so it’s not that they are taking the best of the blind and he really emphasized that.
He said no, and that people were -- there were people with developmental delays, people with traumatic brain injury, but he said what those people do have that our guys don’t is many of them have college and many of them have computer training. They also have a GED program there, which I -- that had been one of my things that I wanted to work on in 2009 and I had not picked it up again after my return, so that’s something that I would really like to pick up again because I believe the center should have a continuing GED program.
Most recently, our two main technology teachers, Dave Bowden (ph) and Shig (ph) Toda (ph) were joined by Scott Norris (ph) of the BTBL, the library, and they provided training to Jaws users because we all got pushed to Windows 10, so they provided training in Outlook and Word, and in connection with that training all three of them produced cheat sheets and workbooks for us so that we would have key commands and information to take away with us. They went way above and beyond the all of duty on that training that they did, and of course they were doing all of that in preparation at the same time as they were doing their regular jobs.
DCDS (ph), just to comment, because I am a supervisor and I’m supposed to go in and approved people, I tried to do this with Jaws and it will let me approve one person, and then as soon as I try to go to the next one it throws me out. I don’t know. Pat, have you tried it with Jaws before?
MR. CANNON: In the past, yes.
MS. BOONE: And did it work?
MR. CANNON: It's one of those systems in the state government where as you heard Elsie state earlier, some people believe that security trumps accessibility.
MS. BOONE: Yeah, yeah. It is and it takes so long because you have to move -- you have to use your tab key 78 times and so, but I really wanted to try it because I wanted to know if time and all it was doable, and I haven’t been able to make it work for more than one in a row, so if you have to sign on after each person and I have 33 people to approve right now, I’d be there for a long time, so I do have my confidential assistant help me with that. A couple things for the beginning of the new fiscal year.
We have been -- we believe that we will be able to hire an assistant director. We also believe that we will be able to move forward with doing interviews and hiring our receptionist. We’re also going to install carpeting in our computer labs and our classrooms. We’ve had three people fall out of their chairs. They’re not drinking, but we have these roller chairs and I mean you could have races with these things. On the new tile floors they go very fast. Luckily, the people have not been injured. Two of the three were staff and so, people have been okay but it’s not good, and of course the acoustics will be better with carpeting too, so everything is in place. We just need to push it through after the beginning of the new fiscal year.
We’re also beginning the wall that divides our tech center from the classrooms, the wall that was accidentally taken out in the midst of the remodeling, and so now we need to -- it wasn’t taken out physically, but I mean it was taken out of the drawing so it was never built, so the department has been good about saying, “Yes, you can have it,” and so we’ll be getting that, and also accidently taken out were all of the tables to hold all of the computer equipment in the technology center called case work in the industry, and so that is also in process. That concludes my report except that before I sign off, as someone who has been in the profession of rehabilitation for the last 30 years, I want to thank Pat for bringing me to Michigan, even though it’s been kind of a rocky time.
Still, I appreciate him for taking a chance on me and I also want to highlight an accomplishment that Pat made that was not easy at all, and that was when he took Michigan from receiving 12 percent of the rehabilitation dollars coming in from the federal government up to 15 percent, we went from being the second lowest state -- I think we were the lowest by the time Pat got it done, and now we are at the level of average and that was a huge accomplishment, so it cannot and should not be forgotten that Pat Cannon did that for us and no matter what happens with our rehabilitation system, we have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy more dollars because of what Pat did. So I know that we all want to continue really hard to make sure we spend those dollars in the very best way that we can, so thank you all.
MR. POSONT: Questions for Christine, please? I’ve got a couple, Christine. In the technology, ideally how many -- how many staff would we need to add to the training center if we really get it -- what do you think it would work?
MS. BOONE: Two.
MR. POSONT: And that would be full-time?
MS. BOONE: Yes. One of them -- one of them would be a technology program manager, and they would oversee the whole thing. The center, the technology center would get -- we would do separate funding. This is how I envision it anyway, and then that person would oversee the outstate programs and they would also sort of nominally oversee the center program to make it as responsive as it can be to the needs of the --
MR. POSONT: And how many people do we have in the technology center currently?
MS. BOONE: We have two full-time, that’s all, and then we have two half time. We’ve taken two of our O&M (ph) instructors and we ended up -- when I returned, we had somehow gotten five O&M instructors when really we need four, so several of them -- most of them, actually, are dual. They have degrees in both O&M and rehab teaching, so two of them happen to enjoy technology and they’re pretty good at it, so Shig (ph) and Dave are full-time, and then Amber Willard and Jenny Doan are half time O&M and half time technology.
MR. POSONT: So basically you’ve got three people in the technology and you could use two more?
MS. BOONE: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Are we ADA compliant relating to signage?
MS. BOONE: Yes, we are.
MR. POSONT: So we’re done?
MS. BOONE: We are getting some replacement signs because our colors are not right. They’re not all the same, but the ADA doesn’t say that we have to have all of our signs be the same color. The room numbers are -- have arrived, and so we have room numbers now. Everything is labeled. The only thing that we’re missing are the names of some of our new staff, but no room is unlabeled. Every room tells what it is in Braille and raised character signage.
MR. POSONT: Anybody on the Commission Board for questions for Christine?
MS. SCHUCK: I enjoyed my visit over there for the open house so much and everything looked so great. I’m just trying to think if there’s anything more.
MR. POSONT: Is Elsie still here? Christine -- anybody else have any questions for Christine?
MS. BOONE: I'll give this back to Elsie.
MR. POSONT: I’d like to ask Elsie a question
MS. SCHUCK: Thanks, Christine.
