[nfbmi-talk] bsbp speak with forked toungue

[joe harcz Comcast]

And the new SRC is supposed to be our, the blin'd SRC too. 
Of course this goes to the arbitrary, extra-legal, and, indeed illegal elimination of the independent commission for the blind with its proper policy making role and its quasi-judicial function under PA 260....

>From the RSA Technical Assistence letter. Oh one other thought here and another lie there has not been one mention except in here that the new Commission for Blind Personsons will conduct "consumer satisfaction surveys". Wonder if those commissioners know about this or their role?

What a fraud and farse this is and RSA brought it upon itself by not enforcing the Rehab Act itself.

Joe

 

2. State Rehabilitation Council -- structure, status and placement of SRC staff, and

resource plan—and BSBP’s Advisory Commission

MRS and BSBP

As part of the state reorganization, the governor created a single SRC within DHS to serve both

MRS and BSBP, and an advisory commission within LARA to address the needs of the blind

community within the state. During the onsite, RSA met jointly with representatives from MRS,

DHS, BSBP, LARA, and the Attorney General’s office to discuss issues related to the creation of

a single SRC and a BSBP advisory commission. In addition to the on-site meeting, RSA met,

via teleconference, with the chairpersons of the SRC and the advisory commission to solicit their

input on these areas. Discussions addressed the following areas: how each agency interacts with

the SRC as it performs its mandated functions for both MRS and BSBP; the status and placement

of the SRC staff; the contribution of MRS and BSBP to the SRC’s resource plan; and the role of

BSBP’s advisory commission and its relationship with the SRC.

Performance of SRC functions for MRS and BSBP

RSA learned that the SRC holds quarterly one-day meetings to carry out its responsibilities

related to both MRS and BSBP. The functions of the Michigan SRC are outlined in section VI

of Executive Order 2012-10 and are consistent with the federally mandated functions at 34 CFR

361.17(h): to review, analyze and advise the DSU on its performance in specific areas; develop,

agree to, and review the State goals and priorities; advise the DSA and DSU and assist in the

preparation of the State Plan and amendments to the plan, applications, reports, needs

assessments, and evaluations; conduct a review and analysis of the effectiveness of, and

consumer satisfaction with functions performed by the DSA, the VR services provided by State

agencies, and the employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities; prepare and

submit to the Governor and to the Secretary an annual report; and other functions, determined to

be appropriate, that are consistent with the mandated functions. In addition, and consistent with

34 CFR 361.18, 34 CFR 361.29(a)(i), 34 CFR 361.36(f), and 34 CFR 361.57(f)(1)(ii),

respectively, the SRC must: review and comment on the development of plans, policies, and

procedures related to the comprehensive system of personnel development; jointly with the DSU,

conduct the statewide needs assessment; be consulted by the DSU on matters related to the OOS;

and, jointly with the DSU, identify the selection of impartial hearing officers, as appropriate.

During the discussion, MRS indicated that the SRC performs additional activities on its behalf,

for example, conducting “mystery shopper” consumer satisfaction activities. BSBP indicated

that while such activities may be beneficial, they go beyond the scope of duties required to be

performed by a SRC, and, therefore, BSBP is not interested in contributing toward the conduct of

such extra activities, especially in light of having an advisory commission that performs extra

activities outlined in section II.F of the executive order on its behalf and specifically related to its

target population of individuals who are blind or visually impaired, including: study and review

the needs of the blind community in the state; advise LARA concerning coordination and

administration of state programs serving the blind community; recommend changes in state

programs, statutes, and policies that affect the blind community to LARA; secure appropriate

recognition of the accomplishment and contributions of blind residents in the state; monitor,

evaluate, investigate, and advocate programs for the betterment of blind residents of the state;

 

Page 12

Page 11 of 17

advise the governor and the director of LARA of the nature, magnitude, and priorities of the

challenges of blind persons in the state; and advise the governor and the director of LARA on the

state’s policies concerning blind individuals.

BSBP indicated that its advisory commission intends to conduct a consumer satisfaction survey

and to share the results of the survey with the SRC in fulfillment of the SRC’s responsibility

under 34 CFR 361.17(h)(4) to conduct an analysis of consumer satisfaction, to which the SRC is

agreeable. BSBP indicated that its use of the advisory commission was intended as a means of

avoiding duplication with other councils within the state in accordance with 34 CFR

361.17(h)(6).

Status and Placement of SRC staff

Currently the SRC has its own staff which is not part of state government but rather is considered

to be employees of record of a statewide trade association, the Michigan Association of

Rehabilitation Organizations (MARO). SRC staff includes an executive director, assistant

director, program manager, and operations assistant, with the program manager position

currently not filled. The SRC assumes the responsibility for hiring, supervising, evaluating, and

terminating the executive director, who in turn is responsible for hiring and managing the other

paid staff.

