[nfbmi-talk] Key provisions in proposed amendments toWorkforceInvesstment Act

David Robinson drob1946 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 19:31:38 UTC 2014


Dear Elizabeth,

  In part I agree with what you say, but on the other hand we as individuals 
must know that some level of tolerancemust be given to others who may 
express their passion differently from what we might do, and should not be 
shunned.  I, for one, am willing to excuse some improper language if the 
person is ssincere about what they believe,and express it in a manner that 
that could make a difference and support the issues and concerns that 
motivate  us to continue our fight for equality.

Dave
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Elizabeth" <lizmohnke at hotmail.com>
To: "NFB Michigan" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Key provisions in proposed amendments 
toWorkforceInvesstment Act


Hello Christine,


I am glad to hear you do not tolerate the use of profanity or name calling 
on this email list. However, both of these things appear in the email Joe 
sent to this list.


Perhaps you do not consider taking the Lord's name in vain to be a form of 
profanity, but there may be others on this list who think otherwise. I 
personally do not take any offence to this kind of language. however, I 
think we should strive to respect everyone this email list, and as such, I 
do not believe this kind of language should be a part of our email list.

Also, I do not believe describing various individuals as a "
mercenary punk,""narcistic puke," and "predators" as facts that could be 
used to describe the current state of the rehab agency here in Michigan. I 
find all of these labels as a form of name calling which I do not believe is 
appropriate for our email list. Again, I believe calling anyone these 
disrespectful names does absolutely nothing to solve the problem we face 
with the rehab agency here in Michigan.