MS. LUZENSKI: Can I say something?
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: Julia just came in and the people on the phone, apparently there are side conversations going on and it’s interrupting other people who are on the phone being able to hear what is happening here in the room, so -- and it also will affect the recording because it will pick up all of your conversations and you will not be able to hear what is coming through the microphone, which affects minutes being done, so the side conversations need to stop in order for the other people who want to listen to the meeting to be able to hear it, and for the audio to be a good audio.
MR. POSONT: Does that also mean that -- can they do star-six and mute themselves?
MS. LUZENSKI: Right, but they’re talking to each other.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. LUZENSKI: They're muted so we can't hear them, but they’re having conversations themselves but it’s affecting everybody who is on the phone and it will affect the recording.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MS. LUZENSKI: And if you can hear me, because you may not be able to because you’re having a conversation, you need to -- it needs to stop because it’s affecting everything on the phone. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thanks, Sue. Do we have a motion to accept Christine’s report?
MR. SCOTT: (Inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: Second.
MR. POSONT: All in favor?
MS. SCHUCK: Aye.
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Elsie, I have a real quick question, sorry.
MS. DUELL: Yes.
MR. POSONT: On money lapsed from last year to this year and this year to next year, last year we lapsed about eight million dollars. How much are we going to lapse this year to next?
MS. DUELL: So I’m going to change the word lapse.
MR. POSONT: Is the word forwarding? (Inaudible)
MS. DUELL: To carry forward.
MR. POSONT: I get a little bit of words mixed up here and there.
MS. DUELL: That's all right.
MR. POSONT: Okay. How much?
MS. DUELL: Okay. So last year we carried forward eight point five million, and so my goal this year was to spend 100 percent of our current year grant plus an additional amount, two million for the next three years above and beyond our current year grant so that we begin to eat away at or decrease the carry forward. My hope was that we would carry forward six point five million because we do still have a federal spending authority, a maximum amount that we can spend period, so that is my hope. It may be a little bit more, but we’re not going to lapse.
MR. POSONT: Carry forward.
MS. DUELL: We’re not going to carry forward as much as we --
MR. POSONT: Did last year?
MS. DUELL: -- did before. And I wanted to just add a little extra also. I wanted to thank Pat because I did want to say one thing he did really well was hire me, and then the second thing -- and then the second thing, Christine, you talked about the increase from the budget standpoint. Yay. And then, I was looking for Sue (inaudible) earlier because the third thing I was going to mention that he did was fought to get the library under us because -- I’m sorry, from the budget standpoint it was a really big assistance in helping us provide match and, you know, make money available for clients.
MR. POSONT: So we were taking state match over there to match federal money and it came from the library money?
MS. DUELL: Well, I don’t care how we did it.
MR. POSONT: I understand. I don’t have a problem with it.
MS. DUELL: But anyway, that’s it for me.
MR. POSONT: Thank you for the -- thank you for the answers.
MR. CANNON: It's technically accurate, described as using some of the library money to match our --
MR. POSONT: Right, and that was all state money; right?
MR. CANNON: Yeah, and we did so effectively and legally, but -- but I want to hastily add the opportunity for increases and the available match was not (inaudible) it was just a sort of positive byproduct.
MR. POSONT: Right.
MR. CANNON: You know, the library for the blind was on the (inaudible) transferred and our concern was it would be transferred to a home less friendly than Michigan (inaudible) has been for the library. We think it’s been a great addition to the Commission for the Blind and that’s one of the things in which we are very, very pleased. It’s been a real asset to the agency.
MR. POSONT: The next agenda item is Pat, the director’s report.
MR. CANNON: Thank you very much.
MR. POSONT: You have the floor.
MR. CANNON: As always, I’ll call your attention to the written MCB report, chock full of a lot of good information and I’m not going to read it, but I would just like to highlight a couple of things that are in there for you to call your attention to. One is our annual honor roll awards luncheon will take place four weeks from today on the 19th of October. You will recall that it used to be presented at our annual (inaudible) at a Commission meeting in December and it got to be a very packed Friday to do that and it didn’t give our honorees the honor that we had hoped. Last year was the first time that we held the honor roll luncheon separate and as its own event and it was very, very successful. I remember you were there and it was a good event and it’s coming up again in four weeks on October 19th. We will honor our highest achieving VR clients, independent living clients, as well as exemplary employers (inaudible) luncheon is coming up on October 19th.
There is an item in the report about progress on making prescription drug labels more accessible to people with vision impairments and we -- the federal effort it not all that we might have hoped that it was, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. The United States Architectural and Transportation (inaudible) less formally known as the US Access Board has the responsbilty of helping write the implementation guidelines for the accessible prescription drug labels initiative and they are forming an advisory group to help sort of brainstorm on the various possibilities of how to make prescription labels accessible to people with vision impairments, and that will be a big step in the right direction, but the piece that you’ll agree that was written emphasizes that that group is advisory and their (inaudible).
It’s that season. That always happens this time of year in our state and that’s the annual fall conventions of the two major consumer groups. Last weekend they issued accounts of the blind and (inaudible) here in Lansing for four days, Thursday through Sunday and it was a terrific event. I was pleased to be there. I always have been at the consumer conventions, and typically we have an excellent turnout of Commission staff at both consumer conventions. Last weekend was no exception. We had an excellent turnout of staff and we appreciate it very much and expect similar support coming up in four weeks, October 19th, 20th, and 21st in Dearborn for the annual fall convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, and that’s again in Dearborn.