The current staffing arrangement with MARO was in place prior to the reorganization when

MRS had its own SRC and continued after the reorganization when the single SRC was created

for both DSUs. However, at the present time, MRS and BSBP indicated that the Attorney

General’s office is researching whether the SRC staff should be civil service employees. When

RSA inquired about the circumstances that brought the issue up for consideration, MRS

responded that it had previously used a state exemption waiving the SRC staff from civil service

requirements. However, recently the Attorney General’s office began a review of the state’s

process, looking at options, indicating that it is possible the application of the waiver was not

applicable to the SRC staff. To satisfy the provisions for the waiver, the state must justify that

the work performed by SRC staff could not be performed by civil service staff and that salaries

and benefits for staff would be more cost effective with the private employer than civil service

employment.

Contribution of MRS and BSBP to the SRC Resource Plan

Based on the SRC budget for FY 2013, submitted to RSA prior to the onsite, the total budget

amount is $387,641 and covers salaries and benefits for three staff, the executive director,

assistant director, and operations assistant; and operational expenses, including liability

insurance, conference fees and training, audit/financial review, meetings, IT support,

miscellaneous, postage, equipment rental, office rent and operations, telecommunications,

utilities, travel, public education, one-time expenses (purchase of Braille machine), and an

administrative fee to MARO as the fiduciary for the SRC.

Initially, MRS, BSBP, and SRC/MARO intended to have a single contract to which MRS and

BSBP would both contribute. However, MRS and BSBP could not agree to the terms of the

contract, specifically that each would contribute equally to the total; thus, MRS established its

 

Page 13

Page 12 of 17

own contract in the amount of $245,516 to be paid from Title I VR funds under the Innovation

and Establishment (I&E) authority in Section 101(a)(18)(A)(ii)(I) of the Rehabilitation Act.

BSBP questioned certain aspects of the SRC budget, specifically the need to have four staff and

private office space when public office space was readily available, staff travel expenses, and

funding for other activities beyond the scope of required functions. BSBP expressed concerns

that it had met only once with the SRC and that it felt it had not fully benefited from the SRC.

BSBP indicated that it had worked more closely with its advisory commission. At the time of

the onsite, BSBP had not contributed any funds toward the SRC’s resource plan. However,

BSBP indicated that it had recently negotiated the amount of $125,000 with MARO as its

contribution for FY 2013 and anticipated signing a contract with MARO soon after the onsite.

As far as negotiating its contribution for FY 2014, BSBP indicated the ruling from the Attorney

General on the status and placement of SRC staff would be factored into its contribution.

BSBP’s Advisory Commission

Executive Order 2012-10 created a seven-member advisory commission within LARA appointed

by the governor to perform specific activities as described above on behalf of the blind

community in the state. BSBP indicated that it works closely with the advisory commission on

matters related to its target population and that all members are blind. The advisory commission

is divided into three subcommittees focused on specific areas related to the agency, including the

Business Enterprise Program, the training center, and consumer services. One of BSBP’s

administrative assistants serves as the staff liaison to the advisory commission and is responsible

for coordinating its meetings. BSBP indicated that it does not have a budget for the advisory

commission but rather it has operated to date at very little cost to the agency, primarily including

costs associated with travel reimbursements. BSBP indicated that the advisory commission is

not represented in a voting capacity on the SRC and while the SRC has attended advisory

commission meetings, advisory commission members have not attended SRC meetings. BSBP,

as stated above, views its use of the advisory commission as a means of avoiding duplication of

other councils in the state consistent with 34 CFR 361.17(h)(6). However, BSBP clarified that

there was no intent on its part that the advisory commission replace the SRC or usurp the duties

of the SRC or that the SRC would delegate its duties to the advisory commission.

TA Provided

Section 101(a)(18)(A)(ii)(I) of the Rehabilitation Act requires that the State Plan assure that the

DSU will reserve funds to support the SRC consistent with the plan prepared under section

105(d)(1), which states that the SRC and the DSU must prepare a plan for the provision of

resources, including staff, to carry out the SRC functions. RSA indicated that it has not

conducted an analysis of resource plans nationally to determine the amounts used by those VR

agencies with a SRC and further clarified that federal requirements do not prescribe the amount

of funds to be used to support the resource plan, nor has RSA issued guidance specific to this

issue. RSA is aware that the amount of funds used for resource plans varies widely across VR

agencies, based on the availability of resources in existence during the period of implementation

of the plan.