Warm regards,

Elizabeth


> From: christineboone2 at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:47:46 -0400
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Key provisions in proposed amendments 
> toWorkforceInvesstment Act
>
> Elizabeth, I generally agree with you that there is no need to engage in 
> name calling.  Nor do I tolerate the use of profanity on this list.  In 
> this case however, I see nothing objectionable in Joe's post.  He is 
> simply pointing out that which is true in the state of Michigan.  When an 
> individual becomes a Bureau Director, he or she understands that their 
> privacy interest is diminished by virtue of the public trust that has been 
> place in them.  They understand that constituents and even disinterested 
> persons will discuss their decisions, practices and positions as they 
> impact the tax-payer base and most especially the persons who are actual 
> and potential customers of the agency in question.  Given the numerous 
> documented violations of law in the case of the Bureau, nothing 
> inappropriate in my view, has been said here.
>
> Happily there is better news in other states, and even for some customers 
> here in Michigan, who receive helpful services from the vocational 
> rehabilitation system.  Happily also, there are many good, strong, 
> inventive and courageous people who will continue to succeed in spite of 
> what ever may come against them.  Let us discuss some of those successes 
> on this list.  wouldn't that give encouragement to those who strive for 
> excellence?  We can all use a little positive motivation.
>
> If anyone has a great example of a blind person who stepped out of the 
> mold to capture the American dream, let us know!
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2014, at 11:32 AM, Elizabeth <lizmohnke at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello Joe and All,
> >
> >
> >
> > I can understand your dislike of the rehabilitation agency here in 
> > Michigan. however, I do not believe the disrespectful name calling in 
> > this post should be a part of our email list. I believe this language 
> > only creates more hostility, and does absolutely nothing to solve the 
> > problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > Warm regards,
> > Elizabeth
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 8, 2014, at 12:33 PM, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On your latter point Christine one of the things sited in the last 
> >>> so-called RSA monitoring here is that MRS was cited for violating the 
> >>> Rehab Act over a decade for requiring a means test for SSI and SSDI 
> >>> recipients who were not blind.
> >>>
> >>> Of course, MCB at the time was cited for violating similar provisions 
> >>> inmaintainence.
> >>>
> >>> And we know they've violated the general provisions as well for years.
> >>>
> >>> I mean that mercenary punk lawyerMichael O. King, paid with by MCB 
> >>> bucks even argued in court on the Terry Eagle case that Terry must be 
> >>> required to pay $30,000 for training!
> >>>
> >>> That is in the public record!
> >>>
> >>> And that is just one extreme example of fundamental Rehab Act 
> >>> violations in a court record.
> >>>
> >>> We all know things were worse than that and are even worse now.
> >>>
> >>> By the way if one examines even the college funding which one can only 
> >>> glean from past reports which is why I ask for them we'll note that 
> >>> MCB sent many more blind students to college and paid for them then 
> >>> they do now.
> >>>
> >>> It is hard to ferret out the information, but simply if we take a look 
> >>> at state plan information, comparativie monitoring reviews and the 
> >>> belated RSA-2 report we see a steady decline of the aggregate numbers 
> >>> of blind students alone who are being funded for college and or other 
> >>> postsecondary ed.
> >>>
> >>> Yet, the percent of VR funds has gone up.
> >>>
> >>> Now, this goes to a rather complicated issue in that during the last 
> >>> fifteen years the cost of higher ed has escalated dramatically 
> >>> especially as state supports have dropped and as the recession 
> >>> lingers.
> >>>
> >>> The VR funding is simply a transfer, but I suggest an important one 
> >>> and should be maintained.
> >>>
> >>> At least that is what existing law says is so, though again not 
> >>> followed.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, as an aside when that narcistic puke Rodgers brags about how many 
> >>> students he (note he always says I fund like it is his personal money) 
> >>> for college like it is some sort of perk and a real nice charitable 
> >>> thing he is doing personally for those blind kids, and adults....Well 
> >>> it makes me ill.
> >>>
> >>> It is his job to do so.
> >>>
> >>> Moreover, as Dearest Lydia and other parents of blind persons and 
> >>> others point out the system even here is broken for what about the 
> >>> kids and even adults who are blind and who are not so-called "college 
> >>> material"?
> >>>
> >>> Meanwhile the likes of Rodgers and Pemble who wouldn't know the Rehab 
> >>> Act if it snuck up on them in the dark and bit them on their behinds 
> >>> make $128,000 and $116,000 per year respectively out of VR funds to 
> >>> fiddle about with our lives.
> >>>
> >>> Lord I want these predators to be unemployed as I do their susupiors 
> >>> and handlers in this current administration.
> >>>
> >>> Another rant....Sorry....
> >>>
> >>> The situation makes me ill. But we must speak truth to power and we 