We always highlight our mini adjustment programs (inaudible) one of the most effective things we do for consumers (inaudible) our mini adjustment program (inaudible). We usually have typically 30 to 35 consumers who come together, arriving at a hotel in various parts of the state on Sunday afternoon and leaving Friday afternoon. Last week we had an event in Flint. That mini adjustment program had 36 of our consumers participating. We also held a (inaudible) investment program was an employment readiness seminar and we had six of our clients participating (inaudible). And coming up at the end of next month, the end of October, we’ll have our final mini adjustment program of the season -- of the year and that’ll be held in Auburn Hills (inaudible).
I urge commissioners if you haven’t already, I know some of you scoured the packet very thoroughly -- some of us thoroughly. I urge you to take a look at all of it. There’s a lot of good information in there. In addition to some of the highlights you’ve heard today from Christine and Elsie, there is also (inaudible) Constance and Bob Robertson, and Sue Sheno (ph). Sue Sheno, by the way, is out of town today. She is enjoying her first encounter with her new grandbaby and that’s why she is not with us today. Finally (inaudible) I want to mention that my 15 years with the Commission has clearly been the most satisfying of my life. It has been a joy, an honor, and a privilege to be the director of the Commission for the last 15 years. It has been a very interesting journey.
I think we’ve accomplished many good things and (inaudible) you can’t begin to realize your dreams until you have them. One of the things that happened early on since I started here 15 years ago was our vision 20/20 initiative and some of you in the room were part of that, Casey Dutmer, and out of that grew our shared vision for the future of the Commission. That said, some day it will be said that if you’re going to be blind you couldn’t be in a better place than Michigan. Some day we will have an excellent array of education and rehabilitation services for the blind.
We will have a population of blind folks who believe in themselves and their capacity to achieve excellence. We will have a general public who understands clearly what blindness is and what it is not and supports the whole integration of blind people in all aspects of our society, and someday we will have employers who really understand that blind people can achieve (inaudible) demonstrates their confidence in blind people by employing blind people. That's our shared vision we adopted many, many years ago. Obviously, we have not reached that threshold yet. I urge us to hang onto those dreams and keep going forward, and don’t let anybody steal our dreams, and I urge you to be optimistic and confident with the new director of the Bureau of Services for Blind folks, Ed Rogers.
I’ve known Ed for a long, long time. (Inaudible) I’ve known him for a long time and he’s been an administrative law judge for many, many years. He has clearly established himself as a fine administrator and I know he would have a lot of fresh ideas to bring to the table and (inaudible) of our past to remind us to keep our eye on the prize, and (inaudible) but also because he has done some wonderful things (inaudible) a chance and hope that we can move forward in peace and opportunity, and progress on behalf of blind people, and I think you will enjoy Ed Rogers as the new director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons. Work with him constructively and give him a chance to share his great ideas and to partner with all of you as we go forward in the best interest of the blind people in our state. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Pat. Do I hear a motion to accept Pat’s report?
MR. SCOTT: Motion approved.
MS. SCHUCK: Second.
MR. POSONT: All in favor say, “Aye.”
MS. SCHUCK: Aye.
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MR. POSONT: All right, motion passed. All right. The last -- a last few things in old business.
MS. LUZENSKI: Old business.
MR. POSONT: John?
MR. SCOTT: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Yeah, we’re on old business. Lydia, one of the issues of old business is --
MS. SCHUCK: This old business lady didn’t (inaudible) with her hold business, but let me tell you what it’s about here. I did not -- I dropped the ball in following through on the sub minimum wage letter, so what it is, this is the letter. This is what it was going to be anyway, except that I made it current for now to be sent out before (inaudible). It says, “Dear” blank. This is will be to the 13 agencies that currently hold certificates allowing them to employ people with disabilities at sub minimum wage and I’m certain they see the writing on the wall. I don’t think they’re being told that we’re concerned about it would be a surprise at all. There are 66 agencies in the state that hold those certificates, but only 13 of them were identified as having MCB clients either this year or last year.
This concern of ours doesn’t mean that anyone will lose a job because anybody who has a job earning less than minimum wage, if they want to keep it they can keep it. I would hope their counselor would tell them they could work elsewhere and get more. Mainly, this is not a statement against non-integrated settings. It’s just saying that if the president of Goodwill nationally makes a half a million dollars a year, then the lowest paid people in his agency should be making more than 22 cents an hour, okay? That’s the perspective because what -- you know, you’ve got to wonder what someone is saying about the value of work when the top of the agency make a half a million a year. What he does for 40 hours is worth a half a million a year and what somebody else does is worth 22 cents an hour, so that’s really a commentary on the way this --
The certificate system was supposed to increase integrated opportunities for people and I know Christine told us last time about the benefits. There are benefits as for friendship and camaraderie and all that of people -- of people working in segregated settings where maybe, you know, 20 people who have down’s syndrome or similar conditions, some of who may be blind are together. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be there. I’m saying they ought to be paid and they ought to be paid minimum wage. If you’re going to call it work, let’s pay it like work and if you’re telling people they’re working and they’re not really and that’s why you’re not paying them like they’re working, then I think you should tell them they’re not working because otherwise it’s just a big game and people won't know they can go bag groceries at Meijer instead of working somewhere else for a dollar an hour.
They could go work at Meijer and there is no incentive for these agencies to encourage their workers to go get better paying jobs, so those are some of the things that have come up about it. So it is our intention as a Board to make this policy statement and this change, so it’s dear blank, blank being the administrator of one of the 13 programs. “It’s come to the attention of the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board that your organization holds certificates for sub minimum wage employment for individuals who are” -- “for individuals who are employed by your organization.” I could say that better.
