[nfbmi-talk] {Spam?} minutes related to fellows and illegal eo
joe harcz Comcast via nfbmi-talk
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Mon May 26 15:23:10 UTC 2014
APPROVED
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2012
MCB TRAINING CENTER
1541 OAKLAND DRIVE
KALAMAZOO, MI
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Mr. Larry Posont Ms. Lydia Schuck
Mr. John Scott
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
There are 2 Commissioner vacancies.
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF PRESENT
Mr. Pat Cannon Ms. Sue Luzenski
Ms. Susan Turney Ms. Julia Burdgick
Ms. Elsie Duell Ms. Constance Zanger
Ms. Lisa Kisiel Ms. Christine Boone
Mr. Bob Robertson Ms. Pam Crooks
Ms. Amber Willard Mr. Chuck Denaway
Ms. Leah Williams Ms. Sue Chinault
Ms. Jenny Doane Ms. Corda Moss
Ms. Shannon McVoy Ms. Gail Toda
Ms. Marie Knapp Ms. Beth White
Mr. Dan Furton Ms. Wendy VanElk
Ms. Marge Spencer
GUESTS/ATTENDEES
Ms. Valarie Barnum-Yarger Ms. Cheyenne Blakeman
Ms. Mary Sibley Mr. Joe Sibley
Ms. Brenda Berens Mr. Perry Charleston
Mr. Michael Zimmer Mr. Edward Norton
Mr. Rolando Petty Mr. Joe Sontag
Ms. Mary Wurtzel Mr. Fred Wurtzel
Mr. Steve Langtry Ms. Risa Langtry
Mr. Fred Schroeder Mr. Joe Harcz
Ms. Mary Ann Robinson Mr. David Robinson
Ms. Elham Jahshan Ms. Ann Paquette-Lukens
Ms. Lisa Knapp Ms. Alicia Paterni
Mr. Robert Essenberg Ms. Amy Shepherd
Ms. Terri Wilcox Ms. Marianne Dunn
Mr. Mark Kamar Mr. Gerald Cichocki
Ms. Sharmese Anderson Ms. Candelaria Jelinski
Mr. Jon Jelinski Mr. Donny Goodrich
Mr. Kevin Sedowksi Mr. Terrence Ruffin
Mr. Tom Warren (via telephone) Mr. Phil Kozachik
Mr. Ke???? Mr. Dan Meginley
Ms. Bette Lujan Roberts Ms. Tammy Cook
Ms. Pat Fitton
Call to Order, Roll Call and Determination of Quorum
The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was determined.
Staff and attendees introduced themselves.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 8 & 9, 2011
SCHUCK moved to accept the DECEMBER 8 & 9, 2011 Board meeting MINUTES; SCOTT seconded.
Discussion: There was no discussion.
THE Motion passed unanimously.
December 20, 2011
SCHUCK moved to accept the DECEMBER 20, 2011 SPECIAL Board meeting MINUTES; SCOTT seconded.
Discussion: There was no discussion.
THE Motion passed unanimously.
January 10, 2012
Scott moved to accept the january 10, 2012 SPECIAL Board meeting MINUTES; schuck seconded.
Discussion: There was no discussion.
THE Motion passed unanimously.
January 31, 2012
SCHUCK moved to accept the January 31, 2012 SPECIAL Board meeting MINUTES; SCOTT seconded.
Discussion: Commissioner Scott asked that the word “data” be changed to the word “dashboard”.
THE Motion passed unanimously.
February 8, 2012
scott moved to accept the February 8, 2012 SPECIAL Board meeting MINUTES; schuck seconded.
Discussion: There was no discussion.
THE Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner activities
Commissioner Schuck shared that she attended the Senate Appropriations committee meeting that was held the day before. Also, she is teaching a class at Western Michigan University called Introduction to Adults with Disabilities and her and her students played Goalball.
Commissioner Posont stated he has attended numerous ad hoc committee meetings which include vendors, stakeholders and staff. Topics being discussed have been the State Plate, sites being run by sighted people, the Executive Order and its impact on the Business Enterprise Program and amendments to the Federal Transportation Act.
Commissioner Scott has most recently met with the Detroit City Council on transportation issues in Detroit.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Joe Harcz: Joe Harcz, National Federation of the Blind, of the Blind. Make no mistake the meeting today is all about the Executive Order. Make no mistake we are all about democracy and open government in the State of Michigan and in this nation and make no mistake those laws, excuse me, have been violated by the State of Michigan. We’ve had secret meetings, secret government activity, secret trying to steal programs from the blind. Make no mistake, Joe Harcz has been offered a wonderful deal about public records. Oh, you pay $745,000 to get the happenings of our dictatorship here around this Executive Order. Make no mistake we have violated the Open Meetings Act even today because Joe Harcz hasn’t got the records related to this meeting including the draft meeting minutes. Make no mistake we will fight and when I say we, blind people will fight for their rights. We’ll fight in the legislature, we’ll fight in courts, we’ll fight with civil peaceful civil disobedience if need be to retain our rights as equal citizens in this state of Michigan. We will not have secret government and nothing will happen without us.
Mr. Dave Robinson: Dave Robinson, National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. I wanted to talk today a little bit about situations that have occurred in the past that have been brought to the Commission Board’s attention and it has not been addressed by the Commission Board to this point. Back in November, 2011we sent to the Commission Board a communication related to our protest of the agency discriminating against us as an organization for not putting our announcement of our State convention onto the operators information line. We felt that it was directly related to blind people and that operators in the Business Enterprise Program might want to know about our State convention, when it was going to be held and the details on that. That was turned down, all that communication was turned down by the BEP administration and all that was sent to you for some type of answer or action. Also there’s five resolutions that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan forwarded and submitted to the Commission for the Blind for action. I know that one has been addressed so far, another one relates to this same incident of discrimination but there’s other ones as well. I’d like to know, at some point, from the Commission Board when these issues are going to be addressed and action taken to make sure these situations are corrected and dealt with.
Ms. Marianne Dunn: Marianne Dunn, I’m a parent of two teenagers who turn 16 today. I made it this far, we all did. I really have more of a question. I wasn’t able to attend yesterday’s Appropriations Hearing so I’m wondering if today we will learn a little bit more about how organizations like Michigan Parents of Children of Visual Impairment, NFB and the others around the state will be able to participate in the new Executive Order. I assume there will be a new Executive Order. So if there’s any information about that I’d be very eager to hear how we will be involved.
BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
Ms. Luzenski informed the Board that the only piece of Board Correspondence received was from the Consumer Involvement Council (CIC) Chair forwarding motions made at the CIC meeting to the Board. She went on to say that the motions had been included as part of the Board packet Commissioners received.
Mr. Fred Schroeder stated that he had sent a letter to Governor Snyder about the Executive Order and had copied the Board. He shared that the substance of the letter was to try to draw the Governor’s attention to some technical and policy implications of the Executive Order he may wish to consider. Commissioner Schuck requested that this letter be read aloud. Ms. Luzenski asked that the agenda continue moving forward while she locates the letter.
