[PACapitalChapter] Letter from NFB-PA First Vice-president and State OVR Board Member Joe Drenth

Sun Apr 21 22:45:06 UTC 2019

Dear Secretary Oleksiak:

In response to your email to me, which I have copied below, I make the
following points:

1. MY LIFE AS A BLIND PERSON WHO KNOWS THE VALUE OF A SEPARATE BLINDNESS
PROGRAM.

I have first-hand knowledge of the value of BBVS. I have been blind for 27
years and am deeply involved in the blindness community. I served on the
BBVS advisory committee from 2011 until 2018 when I was appointed to the
State Board of Vocational Rehabilitation. I know hundreds of individuals
who BBVS helped to become competitively employed, including my deafblind
wife, who BBVS helped to complete her undergraduate degree; she has now
been employed as a statewide program manager for almost four years, thanks
to BBVS. I know exactly how life-changing BBVS’s services are to people who
have lost eyesight.

I am hopeful that you have reached out to the blind and visually-impaired
community to understand the role VR plays in their lives. Maybe you could
share some of your experiences. In the end, it goes without saying that the
elimination of BBVS will impact lives and is not just a cost issue.

2. OVR’S LACK OF TRANSPARENCY.

What we know is that you are considering eliminating BBVS and rolling its
services under BVRS. Can we agree on that? Of course, any so-called
misinformation could have been allayed by greater transparency on your
part. Telling BBVS and BVRS managers about the dissolving of BBVS before
reviewing details of your plan with the OVR Board, Advisory Committee for
the Blind, SRC, and CAP was an obvious mistake and clearly sent the wrong
message to stakeholders, the Board, and community. Speaking of
transparency, what is your process going forward for evaluating this issue?

3. RESEARCH AGAINST THE ELIMINATION OF A SEPARATE BLIND PROGRAM.

Can we agree that you need to consider the impact of closing BBVS on the
blind community? Studies performed by Mississippi State University’s
National Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision show that
combining blindness-related VR services with general disability VR services
negatively affect the rehabilitation outcomes for blind and
visually-impaired individuals. Is it fair to assume you are not willing to
sacrifice positive outcomes for cost savings?

4. SUPPORTING THE BOARD’S ROLE UNDER THE PA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION ACT.

Your statements regarding the role of the Board in the VR program are at
odds with a plain reading of the State VR Act. In the first place, the
elimination of BBVS involves much more than managing the day-to-day
activities of OVR. Reducing any significant issue to the consideration of
daily activities is, as your policy people will tell you, a formula for
disaster. Second, I don’t see where in the Act you decide the Board’s role.
You may be the chairperson, but nowhere in the Act are you granted absolute
power over the Board, and despite your intimation, the Board has never
formally delegated this authority to you.

The Act clearly states that the Board shall administer, supervise and
control OVR? And that its responsibilities include, among other things:

a) Establishing the philosophy, mission and goals under which OVR shall be
conducted;

b) Establishing policies with regard to the development and delivery of VR
services;

c) Establishing policies with respect to the expenditure of funds for
vocational rehabilitation;

d) Reviewing and evaluating on a continuing basis:

i. All policies, programs and activities which concern the vocational
rehabilitation of persons with disabilities under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended;

ii. All policies, programs and activities established by the Board in order
to assess the effectiveness of such policies, programs, activities, and
statutes in meeting the rehabilitation needs of persons with disabilities.

In a nutshell, the Board administers, supervises and controls all aspects
of OVR policy, programs and activities according to state law. Federal law
also recognizes the Board as the Designated State Agency responsible under
WIOA for the administration of the VR program, according to the State Plan.
If you have another legal interpretation of the Act, I would appreciate
reviewing it. General statements without specific reference to the Act are
not helpful.

5. THE SUNSHINE ACT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO STIFLE DEBATE.

I appreciate your concern regarding the Sunshine Act and the issue of a
quorum for the committee. I am a bit confused, however, with how you
distinguish between the activities of a workgroup and your proposal of a
dinner meeting before the next Board meeting to discuss my concerns. I
don’t assume that all workgroups deliberate. If that was the case, every
OVR policy workgroup would violate the Act.

6. REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH DOCUMENTS ACT ENSURES FAIRNESS.

In addition to the Sunshine Act, we should review the Commonwealth
Documents Act and its bearing on whatever decision is made. In addition to
having to amend the State Plan, consideration will have to be given to
Pennsylvania’s rule-making requirements.

Finally, let’s agree to work together, where at a minimum we agree that you
and the Board share equal responsibility for the VR program.

Respectfully,

Joseph Drenth

Pennsylvania State Board of Vocational Rehabilitation

E-mail: joe.drenth at jbtc.com

Carlton Anne Cook Walker
Attorney at Law
BEAR--Blindness Education and Advocacy Resources
Teacher of Students with Blindness/Low Vision
President, National Organization of Parents of Blind Children (NOPBC)
101 Kelly Drive
Carlisle, PA   17015
Voice: 717-658-9894
Twitter: braillemom

*This message is not intended or offered as legal advice. * These materials
have been prepared for educational and information purposes only.  They are
not legal advice or legal opinions on any specific matters.  Transmission
of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not
constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this site, the author(s),
or the publisher, and you or any other user.  Internet subscribers and
online readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information
without seeking professional counsel.  No person should act or fail to act
on any legal matter based on the contents of this site.  Unless expressly
stated otherwise, no document herein should be assumed to be produced by an
attorney licensed in your state.

This message is from the law firm Carlton Anne Cook Walker, Attorney at
Law.
This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or
confidential information and are intended only for the individual or entity
identified above as the addressee.
If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you
in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message
and any attachments.
You are hereby requested to please delete this message and attachments
(including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone
at 717-658-9894.
Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the
intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality
or any privilege.