[nfbmi-talk] Fw: official request for information and accommodation
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Tue Sep 7 16:21:27 UTC 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation
As previously sstated I will file complaints against you Mr. Farmer for your ddenials of reasonable accommodations, your use of administrative criterion that is clearly meeant to circumvent requirements of the ADA and section 504, and a slew of denials of information that is required to be made readily available to members of the public affirmatively by the ADA and other laws.
You might wish to look into affirmative obligations in these regards in Tyler v. Manhattan.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr
----- Original Message -----
From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG)
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation
As previously illustrated/stated, as regards to responding to requests for records/information, the Department is in compliance with applicable provisions of both the federal ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation
Again I invoked the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. It is as simple as that sir.
----- Original Message -----
From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG)
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation
Mr. Harcz, as you may be aware, MCL 15.232, Section 2(i) of the state's Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) defines a FOIA request as"
" Written request" means a writing that asks for information, and includes a writing transmitted by
facsimile'electronic mail, or other electronic means."
MCL 15.235, Section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA states:
"Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the person making a request, a public body shall
respond to a request for a public record within 5 business days after the public body receives
the request by doing 1 of the following:
(d) Issuing a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the
public shall respond to the request. A public body shall issue not more than 1 notice of
extension for a particular request."
The state's Office of Attorney General opinion No. 7095 of December 6, 2001 states:
"Under the FOIA, a public body may not impose a more restrictive schedule for access to its
public records for certain persons than it does for the public generally, based upon the purpose
for which the records are sought."
The Michigan Appellate Court opinion, Key v Township of Paw Paw, 254 MICH App 508; 657
NW2d 546 (2002) states:
"The public body complied with the FOIA when the FOIA coordinator denied a request because
the information could not be located. Where a public body timely claims the additional 10
business days for a response as provided in section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA, the new response
deadline is 15 business days after the receipt of the request, regardless of when the notice of
extension is issued."
In this particular instance, the MCB indicated that the information requested was not going to be available within the 5 day time period as prescribed by Section 5 of the FOIA and requested that my office claim an additional 10 business days to respond as provided by Section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA. Thusly, in responding to your request, the Department has complied with all of the above cited state FOIA provisions as well as applicable federal statutes and/or regulations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 6:02 PM
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation
September 2, 2010
No Sir,
You are "cherry picking".
For you see this information requested was presented at a meeting of MCB and information related to that meeting was supposed to be made available to me in accessible form and in a timely manner upon request. I did so verbally and I did so in writing and have yet to receive the said information.
Moreover, you may not use administrative criterion or methods of administration to circumvent under 504 or Title II of the ADAobligations. And clearly you are doing so right now in stonewalling and exploiting your version of the FOIA to avoid obligations to remit accessible information under subpart e, of Title II of the ADA.
Moreover, Tyler v. Manhatten provides case law that the entity must act affirmatively in providing accessibl information. Here it isn't doing so even after the fact.
Now, this is all very simple sir. This is public information and the commissioners already have it in accessible forms as does the agency. (I.E. it is already accessible and can be provided at no cost to the agency if it wishes to be trully transparent, which apparently it does not).
But, sir if you continue to frustrate my legitimate requests for timely and accessible information cherry picking all the way then please be prepared to face me in United States District Court with discrimination charges under the ADA, 504 and in your official capacity as a state actor under 42 USC 1983 alongside Mr. Patrick D. Cannon, of course who should and does know that he is violating my rights under the ADA and 504 as he is the State of Michigan A.D.A. coordinator and this knowing act is malicious discrimination.
As stated my patience in these regards has run its course.
Now, all of this simply can be resolved by remitting the information and in fact putting it on MCB's web site so that all can see the workings of this agency including critical financial data (i.e. its operating budget, and all of the information including federally required reporting data that was presented at the August 26, 2010 budget and cash match in service training of the MCB Commissioners (which by the way a quorum was present).
The people of the state of Michigan and this one blind man have the right to this information and without further stonewalling.
Thus I simply ask you to do the right thing and not the "bureucratic thing and the discrimination thing too boot.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
----- Original Message -----
From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon. Patrick; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG)
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:24 PM
Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation
Mr. Harcz, the attached document/ information you provided includes the statement:
"Additionally, the accessible information must be provided timely and under conditions affording
people with disabilities the same degree of access to information as their non-disabled
counterparts."
