From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 12 17:31:25 2011
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:31:25 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA
	Open Inquire)
Message-ID: <2B5E9731A5C94C278E1BF13004A821CB@Alphacat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 13:24
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)



----- Original Message ----- 
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) ; Wallace, Judy 
(LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:53 PM
Subject: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)


October 6, 2011



Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458



Dear Mr. Harcz:



This letter is in response to your September 21, 2011, email request for copies of public records, received September 22, 2011, 
please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.



In your email, you requested information/records described as follows:  "Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, 
non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone."



Pursuant to MCL 15.235, Section 5(2)(c) of the FOIA, your request is partially granted and partially denied.



Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records possessed by the Department/MCB falling within the scope of your request. 
However, pursuant to MCL 15.234, Section of the FOIA, the Department/MCB has assessed estimated, allowable costs of totaling $81.30 
to process this request. The records possessed by the Department are print documents of monthly billings with a receipt stamp 
indicating that the Department's Revenue Accounting Division has received payment and attributed the monies to the proper accounts 
under the MCB, which includes the set-aside account.  As the Department/MCB does not have a method that differentiates between 
sighted or blind temporary operators, the records possessed are for all temporary operators in the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) 
for Fiscal Year 2011.

FOIA Response - P.J. Harcz, Jr.

October 6, 2011

Page 2 of 2









Thusly, based on the amount of labor involved and the amount of material that must be produced, and reviewed regarding statutory 
privacy concerns, pursuant to MCL 15.234, Section 4(3) of the FOIA, the Department/MCB must assess costs to process this request 
because, in this particular instance, failure to charge for search, examination, review, and deletion and separation of exempt from 
nonexempt information would cause the  Department/MCB to incur unreasonably high costs for these activities that are excessive and 
beyond the normal or usual amount for these services; and would result in an undue financial and administrative burden per ADA 
regulations (28 CFR 35.160.164) which states:

"A public entity must ensure that its communications with individuals with

 disabilities are as effective as communications with others. This obligation

 does not require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate

 would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its services,

 programs, or activities, or in undue financial and administrative burdens."



The estimated cost of $81.30 to process this request is based on:

--Labor time to search for, copy, examine to redact exempt information,

  and put on a flash drive is 3 hours at $25.10/hr = $75.30.

--Flash drive and postage costs = $6.00



Please send payment of $81.30 as indicated on the attached invoice.

Upon receipt of payment, the Department/MCB will continue processing this request; notify you of any statutory disclosure 
exemptions; any applicable remedial rights; and any balance due or owed.



Sincerely,









Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind



Attachments - Invoice and Email Request



Cc:    Patrick Cannon

          Mel Farmer

          Susan Turney

          Constance Zanger

          James Hull

          Judy Wallace































































                   DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                     FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT INVOICE



      NAME AND ADDRESS OF REQUESTER



      Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

      E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

      1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

      Mt. Morris, MI 48458




     BUREAU/OFFICE:
     Michigan Commission for the Blind

      ACCOUNT CODE:
     Index:  36200

      PCA: 11343

      REQUEST RECEIVED: 9-22-11

      TYPE OF REQUEST

             LETTER/SUBPOENA         FAX         x    E-MAIL

      REQUEST PARTIALLY DENIED  ( X ) YES    (  ) NO


      REQUESTED INFORMATION WILL BE:



         X              MAILED UPON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT

                MAILED/INVOICED FOR FULL PAYMENT

                PAID AND PICKED UP IN PERSON

      EXEMPT INFORMATION WITHHELD/REDACTED       (  ) YES           (  ) NO

      EXTENDED RESPONSE NOTICE ISSUED            (  ) YES           ( X ) NO




      DLARA CONTACT: Melvin Farmer, Central FOIA Coordinator (517) 373-0194
      Ottawa Building, 4th Floor, 611 W. Ottawa, Lansing, MI 48909







      The FOIA provides that the department may charge a fee to comply with requests for public records.  The processing fee is 
composed of hourly wages and benefit costs of the lowest paid employee(s) capable of processing the request; the duplication of 
records at assessed costs per page; mailing costs; and other related special costs.  Prior to searching and copying requested 
records, the department may request full payment or 50% of the estimated costs exceeding $50.00 with the balance required before 
mailing the records.  Assessed costs are related to your request for:

      "Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone."



                              INVOICE CALCULATIONS


                    AMOUNT


      (Lowest Paid Capable Employee)

      LABOR (Locating and Duplicating):       No. of  Hours   2   x Hourly Rate $25.10

      LABOR (Examining and Extracting):      No. of  Hours   1   x Hourly Rate $25.10
     50.20

      25.10






      POSTAGE:   (estimate)
     2.00




      DUPLICATING:            No.  of Pages           x Copying Rate Per Side $.25





      OTHER:  (overtime, audio tapes, discs, photos, security, etc.) Flash Drive


                                     4.00




      Make check or money order payable to:         STATE OF MICHIGAN

      Remit to:              Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs

      Office Services Mailroom

      7150 Harris Drive, P.O. Box 30015

      Lansing, MI  48909

      RETURN ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT.



      *Please note that if a deposit is requested, the indicated amount is an estimate of the cost of complying with your request. 
The actual cost may vary somewhat from this amount.


      TOTAL                 81.30




      DEPOSIT




      BALANCE TO BE PAID



      $81.30










Distribution:  Requester, Agency, Financial Services, FOIA Coordinator



NOTE TO FOIA COORDINATORS:
UPON PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT OR BALANCE SEND COPY TO CENTRAL FOIA COORDINATOR
















From: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:09 AM
To: Farmer, Mel (LARA); Haynes, Carla (LARA)
Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
Subject: FW: FOIA open inquire






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:43 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Cannon, Patrick (LARA); lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; Larry Posont 
MCB Comm.; Arwood, Steve (LARA)
Subject: open inquire



Dear Ms. Zanger and Mr. cannon,



It has come to my attention that we in MCB have not collected all set asides from sighted, non-disabled tempory operators for some 
time. I'm a bit confused by this documented fact in that MCB is required by PA 260 and the Randolph Shepard Program to offer a 
priority to blind folks in these concessions as the State Licensing Agency. I'm also confused in that this set aside is considered 
income for federal matching purposes.



So, correct me if I'm wrong here but don't we violate the mandates of the RS, VR and other programs when we don't require when using 
federal funds the same requirements of so-called temporary operators who are not blind in the same manner as we've done for blind 
operators?  And aren't these inequities primae facae evidence of mass, systemic, and willful violations of the ADA, and Section 504 
in their clearcut discriminatory impact in that they clearly set and implement in fact and documented deed discriminatory standards 
of practice?





And, moreover a practical matter here...In short aside from the clear cut misappropriations of federal funds here aren't we as an 
agency losing appropriate federal match as again set asides are "income" and thus robbing the entire MCB program because of these 
derelictions of duties and misappropriations of federal funds in the first instance?



I mean think about it you clearly don't ask for the same inventory requirements as documented in fact and deed of these temporary 
operators let alone the same set aside requirements .



Shoot ALJ decisions in the public domain are rife during recent years where you all yanked licenses from operators, often 
appropriately for not paying or accounting for federally funded inventories. Oh I guess these were problems because the operators 
were blind?