Regarding the status and placement of SRC staff, the SRC must, consistent with State law,

supervise and evaluate staff and personnel that are necessary to carry out its functions (34 CFR

 

Page 14

Page 13 of 17

361.17(i)(4)). Those staff and personnel that are assisting the SRC in carrying out its functions

may not be assigned duties by the DSUs or any other agency or office of the State that would

create a conflict of interest (34 CFR 361.17(i)(5)). RSA clarified that the federal requirements

provide flexibility for SRC staff consistent with State law so long as the SRC’s responsibilities

related to its staff are not compromised. Therefore, if the state’s Attorney General rules that

SRC staff must be civil service instead of private employees, RSA expects that the state will

appropriately make this transition in such a way that SRC members are involved in the process,

including involvement in key decisions such as the location of the SRC staff within state

government, and that the work of the SRC is not disrupted during the process. Furthermore, if

SRC staff becomes civil service employees, the SRC, to the extent possible within state law, will

supervise and evaluate its staff, and its staff will not be assigned other duties that would create a

conflict of interest.

Regarding the contribution amount of each agency to the resource plan when there is a single

SRC for both agencies (34 CFR 361.16(b)), again, federal requirements do not prescribe the

split, nor has RSA issued guidance in this area. RSA indicated that one other state with a single

SRC for both agencies splits its contribution between the two agencies proportional to the split of

the VR grant funds in the state. This is an example of one way the contribution may be

determined. RSA encourages MRS, BSBP and the SRC to determine the most equitable

contribution of each agency based on available resources and the scope of activities performed

by the SRC on behalf of each agency.

RSA indicated that there is flexibility with regard to how the SRC fulfills its mandated duties on

behalf of each agency, especially as it relates to performing “other comparable functions” (34

CFR 361.17(h)(8)). Due to its longstanding experience of operating with a SRC prior to the

reorganization, MRS and its SRC identified other duties that the SRC performed on its behalf

and now continues to perform subsequent to the reorganization, e.g., the “mystery shopper”

consumer satisfaction survey. BSBP, on the other hand, does not have previous experience

working with a SRC and has the expectation that the SRC would perform only the required

duties augmented by other duties performed by its advisory commission. Therefore, to the extent

the activities that MRS and BSBP might engage in with the SRC may differ, these factors should

be taken into account as each agency, together with the SRC, determines the amount of funding

it will use to support the SRC’s resource plan.

RSA explained that while the advisory commission has a defined role with BSBP with respect to

the responsibilities outlined in the executive order, there is no federal requirement for an

advisory commission of this nature. Furthermore, the responsibilities of the advisory

commission as outlined in the executive order are distinct and separate from those federally

mandated duties of the SRC at 34 CFR 361.17(h). While the responsibilities of the advisory

commission are targeted to addressing specific issues of the blind community within the state,

there is no reference to coordination of its activities with the SRC, nor any duplication of duties.

Rather, each entity has defined roles and responsibilities and, therefore, it is the expectation that

each entity will perform its respective duties consistent with applicable federal or state

requirements. In that regard, BSBP’s advisory commission cannot replace the SRC nor can the

SRC delegate its duties to the advisory commission. To the extent possible, the advisory

commission and the SRC should coordinate activities to avoid unnecessary duplication.

 

Page 15

Page 14 of 17

RSA acknowledges the meaningful relationship BSBP has established with its advisory

commission and the work in which the advisory commission is engaged. RSA encourages BSBP

to develop a similar meaningful relationship with its SRC, suggesting that it would be beneficial

to develop more formal communication strategies between the advisory commission and the

SRC to better harness the input of the advisory commission while ensuring the SRC performs its

mandated functions. One such strategy would be to nominate one of the advisory commission

members for appointment by the governor to the SRC. Another strategy would be for advisory

commission members to serve as ad hoc members of SRC subcommittees, specifically a

subcommittee that addresses issues related to blindness and visual impairment. Such strategies

could be formalized within the respective by-laws of the SRC and the advisory commission. In

addition, it may be helpful for BSBP to provide a comprehensive overview of its agency and

operations to better orient the SRC to the agency’s policies and procedures related to its target

population. Similarly, BSBP and its advisory commission can avail themselves to the SRC

online training series at eRehab (

SRC/index

http://www.erehab.org/SRC/index.php

SRC/index)

to better orient

themselves to the responsibilities of the SRC and how it can carry out these responsibilities.

Finally, it may be beneficial for the SRC and the BSBP advisory commission to orient each other

to their respective responsibilities. Finally, BSBP should strive to achieve the appropriate

balance of utilizing both its advisory commission and its SRC.

3. Grant reorganization issues

MCB Reorganization

The executive order authorizing the state reorganization abolished MCB as an independent

commission and created BSBP as a DSU in its place. However, the impact of the reorganization

on the agency’s federal grant awards was minimal. Since MCB had previously been placed

under LARA within Michigan state government, BSBP’s new status as a DSU under LARA as

the DSA has not impacted its P/R grant award numbers, Grantee or Payee DUNS numbers,

drawdown process, or manner in which programmatic or financial reporting is conducted.

Additionally, the state appropriation used as match for the VR and IL programs has not been

transferred or modified substantively, and BSBP’s VR program continues to be fully matched.

In the past, MCB has not relinquished or requested additional VR funding through the

reallotment process. However, discussions with BSBP management indicated consideration for