Business Enterprise Program (BEP)
Ms. Constance Zanger, Business Enterprise Program Manager made remarks supplementing her written report including that there is not sufficient interest for the next BEP manager training program that was to take place in April so there will not be an April 2012 BEP Manager Training class, another class may be conducted in the summer. Ms. Zanger went on to report in response to the Directors objective #5 that the BLAST conference may not occur in 2012. She added she has been told there has been an informal announcement but has been unable to find any information, but if BLAST is being held staff and vendors will attend.
Ms. Zanger gave updates on the awarding of facilities to new graduates and reported that two U.S. Postal facilities will be closing and vending will be lost in the closing Lansing postal facility.
Ms. Zanger responded to Director’s objective #6 and provided the requested data in her written report.
In keeping with the Elected Operator Committees next annual workshop theme of “Looking from the Customer’s Perspective”, Ms. Zanger reported that EOC and staff will be exploring ways to enhance promotional and marketing opportunities for facilities.
Commissioner Schuck asked what NAMA stood for, who attended the NAMA conference and thanked Ms. Zanger for the data she included in the written report and asked if the EOC has received the same information. There was also a discussion of cafeteria certification and long term planning. Commissioner Schuck also asked if there was a monitoring system in place guaranteeing operators make 120% of federal minimum wage. Ms. Zanger stated that there is no guarantee of operators making 120% of federal minimum wage but it is a guideline and is also used to distinguish whether an operation should be a facility or a site. Ms. Zanger added that staff reviews spreadsheets of 4 – 6 operators at each BEP staff meeting.
Commissioner Posont broached the issue of the State Plate, the process taking place, that it appears discriminatory towards the blind and how the Executive Order will affect the State Plate. He also asked Ms. Zanger if there was a “gotcha” attitude in relation to the State Plate. Ms. Zanger replied no.
Administrative Law Judge Recommendation – Ron Fellows
Ms. Luzenski read the ALJ recommendation.
SCHUCK MOVED TO AFFIRM THE ALJ RECOMMENDATION; SCOTT SECONDED.
Discussion: Commissioner Schuck stated that she did not feel that at this meeting the Board could assign an amount, even though she plans to vote to affirm this recommendation. She stated that one of the good things about the Executive Order is that someone else will be deciding money amounts awarded. Commissioner Scott added that there was no information presented from staff because no agency staff appeared and he believes that the Board needs to affirm the decision and then let the parties work the rest out. Commissioners asked for Assistant Attorney General Tom Warren to respond.
Mr. Warren stated the issue is that the ALJ made a recommendation but did not recommend an award of damages for a second time. He went on to say that the question becomes does this Board have any authority to award monetary damages. He added, after looking at the rules, there is no statutory authority for the handing over of monetary damages as a result of a complaint or a claim against the action by the Commission. Mr. Warren explained that the Board would be, in essence, awarding damages against themselves. Commissioner Schuck asked what the next step would be. Mr. Warren shared that if the Board states that it is not within their authority to award damages then Mr. Fellows would have the option to seek Federal arbitration. Federal arbitration would then determine whether Mr. Fellows is owed a monetary award.
Mr. Mark Kamar, attorney for Mr. Fellows asked for a determination by the Commissioners as this has been going on for 3 years.
Director Cannon asked Mr. Warren if the Commissioners rejected the ALJ recommendation if Mr. Fellows could then seek damages in Federal court. Mr. Warren explained that Commissioners need to reject or affirm the ALJ recommendation based on the record and if the record demonstrates that there is authority for the giving of a monetary award then the ALJ may issue an order to give jurisdiction to award monetary damages. Commissioner Schuck stated that the ALJ did not respond to the damage award requested and she is dismayed that no one from the Commission attended the hearing.
Attorney Kamar stated that his interpretation of the recommendation was that the ALJ adopted the $475,000 requested by Mr. Fellows and if there was no jurisdiction to award damages then that issue should have been brought up to the ALJ. He went on to say that he believes that because staff did not show up, the issue of damage amount requested and authority to award is moot at this point.
Commissioner Schuck asked Mr. Warren what happens if the Board affirms the recommendation and puts a monetary damage amount in. Mr. Warren again stated that the issue of whether the Board has any authority, even to award $1, must be addressed. Mr. Warren said the Board has to determine if they believe there is statutory or regulatory authority to award financial damages as a result of a complaint made by a vendor against the Agency and themselves, the Board. He shared the options were for the Board to award damages if they determined they had the authority to do so or to agree with the complaint, not award damages because they lack authority to do so and allow Mr. Fellows to take his case to the next level of Federal arbitration.
Commissioner Scott asked Mr. Warren if the ALJ recommendation was appropriate then because the ALJ did not recommend any monetary damages. Mr. Warren explained that the Board may agree that the claim is valid but disagree that the claim is worth the amount of money that Mr. Fellows is claiming he has a right to receive. He went on to add that the first step is whether or not the Board chooses to accept the recommendation or not, and the second is whether the Board chooses to compensate Mr. Fellows for the violation in the manner that Mr. Fellows wishes.
Commissioner Posont clarified that with the motion that is on the floor would accept the recommendation but would not put a value on it and Mr. Fellows would have to go to the next step of arbitration. Mr. Warren again said that the Board needs to determine that they have the authority to award damages and award them, or they don’t have the authority. He added an alternate would be to determine they have authority to award but choose to award zero.
Commissioner Scott stated that Mr. Warren, who is the Board’s legal authority is saying the Board lacks authority to award damages. Attorney Kamar said there has been no statutes stated saying there is no authority to award damages but it’s a situation where no one bothered to appear to defend this action and the Board is acting on the opinion of Mr. Warren.
Commissioners discussed their legal authority to award damages, or lack thereof. They also asked Mr. Warren again to state what Mr. Fellows opportunities are to seek damages. Mr. Warren stated that if Mr. Fellows is dissatisfied with the action of the Commission then his remedy is to seek arbitration pursuant to Rule 56 before Federal Arbiters under the Randolph Sheppard Act. He went on to explain that this is a question of jurisdiction and whether the Commission Board has the authority to do this at all.
Commissioner Schuck clarified that the rules don’t state the Board does or does not have the authority and Commissioner Posont added that the rules state the Board has the right to make the final decision for the State Agency.
Mr. Warren reiterated that if the Board is going to make a decision then they have to award a dollar amount as the Federal arbiters are there to review your decision.
Commissioner Posont stated that a case like this is where it is clear that AG representation is necessary, separate from the Agency.
Commissioners Posont and Schuck turned to Commissioner Scott for his opinion, from a legal standpoint, on what the Board should do. Commissioner Scott opined that Mr. Warren has made it clear that he is representing the Commission Board at this time and Mr. Warren’s opinion is that the Board has no authority to seek monetary damages. He reiterated the three choices that Mr. Warren had set forth in regards to this case.
Mr. Kamar responded to the Commissioners conversation stating that he believes the state gave up any rights because staff didn’t show up at the hearing.