But you don't set the same standard, and the same accountability for sighted, non-qualified temporaries?



Are the violations in law and equity here only obvious to an outsider likeme or even the casual observor on the seen?



What gives here?



I'd like some accounting let alone accountability here.



Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone. I want line item 
accounting and not voodoo accounting too.



sincerely,



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.



cc: MCB Commissioners

cc: Craig McManus, RSA

cc: Steve Arwood

cc: OIG, United States Department of education









Carla Miller Haynes

DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

Phone:  517/373-2063

FAX: 517/335-5140



www.michigan.gov/mcb





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> 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/suncat0%40gmail.com
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response Letter.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 89088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20111012/2f937f99/attachment.doc>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Oct 12 17:31:59 2011
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:31:59 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA
	Open Inquire)
Message-ID: <032CFFD01636420E9899DCC3D1165AF0@Alphacat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "Steve Arwood LARA Dep" <arwoods at michigan.gov>
Cc: "Robin Jones" <guiness at uic.edu>; "lydia Schuck MCB Comm." <laschuck at juno.com>; <mcb2020-L at LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV>; "Ussery, 
Karla" <Karla.Ussery at ed.gov>; "Patrick Cannon MCB Dir." <cannonp at MICHIGAN.GOV>; "blind democracy List" 
<blind-democracy at octothorp.org>; <vincent.cheverine at ed.gov>; <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Peter Berg" <pberg at uic.edu>; "Joe Sibley 
MCBVI Pres." <joe.sibley at comcast.net>; "John Scott MCB Comm." <jcscot at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 15:10
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: joe harcz Comcast
> To: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)
>
>
> Dear Ms. Haynes and (indirectly Mr. Cannon and Mr. Arwood),
>
>
> I have several things to say about this non-response. One you and the agency implicitly violate the "surcharge" provisions of the 
> ADA and Section 504. As I've sent these regulatory and statutory citations to the agency before and as this is after all the 
> Michigan commission for the Blind with the former head of the U.S. Access Board and former State of Michigan ADA coordinator at 
> the helm, namely the scofflaw Patrick D. Cannon,  I can only construe that the direct violations of the ADA/504 requirements are 
> not only deliberate indifference to known civil rights laws (re: Tyler vs.. Manhattan), but also willful and made with malice of 
> forethought.
>
> In short this and similar responses constitute a malicious violation of my and other's civil rights.
>
> Again, this is simply absurd on its face as the Michigan Commission for the Blind is indeed just that and should be the expert and 
> is paid by the taxpayer to be the expert in keeping such records and indeed making them accessible in the first place and in fact 
> signs assurances with the feds each and every year in those regards. Are those assurances indeed outright lies as this response 
> implies? If so then I think the U.S. Attorney's office should engage in false statements act claims against the personnel who 
> indeed utters and engages in these violations of law and equity.
>
> Moreover, I urge you and all to look at the regulations on the affirmative defense relative to "administrative burdens and undue 
> hardship". These are not fleeting issues or arbitrary ones but, rather ones that must be read literally, and again you've all been 
> notified by yours truly in these regards. The absurdity on this issue at the risk of redundancy is plain on its face as you 
> represent Michigan Commission for the Blind for crying out loud! Would a Michigan Commission for the Deaf cite such absurd issues 
> in violation of clear cut mandates and federal civil rights laws with impunity, let alone a straight face? I think not!
>
> By the way again refer to affirmative obligations under case law on the issue such as Tyler vs.. Manhattan. which again, I've sent 
> you all and thus again you all are guilty on its face of 42 USC 1983 violations of my civil rights which is actionable and 
> recoverable against you all personally as you are all state actors acting in concert against my known civil rights and you are all 
> acting inconcert in malicious fashion being dully notified in law and equity.
>
> Now, finally the abject failure of you all in accounting for the expenditure of federal funds "earmarked" and required for 
> specific purposes herein (namely Federal funds for the express purposes of the BEP and VR programs) or the open and with this 
> message undocumented, and self-admitted lack of accounting of same is malfeasant by your own admission at very best and is, 
> frankly criminal, and I mean that term in its strictest sense at worst.
>
> The MCB is a "Shepard" of federal taxpayer's funds and those funds must be accounted for. Aside from the discrete issues of 
> blindness and my invocations of the ADA/504 in these regards each and every taxpayer regardless as to race, color, creed, gender, 
> sexual orientation, disability, age, or other contingency has a right to know just how and why these funds are expended and to 
> what purpose.
>
> It is both on its face outrages and wholly unacceptable that this agency cannot by your own admission break out or otherwise 
> account for differentials in funding for dedicated funding and discrepancies therein for non-blind temporary operators versus 
> blind operators for whom the very establishment of PA 260 and indeed the Randolph Shepard program let alone the Rehabilitation Act 
> of 1973 were created and funded in the first place.
> This is simply an outrageous response for simple accounting let alone true public accountability.
>
> This response in and of itself is again also a constitutional violation of both the "spending clause" and the "14th Amendment" 
> requirements in regards to the misapplication and misinterpretations of the ADA/504 and abusing the FOIA (state law) to pre-empt 
> federal legal requirements. Again, I neeed not prove anything but this very message which stands in stark violation of the federal 
> civil rights laws and statutes.
>
> So my suggestion is this: remit requested information forthwith not only to myself in accessable format, but also account for 
> these expentidures to RSA, the GAO but also the Michigan Auditor General and make all such required documentation available to the 
> Governor of the State of Michigan and even more importantly the public and our entire Republic on MCB's own web site.
>
>
> To reiterate the law and indeed several laws are consistent in these regards. The Business enterprise program under PA 260, and/or 
> the RS/Rehabilitation Act program are federally funded programs for the express purpose of promoting gainful and meaningful 
> employment of people who happen to be blind. They are not programs for underwriting without any measure of accounting let alone 
> accountability  with state and federal funds sighted, non-disabled white males or females for that matter. If the State Licensing 
> Agency (MCB) disagrees with this simple interpretation of law, equity and accountability then I suggest that you all give up your 
> federally subsidized laws under these Acts and return your paychecks to the state and federal taxpayer. Then you can rightfully 
> lobby to re-vise these programs, and services and benefits and activities that you seemingly so despise by your actions.
>
> As an aside to Ms. Haynes, for this message is clearly aimed at "higher ups" predominately I must say our relationship has been 
> cordial and I hold no personalanimous towards you personally. But, I also must say I have the rights of all citizens and they will 
> not be deterred.
>
> In short if people wish to "nickel and dime" by contrivance and denigration of known civil rights laws my and others 
> constitutional right to know the public activities of public institutions and actors nd if one wishes to let these same scofflaws 
> violate my and others constitutional and civil rights then one might well be expected to be sued on the same par as those 
> self-same scofflaws for cause.
>
> Regardless I've made my case in point and in fact and in deed.
>
> I will not desist and I call for the United States Attorney's Office to look in to this bovine scatology.
> She has done so before and she will do so again.
>
> State Departments cannot be trusted right now with the public trust.
>
> Again, Carla, sincerely about all that. But public trust, public laws and public rights are what they are.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
>  To: joe harcz Comcast
>  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) ; Wallace, 
> Judy (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
>  Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 12:53 PM
>  Subject: Response to FOIA Request (FOIA Open Inquire)
>
>
>  October 6, 2011
>
>
>
>  Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>
>  E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
>
>  1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
>
>  Mt. Morris, MI 48458
>
>
>
>  Dear Mr. Harcz:
>
>
>
>  This letter is in response to your September 21, 2011, email request for copies of public records, received September 22, 2011, 
> please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's 
> Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.
>
>
>
>  In your email, you requested information/records described as follows:  "Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, 
> non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone."
>
>
>
>  Pursuant to MCL 15.235, Section 5(2)(c) of the FOIA, your request is partially granted and partially denied.
>
>
>
>  Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records possessed by the Department/MCB falling within the scope of your 
> request. However, pursuant to MCL 15.234, Section of the FOIA, the Department/MCB has assessed estimated, allowable costs of 