This statement supports the Department's action regarding your requests for records/information. Your requests, aside from some accommodations that may be made, are processed basically the same as other requests received by the Department.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:59 PM
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation
Legal Foundations for the Right to Accessible Info
Legal Foundations of the Right to Accessible Information
Summary
In general, federal governmental agencies, recipients of federal financial
assistance, and state and local governmental entities are required under federal
law to provide people with disabilities equal access to printed and other
information which is made available to employees or members of the public. This
requirement makes "effective communication" possible with people who have
sensory disabilities, such as blindness or visual impairment. Fulfilling this
obligation goes a long way to breaking down the information barriers that
perpetuate discrimination on the basis of disability. For information to be
truly accessible, and to make "effective communication" a reality, information
must be made available to people with disabilities in their preferred reading
media if at all possible. Additionally, the accessible information must be
provided timely and under conditions affording people with disabilities the same
degree of access to information as their non-disabled counterparts. Only when
the provision of accessible information becomes an "undue burden" may the
federal government, recipients of federal financial assistance, or entities of
state or local government make information accessible in a manner that does not
adhere to the individual's preference or to the requirement of timely delivery
and equivalent access.
The Law
In 1973, Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act, a comprehensive statute
establishing a partnership between the federal and state governments to foster
the provision of vocational rehabilitation services to people with disabilities.
This program provides training and related services to people with a wide range
of disabilities primarily to equip them for entry or reentry into the workforce.
However, Congress also recognized that, in addition to a lack of educational
opportunities and work experience leading to skills development, people with
disabilities also face discrimination both by employers and by public agencies.
To ensure that the federal government would not perpetuate the discrimination
that the vocational rehabilitation system was designed to mitigate, Congress
also enacted civil rights protections for people with disabilities. In
particular, the Rehabilitation Act bars discrimination on the basis of
disability by recipients of federal financial assistance and by agencies of the
federal government themselves. This requirement, known as Section 504 (29 U.S.C.
Sec. 794 (a)) reads in part as follows:
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall, solely by
reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or
activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal
Service.
In addition, Section 504 allows federal agencies to draft their own individual
rules to meet the mandates of this statute. Although this provision has largely
been ignored, a number of agencies have promulgated rules addressing Section 504
obligations of the federal government generally and of specific agencies. In
particular, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued regulations
implementing the requirements of this section and has applied them specifically
to the context of access to information. Though specifically drafted to cover
the programs and activities of DOJ, these regulations were designed as the
prototype for federal agency rulemaking to implement Section 504. Under
Executive Order No. 12250, the United States Attorney General has the authority
to coordinate the implementation and enforcement of a variety of civil rights
statutes, including Section 504. The DOJ regulations (28 C.F.R. Part 39) read in
part as follows:
"Sec. 39.160 Communications.
The agency shall take appropriate steps to ensure effective communication
with applicants, participants, personnel of other Federal entities, and
members of the public.
The agency shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary to
afford a handicapped person an equal opportunity to participate in, and
enjoy the benefits of, a program or activity conducted by the agency.
In determining what type of auxiliary aid is necessary, the agency
shall give primary consideration to the requests of the handicapped
person.
The agency need not provide individually prescribed devices, readers
for personal use or study, or other devices of a personal nature."
To provide further clarification, the DOJ regulations define "auxiliary aids" at
28 C.F.R. Sec. 39.103 as follows:
Auxiliary aids means services or devices that enable persons with impaired
sensory, manual, or speaking skills to have an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, programs or activities conducted
by the agency. For example, auxiliary aids useful for persons with impaired
vision include readers, Brailled materials, audio recordings,
telecommunications devices and other similar services and devices.
So reads the federal government requirement to make printed and other
information accessible to its employees and members of the public with
disabilities. However, federal agencies are not without a defense to unlimited
demands for access that would severely impair their ability to conduct an
overall program or activity. The regulations at 28 C.F.R. Sec. 39.160 continue
as follows:
"d. This section does not require the agency to take any action that it can
demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a
program or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In
those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action
would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue
financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving
that compliance with Sec. 39.160 would result in such alteration or burdens.
The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must
be made by the Attorney General or his or her designee after considering all
agency resources available for use in the funding and operation of the
conducted program or activity, and must be accompanied by a written
statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action required
to comply with this section would result in such an alteration or such
burdens, the agency shall take any other action that would not result in
such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that, to
the maximum extent possible, handicapped persons receive the benefits and
services of the program or activity."
Note that auxiliary aids encompass a range of options, including the production
of accessible materials, and that the DOJ regulations are clear that primary
consideration must be given to the preference of the individual with a
disability. Note also that this model requirement for all federal agencies
provides that an undue financial or administrative burden will be evaluated
based upon the resources available to the entire program or activity in
question. This is a very high standard and will almost never be met by agencies
of the federal government. However, even if an undue burden can be identified,
the entity is only able to avoid the specific requirements of preference and
equivalent access. The disabled employee or member of the public must ultimately
be afforded some level of access to the printed information at issue.