Mr. Warren clarified that if the Board chooses to not identify a monetary amount then they must amend the motion and state that they lack the jurisdiction to award monetary damages. Commissioner Scott advised Commissioner Schuck that she could make an amendment to her motion stating that the Board does not have the right to award damages. Commissioner Schuck stated that she does not want to go on the record saying the Board doesn’t have the authority but would say the Board chooses to not award anything. She then asked why would the Board not want to award the money if they think it should be awarded. Commissioner Scott stated that Mr. Warren has advised the Board and the Board should consider what he is saying. Mr. Warren explained again where and how the Board authority is stated in regulations.
Mr. Kamar addressed the Board citing Public Act 260 Rule 393.63 that his interpretation of the Act gives the Board the authority to award damages and the Board should award damages that they proved at the hearing.
The Commissioners discussed all of their options as a Board including remanding this back to the ALJ for a determination of Board authority or a monetary determination. The Commissioners stated that these cases shouldn’t even exist and these issues are compounded by the perceived mismanagement of the BEP.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Schuck clarified with other Board members that they have just stated they have the authority to award damages, although they didn’t in this case. Commissioners then asked Mr. Warren what are Mr. Fellows’ option for next steps. Mr. Warren stated that he is not in a position to advise Mr. Fellows.
Ms. Luzenski read a letter Mr. Fred Schroeder, past Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration wrote to Governor Rick Snyder regarding Executive Order 2012-2.
Break: 11:04
Reconvene: 11:13
Administrative Law Judge Recommendation – Risa Patrick-Langtry
Ms. Luzenski read the recommended decision of the ALJ.
SCHUCK MOVED TO AFFIRM THE ALJ RECOMMENDATION; SCOTT SECONDED.
Discussion: Commissioner Schuck referred back to the form which initiates the hearing process and stated she didn’t understand the Judges statement that there was a lack of jurisdiction. Commissioner Scott said it should be rejected because he didn’t understand the Judge’s determination that he lacked jurisdiction. He also didn’t understand why Ms. Patrick-Langtry did not get the opportunity to state her case, it should be rejected and sent back for a full hearing.
SCHUCK MOVED TO WITHDRAW HER ORIGINAL MOTION.
SCHUCK MOVED THAT THE BOARD REJECT THE ALJ’S DECISION AND REMAND IT BACK TO THE ALJ FOR THE ORIGINAL ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED AND A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING FOR RISA PATRICK-LANGTRY; SCOTT SECONDED.
Mr. Warren stated that there are no findings of fact to review, Commissioners are just stating whether they want to affirm or reject the ALJ’s decision to dismiss and rejecting the ALJ recommendation the Board can order that the hearing resume to address the issue that was presented.
SCOTT AMENDED AND MOVED THAT THE BOARD REJECT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ALJ AND ORDER HIM TO CONTINUE WITH THE HEARING THAT IS ALREADY IN PROGRESS; SCHUCK SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Schuck asked that an issue with accessible documents for this case be addressed with the hearings office.
Commissioner Schuck brought up an issue that keeps surfacing regarding priority bids. She noted in the Stelmach case from last September that the ALJ awarded Ms. Stelmach a priority bid as part of the recommendation. She added that this issue needs to be addressed.
BEP Ad Hoc Committee Report
Mr. Rob Essenberg, EOC Chair reported on the meetings of the BEP Ad Hoc Committee. He listed the regular participants and shared that others have been invited at various times to discuss a particular topic that was to be addressed at the meeting. Mr. Essenberg stated that the group has made recommendations to the EOC and several have been sent to subcommittees to be worked on. He added that recommendations have been to look at a tiered vending stand operation, going to a modular system that would address training needs for a tiered set up and, lastly, a recommendation to explore the possibility of going to an interview process for locations. Mr. Essenberg said that the ultimate goal was to have a process that matched qualified operators with facilities that they were capable of running so operators could provide quality service and products without having to train. He shared that at the last meeting there was discussion about the Executive Order but there was not a lot of information to discuss and what was happening did not impact what the Ad Hoc Committee was trying to accomplish so he did not allow the discussion to last long.
Commissioner Schuck asked questions about the proposed tiered process.
Discussion on BEP Promulgated Rules
Commissioner Scott shared that he wanted to discuss the approach that was taken to accommodate the needs of the State Plate and he asked Mr. Warren to report on whether there were any issues with the methods being used to locate an operator. Mr. Warren reported that he discussed this matter with staff as recently as yesterday and there are a couple of questions and documents that he needs to secure to determine what the Commission may do in regards to this different bidding process. He should have answers in a couple of weeks. Mr. Warren stated that he will issue a written attorney/client confidential communication which can be reviewed and discussed between Commissioners and the Attorney General’s office. Commissioner Posont asked if when this communication comes by email if the confidential nature can be clearly stated in the subject line. Mr. Warren gave a general overview of what the setup of the document will look like. Commissioner Schuck asked that Mr. Warren keep in mind the rules of the Open Meetings Act and added when talking about discussing issues with Commissioners. Mr. Warren thanked Commissioners for being sensitive to rules of the Open Meetings Act because of the small size of the Board at this time and when two Commissioners show up at the same time and have discussions about certain topics, Commissioners could be breaching a line with the Open Meetings Act. He urged Commissioners be sensitive to the fact that two of them together constitutes a quorum.
Commissioners asked if Mr. Fred Schroeder would like to speak about the letter he wrote to the Governor. Staff went to locate him.
Ms. Valarie Barnum Yarger, Executive Director of the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) gave an overview of the State Plan for Independent Living (SPIL), which is a 3 year plan. She informed the Board that the SPIL needed to reflect the name changes that will occur because of the Executive Order and her council wanted assurances that all changes will be done in collaboration with MRS and MCB and all services will be safe guarded. Ms. Barnum Yarger shared that SILC is committing to working as a full partner with MCB.
Commissioners commented that they were not involved in this process and were not at the table for the process that has occurred in developing a new State Plan. Ms. Barnum Yarger clarified that she was at the table as a staff person representing her Board in the same manner that MCB staff was at the table representing the MCB Board. Commissioner Posont expressed that he believes the MCB Board was intentionally left out of these meetings and the Michigan Rehab Council was involved but the MCB Board was not.
Mr. Fred Schroeder was given an opportunity to speak about his thoughts on the Executive Order. He stated that the State has some flexibility in how it rearranges rehabilitation services and the purpose of his letter was to draw the Governor’s attention to some technical problems he saw with the Executive Order. Mr. Schroeder went on to say that moving the Randolph Sheppard program to DTMB may cause some potential negative impact on this program. He and others spoke before Senate Appropriations the day before and talked about some potential solutions, including whether the intent is to transfer MCB as a Type II agency or to merge MCB with the general agency.
Commissioner Schuck pointed out that the MCB Report has an opening headline of “Governor’s Executive Order Merges MCB and MRS”. Director Cannon stated that it’s not clear if the intent is to merge but MCB is not being transferred to DHS as a Type II agency like MRS is. Commissioner Posont clarified that it leaves the question unanswered. Commissioner Schuck stated that communication from staff has been a problem and she demanded to see any communications when the staff sees them or before and asked that there be a respect for basic communications.