> totaling $81.30 to process this request. The records possessed by the Department are print documents of monthly billings with a 
> receipt stamp indicating that the Department's Revenue Accounting Division has received payment and attributed the monies to the 
> proper accounts under the MCB, which includes the set-aside account.  As the Department/MCB does not have a method that 
> differentiates between sighted or blind temporary operators, the records possessed are for all temporary operators in the Business 
> Enterprise Program (BEP) for Fiscal Year 2011.
>
>  FOIA Response - P.J. Harcz, Jr.
>
>  October 6, 2011
>
>  Page 2 of 2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Thusly, based on the amount of labor involved and the amount of material that must be produced, and reviewed regarding statutory 
> privacy concerns, pursuant to MCL 15.234, Section 4(3) of the FOIA, the Department/MCB must assess costs to process this request 
> because, in this particular instance, failure to charge for search, examination, review, and deletion and separation of exempt 
> from nonexempt information would cause the  Department/MCB to incur unreasonably high costs for these activities that are 
> excessive and beyond the normal or usual amount for these services; and would result in an undue financial and administrative 
> burden per ADA regulations (28 CFR 35.160.164) which states:
>
>  "A public entity must ensure that its communications with individuals with
>
>   disabilities are as effective as communications with others. This obligation
>
>   does not require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate
>
>   would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its services,
>
>   programs, or activities, or in undue financial and administrative burdens."
>
>
>
>  The estimated cost of $81.30 to process this request is based on:
>
>  --Labor time to search for, copy, examine to redact exempt information,
>
>    and put on a flash drive is 3 hours at $25.10/hr = $75.30.
>
>  --Flash drive and postage costs = $6.00
>
>
>
>  Please send payment of $81.30 as indicated on the attached invoice.
>
>  Upon receipt of payment, the Department/MCB will continue processing this request; notify you of any statutory disclosure 
> exemptions; any applicable remedial rights; and any balance due or owed.
>
>
>
>  Sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator
>
>  Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>
>
>  Attachments - Invoice and Email Request
>
>
>
>  Cc:    Patrick Cannon
>
>            Mel Farmer
>
>            Susan Turney
>
>            Constance Zanger
>
>            James Hull
>
>            Judy Wallace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                     DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
>
>                                       FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT INVOICE
>
>
>
>        NAME AND ADDRESS OF REQUESTER
>
>
>
>        Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>
>        E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
>
>        1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
>
>        Mt. Morris, MI 48458
>
>
>
>
>       BUREAU/OFFICE:
>       Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>        ACCOUNT CODE:
>       Index:  36200
>
>        PCA: 11343
>
>        REQUEST RECEIVED: 9-22-11
>
>        TYPE OF REQUEST
>
>               LETTER/SUBPOENA         FAX         x    E-MAIL
>
>        REQUEST PARTIALLY DENIED  ( X ) YES    (  ) NO
>
>
>        REQUESTED INFORMATION WILL BE:
>
>
>
>           X              MAILED UPON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
>
>                  MAILED/INVOICED FOR FULL PAYMENT
>
>                  PAID AND PICKED UP IN PERSON
>
>        EXEMPT INFORMATION WITHHELD/REDACTED       (  ) YES           (  ) NO
>
>        EXTENDED RESPONSE NOTICE ISSUED            (  ) YES           ( X ) NO
>
>
>
>
>        DLARA CONTACT: Melvin Farmer, Central FOIA Coordinator (517) 373-0194
>        Ottawa Building, 4th Floor, 611 W. Ottawa, Lansing, MI 48909
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        The FOIA provides that the department may charge a fee to comply with requests for public records.  The processing fee is 
> composed of hourly wages and benefit costs of the lowest paid employee(s) capable of processing the request; the duplication of 
> records at assessed costs per page; mailing costs; and other related special costs.  Prior to searching and copying requested 
> records, the department may request full payment or 50% of the estimated costs exceeding $50.00 with the balance required before 
> mailing the records.  Assessed costs are related to your request for:
>
>        "Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone."
>
>
>
>                                INVOICE CALCULATIONS
>
>
>                      AMOUNT
>
>
>        (Lowest Paid Capable Employee)
>
>        LABOR (Locating and Duplicating):       No. of  Hours   2   x Hourly Rate $25.10
>
>        LABOR (Examining and Extracting):      No. of  Hours   1   x Hourly Rate $25.10
>       50.20
>
>        25.10
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        POSTAGE:   (estimate)
>       2.00
>
>
>
>
>        DUPLICATING:            No.  of Pages           x Copying Rate Per Side $.25
>
>
>
>
>
>        OTHER:  (overtime, audio tapes, discs, photos, security, etc.) Flash Drive
>
>
>                                       4.00
>
>
>
>
>        Make check or money order payable to:         STATE OF MICHIGAN
>
>        Remit to:              Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs
>
>        Office Services Mailroom
>
>        7150 Harris Drive, P.O. Box 30015
>
>        Lansing, MI  48909
>
>        RETURN ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT.
>
>
>
>        *Please note that if a deposit is requested, the indicated amount is an estimate of the cost of complying with your 
> request. The actual cost may vary somewhat from this amount.
>
>
>        TOTAL                 81.30
>
>
>
>
>        DEPOSIT
>
>
>
>
>        BALANCE TO BE PAID
>
>
>
>        $81.30
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Distribution:  Requester, Agency, Financial Services, FOIA Coordinator
>
>
>
>  NOTE TO FOIA COORDINATORS:
>  UPON PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT OR BALANCE SEND COPY TO CENTRAL FOIA COORDINATOR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  From: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
>  Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 8:09 AM
>  To: Farmer, Mel (LARA); Haynes, Carla (LARA)
>  Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
>  Subject: FW: FOIA open inquire
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
>  Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:43 PM
>  To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>  Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Cannon, Patrick (LARA); lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; Larry Posont 
> MCB Comm.; Arwood, Steve (LARA)
>  Subject: open inquire
>
>
>
>  Dear Ms. Zanger and Mr. cannon,
>
>
>
>  It has come to my attention that we in MCB have not collected all set asides from sighted, non-disabled tempory operators for 
> some time. I'm a bit confused by this documented fact in that MCB is required by PA 260 and the Randolph Shepard Program to offer 
> a priority to blind folks in these concessions as the State Licensing Agency. I'm also confused in that this set aside is 
> considered income for federal matching purposes.
>
>
>
>  So, correct me if I'm wrong here but don't we violate the mandates of the RS, VR and other programs when we don't require when 
> using federal funds the same requirements of so-called temporary operators who are not blind in the same manner as we've done for 
> blind operators?  And aren't these inequities primae facae evidence of mass, systemic, and willful violations of the ADA, and 
> Section 504 in their clearcut discriminatory impact in that they clearly set and implement in fact and documented deed 
> discriminatory standards of practice?
>
>
>
>
>
>  And, moreover a practical matter here...In short aside from the clear cut misappropriations of federal funds here aren't we as an 
> agency losing appropriate federal match as again set asides are "income" and thus robbing the entire MCB program because of these 
> derelictions of duties and misappropriations of federal funds in the first instance?
>
>
>
>  I mean think about it you clearly don't ask for the same inventory requirements as documented in fact and deed of these temporary 
> operators let alone the same set aside requirements .
>
>
>
>  Shoot ALJ decisions in the public domain are rife during recent years where you all yanked licenses from operators, often 
> appropriately for not paying or accounting for federally funded inventories. Oh I guess these were problems because the operators 
> were blind?
>
>
>
>  But you don't set the same standard, and the same accountability for sighted, non-qualified temporaries?
>
>
>
>  Are the violations in law and equity here only obvious to an outsider likeme or even the casual observor on the seen?
>
>
>
>  What gives here?
>
>
>
>  I'd like some accounting let alone accountability here.
>
>
>
>  Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone. I want line item 
> accounting and not voodoo accounting too.
>
>
>
>  sincerely,
>
>
>
>  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>
>
>
>  cc: MCB Commissioners
>
>  cc: Craig McManus, RSA
>
>  cc: Steve Arwood
>
>  cc: OIG, United States Department of education
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Carla Miller Haynes
>
>  DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>  201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor
>
>  P.O. Box 30652
>
>  Lansing, MI  48909
>
>  Phone:  517/373-2063
>
>  FAX: 517/335-5140
>
>
>
>  www.michigan.gov/mcb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Oct 13 01:58:49 2011
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:58:49 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] From the October, 2011 Braille Monitor
Message-ID: <AC3A0C8C0F47486B865708243C7F2251@Alphacat>