“We are concerned for the welfare of all persons who have disabilities in Michigan. We want to inform you that the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board has voted to cease opening new cases with any organization that holds certificates for sub minimum wage employment. Please notify the Michigan Commission for the Blind or the Bureau of Services to Blind Persons when your organization is paying all employees at least minimum hourly wage. If you no longer hold the certificates, the Michigan Commission for the Blind or the Bureau of Services to Blind Persons will resume dealing with your organization. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation,” and then I just want to say -- “Sincerely.”
I just want to say that I realize that it forces us as an agency to look further, but I don’t think that supporting -- I mean it’s very easy to work with Peckham (ph) or Goodwill, or you know, people that we have worked with, but it doesn’t make it right and what we -- it’s not that we want to put Peckham or Goodwill out of business or say that -- you know, in the whole they’re doing a lot of great things but they are business. They’re taking advantage of a -- not exactly a loophole, but they’re taking advantage of a provision of the law that is very disadvantageous to people with disabilities, and so we should go elsewhere with our dollars until they realize that our dollars aren’t going to support sub minimum wage employment. That’s really where it is.
I’m not making any statement about the job they do, just about how much they pay.
MR. POSONT: Do we need to vote on this since we voted on it before?
MS. SCHUCK: All we voted was I was going to write the letter.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: To notify them, so now I guess what I would need to do then is say I move that we send this letter stating that the Michigan Commission for the Blind and the new Bureau of Services to Blind Persons needs -- that that Michigan Commission for the Blind Board is saying that the Commission as an agency or the Bureau as an agency will not open new cases with organizations that pay sub minimum wage.
MR. POSONT: Do you think putting the Bureau’s name in there is going to stop this?
MS. SCHUCK: I don’t know, but this is -- this is the most I can do I think right now, that we can do.
MR. POSONT: Let me raise some issues here. Did we hear a second to this motion?
MR. SCOTT: Second.
MR. POSONT: Okay, for discussion. What’s interesting about this whole concept of sub minimum wage is in (inaudible) in this country that these (inaudible) workshops are nonprofit. They’re on competitive bids and sometimes even get more than the bid requires for a regular employer to bid on products from the federal governemtn. They also get donations from the public.
MS. SCHUCK: United Way.
MR. POSONT: United Way or donations soliciting from the general public and they also receive the tax maintenance relating to land and equipment and all that other stuff that a private sector business needs to do. It has been proven -- I believe that almost every workshop strictly for the blind are now paying minimum wage because they got hteir practices built up and everybody is paying it. We’ve been working at this for 20 years. Now it’s for the overall agencies -- all handicapped groups of people under the workshop system and they didn’t go out of business as they said they would go if they had paid minimum wage, I should say -- minimum wage, so it’s really interesting. It’s already happening and do you know, Christine, what the percentage of the blind shops are paying the minimum wage now compared to what it was, and what these other shops were paying nationally was 300,000 people in this situation. It’s pretty high, isn’t it? I’m sorry. You know, so the whole issue of this sub minimum wage for the workshop system and the actions of congress and people who are looking at this thing closer, this thing is going to come. It’s this year or next year, and the sub minimum wage is going to be gone for the handicapped. They have found a loophole in this and they’ve benefitted. I mean, what do they show? I see rates -- an article yesterday. One of the workshops down in Florida was paying their director six hundred thousand with his benefit package last year. That's a lot of money for a workshop. I’d like to have that job myself, so this is nothing new. This is a -- this is what’s happening in this country so I think that we should make a motion. We made the motion -- we seconded and we made the motion. Now we should second that and we should vote on it, and any other discussion, Mr. Cannon? Do you have any comments?
MR. CANNON: I need to remind commissioners of the conversation we had three months ago at the June commission meeting. First a couple of things. As for whether or not we do business with any of the entities that were referred to isn’t going to put any of them out of business (inaudible) a great deal of business. I want to emphasize that none of our clients are placed in any of these facilities at sub minimum wage. While I understand (inaudible) the notion of commissioners directing the organization and what they can and can’t do, and whether or not we’re going to contract with them, I have to say again it really exceeds your authority as commissioners and (inaudible).
MR. POSONT: All right. Any other discussion of the Board? All in favor -- John?
MR. SCOTT: Yes. I am (inaudible) but I’m a bit concerned. I guess it’s not going to (inaudible) so that’s kind of like speaking on behalf of entities that do not (inaudible) and we don’t have any authority over it, so it’s kind of superfluous. Another thing in terms of (inaudible).
MS. SCHUCK: That's right.
MR. POSONT: All in favor of the question say, “Aye.”
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MS. SCHUCK: Aye.
MR. POSONT: Passed, unanimous. Any other old business? Anything under new business? No? Public comment? I snuck in an extra --
MS. SCHUCK: You know, I’ll just say here regarding the last time too it was our consumer involvement committee that brought this to us and as a consumer opinion expressed their concern about the people that we were dealing with and we were proving that our state and federal dollars go to projects that we do -- what I said was if we knew they were abusing children would we be willing to send our blind clients there, even if our blind clients weren’t being abused? No, we wouldn’t and it’s the same kind of thing. It’s people who have more severe disabilities are being abused there by low payment and we should not send our clients there because it’s a vote of confidence for their organization. Certainly, their CEOs know what’s happening all the way down at the bottom, so those are my concerns about that, but I don’t think that I have any new business.
MR. POSONT: We are going to have public comment and I would wish that public comment would start. I think I do have the right to say that I want to make a public comment today that the end. So public comment is now open. Let’s do the phone first please, Sue. The phone is open? This is the last public comment of this Board.
MR. HARCZ: Joe Harcz.
MR. POSONT: We don’t know if --
MR. HARCZ: (Inaudible).