Lunch: 11:56
Reconvene: 1:08
Commissioner Posont thanked Christine Boone and staff for the lunch and that the food was fabulous. Ms. Luzenski added that Training Center staff were asked on Monday of the meeting week if it would be possible to feed everyone in attendance at the meeting. She said that the food was fantastic and staff did a great job.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Joe Harcz: Joe Harcz, National Federation of the Blind, and I repeat of the blind. We have in this state secret governmental activities, unconstitutional activities, violations of everything that I was taught in basic civics that is right and honorable. We’ve had secret government meetings about this Commission and about MRC and about the SILC with no participation of stakeholders and members of anybody else about things that we hold dear about federally funded and federally mandated programs. We’ve had violations of the Open Meetings Act which go on to this meeting because I haven’t got, even upon request, draft meeting minutes of several meetings. We’ve had violations of the ADA, that goes to that. We’ve had violations we’ve heard this morning. This morning we’ve seen one young man who’s had to fight in court for justice for more than four years and has been denied due process of law. Denied his constitutional rights to justice and that’s one person. This dog and pony show, this failure of democratic processes has to end and it goes beyond the blind. It goes beyond us, but we’re symptomatic. I had lunch with people, the nice lunch that people are talking about that I have come to love both as a student and as someone that has performed his practicum here. And I see people that aspire to have a good life, to get on in the world, that talk about the BEP program, talk about going to college, talk about everything else, talk about getting from point A to point B, you know some of the fundamentals that are taught here and learning skills of blindness. Those things will be gone, all of them. Ripped up, ripped asunder if we don’t stop Executive Order 2012-2 and all the other things that go along with it and they can rewrite it and go back over it again. The fundamental violations that this government has been perverting upon the people of Michigan with more secret meetings and more lack of transparency and come up and try to scratch their sorry backsides and come up with new excuses for rewriting what was already there to begin with. They’re trying to steal the programs for people with disabilities, for the blind in particular and that other type of thing. Finally, when I started making calls to other people about this Executive Order and everything else, you know what the biggest thing I heard? Was, oh well at least Cannon will be gone. Well that’s not the point, we don’t want the position of the Director to be gone and you don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Mr. David Robinson: Thank you. David Robinson, National Federation of the Blind. I wanted to comment on a couple things. One is just a piece of information and it’s certainly not criticizing anything from today but one of the things we as Catholics treasure during Lent especially is not to have meat on Fridays so that was an accommodation that probably wasn’t thought of, but the rest of the food was great. I wanted to talk a little bit about some things regarding the response for the consumers of the State of Michigan as blind consumers of Michigan in regards to how do we get problems resolved and what are the ramifications for problems and mistakes being committed by the Commission staff. For example, this morning I stated in my public comment that I had submitted some information to the Commission Board for that issue to be addressed. It was ignored then, its being ignored now. This is a pervasive behavior as far as the Commission staff, and its discrimination against an organization of blind in the state. The Braille A Thon that was at the State Capitol was sponsored by another organization was placed on the operator information line and yet we, as an organization for the blind, were not allowed to place an announcement about our annual state convention. So when we talk about response of the Commission and the Commission Board to blind of this State we’re often given just being ignored so we get the feeling that if we don’t shout out and tell people how we’re feeling we’re not going to get listened to. So we come to you in a formal way through correspondence and through our Resolutions in a formal format we asked that they be looked at and be considered as part of the agenda for discussion of problems that we as the blind feel is pervasive in this State and yet, they’re not being addressed, they’re not being talked about, they’re not being looked into and staff is not being called to answer for those issues. So where do we go, what do we do? The Commission Board, the Commission Board says that they’re there to hear blind people and they’re there to respond to blind people and yet here’s some issues from the National Federation of the Blind. A legitimate organization of the blind in this state and we work very diligently to talk and debate and to come to some conclusions about what should be done and where does it go? Where does it go? Nowhere. So I request that you examine how you think about it, what you do and how you respond to us as blind consumers because if you’re not going to do it in a formal way I guess we’ll just have to do it in some other way.
Mr. Joe Sontag: Hello Joe Sontag here once again. It just wouldn’t be a commission meeting without me flapping my jaws just a little bit about the Business Enterprise Program related stuff and so I will. And just getting right to it, for some reason I would be lying if I were to say to you that I was surprised when it was revealed that the BEP made no effort to defend its side or present its side in the Ron Fellows case. It’s unfortunate but it seems to be characteristic of the way they deal with situations they just don’t care to deal with. My own case is an example. I ran a complex location by all indications I ran it well, I did what I was supposed to unlike some of my predecessors and successors. I paid my taxes, I paid my employees above board. Paid the necessary taxes and met the insurance obligations under those arrangements and based on information that was provided to me in an accessible format mainly via my first PA, Mr. Dave Robinson who was the best PA I ever had I was running the facility at or above par. I was meeting profit expectations and yet when circumstances made it necessary for me to leave the facility, we found out, interestingly enough after changes were made to the operator selection system that suddenly I was found to be in serious trouble with my profit expectation and was effectively stripped of all points related to seniority in the program. And even though I have raised the issue several times since May of last year no explanation, no documentation even in inaccessible format has been provided to me to show the justification for the docking for profit percentage based point deductions. Even though statements were made to this very board to the effect that the thing was going to be resolved and set right and similarly when I bid on a facility with every serious intention with investigating it after conducting my investigation I was told when I declined the facility, oh we’re not even going to consider this correspondence seriously because we don’t even know if you’ve got positive points and in plain English we don’t even know if you’re promotable. This is after having gone completely silent on the first issue I mentioned. I responded promptly and on the record asking questions about how I could, why was my bid even accepted if there was serious question of my promotibility in the first place. And you think yes you guessed it – no response. That was last fall and in any case. You know, it’s rather interesting, of course it’s no mystery that certain people, especially in BEP administration regard me as something of an unpleasant odor that will eventually leave if you just wait long enough. That’s not really how I work and I’m sorry to say that the same pattern of administrative, whatever you’d like to call it, I’m trying to be diplomatic here that we see in the BEP, seems to be generally recognized throughout the agency and its time for that to end folks. Let’s keep the Commission for the Blind, the Commission for the Blind and its laws are not the problem, it’s the management. Thank you.
Mr. Terrence Ruffin: Hello my name is Terrence Ruffin and I’m a student here at the Commission for the Blind and this is my first meeting. I wanted to stand up because I wanted to stand up for all the students here who, we have heard rumors about them wanting to dissolve and complain about the way things have been handled by staff and the way that they teach us and I wanted to stand up and say that because the Commission of the Blind it has helped me a great deal to achieve certain abilities that I didn’t have before. Because after I lost my vision I had stayed home, stayed in the room and didn’t come out. I was afraid to come out at night, I was afraid to come out period. The training that the staff and the teachers here have given us has gave me a chance to try to rebuild my life. I was a chef prior to losing my vision and now I’m trying to go through the Business Enterprise to try to stand back up and I felt that in a sense I kind of lost my manhood because I wasn’t able to provide for my family like I was before. I stopped driving, I stopped working and all those things change and it changes your perspective on life and now this have given me a new opportunity to stand up and now to be back where I now can try to work towards a goal to try and provide for my family. And besides that the skills that I’m learning here has helped me tremendously improving my self-esteem. And it’s not just me, it’s other students that I have talked to that are getting this training and helping them. So I hope that whatever Governor Snyder does that he doesn’t change the Commission of the Blind and the way they operate.