Please feel free to share this with anyone who genuinely cares about reforming and improving services to blind people in Michigan. 
The article text appears below.

[PHOTO CAPTION: Shown here is the front of the training center and its sign
which shows the American flag and the words Michigan Commission for the
Blind Training Center]
   Continuing Conflict and Strife at the Michigan Commission for the Blind
                               by Gary Wunder
      In the roll call of states in 1978, Allen Harris, reporting as the
president of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, proudly
announced the passage of legislation establishing the Michigan Commission
for the Blind (MCB). The convention was excited; people from Michigan were
elated. We had long known that the best services for blind people are most
likely to be provided by agencies run by a supervising board appointed by
the governor with the input of the blind, who can go directly to the
legislature and the governor to make their case for the programs they need.
      In Michigan the legislation that passed wasn't everything the
affiliate had hoped it would be. The commission was not a free-standing
agency but a bureau. Employees, including the agency's director, would
still be a part of Michigan's merit system. Unarguably positive, however,
there would be a five-member commission board that would supervise and
evaluate the director and make policy for the agency. In a time when many
agencies for the blind were being consolidated into larger governmental
bodies and losing their ability to present their budgets to the general
assemblies of their states and finding they could no longer speak directly
with the governor and legislature, Michigan's progress was important for
the blind of Michigan and a reason for the blind of America to cheer.
      One fear of the Michigan general assembly and governor was that
passing the new commission bill would turn the agency upside down. Promises
by the act's proponents for a smooth transition, jobs for workers in the
agency who still wanted them, and as little disruption to service as
possible meant that the commission came into being and functioned much like
its predecessor. The commission board perhaps for too long continued to
function as an advisory body. The agenda was still set by the agency;
things it wanted placed before the new commission board came to its
attention while those the agency chose to handle itself did not.
      Much has changed in the thirty-plus years since Michigan got a
commission. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was amended in 1998. Consumer
choice and empowerment and consumer-directed programs have become a part of
our everyday language and expectation. The federal Rehabilitation Act
mandates a rehabilitation council in every state. For Michigan this council
is the Michigan Commission for the Blind. The role of the rehabilitation
council as defined in the Rehabilitation Act goes beyond communicating the
programs of the agency to its patrons and acting in an advisory capacity as
former state councils and advisory committees once did. State councils are
to be partners in determining what programs their agencies conduct,
evaluating the success of those programs, and actively soliciting,
reporting on, and trying to implement consumer feedback.
      The extent to which these councils function as true partners varies.
Some appointed members are so flattered at sitting at the head table and
rubbing elbows with higher-ups in the agency that they are content to
assent and pass on everything the agency proposes. They take no assignments
and gratefully agree to pass on any work between meetings to agency staff.
Some who are more active soon have to decide how much of their time outside
agency meetings they are willing to devote to finding out what consumers
want and learning enough about the law to determine which changes are
possible and which are not. Those who come with an agenda and the intention
of bringing about real change soon learn that their zeal must be tempered
by an appreciation for the people who have made their careers the helping
of blind people and by how long it takes to develop a consensus. The terms
of effective advocates are often characterized more by constructive change
than by drama. The challenge is to ensure that one doesn't win a public
battle while in so doing making so many enemies among those who will
implement the change that the war is lost.
      The personality of the agency director, the strength of the agency's
traditions, the vitality of the consumer organizations, and the way the
state rehabilitation council is composed and views its role all contribute
to how involved consumers are in shaping agency policy. A director who sees
his governing board as an asset and a board that believes its members are
partners in carrying out the agency's mission find their relationship
rewarding and productive. When the director regards his council or
governing board as removed from the real work with the agency and considers
board meetings a burdensome reality he or she must tolerate in working for
a social service agency, the relationship is poor. Meetings are not events
in which constructive dialogue and sound public policy are demonstrated.
When the council or commission is constantly at odds with the agency
administration, the agenda is a battleground where the administration
fights for time to be used in reporting and the governing body or council
fights for policy evaluation and change. Meetings are endured rather than
enjoyed, and the positive consumer-driven process intended by the drafters
of the Rehabilitation Act and its amendments is thwarted.
      In June and July of 2010 the Braille Monitor published articles about
the Michigan Commission for the Blind and serious conflicts between
consumers of the state, the commissioners of the Michigan Commission for
the Blind, and the director of the commission, Patrick Cannon. Because that
coverage was so detailed, this article will summarize only those items
relevant to understanding the activities which have occurred since.
 [PHOTO CAPTION: Christine Boone]
      In February of 2010 Cannon fired Christine Boone, the director of the
residential rehabilitation training center, alleging she had started a
marksmanship class without his knowledge or consent and that she had
violated state law by allowing firearms to be purchased and brought onto
state property. Cannon initially said he had learned of the class at the
2009 convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. Later
he testified that he remembered having discussions about the class with
Boone, that those discussions involved looking into instruction offsite,
and that never had he given his approval for the class. Allowing blind
people to do things normally considered impossible for the blind is a well-
established practice of rehabilitation centers in trying to reshape the way
blind students think and feel about being blind. Rock climbing, skiing, and
other challenge activities are well-accepted strategies that are key to
changing a student's perception of what it means to be blind and are found
in some of the best training centers in the country. Sky diving was even
conducted at the Michigan training center in recognition of the importance
of such challenge activities.
      With the help of the National Federation of the Blind, Christine
Boone appealed her dismissal. A four-day hearing was held before an
arbitrator in January of 2011. In arguments supporting Boone's dismissal
for violation of civil service regulations, the state alleged that she
might have discussed the possibility of training with her supervisor, but
never had she gotten his approval to proceed with it. To the extent that he
understood such training was being discussed, it was Cannon's understanding
that the class would be taught offsite at a local firing range. The state
also alleged that the guns used in the marksmanship class were firearms as
determined by state civil service regulations and, as such, were not
allowed on state property.
      In presenting her side, Boone argued that she had told Cannon about
the students' desire to do target practice as part of the center's
adventure activities, that he was supportive and told her to research how
the class might be conducted, and that he emphasized the need for safety.
Boone assigned one of her assistant directors, Karen Cornell, who was very
involved in marksmanship as a recreational activity, to research how and
where the class could be conducted. While a target practice facility was
located in the area, it seemed safer and less disruptive to hold
marksmanship training on the center's property. Given that the center has
more than twenty acres and is making an effort to use that land fully,
Cornell suggested this solution as an alternative. She next went to the
