[nfbmi-talk] Fw: just a foia belated response goes to rummied state plan last year invalid on its face

joe harcz Comcast joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Sep 13 21:42:42 UTC 2013


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: valarie Barnum Yarger MISILC 
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 5:42 PM
Subject: just a foia belated response goes to rummied state plan last year invalid on its face


Whoe negoiated the parcing up of the MCB and all of the shenigans it was Zimmer who had no authority to do so under the law at the time and was/is and will continue to be conflicted....What in the world was RSA thinking here? Don't they follow there own TAC's, or the Rehab Act on these matters? Something is desparately wrong, totally transparent here, in the application of the rule of law.

Man one has to fight and fight and fight over and over again for this stuff. Now we see the escalating abuses against PWD continue under the BSBP, the new and improved (lol) SRC and everything else while the non-disabled non-VR entity a(DSA)( is the tail that wags the dog....

Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

Friday, June 22, 2012 11:37 AM

'Frye, Daniel'

daniel.frye at xxxxxxxxxxx; Feder, Emily

RE: Follow-Up



 

 

Dan:

 

 

You inferred correctly. While the structure will change as we transition from the independent commission model currently in place to the new bureau, the wide-ranging jurisdiction currently vested in the MCB (including rehab, literacy, and BEP} will remained housed in one agency. The programs remain status quo -  the structure changes.

 

I am sure we will be talking further as we work toward the October 1 transition. In the meantime, if you need clarification on anything, give me a call.

 

Mike

 

 

 

 



From: Frye,Daniel [mailto:Daniel.Frye at ed.gov]

Sent: Friday,June 22, 2012 10:30 AM

To: Zimmer,Mike (LARA)

Cc: daniel.frye at xxxxxxxxxxx;Feder, Emily

Subject:  RE: Follow-Up

 

Mike:

 

 

Thank you for your message. Yes, please fill me in as to the state's plans for the BEP program going forward.  We infer from  the text of the Executive Order that things will remain status quo with the program, where there was no reference to it being anywhere else than in the new bureau, but  because of the extensive conversation about the program's structure and placement, RSA remains keen to know what Michigan plans to do.

 

While I am out of the office today too, please respond to my work and home email addresses by using the reply to all command to answer to this message.

 

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for all of your work thus far; it would appear that we are nearing the end of this transition.

 

With Kind Regards,

 

 

 

Daniel B.    Frye, J.D.

Management and Program Specialist Randolph-Sheppard and Helen Keller National Center Programs

u.s. Department of  Education

Office of Special Education

and Rehabilitative  Services Rehabilitation Services Administration 550 12th Street, SW,   Room 5023

Washington, DC    20202-2800



(202)  245-7308 office (202)  245-7591 fax (410)  241-7006 mobile daniel.frye at ed.gov

 

 

 

 

From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) [mailto:zimmerm at michigan.gov]

Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:44 AM

To: Frye, Daniel

Subject:  Follow-Up

 

Morning Dan:

 

 

Craig sent me a response to our latest EO but had a question at the end regarding BEP. I tried to follow-up, but his email response basically said he was out on reviews for the next two weeks. Is this something you want me to fill you in on?

 

Mike



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:



Frye, Daniel <Daniei.Frye at ed.gov> Friday, June 22, 2012 10:32 AM 

Zimmer, Mike (LARA) daniel.frye at xxxxxxxxxxx; Feder, Emily RE: Follow-Up



 

 

Daniel's home email address is danielfrye at xxxxxxxxxxx. Thank you--

From: Frye, Daniel

Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:30 AM

To: 'Zimmer, Mike (LARA)'

Cc: 'daniel.frye at xxxxxxxxxxx'; Feder,  Emily

Subject: RE: Follow-Up

 

Mike:

 

 

Thank you for your message. Yes, please fill me in as to the state's plans for the BEP program going forward.  We infer from the text of the Executive Order that things will remain status quo with the program, where there was no reference to it being anywhere else than in the new bureau, but because of the extensive conversation about the program's structure and placement, RSA remains keen to know what Michigan plans to do.

 

While I am out of the office today too, please respond to my work and home email addresses by using the reply to all command to answer to this message.

 

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for all of your work thus far; it would appear that we are nearing the end of this transition.

 

With Kind Regards,

 

 

 

Daniel B.   Frye  J.D.