> >>> must as Federationists fight for the rights and empowerment of blind 
> >>> citizens, even those who don't affiliate with us.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Boone" 
> >>> <christineboone2 at gmail.com>
> >>> To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 12:07 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Key provisions in proposed amendments 
> >>> toWorkforceInvesstment Act
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That funding should not change, however the move of rehabilitation 
> >>> programs out of DOE will impact partnerships and supports for 
> >>> secondary education and the ripple effect of this cannot be known.
> >>>
> >>> Also, you need to remember that funding levels for post secondary 
> >>> education are much lower in general VR programs than in blindness 
> >>> programs, even for individuals receiving SSI and SSDI.
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 8, 2014, at 11:49 AM, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Another question here Christine. How will funding for higher 
> >>>> education and/or other postsecondary training occer under changes?
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words the only thing IMO that VR does right, when they do it 
> >>>> is to fund one hundred percent of college/postsecondary ed for PWD 
> >>>> who are on SSI or SSDI.
> >>>>
> >>>> Will that change under this schema?
> >>>>
> >>>> As an aside we know that BSBP and MRS has violated these provisions, 
> >>>> but another story for another day I suppose.
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christine Boone" 
> >>>> <christineboone2 at gmail.com>
> >>>> To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>; 
> >>>> <nfbp-talk at yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 10:49 AM
> >>>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Key provisions in proposed amendments to 
> >>>> WorkforceInvesstment Act
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Federationists:
> >>>> As most of you know, beginning with its reauthorization in 1998, the 
> >>>> Rehabilitation Act has been included as Title IV  in the Workforce 
> >>>> Investment Act.  That Act has never been reauthorized since its first 
> >>>> writing, but it is once again scheduled for reauthorization this 
> >>>> year. The current proposal would have some significant negative 
> >>>> ramifications respecting vocational rehabilitation services.  Here is 
> >>>> one overview that was prepared by a State Vocational Rehabilitation 
> >>>> agency outside Michigan. It is provided here for your information.
> >>>> Review of Key Provisions
> >>>> in S. 1356 and the SKILLS Act
> >>>>
> >>>> S. 1356
> >>>> Splits up Rehab Act programs.
> >>>> Sends VR to Labor Department, Independent Living to HHS, and NIDRR 
> >>>> (research) to HHS.
> >>>> The transfer of VR from Education to Labor will disconnect VR from 
> >>>> rehabilitation expertise and place it in a department with no 
> >>>> rehabilitation experience and a scant record of serving people with 
> >>>> severe disabilities.
> >>>> The Secretary of Labor would write the regulations for Rehab.
> >>>> The new name for RSA would be Disability Employment Services and 
> >>>> Supports Administration (DESSA).
> >>>> The Commissioner would still be a President’s appointment but would 
> >>>> not have to have rehabilitation experience or knowledge.
> >>>> Rehab would be put under ODEP (the Office of Disability Employment 
> >>>> Policy) – a tiny division that has never administered direct service 
> >>>> programs.
> >>>> Placement in Labor ties VR closer into the generic One-Stop culture, 
> >>>> where the focus is on the general population and specialized 
> >>>> approaches tend to be absent.
> >>>> The bill mandates state VR programs to expand and intensify services 
> >>>> to youth transitioning to post-secondary life, without added funding 
> >>>> to do so.
> >>>> Youth are defined as age 14-24.
> >>>> Creates a new category of Pre-Employment Transition, for youth age 14 
> >>>> up with significant disabilities.  For those in Supported Employment, 
> >>>> VR would pay 4 years extended services.
> >>>> Makes states set aside 15% of basic VR funds for Transition, limiting 
> >>>> administrative spending to 5% of this.
> >>>> Requires all VR offices have Transition Coordinator positions with 
> >>>> support staff – administrative expenses which would mostly have to 
> >>>> come out of basic VR funds, beyond the 15% set-aside.
> >>>> These provisions effectively make Transition a priority for VR 
> >>>> spending. As a result, some state VR programs may have reduced funds 
> >>>> for serving adults with severe disabilities.
> >>>> The bill subjects VR to the same performance standards and measures 
> >>>> used for Workforce programs for the non-disabled public.  There are 
> >>>> concerns this will not accurately reflect VR performance, will be 
> >>>> costly to implement, and could discourage service to persons with the 
> >>>> most significant disabilities.
> >>>> To implement use of common performance measures, VR would have to 
> >>>> retool data systems at great cost.  Adjustments in standards to 
> >>>> reflect different conditions for the VR population would entail much 
> >>>> staff work, negotiation and approval by Labor.
> >>>> VR would have to pay for 2 years of extended services for Supported 
> >>>> Employment clients, instead of the current flexible 18 months.  This 
> >>>> would be 4 years for youth.