state police and then to the Kalamazoo Public Safety Department in the
Kalamazoo Police Department to determine whether the spring-loaded guns she
was considering were firearms. The police concluded that they were not; the
guns were purchased with a state purchasing card and without a background
check. The purchase rang up as general merchandise. State purchasing paid
the bill, questioned the purchase several months later, and was answered by
Assistant Director Bruce Schulz, who explained the role of adventure
activities at the training center as the reason for the purchase.
      Classes were held, and the success of the training was indeed a topic
covered in Boone's report at the National Federation of the Blind of
Michigan convention. Boone testified that Cannon's preference for oral
rather than written communication explained the lack of written approval
and that, indeed, no written approval for the sky-diving program conducted
by the center had been granted, though clearly the program had been
authorized, supported, and even publicized by the agency. She argued that
the need for Cannon's approval was questionable given her job description
and the discretion given to her as a high-level manager. Boone admitted
that she had not initially been aware of a civil service regulation when
she authorized the commencement of the marksmanship class but quoted the
rule which clearly defines a firearm as "A weapon from which a dangerous
projectile may be expelled by explosive, gas, or air." She presented
evidence that the guns purchased by the Center (and approved by Department
of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth purchasing officials) did not use any
of these three methods to expel the pellets. The guns use a spring
cylinder, and the owner's manual warns that the markings on these units
say, "Warning: Do not brandish or display this product in public--it may
confuse people and may be a crime. Police and others may think it is a
firearm. Do not change the coloration and markings to make it look like a
firearm." The civil service rule used as the basis for Boone's firing also
spells out numerous exceptions, including specific approval by an
appointing authority, which can be the CEO of an autonomous entity that is
headed by a board or commission. She further argued that Cannon had no
concern about the legality of the pellet guns on state property because she
was ordered to bring them to his office for his personal inspection when he
raised the issue of not knowing about the training. Finally she argued that
Cannon's understanding of where the training would take place was of no
consequence since the regulations do not distinguish between firearms on
state property or in the possession of employees while on state time.
      Prior to the Commission meeting on June 17, 2011, an arbitrator from
the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth, who is also
a member of the American Arbitration Association, ordered Boone's
reinstatement. In the thirty-six page decision, the arbitrator found that
there was agreement that the marksmanship class was well received by the
students and staff of the training center; that no one believed they were
violating either the spirit or the letter of the law or the regulations of
the state of Michigan; that personnel of the state of Michigan charged with
interpreting the regulation had difficulty in determining whether the BB
guns were firearms; and that the regulations were too ambiguous to justify
Boone's termination. In its summation the finding reads:
      The Appellant makes a cogent argument that Ms. Boone's termination
for her alleged violation of the work rule and regulation at issue violates
her due process rights because the policies, as they are applied to the
specific facts and circumstances in this case, were impermissibly vague.
The regulation and work rule relied upon for the termination of Ms. Boone's
employment are so complicated that it took both Jason Nairn and Patty Gamin
hours of research to determine whether the rule was violated. Mr. Cannon
wasn't sure and relied on their opinions. Automatically terminating the
employment of an employee for violation of a rule where the application of
such rule is not clear and readily understandable violates the concept of
just cause. Due process requires that noncompliance with a rule can only be
relied upon in administering discipline if the rule is clear and accessible
enough to be readily relied upon by the subject of the discipline.
      After careful review of all the facts and circumstances, it is clear
that Ms. Boone performed her work in good faith and with reasonable
diligence. It has not been shown that the Appellant purposely violated any
of the rules or regulations with which she is charged. There is not just
cause for discipline or discharge in this matter.
                                     DECISION
      For all the above stated reasons, the grievance is granted. Ms. Boone
shall be reinstated to her former employment and made whole as to lost
wages and benefits.
      There you have the concluding remarks of the arbitrator and the order
to reinstate Boone. Director Cannon announced this decision to the staff in
a memorandum entitled "Wishing Sherri Well," Sherri Heibeck being the
person appointed by director Cannon to run the training center following
Christine Boone's firing. In the same way Director Cannon announced Boone's
return to the board of the Michigan Commission for the Blind under the
agenda item entitled "Training Center Report," which he began by
introducing Sherri Heibeck and complimenting her on her many years of
service to the agency and her more recent work with the training center. He
told the commission board and those in the audience that Sherri had to
leave work with the blind because the agency had been ordered to reinstate
Christine Boone. The clear implication was that a loyal and dedicated
employee was being forced out by Boone, but at no time that day did anyone
mention the facts on which the arbitrator ruled, the injustice to Christine
Boone, or the anxiety of training center staff that resulted from the
firing, absence, and return after eighteen months of their former boss.
      Much to Heibeck's credit is her own handling of Boone's return as the
director of the training center. In remarks to the training center's staff
on learning she would be leaving the director's position, Heibeck assured
them that their good work would not go unnoticed, that they should not be
anxious about Christine Boone's return since most of them already knew and
had worked for her, and that quality programs would continue and expand at
the training center. The same cordiality was shown when she met with Boone
prior to her return.
      The Christine Boone case is not the only one in which the Michigan
Commission has been involved in the last year. Dave Robinson, also a member
of the National Federation of the Blind, was dismissed after ten years with
the agency. Although highly rated by the Michigan vendors he served as a
promotional agent (in other states this position is known as a vending
supervisor), his dismissal was based on being behind on paperwork, a
problem shared by many promotional agents in Michigan. Robinson notes that
he was the agent for more vendors than any other, being responsible for
serving thirty-one facilities. The promotional agent with the second-
highest workload has twenty-four.
      Robinson appealed his dismissal, and an arbitrator ruled in his
favor. The arbitrator found his termination was based on his membership in
the National Federation of the Blind. Robinson was on paid leave from
February to August of 2011. The state appealed the decision of the
administrative law judge and won, so Robinson says he now plans to take the
matter to court.
      Robinson says his firing had less to do with paperwork than with a
conflict with Director Cannon. Michigan law spells out that blind vendors
have preference on state property, including catering for special events.
When state workers began routinely to bring in food from the outside
without giving the onsite vendor an opportunity to compete for the
business, Robinson says he insisted the vendors had the right to complain
and defended them. He says that, when Director Cannon was contacted by the
heads of offices that had hired others to do the catering, he did not like
the conflict, and he suggested Robinson stop raising the catering issue.
      The Monitor has learned that one other issue involving blind vendor
complaints about outside catering cost Hazell Brooks her facility and
income. In her career Brooks had filed and won four grievances against the
agency prior to the catering dispute. We are told that, after complaining
about a catering event for which she was not allowed to bid to officials in
the building in which she worked, she was visited by Cannon and a staff