Management and Program Specialist Randolph-Sheppard and  Helen Keller NationalCenter  Programs

U.S.  Department of  Education·

Office of SpecialEducation  and  Rehabilitative Services Rehabilitation  Services Administration

550  12th Street  SW, Room 5023

Washington,  DC       20202-2800 (202)  245-7308 office

(202)  245-7591 fax

(410)  241-7006 mobile daniel.frye at ed.gov

 

 

 

 

From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) [mailto:zimmerm at michigan.govl

Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:44 AM



To: Frye,Daniel

Subject: Follow-Up

 

Morning Dan:

 

 

Craig sent me a response to our latest EO but had a question at the end regarding BEP. I tried to follow-up, but his email response basically said he was out on reviews for the next two weeks. Is this something you want me to fill you in on?

 

Mike



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To:

Subject:



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

Friday, June 22, 2012 7:37 PJil

'McManus, Craig'

RE: Draft Executive Order




 

Thanks Craig. Can you give me a call and I can explain the answer to your question on BEP?

 

 

Mike

(517) 373-3286 or

Cell- (517) 285-4126

 



From: McManus, Craig [mailto:Craig.McManus at ed.govJ

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:07 PM To: Zimmer 1 Mike (LARA) .

Cc: Przekop-Shaw 1 Susan (AG); Murley, David (GOV);Stork-Phillips, Denise; Hilfinger, Steven (LARA);Eshbach, Roseann; Rosen, Jeff; Anthony, Edward; Rankin-White, Sue; Finch, Tom; Daniel Frye (danielfrye at xxxxxxxxxxx); Sheehy, Jennifer; Snyderman, Mark; Dobak, Carol; Mitchell, Suzanne; Feder,Emily

Subject: RE: Draft Executive Order

 

Good afternoon,

 

 

Thank you for sending the revised draft Executive Order that outlines the proposed Michigan vocational rehabilitation (VR) reorganization efforts. RSA, with consultation  from its Office of General Counsel, reviewed the document and has determined that the draft Executive Order appears on the surface, to meet the minimum  legal requirements for the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as amended, and VR and Randolph-Sheppard implementing regulations at 34 CFR part 361and 34 CFR part 395, respectively.

 

According to the Executive Order, the Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) will be transferred to the Department of Human Services, the Michigan Commission for the Blind will be abolished, and the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) will be created within the Department  of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). Furthermore, the Executive Order states that LARA will serve as the designated state agency under the Rehabilitation Act and BSBP will serve as the state licensing agency (SLA) under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. While the Executive Order does not specifically identify, nor is it required to do so, MRS and BSBP as the designated state units (DSUs) for the VR program, it  appears that these entities will serve as the DSUs. It is important that Michigan understand that the SLA must be the agency providing VR services to blind (34 CFR 395.2); therefore,if BSBP is the SLA, it must be the DSU for the provision of VR services to the blind.  RSA would like to remind you that the FY 2013 State Plans, which Michigan will soon submit for RSA's review and approval, must specify the entities that will be the DSUs on October 1, 2012.

 

In its review of the draft Executive Order, RSA noted that the references to the state vending program were not included in the latest iteration.  As this was a point of much discussion during the review of the previous draft Executive Order, RSA requests clarification as to whether Michigan intends to proceed with its prior plan to separate the state vending program from the federal Randolph-Sheppard program.  If Michigan intends to move forward  with this plan, RSA would like to offer any additional technical assistance that the state may require to ensure that the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and state vending programs are functioning in an efficient manner that complies with all applicable federal

requirements.

 

We thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, look forward to your response, and welcome any additional questions, concerns, or requests for technical assistance.

 

Sincerely,



Craig McManus

Financial Management Specialist

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street,S.W. Room 5181

Washington,D.C., 20202

202-245-6579 craig.mcmanus at ed.gov

 

 

 

-----Original Message----

From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) fmailto:zimmerm at michigan.gov] Sent: Friday,June 15, 2012 10:48 AM

To:McManus, Craig

Cc: Przekop-Shaw,Susan (AG);Murley, David (GOV};Stork-Phillips,Denise; Hilfinger,Steven (LARA) Subject:Draft Executive Order

 

Craig:

 

 

 

 

Per our conversation earlier this morning, please find attached a draft version of the executive order currently being considered for the Michigan Rehabilitation Services and Michigan Commission for the Blind.