In addition to the obligations placed on federal agencies themselves, Section
504 also prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Congress "sought to
impose Sec. 504 coverage as a form of contractual cost of the recipient's
agreement to accept the federal funds." United States Dep't of Transp. v.
Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. 597 (1986). There is neither a requirement that a
state entity directly receive federal financial assistance, Grove City College
v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 564, (1984), nor that it directly benefit from that
assistance, Paralyzed Veterans, 477 U.S. at 607 (citing Grove City). Under
amendments to Section 504 enacted in 1988, the definition of "program or
activity" was expanded to include not only a state or local entity originally
receiving such assistance, but also each department or agency to which it
"extends" that assistance. (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(b)(1)(B) Similarly, regulations
promulgated under the Rehabilitation Act define a "recipient" as including "any
instrumentality of a state . . . to which Federal financial assistance is
extended directly or through another recipient." 45 C.F.R. Sec. 84.3(f) Neither
the statute nor the regulations require an instrumentality of a state to which
the assistance is "extended," to be also in a position to accept or reject Sec.
504 obligations for the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act to apply.
Therefore, the scope of Section 504 coverage is extremely broad.
In 1990, the requirements concerning information access were expanded even
further with the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title
II of the ADA applies the ban on discrimination against people with disabilities
to entities of state and local government whether or not such entities receive
federal financial assistance. Therefore, under the ADA Title II regulations
codified at 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.160 mirroring the Section 504 rule, a public
university or community college, for example, is required to provide timely
access to information in a medium preferred by the individual with a disability.
However, since such institutions more than likely directly or indirectly benefit
from federal financial assistance, they are also subject to the Section 504
information access requirements as well. As a practical matter, Section 504 and
ADA Title II provide comparable protections for people with disabilities seeking
access to information of all kinds, and complaints of discrimination by such
entities of state or local government are properly lodged under either law, and
frequently under both simultaneously.
The United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has
dealt specifically with the question of accessible materials and the
requirements to honor the preference of individuals with disabilities and the
timeliness of delivery. In a series of Letters of Findings (LOFs) articulating
the information access policy, OCR has unambiguously outlined the right to
"effective communication." Issued against specific educational institutions,
these LOFs provide an example of how one class of public entities must comply
with federal law.
Two examples will illustrate this point. In OCR's LOF concerning Los Rios
Community College, a student alleged that a college discriminated on the basis
of disability by failing to make its computer laboratory, library, employment
services, and written materials accessible to students with visual impairments.
During the course of the investigation, the college agreed to a voluntary
resolution plan which, among other things, provided that the college would
develop written procedures to respond to requests for auxiliary aids, make
printed materials and computers accessible by providing auditory, tactile and
enlarged print materials, and make its library and student employment services
accessible to students with visual impairments. In describing the scope of the
information access requirement outlined above, OCR stated:
Due to the "range of disabilities" and the "primary consideration" accorded
the individual's preference in the manner accommodation is offered, the
post-secondary public institution should be prepared to deliver in a
reasonable and timely manner the printed materials relied upon in its
educational program in all of the following mediums: auditory, tactile
(Braille), and enlarged print. Although there may be circumstances when the
student's preferred medium is not, on balance, the medium selected by the
post-secondary institution to provide the student appropriate aids and
services, the institution may not categorically refuse to provide
accommodation through a particular medium (e.g., Braille). Rather, the
post-secondary institution must be prepared to timely offer access to its
printed materials in all three mediums, with the particular medium used for
the student's request dependent on a case by case analysis.
Additionally, in OCR's letter concerning California State University at Los
Angeles, a complaint filed with OCR alleged that the university failed to
provide access to blind and low vision students with respect to library
resources, campus publications, and open computer laboratories. The university
agreed to a voluntary resolution of the issues raised in the complaint and to
draft language proposed by OCR describing the steps to be taken to comply with
the law. The letter reads in pertinent part as follows:
In construing the conditions under which communication is "as effective as"
that provided to nondisabled persons, on several occasions OCR has held that
the three basic components of effectiveness are timeliness of delivery,
accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner and medium
appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the
individual with the disability. The courts have held that a public entity
violates its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act when it
simply responds to individual requests for accommodation on an ad-hoc basis.
A public entity has an affirmative duty to establish a comprehensive policy
in compliance with Title II in advance of any request for auxiliary aids or
services [see Tyler v. City of Manhattan, 857 F.Supp. 800 (D. Kan. 1994)]. A
recognized good practice in establishing such a comprehensive policy is to
consult with the disability community, especially those members most likely
to request accommodations.
