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

Elizabeth lizmohnke at hotmail.com
Thu Apr 24 20:18:25 UTC 2014


hello Dave,



How exactly does treating others with disrespect motivate anyone in a positive direction? If someone were to call you these names, and claim them to be facts, would you be willing to work with this person to find a solution to a problem? Or would you be more opt not to talk to this person because of their disrespect towards you? I think we as an organization should keep this in mind when describing individuals who work for the rehab agency here in Michigan.



Warm regards,

Elizabeth

 
> From: drob1946 at gmail.com
> To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 15:31:38 -0400
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Key provisions in proposed amendments	toWorkforceInvesstment Act
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
 		 	   		  


More information about the nfbmi-talk mailing list