 

 

 

 

As we discussed, this version will look remarkably similar to the version your team reviewed several weeks ago with three important changes:

 

 

 

 

1}      While the Michigan Commissioner for the Blind is still eliminated and still being replaced by a bureau (therefore moving away from the independent commission model}, its duties are no longer being split along vendor services and rehab services lines. It will be a single entity.

 

2}     The new Bureau of Services for Blind Persons will be housed in the Department  of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Rehabilitation Services will be housed in the Department of Human Services.

 

3}       Both the bureau and MRS will work through a single rehab council to be administratively housed in DHS.

 

 

 

 

As in previous versions, while there will be a Commission for Blind Persons, it will be advisory only.

 

 

 

 

Craig as we discussed, Michigan would like to proceed on the EO quickly to meet the timetables for state plan amendments.  As a result, we need your response (which we assume will be positive} next week. Please note,that this draft has not been publically released in Michigan and has not been shared yet with the impacted bureaus. As a result, please keep its contents confidential.



Thank you for your prompt attention.

 

 

 

 

Mike

 

(517} 373-3286



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To: Cc:

 

 

 

Subject: Attachments:

 

 

Good afternoon,



McManus, Craig <Craig.McManus at ed.gov> Thursday, June 21, 2012 4:07 PM

Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

Przekop-Shaw, Susan (AG); Murley, David (GOV); Stork-Phillips, Denise; Hilfinger, Steven (LARA); Eshbach, Roseann; Rosen, Jeff; Anthony, Edward; Rankin-White, Sue; Finch, Tom; Daniel Frye (danielfrye at xxxxxxxxxxx); Sheehy, Jennifer; Snyderman, Mark; Dobak, Carol;

Mitchell, Suzanne; Feder, Emily

RE: Draft Executive Order

2012-_ New MCBMRS (6).doc




Thank you for sending the revised draft Executive Order that outlines the proposed Michigan vocational rehabilitation (VR) reorganization efforts.  RSA, with consultation from its Office of General Counsel, reviewed the document and has determined that the draft Executive Order appears, on the surface, to meet the minimum  legal requirements for the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, the Randolph-Sheppard Act, as amended, and VR and Randolph-Sheppard implementing regulations at 34 CFR part 361and 34 CFR part 395,respectively.

 

According to the Executive Order, the Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) will be transferred to the Department of Human Services,the Michigan Commission for the Blind will be abolished,and the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) will be created within the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). Furthermore, the Executive Order states that LARA will serve as the designated state agency under the Rehabilitation Act and BSBP will serve as the state licensing agency  (SLA) under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. While the Executive Order does not specifically identify, nor is it required to do so, MRS and BSBP as the designated state units (DSUs) for the VR program, it appears that these entities  will serve as the DSUs. It is important that Michigan understand that the SLA must be the agency providing VR services to blind (34 CFR 395.2); therefore, if BSBP is the SLA, it must be the DSU for the provision of VR services to the blind.  RSA would like to remind you that the FY 2013 State Plans, which Michigan will soon submit for RSA's review and approval, must specify the entities that will be the DSUs on October 1,2012.

 

In its review of the draft Executive Order, RSA noted that the references to the state vending program were not included in the latest iteration. As this was a point of much discussion during the review of the previous draft Executive Order, RSA requests clarification as to whether Michigan intends to proceed with its prior plan to separate the state vending program from the federal Randolph-Sheppard program.  If Michigan intends to move forward with this plan, RSA would like to offer any additional technical assistance that the state may require to ensure that the federal Randolph-Sheppard program and state vending programs are functioning in an efficient manner that complies with all applicable federal requirements.

 

We thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback, look forward to your response, and welcome any additional questions, concerns, or requests for technical assistance.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Craig McManus

Financial Management Specialist

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street,S.W. Room 5181

Washington, D.C.,20202

202-245-6579 craig.mcmanus at ed.gov



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

From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) [mailto:zimmerm at michigan.govJ Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:48 AM

To: McManus, Craig

Cc: Przekop-Shaw, Susan (AG); Murley, David (GOV);Stork-Phillips, Denise; Hilfinger, Steven (LARA) Subject: Draft Executive Order

 

Craig:

 

 

 

 

Per our conversation earlier this morning, please find attached a draft version of the executive order currently being considered for the Michigan Rehabilitation Services and Michigan Commission for the Blind.

 

 

 

 

As we discussed, this version will look remarkably similar to the version your team reviewed several weeks ago with three important changes:

 

 

 

 

1)     While the Michigan Commissioner for the Blind is still eliminated and still being replaced by a bureau (therefore moving away from the independent commission model),its duties are no longer being split along vendor services and rehab services lines. It will be a single entity.