member of the vending program. Contrary to state and federal rules, Hazell
was removed immediately. She fought the removal and since has been awarded
a better facility--the claim is that the location she has now is the second
best in the state. The commission board has also ordered the agency to
negotiate with her to provide compensation for the lost income she
sustained. By our count this makes her five for five, a great day for a
hitter in baseball and a quarterback's dream in football.
      All told, it appears the state of Michigan has had to pay more than
three quarters of a million dollars in grievances and lawsuits from
customers of the business enterprise program, grievances by consumers and
employees, and lost wages and benefits over the last eighteen months. One
must ask why? A partial answer is the failure of agency director Cannon to
resolve internal conflicts within the MCB, leaving it to hearing officers,
administrative law judges, and arbitrators to settle matters that have
arisen from agency disputes. The experience of one former blind vendor
illustrates this problem.
      Terry Eagle worked as a vendor in the Michigan program for ten years.
 Then successful surgery gave him substantial vision. So significant was
the increase that he withdrew from the Business Enterprise Program and made
his living for fifteen years in other pursuits. Eventually his vision
deteriorated to such a degree that, when he again became legally blind, he
applied to reenter the program. Vending staff at the commission said he
could not compete for facilities until he took vendor training, with no
allowance for his previous training and experience. He holds a BA in
hospitality management, which includes certification in hotel and
restaurant management. Training in the Michigan program costs $2,900 a
week, lasts for eight weeks, and is then followed by nine weeks of on-the-
job (OJT) training. The rehabilitation counseling unit of the MCB said it
had no intention of paying for someone with Eagle's training and experience
to go back for such instruction. Eagle said he would retake the vending
classes, if required, but agrees that he does not need such training.
According to Eagle, so too did John McEntee, at the time the trainer for
the Business Enterprise Program, who said he could give Eagle any refresher
training he might need in two weeks. Management declined the offer and
recommendation. Clearly Eagle was caught in an internal agency dispute that
should have been resolved by Director Cannon or his designee, but the case
has been taken to federal court. The court has decided it does not have
jurisdiction, and Eagle promises to take it up in state court. The result
has already cost the state money to defend, and the likelihood is that, if
properly filed as Eagle promises, will result in another settlement against
the commission. It is one thing when an agency for the blind and a consumer
disagree and the assistance of a third party is required to resolve the
impasse; it is quite another when disagreements within the agency require
the consumer to take action outside the agency to receive service. Eagle
says that, to be fair, he was given one other option for entering the
program: paying for the training and OJT out of pocket. Conservatively this
would have cost at least $30,000.
      As Fred Wurtzel, the former president of the National Federation of
the Blind of Michigan and the former head of the commission's Business
Enterprise Program, says: "Most of the time when we are involved in an
appeal, we win, but statistics don't explain how it feels to be the victim
of these tactics. It is hard enough to face discrimination and
misunderstanding based on blindness, but to face the mistreatment by our
state agency when all that is wanted is a livable income and the respect of
the community is almost impossibly difficult and stressful. BEP operators
have been seriously harassed after the board or an ALJ have ordered their
return. The object lesson is that, even though you may eventually get your
job back, Pat Cannon can disrupt your life, take away your income, tarnish
your reputation, and reduce your influence with others. One need only
remember the removal of Mark Eagle, a twenty-two-year-old who was removed
from the commission board based on charges of ethical conflict because his
father was involved in helping other vendors with their grievances. This is
a totally inappropriate way to manage a public agency. Only people like us,
Federationists whom Pat cannot affect, are in a position to fight back
effectively for blind people."
      To the commission's credit, a real attempt to make the proceedings of
the board available to the public was evidenced by the work that went into
broadcasting the June 17 meeting on the Internet, making it available by
telephone, and accepting comments from people not in the room, whether they
wished to respond orally or using email. Commission staff went into great
detail about how to listen and participate in the meeting, and it was clear
that the effort represented a good deal of time to research and implement.
Participation from around the state was evident as offices of the
commission and consumers in their homes heard and spoke to the board.
      Within days of the meeting, members of the commission board and staff
were surprised to learn that, in addition to the audio, the session had
been videotaped. The failure to mention this when the recording and live
audio coverage had played such a prominent part in the meeting was not well
received. Just as participants had the right to know that what they said
was being recorded and broadcast, those in the room had the right to know
that they were being photographed. Many who were disconcerted by the
videotaping said it reminded them of the pictures taken at demonstrations
in the sixties and used as a reason to create FBI files on patriotic
citizens who chose to express their concern through peaceful protests. An
apology has been issued by Steve Arwood, who heads the larger agency which
houses the MCB.
      The tension between Director Cannon and the commission was obvious
both before and during the meeting. According to the commission's current
bylaws, the board agenda is determined by the chairman and the director,
and thirteen items recommended for consideration from the board were not
included. An agenda item involving a forty-five minute presentation from
members of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan that had not
been covered in the previous meeting of the board was reduced to twelve
minutes without apology or explanation.
      Since the meeting the chairman of the commission, Jo Ann Pilarski,
has resigned. This means that the five-member commission board is now
functioning without a chairman, and two of its five positions are vacant.
By the time this issue goes to press, the next quarterly meeting of the
commission board will have occurred. From time to time there is talk of
combining the MCB with the state's other rehabilitation agency. Whether
this is an attempt to bring the blind to heel or represents the recognition
of the commission's many blunders and their cost to the state is debatable.
What is beyond debate is that Michigan Federationists believe that Pat
Cannon is a bully who has very little professional knowledge and lacks a
real understanding of the rehabilitation process, the rehabilitation law,
and the art of personnel management. He continues to usurp the authority
and role of the commission board and muffles and blunts all serious
consumer involvement. While most feel compelled by their most personal
values to refrain from judgment, to respect the humanity of their
adversary, and to separate the sinner and the sin, they truly believe that
only after Director Cannon is replaced can the process of building trust
and a positive process for serving blind people begin.
_______________________________________________ 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Sat Oct 22 02:30:38 2011
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:30:38 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] official board correspondence and
	continuingviolations bep ada and all that
Message-ID: <79010A7F12644A7390986D88974AB7F7@Alphacat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "Larry Posont MCB Comm." <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
Cc: "lydia Schuck MCB Comm." <laschuck at juno.com>; "Sue Luzenski MCB Admin Ass." <LuzenskiS at michigan.gov>; "Ussery,Karla" 
<Karla.Ussery at ed.gov>; "Patrick Cannon MCB Dir." <cannonp at MICHIGAN.GOV>; <vincent.cheverine at ed.gov>; <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>; "Joe 
Sibley MCBVI Pres." <joe.sibley at comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:06
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] official board correspondence and continuingviolations bep ada and all that