Mr. Fred Wurtzel: My name is Fred Wurtzel, I’m with National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. I’m mostly retired and right now I’m serving as spokesperson for the National Federation of the Blind with regard to the Executive Order 2012-2 and I’ve met a lot of really great people in the last 3 weeks, we’ve spent every day that the legislature is open for business, we’ve been there and we will continue to be there. We’ll be there as long as it takes to make sure that there continues to be a Commission for the Blind board where blind people have some input and access to control over the kinds of services. Now Terence I’m here to talk to you a little bit because I’m retired. I’m here to talk to the two Kevin’s I met here because I’m retired. I had a great life. I received Commission services from the Commission for the Blind back in the 70’s, I got a degree and I went on to get my own Masters Degree paid for it myself. I had a great job working for 20 years working for the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program. I loved and still love the people I worked with, I love the operators, I love the whole business. I think that it’s worth working on in my retirement to do all that I can to keep it going and allow other people to have the opportunity. We fought very hard in the 70’s when there was a big threat to services being combined then. We had to go to extreme measures, not extreme, but strong measures to protect the services and ended up in the legislature, like we are now in the legislature, to make friends and to work together with the Administration. I was there with Governor Milliken. Mary was there and my little boy Freddy who’s now 35 years old and a successful chef out in Vail, CO. We were there and we have a pen at home that Governor Milliken gave us after he signed HB 5830 which became Public Act 260 of 1978. Larry was there, Mary was there but there’s a few of us left and it’s amazing because we’re still the ones amongst other, lots of other people that are helping but we’re still there working to keep the Commission going in the best way we know how and to maintain services for blind people. So if anyone is interested in helping on this effort you can contact us at www.nfb.mi.org is our webpage, my email address is f.wurtzel at att.net, I get old and I can’t change very well. So if you want to get in touch with me or see me here at the meeting I’ll help you get involved. Commissioner Schuck asked a question earlier about things with regard to the administrative law system and I will tell you that I was assisting an operator and I submitted information to them and I asked for an email response and they said well I don’t do email response, we don’t do email response we don’t do anything in electronic format. Well I said Braille, we don’t do anything in Braille so in other words our administrative law system in LARA does not provide materials in accessible format. So I think that is worth you looking into as Commissioners. Thank you. Sorry for going over.
Mr. Maryann Robinson: I kind of wanted to piggyback on what Fred just said. Not only does the Administrative Law Judge system need to be examined because they don’t provide material in accessible format the Commission for the Blind, the BEP they do not provide material in accessible format and if the Agency that’s supposed to provide services to blind people can’t do that for the operators and the people they serve there’s something very wrong with that. I also received Commissioner services many years ago and then I went on to graduate school and got my own degree. I’ve been watching what’s been going unfolding with the Commission in recent years and I’ve been very, very distressed. There are many, many people who deserve services from the Commission we need to keep the Commission, we need to keep the Commission Board, we need to have you tell your representatives and Senators that we oppose Executive Order 2012-2, what we need to fix is what’s broken and that’s the management in the top and once those issues are dealt with I believe blind people can receive the services that they deserve to receive. I’m also concerned about Attorney General Warren’s trying to sort of be on the fence because of mistakes made by the BEP Administration. I don’t understand why 6 people were subpoenaed, didn’t show up, where’s the accountability of BEP staff. Why aren’t they showing up and the reason that the Attorney General is in this position is because mistakes have been made repeatedly over and over and over. There have been lawsuits, after lawsuits, after lawsuits. I don’t understand why the BEP Administration is not being held accountable for the mistakes that they continue to make and it’s my feeling that when Mr. Warren speaks it’s a conflict of interest. He can’t really speak to the Commission Board because he’s trying to cover up for the mistakes that the Agency continues to make. It’s a horrible position to be put and how can we do due process be conducted under those circumstances. I think that’s a horrendous situation and again we need to fix what’s broken and it’s problems with the top level management at the Commission and the BEP. I’d like to see them go back to being among the most respected program and Commission in the country as opposed to where they are now because they’re really at the bottom rung of the ladder. Thank you.
Ms. Candelaria Jelinski: This is Candelaria Jelinski and I am the president of the Committee at Large with NFB right now and I just got nominated to that position and I thank you all for doing that. My concern is the fact that I have retinitis pigmentosis and this is a condition that is passed on to my children and my children’s children and their children. So, we have to make sure that this service is here for my kids, my grandkids and my great grandkids because they’re all going to be hit with RP. They’re all going to have it because I have an X chromosome link that’s going to go to my boys and 50% of those boys that are already born have it. And it goes on so these service for us visually impaired and blind people need to continue in a better way to ensure that we are getting proper services for meeting the needs for each individual and if you don’t understand that every person is different and they have their own unique and qualities that they can bring to the table other than what you want to put them into in these little boxes of what blind people are, what they should be and what visual people are and what they should be. We need to get rid of all that, get rid of the prejudice and really focus on what we need as individuals to encourage us to get into the workplace again. This is all new to me. This blind life of mine that I have to now exist in is all new and I’m looking to you as the elders in our community to guide us and to help us figure out what we need to do next and how we can get involved because I want to get involved. This is a big enough fight for me to get involved in. I didn’t come all the way from Lapeer Michigan and travel on a train for 4 hours or 4 ½ hours because this is not an issue that is important enough. This is important enough for me to get off my butt and get out here and start telling everybody I know on my contact list and on my facebook contact list and my family is all over the country. I’m from California and believe me honey I have been emailing everybody in my family, everybody I know and their friends asking them to do the same. And if everyone of us did that you know how many people we could hit in this country? Thousands and thousands if not millions but we need to get emailing and we need to get voice and we need to be heard. Because we’re not here just to be stepped on and moved to the side and say hey you know what you’re opinion doesn’t count. We do count. We’re just like everyone else. There is no difference. The only difference is we can’t see. Does that keep us from only being a massage therapist or only being in the BEP program? No, everything is open for us and I need you guys making sure that every persons personal situations are dealt with because everybody’s coming from a different background. Everybody’s coming from the inner city or the country and we have to learn how to communicate with one another and understand one another and learn to fellowship and share the things that we learn with each other. Because those of us that are new to this, we don’t know but you do. You all have been doing this for 10, 20, 30, 70 years (inaudible). I don’t know but Lord help us that are new to this get involved and help you fight this fight because if the young people don’t get involved we are missing the vote. We are totally missing the vote. We need to get those 18 year olds and 17 year olds and then we need to get them on fire to fight for what we need in the future for us blind and visually impaired people. Thank you.