 

2)      The new Bureau of Services for Blind Persons will be housed in the Department of licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Rehabilitation Services will be housed in the Department of Human Services.

 

3)       Both the bureau and MRS will work through a single rehab council to be administratively housed in DHS.

 

 

 

 

As in previous versions, while there will be a Commission for Blind Persons ,it will be advisory only.

 

 

 

 

Craig as we discussed, Michigan would like to proceed on the EO quickly to meet the timetables for state plan amendments. As a result, we need your response (which we assume will be positive) next week. Please note, that this draft has not been publically released in Michigan and has not been shared yet with the impacted bureaus. As a result, please keep its contents confidential.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your prompt attention.

 

 

 

 

Mike

 

(517) 373-3286



 



From: Sent: To: Cc:

 

Subject: Attachments:

 

 

Craig:



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

Friday, June 15, 2012 10:48 AM Craig.mcmanus at ed.gov

Przekop-Shaw, Susan (AG); Murley, David (GOV); Stork-Phillips, Denise; Hilfinger, Steven

(LARA)

Draft Executive Order

2012-_ New MCBMRS (6).doc



 

Per our conversation earlier this morning, please find attached a draft version of the executive order currently being considered for the Michigan Rehabilitation Services and Michigan Commission for the Blind.

 

As we discussed, this version will look remarkably similar to the version your team reviewed several weeks ago with three important changes:

 

1)   While the Michigan Commissioner for the Blind is still eliminated and still being replaced by a bureau (therefore moving away from the independent  commission model),its duties are no longer being split along vendor services and rehab services lines. It will be a single entity.

2)   The new Bureau of Services for Blind Persons will be housed in the Department of Licensing and Regulatory

Affairs and the Michigan Rehabilitation Services will be housed in the Department  of Human Services.

3)     Both the bureau and MRS will work through a single rehab council to be administratively housed in DHS.

As in previous versions; while there will be a Commission for Blind Persons, it will be advisory only.

Craig as we discussed, Michigan would like to proceed on the EO quickly to meet the timetables for state plan amendments. As a result, we need your response (which we assume will be positive) next week. Please note,that this draft has not been publically released in Michigan and has not been shared yet with the impacted bureaus. As a result, please keep its contents confidential.

Thank you for your prompt attention. Mike

(517) 373-3286



 

From: Sent: To: Cc:

 

 

Subject:

 

 

Good afternoon,



 

McManus, Craig <Craig.McManus at ed.gov> Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:09 PM

Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Porter, Jaye  (LARA)

Jones, Leamon (LARA); Luzenski, Sue (LARA); Adams, Louis (LARA); Zimmer, Mike (LARA); Beatty, Timothy; Cavataio, Christyne; Doyle, Julya; Jones, David; Sadler, Charles; Stegemiller, Megan

Due Date Extension for Michigan State Plans



 

As we move forward toward the submission dates for the FY 2013 State Plans, I would like to take this opportunity to address Michigan's request for an extension of the due date.  Through teleconferences and emails that have transpired over the past few months, I have been informed about both MRS' and MCB's intent to conduct public hearings to address the transfer from LARA to DHS. While I am not aware of the current schedule for conducting the public meetings, it has been expressed by both agencies that this process will delay the submission of the FY 2013 State Plans.

 

There is no formal mechanism for RSA to extend the deadline for a State Plan, which is why you have not received anything in writing regarding a specific due date.  In conversations  with both agencies it was indicated that the State Plans may be ready for submission to RSA at different times, which may explain any discrepancy in anticipated submission dates between the agencies.

 

The most  important factor to keep in mind is that your FY 2013 VR funding is tied to the approval of the FY 2013 State Plan,so it is critical to submit  the State Plan as soon as possible to allow time for this process. Therefore, there is no specific date for which an extension can be granted, but in general, submitting the State Plan to RSA by early August should  allow us time to review  the plan, provide any feedback/revision requests  to you, and to have the VR agency(s) revise the State Plan and resubmit it necessary, prior to October 1,2012.  In essence, the sooner you can submit the plan to us, the better our likelihood of being able to work through the approval process with you.

 

I hope this helps to answer any questions you may have related  to the State Plan approval process. Please feel free to send any further questions.