Official Board Correspondence Relative to MCB BEP and the Public Record







October 18, 2011



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

810-516-5262



To: Commissioners Michigan Commission for the Blind

Also several parties including: Susan Luzenski, MCB and Patrick D. Cannon MCB





Dear Commissioners,



I'm writing today to put into the public record via so-called "official MCB board correspondence" the item related to the Business 
enterprise Program put forward by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan at the March 19, 2010 MCB meeting as it was not 
submitted in the public record at the time but only denoted in the minutes. This is made in accordance with the most recently passed 
motion by you all that such official correspondence be read into the record.



Aside from this I add that all operators, and indeed the commission board itself have never received the complete and required 
information related to each and every ALJ determination over the past several years including all exhibits (please reference 
Assistant Attorney General Tom Warren's advice and counsel in those regards. Thus in my mind each and every action taken by the MCB 
Board in these rummied and ignominious rulings by both the ALJ's and MCB were invalid on their face.



Moreover, as the public record attests over and over again the Administrative Hearing officers and the State of Michigan and the MCB 
does not remit timely and accessible information to all parties and every party who happens to be blind in the most effective format 
of the individual pro forma let alone upon request. These are substantial and documented violations of civil rights pursuant to the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (Title II, subpart e, communications) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as 
amended. Now this has happened even after documented requests for same and constitutes substantial violations in fact and deed to 
"due process and equal protection under the law". That is what Article V of the 14th Amendment is all about and thus to each and 
every individual harmed by these actions there has been substantive constitutionally guaranteed violations and subsequent and real 
harm through that.



The Selma (sic) case alone documents such severe violations in law and equity and does document subsequent and real harm which are 
cause for damages.



So are the cases cited in the original NFB MI document (attached). So are the ongoing violations by both MCB and the Administrative 
office of the "Courts" that continue to this day and against not only vendors but advocates including David Robinson and Terry 
Eagle.



Moreover, the failure to account for inventories and set asides exists to this very day. And you all have seen the violations of the 
ADA/504 in the perverted abuse of "undue hardship and administrative burdens" in my own public requests for accounting and 
accountability.



Regardless to you all I submit this for the public record and to document that MCB and other State of Michigan actors continue to 
act in unlawful, arbitrary, capricious, and non-accountable and non-transparent manners to this very day. Moreover none, and I 
repeat none of the issues put forward by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in this policy paper (again after my 
signature line) have been addressed let alone ameliorated to this very date, let alone acknowledged in the public record.



Thus they are resubmitted again for the public record which by the way shows a documented pattern and practice of abuse of law and 
due process that can only be construed given the passage of time and the multiplicity of events and actions to be conscious, 
malicious and intentional.



Sincerely,



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.



Cc: NFB MI

Cc: OCR at Ed.

Cc: MCB 20-20 List Serve

Cc: Steve Arwood, LARA















Attachment/enclosure:

http://nfbmi.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-letter-to-commission-for-bblind.html





Open Letter To Commission for the blind and Administrative Law Judge

Jo Ann Pilarski, Chair

Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Square

Lansing, Mi 48933



Peter Plummer, Director

State office of administrative hearings and rules

611 w. Ottawa

Lansing, MI 48933



Open Letter to Jo Ann Pilarski and Peter Plummer



Dear Ms. Pilarski and Mr. Plummer:



The Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program is adrift with no mooring or sense of direction. The major symptom 
of this directionlessness

is the astounding number of hearings and the chaotic nature of these proceedings. We believe that an immediate investigation into 
the propriety and legality

of the tactics and practices of the Commission for the Blind staff and the Administrative Law Judges is in order. A full report 
clarifying the situation

is needed to restore confidence that blind persons licensed under the Randolph-Sheppard Act and Michigan P.A. 260 of 1978 are being 
provided appropriate

due process rights under the applicable laws and rules. Below is a general list of issues. The total number of these egregious and 
unlawful cases is much

larger. We appeal to you in your capacities as primary decision makers and administrators to act quickly and decisively to assure 
that blind people's rights

are being protected. We call on you to suspend all administrative procedures until this situation can be brought under control. 
Further, we call upon you

to review all cases adjudicated by Judge Robert Meade and throw ot these decisions and rehear each case under acceptable rules 
according to the Michigan

Administrative Procedures Act.



Serious Issues Facing the MCB Business Enterprise Program and Blind Persons



1. Lack of Fair and Full Evidentiary Hearing of Vendor

Grievances:



A. Documented cases of vendor license suspension and revocation, including Philip Brand, Sam Tocco, Richard Thelen, Hazell Brooks, 
and Richard Kent, without

cause and without required due process hearing, and a fair full evidentiary hearing, resulting in devastating consequences to blind 
vendors including bankruptcy,

giving up self-supporting independent living and being forced to move back in to parents home, and severe depression and anxiety 
requiring acute mental

health treatment and medication.



2. ALJ shopping and undue political influence by the agency director Patrick Cannon.



3. Recent practice of hearing cases being

assigned to one judge, Judge Robert Meade,

resulting in the following:



a. A subpoena once issued to compel

testimony of the MCB Director, Patrick

Cannon, was cancelled after Director

Cannon protested the issued subpoena.

The law provides no privilege to an

agency director against being compelled to appear and testify under subpoena



b. Subpoenas are issued to compel

Appearance and testimony of witnesses and then when state agency personnel, such as MCB's

Gwen McNeal and MPS Sgt. Beardsley

do not appear to testify, motions for

continuance of hearing to seek

enforcement of the subpoenas are

routinely denied by ALJ Robert Meade.

This practice prevents a vendor

from presenting his/her case to get to the

truth, and denies a full opportunity to be

heard as is required by law and

fundamental due process fairness.



c. ALJ recommended decisions by judge

Robert Meade consistently fail to address the legal issues presented and argued by the vendor; avoiding issues of violation of law, 
rules and regulations,

thus denying a full evidentiary hearing and fundamental due process.



4. The BEP staff, James Hull and Constance Zanger fail to make requested relevant documents available; when said documents are known 
to be in the possession

of the MCB-BEP, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, thus frustrating and denying vendors right to a full evidentiary 
hearing and fundamental

due process.