MR. POSONT: Speak up.
MR. HARCZ: I keep getting the echo. I’m sorry.
MR. POSONT: Right. You’re coming through good.
MR. HARCZ: Okay. You guys can hear me?
MR. POSONT: Yes.
MR. HARCZ: I'll tell you, before we end the demise of the Michigan Commission for the Blind, we must say one thing. Mr. Patrick Cannon, former head of the United States Access Board, has violated the ADA over and over and over again in documented fashion. He has sold us out and so did so many in our community. Now, I found it very interesting in the last discussion about sub minimum wage where people with all kinds of disabilities, not just blindness, are just -- we are destroyed. We are given over to Peckham and Goodwill, and every other agency, you know, which is the tail wagging the dog. It is incredible to me. It is outrageous to me. We do not have, as Michael Paul Stated, even access to restrooms -- restrooms, and our Michigan State Government with raised character or Braille signage, it is incredible to me.
For Patrick D. Cannon to state, “Well, you’ve been (inaudible)” well, I’ll tell you, my friends -- I consider you my friends. I want to lead this comment by saying that I think you guys have tried to do the best you could do under very adverse conditions. We have had a blind person sell us out for more than a decade -- more than a decade and he knew of the laws. He knew of the rights to access and he denied us the rights to access. We talk about -- we talk about -- oh my God. It is just incredible to me that we have people like Patrick Cannon and people like Leeman (ph) Jones and people like -- all these other people who are sitting here denying our rights to be free people -- free people, (inaudible) people.
Then we have Pat Cannon and (inaudible), Rogers and the other people who sit there and they want to take federal money dedicated for certain --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. HARCZ: Federal monies that are supposedly dedicated to the rehabilitation of the blind or people with disabilities and they’re (inaudible) that money. No wonder -- no wonder Americans are disenchanted with our government. I think this is an incredible, sick, and sad (inaudible).
MS. LUZENSKI: Time.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Next, please. Anybody else on the phone?
MR. ROBINSON: Dave Robinson.
MR. POSONT: Dave Robinson.
MR. ROBINSON: I would just like to say --
MR. POSONT: Dave, can you hear me? Dave?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes. I can hear you, but you’re muffled.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Speak up because I can hear you pretty clear if you speak up.
MR. ROBINSON: Okay. For myself and as a consumer and an advocate for the blind of this state, I would just like to say that there will come a time when we will get the services we need. The sellouts like Pat Cannon and other staff, including Constance Zanger and others will be gone and blind services will be what they should be. The Business Enterprise Program will be what it should be, and we, the blind, will prevail when everybody else is sitting there twiddling their thumbs because we know what’s right. We know what our rights are and whether or not we have a Commission Board or not, we will make sure that you, the bureaucrats will do what you’re supposed to do under the law or we will get rid of you and make sure that the blind get their services. Leave no doubt that that’s going to happen, so (inaudible) stroke their egos now, but there will come a time when you will be gone and the blind will have their day. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Next, please.
MR. POWELL: Michael POWELL.
MR. POSONT: Michael Powell, you’re on the -- you have the floor, please. Speak up.
MR. POWELL: I would like --
MR. POSONT: I think we can hear (inaudible) your end.
MR. POWELL: I’d like to (inaudible) not just because of your state of mind, but because I realize it wasn’t pleasant for you (inaudible) this wasn’t personal when you tried to get things accomplished and I think (inaudible) for it. I think the Governor should have (inaudible), but he put you under the bus and while I was very pleased to hear Pat Cannon (inaudible) about, John (inaudible) also said all I want is the truth, give me some truth, and I think people have been less than truthful. That’s all I have to say.
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Mike. Next, please, on the phone. Anybody else on the phone? We’ll go the room and make sure we don’t get anybody on the phone by the end of this. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes.
MS. LUZENSKI: This is from Dianne Raby (ph) to the Michigan Commission for the Blind. “As part of the public comment portion of the September meeting I would like to state that I believe that the Michigan Commission of the Blind training center in Kalamazoo is not adequately equipped to ideally accommodate clients with service animals. While at the training center the animals can only be off leash in the bedrooms of the clients. At all other times the animals must be leashed.”
“When a guide dog is leashed or under harness, the dog believes that he or she is working. This puts the animal under incredible ongoing stress always being on duty. The training center does not have a place where the dogs can run and play with their partners. Since many of the animals are paired with their visually impaired partners at 15 to 18 months of age, it is important that they have adequate bonding time off leash together and have time to release the excess energy of a young dog.”
“I belong to a Lion’s Club that has offered to place and maintain a fenced run measuring 16 foot by 20 foot at the Michigan Commission for the Blind training center at no cost to the State of Michigan. I have been told that it would be quote, ‘considered,’ end quote, but there has been no follow up. In addition, while my husband was a client at the MCB (inaudible) he was asked repeatedly not to use his service animal for O&M class. He has demonstrated competency in (inaudible) as the MCB TC was the agency that made the video of his skills that allowed him to receive a leader dog. Although my husband was able to work through this issue, the request to not allow him to use a service animal can be interpreted under law as interference with the use of a service animal.”
“General comments were made by the director of the center that not many clients have service animals so it may not be justified. However, clients do come to the center with service animals and staff may want to use a run for their service animals if it were available. I urge the Commission to allow the run to be placed for use by the clients and staff of service animals, Dianne” (inaudible).
MR. POSONT: Thank you.
MS. LUZENSKI: Can I make a public comment, please?
