[nfbmi-talk] Further Evidence Go-Along-to-Get-Along is Ineffective-

Terry D. Eagle terrydeagle at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 19 20:41:01 UTC 2014

	So what are the constructive and productive results for blind
persons that Go-Along-to-Get-Along were to produce for blind persons?

Unhappy?  Without a battle, the blind get that  which THEY, the sighted,
want for blind persons, notwithstanding selling-ouut or simply

Oh surely, it may benefit a select few in some personal way for a short
period, but remember, a snake is a snake, and it will ultimately respond as
a snake, and deliver the unexpected, unwanted and dreaded bite.  Just ask
Pat Cannon, he got the bite and boot too!





TO:             Michigan Council OF Rehabilitation Services Executive


FROM:       Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired Resolutions
Committee with Knowledge of the MCBVI Executive Committee


DATE:        July 14, 2014




When Executive Order 2012-02 was initially released in February, 2012,
several organizations of and for the blind had concerns about many of its
provisions. Contrary to the strategy of some organizations, the Michigan
Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired (MCBVI) chose to work
constructively and productively to amend the order to better suit the needs
of its constituents. As a result of this approach MCBVI was invited to
participate in dialogue with representatives from the Governor's office,
Deputies from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), and
the Director of Department of Human Services (DHS). As a result of our
input, changes were made culminating in the current Executive Order 2012-10.


During subsequent meetings MCBVI representatives raised the following


.        Why was the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services member's
terms defined while Commission for Blind Persons member's terms were not? 


.        What is the mechanism to allow for consumer input to the Commission
for Blind Persons regarding such issues as program ideas, suggested policy
changes, ideas for improving services?




We are greatly concerned about the long delay in the formulation of
structural and functional guidelines for the Commission for Blind Persons.
MCBVI feels that this lack of guidance and organization is seriously
impairing the delivery of services to the blind community.   


TO:                 Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired
(MCBVI) Resolutions Committee 

c/o Casey Dutmer (casey354 at comcast.net <mailto:casey354 at comcast.net> )


FROM:           Carol Bergquist, MCRS Chair


RE:                  MCBVI Position Statement 


DATE:             August 6, 2014


At our recent Executive Team Meeting, we reviewed the Position Statement
authored by your committee of the MCBVI and received via MCRS member Trina
Edmondson on July 22, 2014. After discussion and consideration of your
request, our members determined that the issues you have raised do not come
under the state and federal mandates of the MCRS.  We appreciate the
frustration expressed by the MCBVI committee.  Our understanding is that the
creation and related role of the Commission for Blind Persons established in
the Governor's Executive Order (EO) 2012-10 provides for the expected
organizational structure.  The MCRS was also created in that EO.  The
structure for our Council is depicted in the EO and is derived from the
federal mandates outlined in the Rehabilitation Act, as amended.  The EO
indicates that the MCRS is required to review, analyze and advise each
Public Vocational Rehabilitation service system in Michigan.  The Commission
and our Council have very separate and distinct roles and responsibilities.
It would seem that the concerns expressed in your position statement might
best be managed with those entities you had the previous conversations with
in early 2012.  On behalf of our Executive Team, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to consider your request.  


We look forward to working with you in our mutual quest for constructive

More information about the NFBMI-Talk mailing list