5. Until recently the BEP had a customary

practice of ordering and paying the cost of

hearing transcripts for arbitration appeal or

hearing written closing arguments. The

sudden unexplained halt to this practice by BEP Mamager Constance Zanger, prejudices

the vendors case and gives an unfair advantage to the agency with regard to

further proceedings and hearing closing

arguments, as the vendor cannot afford

the several hundred dollar transcript cost,

especially when a vendor is unemployed

because of license suspension or revocation. Further it deprives the Commission Board of all the facts and a true picture of the 
procedure of the hearing.



6. The unfair and unethical practice of the BEP

Manager, Constance Zanger, the same staff

Member who is the subject of the vendor

grievance, attaching a staff recommendation to

ALJ's recommended decision with the sole

purpose of exercising unethical, undue influence upon the

MCB Board of Commissioners, when making a

final agency decision on a grievant's

case.



When one Commissioner, Mark Eagle, publicly

challenged this practice, Director Cannon

charged Commissioner Eagle with perceived

personal conflict-of-interest, because his father,

Terry Eagle, advocates for and represents

blind vendors as an unpaid non-attorney in

grievances at all levels of administrative

remedy. Through the State Board of Ethics,

Director Cannon was able to use his political

influence to have Commissioner Eagle

removed from the Board. And absolutely no

action was taken against BEP Manager

Constance Zanger for her actual unethical

Conduct in attaching her staff recommendation to ALJ decisions in her effort to influence the

Board in her favor. The practice continues, if

not in written form, for sure orally at MCB

Board meetings. If such conduct doesn't define

the meaning of the word corruption, then no

conduct will ever define it .



7. The BEP routinely fails to notify vendors and

their representatives when their

grievances are scheduled to go before the MCB

Board for a final agency decision. The most recent such failure occurred in the Tomczak(?) license revocation case



8. The MCB Hearings Coordinator, Carla Haynes,

and BEP Manager, Constance Zanger,

routinely refuse to communicate directly with

an identified and appointed

non- attorney representative at any level in the

vendor grievance process.



9. BEP management Constance Zanger and James Hull routinely place untrained, uncertified sighted persons in program vending

facilities as temporary operators, rather than

employing unemployed blind persons as

temporary or permanent operators. Some of these blind persons

have training or have been employed by blind

vendors in the past. Sighted unlicensed temporary operators routinely do not pay their set-aside fees, carry required insurance or 
have sales tax licenses.

The Commission has no power to collect funds or enforce rules after the fact.



10. BEP Employment practices



a. BEP staff vacancies are restricted to be

filled by existing agency staff only, under

documented false reasons; rather than opening

vacancies to all applicants. This practice is used to shut out well qualified educated blind persons, some

of whom have been vending facility operators.

The blind are being shut-out of

competitive state employment in the very

agency charged with responsibility for

serving employment needs of blind citizens.



b. Vacant BEP management positions are

filled, while front-line promotional agent

positions go unfilled. Promotional agents

are vendors point-of-contact with the

agency to address and resolve business

and facility concerns and problems

promptly before they become a crisis

situation. Many problems have escalated unnecessarily because of inadequate

and unqualified staffing of promotional

agent positions.



c. BEP staff lack both business training and

experience, and a basic understanding

of blindness, and the extraordinary skills

and abilities of the blind.



d. Both BEP staff and blind vendors are

subjected to retaliation and intimidation by MCB-BEP management staff,

for speaking

out and advocating for blind persons, or

for their affiliation to an organization of

blind persons. Hazell Brooks, the President of the Merchants Division of the National federation of the Blind of Michigan and the 
Chairperson of the Elected

Operators Committee and Larry Ball, President of the Merchants Division each had their licenses illegally suspended and/or revoked. 
Both persons were strong

advocates for blind vendors and were outspoken in their advocacy. In addition, promotional agent, David Robinson who is blind, was 
terminated from his

position because of his outspoken support of operators' rights, insisting that the BEP adhere to all rules and laws protecting blind 
persons and for his

activity in the National Federation of the Blind.



11. BEP Financial Issues



a. Program financial information is not shared with the EOC or vendors as required by federal law and regulation.



b. Vending facility inventories are inadequate

at most locations, and are manipulated up

or down by BEP management, depending

on the vendor involved. No suitable

standard or uniformly applied

policy exists to regulate initial inventories.



c. The BEP lacks critical, serious long-term financial evaluation and planning for the future needs of facilities, equipment 
repairs, replacement, or innovative

new equipment purchases. Neither is there a strategy to manage inventories, and vendor retirement benefits in the future.



d. According to the Randolph-Sheppard Act, all major administrative decisions by the agency must be made with the active 
participation of the Elected Operators

Committee. Recently the retirement benefits of all operators were significantly and arbitrarily reduced by unilateral action of the 
BEP management. No

basis in law permitted this action, The unresolved issue of the undisguised diminution

in vendor retirement

now must be addressed openly

and satisfactorily resolved before it

becomes a costly legal matter.

In summary, this is an extremely serious situation. These examples demonstrate a total disregard for the law and the rights of blind 
vendors and blind people

in general. It can not be emphasized too strongly that the very foundation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and the rules and procedures 
therein are bing blatantly

and recklessly disregarded to the potential detriment of the Michigan Commission for the Blind.



Sincerely,



Larry Posont, President



National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

Posted by Fred Wurtzel at

3:38 PM

img/icon18_email
_______________________________________________
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/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From dandrews at visi.com  Sat Oct 29 03:50:44 2011
From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 22:50:44 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Reminder: Seminars@Hadley Presents: Business Roundtable
 with Urban Miyares
Message-ID: <auto-000034290827@mailfront3.g2host.com>


>
>Seminars at Hadley Presents: Business Roundtable with Urban Miyares
>
>Date: Tuesday, November 1 and Wednesday, November 2
>
>Time: 9:00 AM CDT, 14:00 GMT
>
>The Hadley School for the Blind's Forsythe Center for 
>Entrepreneurship presents a Business Roundtable featuring Urban 
>Miyares, president of the Disabled Businesspersons Association. 
>Miyares will be giving four presentations on business and 
>entrepreneurship, including "Partnering with Friends and Family," 
>"Self-Promotion," "Inventions," and "Making Money with Your Ideas." 
>Miyares is a nationally recognized entrepreneur as well as a 
>motivational speaker, published author and patent holder. An 
>entrepreneur for more than 40 years, Urban Miyares, and the Disabled 
>Businesspersons Association are recognized as one of the nation's 
>leading authorities on the self-employment of people with disabilities.
>
>Join Seminars at Hadley as Miyares gives these informative 
>presentations on becoming an entrepreneur and starting a business.
>
>These two 115-minute seminars will be moderated by Forsythe Center 
>for Entrepreneurship Program Manager Tom Babinszki. A question and 
>answer period via text will be included during each day's session. 
>Please note: You must only register once for both seminars. Once 
>registered, you can attend both or either.
>
>Space in this seminar is limited. Please only register if you know 
>you are available to attend so that others are not closed out. To 
>register for the seminar, follow this link: 
>http://hadley.edu/SeminarDetails.asp?sid=103
>
>This message was sent to Dandrews at visi.com from:
>The Hadley School for the Blind | 700 Elm St.  | Winnetka, IL 60093