MR. POSONT: Sure.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay. You guys -- other staff makes reports and I’m okay not making a report, but I just want to say that I’ve been with the agency for five years and didn’t know anything about blindness or rehab really when I came, and it’s been an incredible experience and the whole experience was truly enhanced because of Pat. Pat has led this agency with strength and compassion. He’s had an open-door policy for staff always, always a listening ear. His sense of humor has lightened up even the most difficult situations and we’ve experienced together so many great things and you have led the staff with grace every day that I’ve been here. You will be truly missed, Pat. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Sue. Next public comment in the room? Anybody else in the room? I’m going to turn it over. Joe? Thank you. Go, Joe, please. Go, Joe.
MR. SONTAG: Hello, Joe Sontag again. I just wanted to say before I have a chance to forget, I wanted to express my deep appreciation and thanks to the Commission Board. I believe, as others have stated, that this Commission Board has been the most effective Commission Board we’ve had in quite some time, even going back to a time before Mr. Cannon was the director and I believe strongly that this Board has begun a very -- what is proving to be a very difficult process and it’s probably going to become more difficult before it starts to bear fruit, but there was some definite need to change the direction of this agency to work on staff training so that it better understands the capabilities of blind people and provides a higher quality of service than it currently does.
I know very well that many of them are great people and work very hard, and give it everything they’ve got. There’s always room for improvement. I’ll say no more about the Business Enterprise Program, I promise, but if there was ever a clear example of a situation brought on by a total breakdown in management it’s there and that is -- those issues. It’s a matter of accountability, of true transparency as opposed to just talking about it. I saw improvements take place in the last year and a half. I’ve seen attention finally focused on some of the issues that come up repeatedly that have been documented massively regarding access to information, accessible signage, general compliance with the Act of 73, Americans with Disabilities Act, and so forth.
Many problems involving the agency generally and BEP specifically in my case would never have existed in previous regimes because if anything this agency did almost too decent a job of providing information in an accessible format. I have a M&M Mars candy case full of Braille documents from the time I began as the Business Enterprise Program operator. If you’ve ever handled one of those things, you know how big that box is and it’s stuffed. Actually, I’ve got another box that’s almost as large to handle the overflow. I had started in the program in the last five years or so. I barely have anything aside from the workshop packets and that’s a shame and I would hope that the new director will be not only aware of the laws, but that it will be a priority for him agency-wide to get this agency back in the business of communicating with the people it serves, whether it -- whether it’s --
MS. LUZENSKI: Thirty seconds.
MR. SONTAG: Whether it’s Braille documents, computer-generated diskettes. We have some who still use those, believe it or not, or compact disks, whatever it might be. It’s not just a matter of being decent of an agency. It’s the law and here’s hoping. Again, thank you very much, Commission Board, and I’m not going away and I’m sure you aren’t either.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Perfect timing. Anybody else? Karen, did I hear your name?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MS. EVANS: Hi. This has been the first time I’ve been to this meeting. In 1959 I graduated from the School for the Blind and I was very fortunate to have had those years of confidence building with other blind peers and with staff members. I’ve experienced at a distance the loss of the School for the Blind. I graduated with a master’s degree in social work. I had fantasies before I graduated of going in and working with the blind and instead I got caught up in wanting to do family work and until two summers ago when I lost my second marriage and I needed to ask for help and got great help from Pat and from the Commission for the Blind, and from the Kalamazoo center, and a new chance to come back and do (inaudible). I appreciate the services that I received.
I have a guide dog at the campus in Kalamazoo and in no way was my dog prevented from having the exercise that she needed. I did not take her for (inaudible) travel because I have good adequate training with my guide dog at the guide dog school. I recommend consideration of a fenced in area for guide dogs to play. It’s a good way for them to relax. I have some sadness that I haven't done anything formally in working with blind people and I just like to say thanks -- thank you for the opportunity to say something today.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Somebody else asking for a mic there? Casey?
MR. DUTMER: Yeah. Well, I’d just like to say to Pat, thank you for your time as director and your time of service. We’ve had a lot of interesting experiences, particularly when I was chairman of the Operators Committee and chairman of the Consumer Involvement Council. Did we always agree? No. I don’t know that consumers and government ever always agree, but you know, we -- one of the things that people talk about, the 20/20 process and people ridicule the process of dialog and say it doesn’t work, and I have to disagree.
That’s how I conducted the EOC and the CIC, and I believe it was reasonably successfully; not perfect, but I believe it was reasonably successful. I would hope that as a blind community as we close an era of a Commission Board process that all of us fought hard for, the process that all of us believe never really got to where it should have been regarding consumer participation and the capacity of the Commission Board to do what we hoped it would do when it was first constructed, hopefully we can take that same energy and work among ourselves together in a constructive way, at least in the beginning anyway at least to give it a shot. I now there is a lot of frustration. I know there is some discrimination that goes on regarding certain situations but I believe we have to try constructive steps before we can do anything else.
We have to give this director -- or should at least try to give this director a chance to prove his worth, to prove his capacity, to see what his will is, to see what his goals are, to see what kind of ideas he really has, and they probably will be new and they could even been strange and even sound controversial in the beginning, but we need to -- I believe need to hear what he has to say. Having said that, I also believe that if the intentions are not in our best interests, we need to as consumers to stand up for what we believe is right and what we believe our needs are, and so having worked with the Commission Board over time and subcommittees or the Operators Committee, as chairman of the Operators Committee and as chairman of the CIC and other capacities as a consumer, I appreciate the process.