Mr. Terry Eagle (via telephone): Wow it’s hard to follow that young lady and speak after the message that was given to the students after that earlier in the dialogue but I want to reiterate everything the Joe Sontag, Joe Harcz and Fred Wurtzel and Dave Robinson, those are all dittos as well as the young lady that just spoke and I didn’t’ get her name. Anyway, the one thing I want to bring up again is the corrupt hearings system. This thing about Ron Fellows, I was first representing him as some of the people may know. He got the shaft by the crooked Judge, Judge Mead then and he got it again. The Commission should have automatically, the Judge should have automatically granted him a default judgment, just like every time he has done the same thing when an operator has not shown up he granted them the Commission everything they wanted and he should, Ron Fellows should have gotten a default judgment without question. That’s the law but nobody seems to understand that the Administrative Procedure Act supersedes the Commission Act when it comes to license issues and those issues having to do with operators and he got shafted again because the default wasn’t filed and it wasn’t given to him and Mark Kamar was right when he tried to speak and was told that he was out of order this morning. You guys are getting one half of the story in every case and that’s the problem and as you will learn today if you haven’t already learned we’re going to take this fight to the courts because you obviously are not going to take care of the management that is the problem. I said to Geri Taeckens and Jo Ann Pilarski when I asked for their resignation, they’re gone and the problem is still there and the management is still there that is the problem and as long as we have crooked and corrupt judges meeting and sharing documents and staff off the record, expartee, we’re going to have a lack of due process and it’s obvious that since this board isn’t willing to deal with it and we’ll deal with it in the courts. This obviously isn’t going to be the last case because the next one that will come is the one that Lydia spoke about earlier about not having things in accessible format and that will be a Federal case and we’ll start dealing with this stuff in the courts because obviously one is passing the buck onto the other and nobody wants to deal with it. So, just like with the emergency financial managers trying to hold secret meetings and the courts are slapping the Governor and his staff around saying that’s not going to happen. (inaudible) judgment against you and you’ll pay. There’s one other thing I want to say. As Lydia talked earlier that she wouldn’t lie down in front of Pat Cannon’s door, you better not Lydia because I assure you there is a DTMB rule that says you can’t block a State doorway. We know that’s true because Hazell Brooks was thrown out of the program for violating that rule and I’m sure Mr. Cannon who really doesn’t care about conflict of interest until it benefits him will be going to the Ethics Board if you lay down in front of his door. Thank you.
Ms. Luzenski thanked Elsie Duell for the wonderful audio quality at the meeting.
Consumer Involvement Council (CIC)
Ms. Susan Turney, Communications and Media Specialist presented the CIC motions on behalf of Phyllis Magbanua, CIC Chair who was not able to attend.
The motions are listed in order of presentation and any discussion is after each motion:
1. Motion to recommend to the MCB Board that information sent to commission board members relevant to the state plan including financials, intakes, and closures be sent to the CIC members in their preferred format, including all the intakes, all the closures, all the financials, and everything that the MCB board approved as part of the director’s objectives for this year, and that this information be posted to the website and sent to the listserv.
Discussion: Commissioner Posont asked Director Cannon if this has been done and he responded that the VR data has been posted to the website and sent to Commissioners and he assured the Commissioners that the CIC will be receiving that information as well. Commissioners asked for an email verification within the next week.
2. Motion to recommend to the MCB Board to require the director and MCB to follow the effective communications requirements of the ADA including timely delivery of information related to all activities of the commission board, to make documents available upon request and for them to be posted to the commission’s webpage.
Discussion: Commissioner Posont stated this is an ongoing issue and asked when this issue will be put behind us. Director Cannon said perfection is illusive but that when deficiencies are called to staffs attention the situation is remedied quickly. Commissioner Scott stated that all documents should be turned over when requested as required by law, to people who request them and in accessible format. Director Cannon responded that staff has lists to send documents to and utilizes these lists when sending out Commission meeting documents. There was a discussion about FOIA and how charges for requests are assessed.
3. Motion to recommend to the MCB Board to have the ADA coordinator and department of transportation director invited to the next commission meeting.
Discussion: Mr. Wurtzel clarified that the issue was with the City of Detroit transportation and the CIC would like representatives from DDOT and SMART to attend the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Scott gave background of the transportation issues in the City of Detroit that he has come across. Commissioner Schuck asked that Easter Seals and Disability Network be contacted also to see what projects are being worked on. Director Cannon added that public transportation is one of the biggest obstacles that blind people face and collaboration with both consumer groups and providing a forum could assist in positively impacting public transportation throughout the state. Commissioner Scott will communicate with individuals in the Detroit area who are involved with the transportation organizations.
4. Motion to recommend to the MCB board that they explore a mystery shopper program like the one that was conducted by MRS in the past.
Discussion: Director Cannon stated that he will look into this program and will advise Commissioners of his findings.
5. Motion to recommend to the MCB Board that they demand from the director that MCB not contract for services with any agency that offers subminimum wage and does not follow section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Discussion: Commissioner Posont asked if there was a way to make not using these organizations a reality. Commissioner Schuck stated her understanding of the rules that determine when an organization can pay subminimum wages and how does this help promote the perspective of people with disabilities being capable employees. Mr. Fred Wurtzel spoke on behalf of the CIC and shared that the NFB is currently participating in a national effort to eliminate all subminimum wages for persons with disabilities. He stated that the CIC is asking that MCB stop contracting with any organization that pays people subminimum wage. Commissioner Scott shared that he doesn’t know why it is even allowed to happen as having a disability shouldn’t be a factor, a person is either qualified or they’re not qualified to perform the job. He added that MCB needs to find the organizations that are paying minimum wage or above and that is who should get the business. Director Cannon asked for clarification that if an organization is paying anyone subminimum wages, even if an MCB client is making well above minimum wage, the recommendation is that the Agency does not use this organization. Commissioners stated their agreement and added that there are 64 organizations within the State that operate paying subminimum wages and asked Director Cannon to review the participating agencies and let them know which Agencies are utilized by the Commission for their services. Commissioner Posont stated he did not want to wait to take action on this that he wanted to make a statement to these organizations and the community now. Commissioners discussed the best way to handle this situation how to set out a plan to approach the organizations that pay subminimum wage. Mr. Joe Harcz brought to the Commissioners attention that the Agency is contracting with organizations who routinely violate Section 504 of the Rehab Act and these organizations need to be cut off.
State Plan 2012/2013
Director Cannon addressed the issue of the State Plan and amendments that need to be made because of the issuance of Executive Order 2012-2 (EO). He stated that the EO transfers MCB and Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) to the Department of Human Services (DHS), with MCB’s Business Enterprise Program being transferred to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget. Because this is a substantial change both state plans need to be amended. A process and plan was implemented to write these amendments to the State Plan and hold hearings but because of the delay of the EO this has not happened. Implementation of the EO is temporarily suspended so language can be put in place to ensure the transfer of BEP will align with Federal regulations. Staff has had meetings with the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and RSA has stated that we may be able to submit the 2013 State Plan later than what is normally required. Commissioners clarified that the EO has been delayed but not rescinded and when amendments are approved the 60 day implementation clock will start again. There was also discussion about review and comment of the State Plan for Commissioners and the process in place for responding to public comments made at the State Plan hearings.