Conclusion
For some time, the federal government has been required to make information
accessible to people with disabilities. According to its own regulations, the
accessible information must be provided in formats (such as braille or audio
recording) preferred by those requesting such information. Additionally,
recipients of federal financial assistance are under a similar obligation to
provide accessible information. Even public entities which do not receive such
assistance are now required to provide accessible information in compliance with
the ADA. In no case must any of these entities comply with the individual's
preference when doing so would result in an undue burden, but such a
determination is made based upon the resources available to the program or
activity as a whole. When an undue burden cannot be shown, the accessible
information must be provided in a timely manner and generally under conditions
affording equal access to people with disabilities. Finally, public entities
must be prepared in advance to provide accessible information in a manner that
complies with these long-standing requirements of federal law. Date: October 12,
1999
Return to Governmental Relations Group
Return to AFB Home Page
Please direct your comments and suggestions regarding this web site to the AFB
Information Center at afbinfo at afb.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG)
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation
Mr. Harcz, my reading of the attached information you provided regarding Section 504 regulations in no way indicates that the Department is currently, or has ever unlawfully discriminated against you as regards your requests for public records in it's possession. I fail to see how extending the response period to your August 26, 2010 under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as has been done with other requests, can be viewed as being "discriminatory" against you. To the contrary, pursuant to applicable laws and/or regulations, the Department has, within reason, been able to address most of your previous requests.
At this time, no portion of the current request has been granted or denied. As indicated in my September 1, 2010 response notice, the Department will respond accordingly by September 17, 2010, or sooner. Should any portion of your request be denied, you have appeal rights under MCL 15.240 of the state's FOIA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:38 PM
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation
Mr. Farmer:
This from Section 504 regulations is only a partial response. Please read them very, very carefully.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
§ 104.4 Discrimination prohibited.
(a) General. No qualified handicapped person shall, on the
basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activitiy which
receives Federal financial assistance.
(b) Discriminatory actions prohibited. (1) A recipient, in
providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of handicap:
(i) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to
participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service;
(ii) Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to
participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to
that afforded others;
(iii) Provide a qualified handicapped person with an aid,
benefit, or service that is not as effective as that provided to others;
(iv) Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services
to handicapped persons or to any class of handicapped persons unless such action
is necessary to provide qualified handicapped persons with aid, benefits, or
services that are as effective as those provided to others;
(v) Aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified
handicapped person by providing significant assistance to an agency,
organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of handicap in providing
any aid, benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the recipients program or
activity;
(vi) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to
participate as a member of planning or advisory boards; or
(vii) Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the
enjoyment of any right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others
receiving an aid, benefit, or service.
(2) For purposes of this part, aids, benefits, and services,
to be equally effective, are not required to produce the identical result or
level of achievement for handicapped and nonhandicapped persons, but must afford
handicapped persons equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the
same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement, in the most integrated
setting appropriate to the person's needs.
(3) Despite the existence of separate or different aid,
benefits, or services provided in accordance with this part, a recipient may not
deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in such aid,
benefits, or services that are not separate or different.
(4) A recipient may not, directly or through contractual or
other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration (i) that have
the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the
basis of handicap, (ii) that have the purpose or effect of defeating or
substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient's
program or activity with respect to handicapped persons, or (iii) that
perpetuate the discrimination of another recipient if both recipients are
subject to common administrative control or are agencies of the same State.
(5) In determining the site or location of a facility, an
applicant for assistance or a recipient may not make selections (i) that have
the effect of excluding handicapped persons from, denying them the benefits of,
or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination under any program or activity
that receives Federal financial assistance or (ii) that have the purpose or
effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the
objectives of the program or activity with respect to handicapped persons.
(6) As used in this section, the aid, benefit, or service
provided under a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
includes any aid, benefit, or service provided in or through a facility that has
been constructed, expanded, altered, leased or rented, or otherwise acquired, in
whole or in part, with Federal financial assistance.