Now we have to learn a new process. Hopefully we’ll have the same opportunity in the different way to be just as effective, even more effective as we are now with our voice, so thank you again Pat and commissioners, and all who have served in this capacity as a commissioner over the last 35 years because it’s not been an easy thing to do. We’ve never been able to get PA 260 to the level where we wanted it. We’ve never been able to maintain or obtain the authority that we needed in the Business Enterprise Program to make that work under PA 260. We had commission boards who were reluctant to enforce the law, and we need to make sure -- we need to keep Mike Zimmer and LARA at their word that the re-shuffling part is their authority, but that PA 260 is still intact. We need to hold the State of Michigan to that, that okay, “You’re going to reshuffle everything and you’re going to shift responsibilities,” as they put it, but we need to make sure that PA 260 is implemented, and thank you again.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Next please on the floor. Anybody else on the floor? Anybody on the phone?
MS. LUZENSKI: Yes.
MR. POSONT: What's -- is somebody on the phone?
MS. LUZENSKI: No.
MR. ZIMMER: This will be very quick. This is Mike Zimmer, chief deputy director at LARA. I usually don’t do this sort of thing, but I wanted to take an opportunity to publically thank and acknowledge Pat Cannon for his service. I’ve worked with Pat for a number of capacities. I’ve been around a long time. He and I have run into each other in a lot of different venues. He was always an able and adept advocate. Thank you, Pat. I also want to take a moment to thank and acknowledge the dedication of the three commissioners (inaudible). While we may not always agreed on tactics or approach, I have to acknowledge that I appreciate your dedication to the needs of the blind and visually impaired in this community. Thank you for your service in that regard. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? Any other commissioner want to speak?
MR. SCOTT: I will briefly say this. This has been an interesting over two years. I got involved in this trying to be helpful because I’ve been very much blessed, but in looking over the years it’s kind of like I recognize a lot of work needs to be done, but I thought about my history of blindness in 1966 and I remember a counselor that I had that went around to every school I wanted to go to and he made sure I could go there, because he wanted me to go to Wayne State University, so that’s back in 1967. I’m surprised there seem to be (inaudible) other folks that are now being more professional, at least from what I hear, but I know things can be improved and I think things have been improving, but it was a job that (inaudible) and things happen.
I still don’t really understand why they changed the name, but we’ve got to accept things as they are rather than the way you think they should be and (inaudible). I’m a person that believes in making lemonade out of lemons and lemonade when properly prepared can be quite good, so we have this Bureau of Services for Blind Persons and I think we can perhaps work with it, work with Mr. Zimmer and whoever else we have to work with. I think his name is Ed Rogers. I heard the name, but I never met the person, and hopefully we’ll make all the -- do all the things that we’re attempting to do and make this agency once again the best agency in the country. Thank you.
MR. POSONT: Thanks, John. Lydia?
MS. SCHUCK: I'll say something. Pat, your humor has indeed lightened the mood many times, so I appreciate that about you and I guess I’d ask Mike for you to convey to the Gonvernor that I’m very thankful to have had this opportunity. I’ve learned a lot in a year and a half and I’ve had some education from people who are not sitting at these tables, so you know, to those people that made it so that I could be effective here, I’m grateful for that too. I don’t know. I’m trying to think. Let's see, 11, 20 -- it must have been about nine years ago that I joined the Consumer Involvement Council and one of the -- one of the first things I heard was that consumers weren’t supposed to bring their issues; we were just supposed to react to what the Commission brought us.
I think we worked around that issue there, and I’ve been excited to see the way the Consumer Involvement Council has evolved, and then I was really glad to be able to step up and do this for a year and a half, so thank you and thank you for Pat, you’ve handled some things graciously that I’m sure were offensive to you, and so that’s one of the things I most appreciate is how cordial everyone is at this table and you guys, you’ve never seen anybody like Sue just coming through and getting everything done. Whether she liked or didn’t like what we did, we never know; she just does what she’s supposed to do and we should all be like that, I think.
MS. LUZENSKI: (Inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: Okay, I’m done.
MR. POSONT: Okay. You’re done?
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. POSONT: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. CANNON: I have the last word and I look forward to that. I just wanted to acknowledge again that I want commissioners, current and members of the new Advisory Commission to know with certainty that the staff at the Michigan Commission for the Blind has been and will continue to be outstanding staff of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons. This is something I’m done (inaudible) to save time. One of the things I appreciate most of our staff is the depth of their commitment to provide quality services to blind persons and their belief in the capacity of blind persons to achieve excellence and their dedication to making that happen. (Inaudible) extremely lucky person to be coming into a situation with the perfect staff like you will have with the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons.
MR. POSONT: Thank you, Pat. I guess I’m going to be the last one. I have priority, I guess, in the vice chair. In 1977, I believe I’m the only one left in this room that was at the signing or at the hearings. There are a few of us still around, Wurtzel, Wilcox, Mike (inaudible), are about the only ones left that I can recall from the 1977 -- ’76, ’77, and ’78 battles, and I was a vendor in the Business Enterprise Program for 30 years and I’m one of the very few it seems like that when they retire, they still stay around.
I have stayed around because I believe in consumers and I believe in my blindness. I was a graduate of the Michigan School for the Blind and I think that source that we lost in the state was a source that for a lot of us that were very confident blind people that came out of it with a lot skills. They had the beliefs in us as blind people. In 1982 it showed -- there was a study of every school for the blind in this county and there was more of them back then than there is today. The Michigan School for the Blind had the highest alumni income of any school in the country and that showed what we did there. Many of my friends and many of my colleagues that were graduates of there worked and were very successful, and I don’t know what was the exact thing that did it but they did it in many of us.