Mr. Leamon Jones joined the discussion via the telephone and clarified that the public comment is collected, summarized and responded to as a whole by the Agency on why or why not changes are made to the State Plan based on the public comment submitted. He went on to say that amendments to the 2012 State Plan would have to be amended by the receiving Agency of MCB to reflect the significant changes of the EO. Mr. Jones went through the steps of creating the new State Plan and amending the Plan each year. Director Cannon added that the State Plan amendments need to be submitted by DHS, the receiving agency of MCB. Commissioner Posont asked if the Michigan Rehab Council (MRC) had been a part of the RSA phone calls. Director Cannon stated he was unaware of how much involvement the MRC has had as the RSA meetings were held by teleconference.
Commissioner Schuck asked Mr. Jones to clarify that staff should be providing services as usual to clients and not be waiting to find out what happens with the Executive Order. Mr. Jones agreed that client services should be provided as usual. Director Cannon reiterated that the message to staff is that no changes should be made on how customers are receiving services and there have been no changes in the Agency services.
Administrative Reports
Training Center Report
Ms. Christine Boone, Training Center Director welcomed everyone to the Training Center, especially Mr. Mike Zimmer, LARA Chief Deputy Director and Mr. Fred Schroeder, Vice President NFB. She shared with participants that staff is working on setting a date for an open house for the grand reopening of the Training Center. Ms. Boone gave an update on the renovations and moving back in to the Training Center as construction has been winding up. She thanked staff for all of their extra efforts in doing extra clean up and set up for both the move in and the meeting being held today.
Ms. Boone shared that student numbers are gradually increasing as the Center gets back up and running and in two weeks there should be 24 students housed at the Center. Finally, she thanked and commended the Training Center students who attended this meeting and for their concern about the Executive Order and services.
Commissioners thanked Ms. Boone, complimenting her on the food at lunch and saying they were looking forward to a tour after the meeting. There were a few follow up questions about construction issues that had occurred during the renovation and Ms. Boone gave an update about the outcomes.
Consumer Services Report
Mr. Leamon Jones, Consumer Services Director highlighted some of the information that was included in his written report including staff training on System 7, joint leadership training with MRS, training for staff on CSAVR’s national network of employers and placement opportunities with national organizations and that MCB has been working with Community Mental Health (CMH) to increase referrals. He reported that there should be 12 different summer programs happening this summer including the internships with the Business Enterprise Program. Mr. Jones shared about a small business group, the Booker T. Washington willing to work with clients on soft skills to assist in clients becoming gainfully employed. He also informed attendees that at the last mini adjustment program there was a 2 day Employment Readiness Seminar focused on energizing individuals in various ways to get out and look for employment.
Lastly, Mr. Jones said staff is completing two reports due to RSA, the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) and the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) and Commissioners will be seeing those when they are completed.
Ms. Christine Boone advised Commissioners that the Training Center will be hiring 2 student assistants to help in holding summer programs at the Training Center. She also apologized to the Catholics for not observing Lent and having an appropriate lunch option.
Administrative Services Report
Ms. Elsie Duell, Administrative Services Manager referred to the written report she submitted and stated she has been with MCB for a year and feels better about handling the budget and where MCB stands with spending and match for this fiscal year. She reported that she has been working with the Independent Living Older Blind program to review services to this demographic.
Ms. Duell shared that the technology set up in the Commission meeting room has worked great.
Director Cannon congratulated Ms. Duell for celebrating her one year anniversary with the Commission.
Commissioner Posont recognized Chief Deputy Director Zimmer asking if he wanted to make a statement. He declined.
Director’s Report
Director Cannon stated he wanted to acknowledge the advocates working to retain the Commission for the Blind as a Type II Agency and went on to explain how other states have dealt with Executive Orders issued similar to Michigan’s focused on preserving their specialized services for the blind. Commissioners stated that there has been good conversation at this meeting about Executive Order 2012-2 and asked that they be included in further conversations happening as a result of the delay of the EO. Director Cannon said that staff who have been at the table have gone forward with a commitment to provide the best services for VR clients and the focus on this will ultimately prevail.
Commissioner Scott asked if there were any other agencies around the country that were stand alone at Type II agencies. Director Cannon gave an explanation of how other states have set up their Agency’s and he gave Texas as an example of a state that was able to combine but retain specialized services for the blind as a separate unit.
Director Cannon provided an update of the 2012 Director’s Objectives some of which were referred to earlier by Constance Zanger in her BEP report. He reported the corrective action plan report will be going to Commissioners at the end of the month, the VR data was given to Commissioners earlier and has been posted on the MCB website and the third objective, having to do with posting website content to Newsline has been being facilitated by Ms. Susan Turney, who reported that Peter Zaremba, Michigan’s Newsline coordinator needed time to come up with a plan to post the 1,500 documents which Ms. Turney wanted to forward. Director Cannon stated the last objective needing to be addressed has to do with staff training and Bob Robertson will be compiling the staff survey results and sharing that with the training committee when it meets in early April.
Commissioner Schuck asked Ms. Turney about searching for particular phrases or documents on the MCB website. Ms. Turney gave a brief explanation of some search tips and stated she would put up a tutorial on how to search for items on the website.
Old Business
Newsline
Commissioner Scott expressed a concern for funding for Newsline and wanted to know where funding for Newsline through the Agency stood.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED THAT THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND SUPPORT NEWSLINE FOR THE BLIND FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS UP TO $80,000 A YEAR; SCHUCK SECONDED.
Discussion: Director Cannon stated he is a big fan, supporter and user of Newsline and it is of great benefit to blind users. He went on to add that his last request made to the department to help support Newsline was rejected but he would be pleased to submit a request again in the near future. Director Cannon said that overtures to the Michigan Public Service Commission to support Newsline were not productive, but added that he had submitted the names and contact information for dozens of private sector foundations to Larry Posont to help in Newsline funding. Commissioner Posont shared that the NFB – National is trying to secure some grants for funding from the organizations identified.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
New Business
Commissioner Schuck stated that this could be done at a later date, but it was important to visit what Committees Commissioners would be assigned to.
Adjournment
SCOTT MOVED TO ADJOURN; SCHUCK SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
The meeting adjourned, ahead of schedule, at 3:56 p.m.
The next Commission meeting is scheduled on June 15 in Lansing.
________________________________
Mr. Larry Posont, Vice-Chair
Date:___________________________
Fredric K. Schroeder, Ph.D.
9522 Lagersfield Circle
Vienna, VA 22181
March 13, 2012
The Honorable Rick Snyder
Governor of Michigan
P. O. Box 30013
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Governor Snyder:
I am writing in my capacity as the former Commissioner (1994–2001) of the U.S. Rehabilitation
Services Administration, the federal agency that provides the majority of the funding to support
the work of the Michigan Commission for the Blind.