(c) Aid, benefits or services limited by Federal law. The
exclusion of nonhandicapped persons from aid, benefits, or services limited by
Federal statute or executive order to handicapped persons or the exclusion of a
specific class of handicapped persons from aid, benefits, or services limited by
Federal statute or executive order to a different class of handicapped persons
----- Original Message -----
From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG)
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation
Mr. Harcz, Section 11-7000 Equally effective communication of the ADA Title II Technical
Assistance Manual reads as follows;
"A public entity must ensure that its communications with individuals with disabilities are as
effective as communications with others. This obligation, however, 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 Department is treating your August 26, 2010 request for copies of public records under the
Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) the same as it treats similar requests from other
requesters. Thusly, based on the above ADA guideline, the Department is in compliance with all
applicable federal and state FOIA, and related provisions regarding requests for public records;
and not, as asserted in your September 1, 2010 emails, illegally discriminating against you in
processing this and other requests for nonexempt public records in it's possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 5:25 PM
To: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
Subject: Re: official request for information and accommodation
August 26, 2010
Dear Mr. Farmer,
Those documents were in the hands of the MCB commissioners, Cheryl Heibeck of MCB, parties from Deleg, Patrick Cannon, Constance Zanger at the budget and cash match meeting held in the Victor Office Building August 26, 2010.
Moreover, I did not make this request under FOIA, but rather through relevant provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and relevant sections of both title Iand V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As you might be aware federal law, especially civil rights laws such as the ADA and Rehabilitation Act trump state law.
Sincerely,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
----- Original Message -----
From: Farmer, Mel (DELEG)
To: joe harcz Comcast
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; Jurus, Janet (DELEG)
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: official request for information and accommodation
Mr. Harcz, this notice is in response to your request for copies of records/information described in the attached copy of your August 26, 2010 email to Mr. Duncan Wyeth. Please be informed that the Department of Energy, Labor, & Economic Growth (DELEG) is processing this request under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.
In order to determine the existence of any nonexempt records/information within the DELEG that might be responsive to your request, a search and examination of records/information must be undertaken. For this reason, it is necessary, as permitted by MCL 15.235, Section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA, to extend the time for response to September 17, 2010, or sooner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 7:12 PM
To: Wyeth, Duncan (DELEG)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (DELEG); Luzenski, Sue (DELEG); Jo Anne Pilarski MCB, Chair; Margaret Wolfe MCB, Commissioner; John Scott MCB, Commissioner; Geri. Taeckens MCB, Commissioner; mike.cox at michigan.gov; Lynnae Ruttledge RSA Commissioner; John L Wodatch USDOJ; TOM MASSEAU MPAS; president.nfb.mi at gmail.com; Joe Sibley MCBVI Pres.; Richard Clay Advocates f/t Blind; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: official request for information and accommodation
Official Request for Public Documents Including Financial Information
August 26, 2010
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
Re: request for information pursuant to ADA, Title II
Duncan Wyeth, DELEG ADA Coordinator
Via e-mail
Patrick D. Cannon, Director Michigan Commission for the Blind
And State of Michigan ADA Coordinator
Via e-mail
MCB Commissioners (all via e-mail)
Jo anne Pilarski, Chair
Michael Geno, Vice-Chair c/o Susan Luzinski
Margaret Wolfe, Commissioner
Geraldine Taeckens, Commissioner
John Scott, Commissioner
All,
I am writing you today in the interest of accommodation, inclusion, and transparency for all of the following items in accessible format pursuant to obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1993 (Title II, subpart e, communications), as well as relevant provisions of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.
The documents may simply be sent to me via e-mail as either Word attachments or plain text enclosures.
I reiterate my request for all information in the "commissioner's packet" reference today at the meeting on budget and cash match. Ms. Luzinski only sent me the MCB Report, Agenda and Draft College Policy. But documents related to the State Plan which the commissioners clearly have and other documents they will be priey to tomorrow at the board meeting were not sent to me. Thus again I wish to have all documents that the commissioners have concerning tomorrow's quarterly meeting sent to me.
Moreover, as discussed today I wish to have all of the documents related to the in service sent to me. They include in part:
-all the reports that Ms. Cheryl Heibeck referred to including the 911 report, standards and indicators, the most recent Auditor General's report (single audit) and so on and so forth
-the operating budget that Ms. Zanger referred to
-all of the memorandums of understanding referred to with Intermediate School Districts, by Mr. Jones
-the financial report referenced by the person from DELEG (Al was his first name but I couldn't hear his last or official position
-the memorandum of understanding referred to at today's in service
I must say that Mr. Cannon denoted that these documents were to be made available to members of the public and that he reiterated his contention that MCB was open and wished to be more open than other agencies in the country. I take him at his word on this and am taking him up on his offer of open governance in these regards now.
Finally, I reiterate my verbal suggestion today that these and other documents relative to the activities of the Michigan Commission for the Blind are routinely, in a timely and accessible manner simply posted to MCB's web site now and in the future.
Respectfully,
Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
Cc: MI National Federation of the Blind
Cc: Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired
Cc: Advocates for the Blind
Cc: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section
Cc: Michael Cox, Michigan Attorney General
Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.
Cc: Lynnae Rutledge, Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list