> >>>> The bill de-emphasizes rehabilitation throughout.
> >>>> Rehab credentials for VR staff are weakened.
> >>>> There is concern that features in S. 1356 will reduce access to the 
> >>>> highly specialized services required to remove employment barriers 
> >>>> for people with severe disabilities.
> >>>> Positive features in the bill are business relations emphasis, 
> >>>> in-demand occupations emphasis, and a focus on career exploration, 
> >>>> work experience and internships for youth.
> >>>>
> >>>> Skills Act
> >>>> H.R. 803 by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
> >>>> Consolidates 36 federal employment programs, not VR, which remains a 
> >>>> mandatory partner, however.  Although VR remains a distinct program, 
> >>>> various provisions in the bill tie VR more closely into the generic 
> >>>> Workforce system.
> >>>> Requires common data reporting and performance measures for all 
> >>>> Workforce partners.
> >>>> Increases business representation on Workforce state and local 
> >>>> boards. Boards would be 2/3 business representatives.  Partner 
> >>>> members like VR are not required on the Boards.
> >>>> Emphasizes job training that is responsive to in-demand occupations 
> >>>> and business needs.
> >>>> In HR-803 VR remains a distinct program but is moved more closely 
> >>>> into the generic Workforce system.
> >>>> Partners must make all their “work-ready” services available at 
> >>>> One-Stops. It is uncertain whether this translates to co-location.
> >>>> Lets Governors decide what funds each partner must contribute to the 
> >>>> One-Stops.  The Governor can require partners contribute funds above 
> >>>> those set in any infrastructure formula.  Thus VR funds could be 
> >>>> tapped for various One-Stop expenses.
> >>>> One-Stops and training providers would have to meet standards, be 
> >>>> certified and re-certified every 3 years, with focus on meeting 
> >>>> standards of program integration, as well as other goals.
> >>>> It is unclear if VR training providers would have to meet training 
> >>>> provider criteria set by the Governor.
> >>>> Makes RSA commissioner a Director, no longer a Presidential 
> >>>> appointment.
> >>>> Requires at least 10% of a state’s VR basic funds must be for 
> >>>> expanding Transition.
> >>>> The Comprehensive Needs Assessment must add a focus on Transition 
> >>>> needs and the performance of existing services in meeting those 
> >>>> needs.
> >>>> Supported Employment title VI grants are eliminated.
> >>>> States must set aside one-half of 1% of their basic VR funds for 
> >>>> grants to for-profit businesses to do job readiness, training and 
> >>>> placement.
> >>>> Eliminates in-service training of VR personnel as a training grant 
> >>>> purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>> Special concerns related to maintaining an effective Rehabilitation 
> >>>> system:
> >>>> Special concerns for Rehab:  with VR melded more closely into the 
> >>>> generic Workforce system in a number of ways – there is concern for 
> >>>> the future of some key rehabilitation principles, features and 
> >>>> resources that are critical for successful employment results, 
> >>>> including:
> >>>> informed client choice
> >>>> individualized plans and services
> >>>> specialized services
> >>>> information accessibility
> >>>> communication accessibility
> >>>> physical accessibility
> >>>> availability of specialized staff
> >>>> staff and system understanding of disability
> >>>> There is concern that more closely merging VR into the generic 
> >>>> Workforce system will lead to
> >>>> leaching away of VR funds for non-VR use
> >>>> cherry-picking – serving the least disabled first
> >>>> reduced help for severely disabled with the greatest employment 
> >>>> barriers
> >>>> increased diversion of staff time to bureaucratic functions, away 
> >>>> from direct service delivery.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ___________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> This week staff and administrators from most public VR agencies 
> >>>> across the Nation are gathered in Washington D.C.  Today they are on 
> >>>> Capitol Hill, visiting with their Congressional delegations. 
> >>>> Yesterday they were briefed by a panel of experts which included 
> >>>> leaders of the National Federation of the Blind.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >>>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> >>>> nfbmi-talk:
> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >>>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> >>>> nfbmi-talk:
> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/christineboone2%40gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> >>> nfbmi-talk:
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> >>> nfbmi-talk:
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/christineboone2%40gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> >> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> >> nfbmi-talk:
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/lizmohnke%40hotmail.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nfbmi-talk mailing list
> > nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> > nfbmi-talk:
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/christineboone2%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/lizmohnke%40hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/drob1946%40gmail.com




More information about the nfbmi-talk mailing list