 

Thanks, Craig

 

 

 

 

Craig McManus

Financial Management Specialist

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street, S.W. Room 5181

Washington, D.C., 20202

202-245-6579 craig.mcmanus at ed.gov



 



From: Sent: To: Subject:



McManus, Craig <Craig.McManus at ed.gov> Thursday, April19, 2012 11:24 AM

Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

RE: Revised Executive Order



 

 

Good morning Mike,

 

 

As I mentioned to you yesterday, we had our internal discussion regarding the revised E.O. and we have some questions and concerns we would like to discuss this afternoon, if possible due to the time sensitivity, with you, Jaye Porter and

Pat Cannon.

 

 

Please let me know your availability, as I am running off to the next meeting. Thanks, Craig

Craig McManus

Financial Management Specialist

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street, S.W. Room 5181

Washington, D.C., 20202

202-245-6579 craig.mcmanus at ed.gov

 

 

 

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

From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) [mailto:zimmerm at michigan.govl

Sent: Monday, April16,2012 10:32 AM To: McManus, Craig

Cc: Rooney,Brian (DHS);Stork-Phillips, Denise; Visconti, Rebekah (DHS);Przekop-Shaw, Susan (AG); Ellis, Sharon (DTMB); Murley, David (GOV)

Subject: Revised Executive Order

 

 

Craig:

 

 

 

 

Per our discussion last week, I am forwarding to you this morning draft versions of our proposed executive order revisions. You will find three documents:

 

 

 

 

1)      A simple rescission of Executive Order 2012-2

 

 

2)      A new executive order moving MCB and MRS to the Department of Human Services, but preserving blind services as a separate and distinct bureau.  Following the Texas model, the  Bureau of Services to Blind Persons and MRS will funnel through one Council, but are envisioned to each operate distinctly and have their own state plans. At the same time, we have clarified Randolph Sheppard responsibilities by vesting the federal program in DHS and placing the state program, as originally envisioned in DTMB.



3}     An Interagency Agreement detailing the dual employment of those staff members assigned to vendor activities for both DHS and DTMB.

 

 

 

 

I envision that the Interagency Agreement and any nominee processes ultimately utilized will be finalized as part of the state plan amendment process. I did, however, want you to see the draft agreement ahead of time so you would know where we are heading.

 

 

 

 

It is our intention to issue the new executive order(s) prior to the expiration of the 60 day implementation timetable set in Executive Order 2012-2- meaning, early next week. As we discussed last week, we need, therefore, your agency's

sign off on the drafts by Friday to make the timing work.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to these documents. I am available to answer any questions you may have at (517)

373-3286 or at zimmerm at michigan.gov.

 

 

 

 

Mike



Zimmer, Mike {LARA)

 



From: Sent: To: Cc:

 

Subject: Attachments:

 

 

Craig:



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

Monday, Apri116, 2012 10:32 AM Craig.mcmanus at ed.gov

Rooney, Brian (DHS); Stork-Phillips, Denise; Visconti, Rebekah (DHS); Przekop-Shaw, Susan

(AG); Ellis, Sharon (DTMB); Murley, David (GOV) Revised Executive Order

2012-2 Recission.doc; 2012-_ New MCBMRS.doc; DHS.DTMB IA.docx



 

Per our discussion last week, I am forwarding to you this morning draft versions of our proposed executive order revisions. You will find three documents:

 

1)   A simple rescission of Executive Order 2012-2

2)   A new executive order moving MCB and MRS to the Department of Human Services, but preserving blind services as a separate and distinct bureau. Following the Texas model the Bureau of Services to Blind Persons and MRS will funnel through one Council, but are envisioned to each operate distinctly and have their own state plans. At the same time, we have clarified Randolph Sheppard responsibilities by vesting the federal program in DHS and placing the state program, as originally envisioned in DTMB.

3)   An Interagency Agreement detailing the dual employment  of hose staff members assigned to vendor activities for both DHS and DTMB.

 

I envision that the Interagency Agreement and any nominee processes ultimately utilized will be finalized as part of the state plan amendment process. I did, however, want you to see the draft agreement ahead of time so you would know where we are heading.

 

It is our intention to issue the new executive order(s) prior to the expiration of the 60 day implementation timetable  set in Executive Order 2012-2- meaning, early next week. As we discussed last week, we need, therefore, your agency's

sign off on the drafts by Friday to make the timing work.