Many of us went into the vending program. A lot of the people got educations. A lot of people worked at Oldsmobile. At one time there were 25 line people working at Oldsmobile. Twenty-five jobs. Some of the placement people of the commission or the old services for the blind, (inaudible) and some of those people were top notch people. Neal used to tell you stories and you could listen to him all day long about placing people at Oldsmobile in Flint and Lansing, all around the place, but some of us are still around and we’re still trying to provide decent services for blind citizens, and everybody knows that I am a blind person, of course.
Currently, I’m the president of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, which I believe is the largest and oldest organization of the blind in this country, and the action of us as blind people have been very interesting over the period of years. Sometimes we’ve gotten along, sometimes we haven’t, but when this Board changed to basically a consumer-based organization, people didn’t like it. People don’t like change. We don’t like change any more than when we did it, but we will -- we the blind of this state and I believe blind people will still stand up and this Executive Order is just one more phase of it.
We will make the next step. I don’t know what we’ll be, but we will take action when it needs to be taken. We’ll be upfront, straight, and parts of this Executive Order may work and some may not, but we’re going to give Ed Rogers a chance. He’s got a two-year appointment set in the civil service thing. That means his honeymoon is not going to be very long. His honeymoon can’t be very long when you have a two-year appointment, so I hope that he opens his eyes and thinks about what he’s going to do. I think that the thing got out this morning about things that I believe should be dealt with, not in a negative way but it just has to be dealt with as this agency.
I worked on some of those things and I will say them shortly, but I worked on some of those things through this last 18 months that I’ve been on this Board and some of them we could not get through, but I believe that if we do not -- if we do not do some of these things, this agency will not move ahead because we need to move ahead in major areas, this agency, and I think one of the areas could be done tomorrow if we choose. We the blind and administration currently in the Governor’s seat -- this is the fifth Governor I’ve dealt with and he’ll go and we’ll have another one behind him, and blind people will still be here, so I believe there’s four things that really must be done.
The first thing is we need to have extensive training for the staff of the Commission and I can tell you this week I had an incident that was not good. I will not do it right now. I’ll do it at an appropriate time, but we must solve the training of the Commission. We put Commission staff people under oath and they talked about only two weeks of training about blindness and that doesn’t buy it. I can’t change their attitudes and make the proper attitudes for the blind of this state. The issue of the ADA Compliance and accessibility can be done tomorrow if we have the will. If the people and the power of this state government have the will to do it, it could be done tomorrow and it would be a win-win for you and for us.
The third thing, jobs and the BEP are two areas. I was in the BEP. I heard this morning what I’ve heard from vendors recently about trying to get repairs done, getting new equipment, it’s nothing new, but we must solve it. I met with key people of this administration a year ago and what they said over and over and over again, especially when the BEP issue came up, there are locations that are dirty; there are no inventories; people aren’t friendly. That relates to the rest of us. That is the most visible program that we run in this business today. We have more people walking into our vending locations than anything else. They should be the opening gate of our agency and we must solve that problem. If we don’t, we will lose that. I believe we’re on the edge of losing it and can we win it back? Yes, we can.
When we have discrimination within the agency, which is right now currently going on, we can’t -- we have to solve it. The fourth thing is jobs, placement of people in jobs. We talked today about jobs a little bit but this is what the Rehabilitation Agency is meant to do, give you the skills and education, the knowledge to be productive taxpayers, not tax-takes. So I challenge each and every one of us in this room, everyone on the phone and everybody that’s sitting out there looking to see what’s going to be next, because I am willing to give a chance to Ed Rogers. It will be a short one because we don’t have a lot of time to make a difference.
We must make it now or it’s going to hurt all blind people in this state. I want to repeat -- leave you at one thing. Since I’ve been on this Board I’ve gotten many people in this state calling me. I want to talk to you about a black woman in Detroit who called me for services from this agency. She wrote to me an e-mail and she said to me, “What do blind people do except education” -- education and what was the other one? (Inaudible) and she talked to me and she said, “I graduated from the Detroit Public School System totally blind,” and she says, “I want a job.” I asked her how old she was and I asked her what services she received, and this woman had basic services from this agency and I said, “Go back and go to the agency and tell them that you need more services, but don’t tell them I told you so.”
The lady before her, two weeks before her did it and when I called her back to see what happened, she hung up on me. She said, “You can’t help me because they told me not to listen to you.” I told the second one to go back and get help without using my name. It’s sad that she was taught to come to a regional -- not our training center in Kalamazoo, but regional training in her community and she was taught to do a few things, to get in SSI and to stay in subsidized housing and learn enough to learn and do your computer every day. She wanted a job and I believe that that’s the people that I’m working for every day. I hear of them and I will hearing them on this Board or off this Board, and my commitment is as strong today as it was when I came on this, because I believe in blind people.
I believe in what we’ve done and I believe in what we can get done if we sit down and decide to do it. There is plenty of money in this agency and we lapse forward, I should say, eight and a half million last year and six and a half million this year. There is something to say about that. There’s enough money, and then our counselors and our people are saying there is no money and there is this client sitting down there. Do you know the only reason why she’s not getting service? Because she’s blind and she’s black, and she lives in the city of Detroit. Guess what? I’m going to be an advocate for her until the last breath I take in this world because she’s the one that I’m working for.
Others can stand and stand up for their rights and stand up -- what about those people that can’t? Those are the ones that I worry about and where are they? We know where they are. We see them every day, so I’m thankful for the Governor. I think he is misled, but that’s just the way it is. We go on tomorrow and there will be another Governor after this one and there will be another bureaucrat or something else, but we the blind will still be here and we’ll still be fighting for jobs and justice, and equality for every one of us, and one of these days we’ll meet it. I know that because I believe in this.
(proceedings concluded at 3:01 p.m.)
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list