I would like to express my concerns about your recent Executive Order No. 2012-2, dated
February 24, 2012. This Executive Order makes significant changes to the manner in which
individuals with disabilities in Michigan receive services. I am particularly concerned about the
impact that these changes will have on blind individuals and individuals who have visual
impairments in the State of Michigan. Let me address my concerns regarding certain provisions
in the Executive Order as follows:
Transfer of the Michigan Commission for the Blind
Executive Order No. 2012-2 transfers the Michigan Commission for the Blind to the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Michigan Commission for the Blind currently receives over $17,000,000 in federal funds per year to provide vocational rehabilitation and other services to blind individuals. This funding will be in jeopardy if the organizational changes do not comply with federal requirements for state vocational rehabilitation programs. For example, the Executive Order is unclear about the
organizational placement of the transferred agency within DHS. Is it to be a freestanding organizational unit or is it to be merged into Michigan Rehabilitation Services under DHS? If the entity providing
services to blind individuals is to remain a separate unit within DHS, all federal organizational and State Plan requirements must be met for such a unit. Organizationally, it must be a unit that meets the specific requirements in 34 CFR 361.13(b). The unit must have a full-time director, have 90 percent of its staff working full time on rehabilitation work, and must be at an organizational level within DHS that is comparable to that of other major organizational units of the agency.
The Honorable Rick Snyder
March 13, 2012
Page 2
Business Enterprise Program
The Executive Order moves the Business Enterprise Program from the Commission for the Blind and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget. This will invalidate the currently approved State Licensing Agreement between the federal Rehabilitation Services Administration and the Michigan Commission for the Blind. Under the current State Licensing Agreement, 88 facilities (48 state and 40 federal) are operated by blind vendors in Michigan. The Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget is not eligible to serve as the State Licensing Agency for the Business Enterprise Program. Applicable federal regulations at 34 CFR 395.2 require that an application for a State Licensing Agency can only be submitted by a state vocational rehabilitation agency providing vocational rehabilitation services under an approved State Plan. Given this situation, all of Michigan’s blind vendors operating on federal property will lose their source of income.
Creation of the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services
The Executive Order creates the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services as a replacement for the Michigan Rehabilitation Council. The membership of the new Council and its duties appear to be consistent with the federal requirements for a State Rehabilitation Council under both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and program regulations at 34 CFR 361.16-361.17. However, the language is clear that the new Council applies only to Michigan Rehabilitation Services. It does not mention its
applicability to the transferred duties and functions of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. If the
intent is to place the transferred Commission under Michigan Rehabilitation Services, then
the new Council would apply to services for blind and visually impaired individuals.
However, the Executive Order is not clear on this point. If the transferred Commission is to
be a freestanding organizational unit within DHS, then a separate Council may be needed
or the functions of the new Council must be expanded to cover services to blind and
visually impaired individuals.
If the intent is to merge the Michigan Commission for the Blind’s programs into the Michigan Rehabilitation Services Agency, I urge you to consider the impact on services to blind and visually impaired individuals in the state. Studies conducted over the past four decades have repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of specialized services for the blind: Cavenaugh, B. S. (2010). An update on services and outcomes of blind consumers served in separate and general/combined vocational
The Honorable Rick Snyder
March 13, 2012
Page 3
rehabilitation agencies (prepared for the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind by the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision, Mississippi State University,
Mississippi State, MS: RRTCMSU) found that—
o Separate blindness agencies continue to serve a higher percentage of consumers with demographic/disability characteristics associated with lower labor force participation rates.
o Separate blindness agencies continue to close a higher percentage of legally blind consumers into competitive employment.
o Separate blindness agencies close a higher percentage of legally blind consumers into employment without supports in integrated work settings.
o Separate blindness agencies close a higher percentage of legally blind
consumers into self-employment.
Establishment of a Blind and Visually Impaired Services Advisory Board
If the intent of the Executive Order is to maintain the specialized service structure of the Commission for the Blind and move it intact into DHS, the Commission will need to retain its independent consumer-controlled commission or it will need to establish a State Rehabilitation Council.
The Executive Order creates a Blind and Visually Impaired Services Advisory Board. However, the Board does not meet the federal requirements for either an independent consumer-controlled commission or a State Rehabilitation Council under Section 101(a)(21) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. It also does not meet the specific requirements of 34 CFR 361.16 of the program regulations, given that
it will have no standing under an amended Michigan State Plan for vocational rehabilitation. An amended State Plan will be required based upon the organizational changes in this Executive Order.
The 1992 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 first introduced the requirements for a State Rehabilitation Advisory Council (now the State Rehabilitation Council). The 1992 Amendments made clear that the intent of Congress was that each state vocational rehabilitation agency should be run by an independent, consumer-controlled commission. However, as federal law cannot dictate organizational structure to state governments, an option was made available for an advisory council in lieu of the consumer-controlled commission. Under the Executive Order, Michigan will be taking a step
backward to a less preferable organizational construct for serving its citizens who are blind or visually impaired.
The Honorable Rick Snyder
March 13, 2012
Page 3
Elimination of the Position of Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind
The Executive Order also eliminates the position of Director of the Commission for the Blind. However, in order to remain a freestanding vocational rehabilitation unit, the entity providing services to blind and visually impaired individuals must have a director who is full-time and has the authority to make the final decisions regarding eligibility, service delivery, rehabilitation policy, and the allocation and expenditure of vocational rehabilitation funds (see 34 CFR 361.13(c), which spells out the specific responsibilities for administration).
No Improved Coordination and Little Administrative Savings
Research shows that only minimal administrative savings can be achieved by consolidation of separate agencies serving blind individuals into larger agencies serving individuals with all types of disabilities. In fact, these savings are offset by less effective, less well-organized, and less efficient services under a generalist’s model. In the late 1990s, Cavenaugh, Giesen, and Pierce at Mississippi State University conducted an analysis of national data and found that blind people who are served through separate agencies for the blind are nearly twice as likely to be self-supporting at closure as blind people served by a consolidated vocational rehabilitation agency. Consolidation weakens specialized services, reduces program efficiency, and saves little, if any, money.
In summary, Executive Order No. 2012-2 will have a significant, negative impact on the lives of
blind and visually impaired individuals in the state of Michigan. As noted above, the changes outlined in the Executive Order will place at risk the $17 million in federal funds that currently support programs for the blind and visually impaired in the state, and will weaken the specialized services essential for the rehabilitation of blind and visually impaired residents of Michigan. It will put in jeopardy the jobs of 88 blind Randolph-Sheppard vendors, and it will damage the partnership between the vocational rehabilitation program and blind and visually impaired residents of the state.
I respectfully ask that you rescind Executive Order No. 2012-2 and maintain the existing organizational structure.
Respectfully yours,
Fredric K. Schroeder, Ph.D.
Commissioner (1994–2001), Rehabilitation Services Administration
U.S. Department of Education
cc: Members of the Board, Michigan Commission for the Blind
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list