 

 

Thank you for your prompt attention to these documents. I am available to answer any questions you may have at (517)

373-3286 or at zimmerm at michigan.gov. Mike



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To:

 

Cc:

Subject:

 

 

Mike:



Frye, Daniel <Daniei.Frye at ed.gov> Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:32AM

Zimmer, Mike (LARA); McManus, Craig; Przekop-Shaw, Susan (AG); Stork-Phillips, Denise; Ellis, Sharon (OTMB); Rooney, Brian (DHS)

Feder, Emily; Snyderman, Mark

RE: Michigan Status



 

This sounds great. We'll be in touch the week of April 8. During this time, I'll try and collect  any model nominee forms or agreements that might be used as templates for Michigan from the five states that use a nominee structure for the Randolph-Sheppard program. In order for a State Licensing Agency to designate a nominee agency, you do assume correctly that  we need to see this at RSA. It would be part of amending the state rules for operating the Randolph­ Sheppard Program that we are required to review according to Federal regulations under the Randolph-Sheppard Act.

With Kind Regards, Daniel B. Frye,J.D.

Management and Program Specialist

Randolph-Sheppard and Helen Keller

National Center Programs

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street,SW, Room 5023

Washington,DC  20202-2800 (202) 245-7308 office

(202) 245-7591fax (410) 241-7006 mobile daniel.frye@ ed.gov

 

 

 

 

 

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

From:Zimmer, Mike  (LARA) [mailto:zimmerm at michigan.gov] Sent: Thursday,March 29,2012 9:11AM

To: Frye,Daniel;McManus, Craig;Przekop-Shaw,Susan (AG);Stork-Phillips, Denise;Ellis,Sharon  (DTMB);Rooney, Brian

(DHS)

Cc: Feder,Emily;Snyderman, Mark

Subject: RE: Michigan Status

 

 

Dan:

 

 

Thank you for your note.  Sorry to hear about your hospitalization and hope things are improving.



Thank you also for your offer to review the new executive order language. We have previously discussed as a team reaching out to you and Craig (and whoever else you all want involved) to review the language of the new EO so we will definitely  be taking you up on your offer.  In terms of revised EO timing, I can't give you a date yet- just know that a new EO or, at a minimum a rescission of a portion of the EO, will have to be issued before the old one goes into effect on

April 24th.

 

 

We are currently concentrating on drafting the interagency agreement setting up the dual employment model and on the nominee.  I assume you will all need to see those as well as part of the overall package. If, in the interim, you have any model nominee forms that we could review, that would be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks- I will be off next week so let's touch base when I return the week of the 8th. Mike

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

From: Frye,Daniel [mailto:Daniei.Frye at ed.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 29,2012 8:43AM

To: Zimmer,Mike (LARA);McManus, Craig

Cc: Feder, Emily; Snyderman,Mark

Subject: RE: Michigan Status

 

 

Mike:

 

 

I've been hospitalized for the last several days, so I have not had an opportunity to acknowledge your note of last week. Thank you for the status update. If there is anything I can do to be of further support as you amend the Executive Order and make decisions about moving forward, please let me know. If it would be useful for me to review the language in your Executive Order as it relates to Randolph-Sheppard, prior to its issuance, please advise. In this way, redrafting the language won't be required, if any issues are missed. Certainly Michigan has no obligation to do this, but I offer this possibility as a measure of support. Do you have a sense of when the new Executive Order might be released?

 

Again, I apologize for my delay in responding to your status note, and I look forward to being of any assistance possible. With Kind Regards,

Daniel B. Frye,J.D.

Management and Program Specialist Randolph-Sheppard and Helen Keller National Center Programs

U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street, SW, Room 5023

Washington, DC 20202-2800 (202) 245-7308 office

(202) 245-7591fax (410) 241-7006 mobile daniel.frye at ed.gov



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

From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) (mailto:zimmerm at michigan.govJ Sent: Friday, March 23,2012 1:15 PM

To: McManus, Craig; Frye, Daniel

Subject: Michigan Status

 

 

While I communicated earlier with MRS and MCB, it occurred to me I have not contacted you directly on the status of the Executive Order. We have acknowledged that as a result of federal regulatory requirements (Randolph Sheppard and Council makeup),that we will need to amend the executive order. As this will result in a "restart" of the time clock

for implementation, I have instructed the impacted agencies to stand down on the hurry I imposed on the requisite state

plan amendments. I'm confident, however, that the work we have done to date will ultimately  of strong value. Finally, thank you both for your continued assistance as we work through our issues.

Mike

 

 

Sent from my iPad



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To:

Subject:



Zimmer, Mike {LARA)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012 6:43AM McManus, Craig

Re: Michigan Status



 

 

Craig:

 

 

I have a few technical questions on the VR end.  What time would  be best to reach you? Mike

Sent from my iPad

 

 

On Mar  26, 2012, at 7:04AM,"McManus, Craig" <Craig.McManus at ed.gov> wrote:

 

 

>Mike,

> 

>Thank you for the update and the work Michigan has done, and is doing, to bring the Executive Order in line with the

Rehab Act and federal regulations.

> 

> Craig McManus

> Financial Management Specialist

> Rehabilitation Services Administration

> 550 12th Street, S.W. Room 5181

>Washington, D.C., 20202

> 202-245-6579

> craig.mcmanus at ed.gov

> 

>-----Original Message-----

> From: Zimmer, Mike (LARA) [mailto:zimmerm at michigan.govl

>Sent: Friday, March 23,2012 1:15 PM

>To: McManus, Craig; Frye, Daniel

>Subject: Michigan Status

> 

> While I communicated earlier  with MRS and MCB, it occurred to me I have not contacted you directly on the status of the Executive Order. We have acknowledged that as a result of federal regulatory requirements (Randolph Sheppard and Council makeup), that we will need to amend the executive order. As this will result in a "restart" of the time clock

for implementation, I have instructed the impacted agencies to stand down on the hurry I imposed on the requisite state plan amendments. I'm confident, however, that the work  we have done to date will ultimately of strong value.

> 

>Finally, thank you both for your continued assistance as we work through our issues.

> 

>Mike

> 

>Sent from my iPad



Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

 



From: Sent: To:

Subject:



McManus, Craig <Craig.McManus at ed.gov> Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:14PM

Zimmer, Mike (LARA)

Michigan SRC Inquiry



 

 

Good afternoon Mike,

 

This is in response to your inquiry regarding whether a state with two separate vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies, neither of which is·an independent  commission, may establish one State Rehabilitation Council (SRC) for both VR agencies.

 

VR implementing regulations at 34 CFR 361.16(b) state:  In the case of a State that designates a separate State agency  under §361.13(a)(3) to administer  the part of the State plan under which vocational rehabilitation services are provided to individuals  who are blind, the State must either establish  a separate State Rehabilitation Council for each agency that does not meet the requirements in paragraph (a)(l) of this section or establish one State Rehabilitation  Council for both agencies if neither agency meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(l) of this section.

 

Paragraph (a)(l) of 34 CFR 361.16 references a State plan assurance that the designated State agency is an independent State commission.  Therefore, in the context of 34 CFR 361.16(b),  if neither VR agency meets the requirements of34 CFR 361.16(a)(l), then the State may establish one SRC for both VR agencies.

 

Regarding this scenario, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has no position regarding the State's preference regarding the establishment of one SRC for both VR agencies, or a separate SRC for each VR agency, as long as the VR agencies and SRC(s) meet the requirements of 34 CFR 361.16 and 34 CFR

361.17. However, one consideration regarding the implementation of one SRC for two VR agencies is the

workload for an entity comprised  of volunteers who meet quarterly to conduct SRC business that includes all the functions outlined in 34 CFR 361.17(h).  Some of our experiences with SRCs have indicated that the workload required for one VR agency is often substantive and time consuming,  and for larger agencies, even more so.  If considering a situation whereby one SRC would perform the mandatory functions of34 CFR

361.17(h) for two separate agencies, the significant increase in workload is relevant.

 

Additionally, in consultation with other RSA staff, I have learned that Texas has established one SRC for both of its VR agencies.  You may wish to contact them if you have specific questions.

 

I hope this answers your question, and please contact me with any further concerns. Thanks,

Craig McManus

Financial Management Specialist

Rehabilitation Services Administration

550 12th Street, S.W. Room 5004

Washington, D.C., 20202

202-245-6579 craig.mcmanus at ed.gov



 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image005.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image006.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 102 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image007.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0004.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image008.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0005.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image009.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 78 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0006.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image010.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 81 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0007.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image012.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2447 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0008.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image013.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0009.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image014.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 77 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0010.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image015.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0011.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image016.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0012.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image017.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0013.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image018.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0014.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image019.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0015.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image020.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0016.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image021.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130913/0860542e/attachment-0017.gif>


More information about the nfbmi-talk mailing list