[nfbmi-talk] why doesn't bsbp and mpas do this?

[joe harcz Comcast]

I still haven't recieved meeting minutes from BSBP for months. And MPAS hasn't figured out, apparently that meeting minutes must be made available within eight working days and not after they've been approved.
Goes to the Michigan OMA, and also goes to meeting information access provisions in the general provisions of Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Moreover, I've documented BSBP's ongoing violations here of the ADA/504 as well as continued violations of MAHS (and no wonder as Zimmer and Rodgers who are MAHS really run the DSA and the DSU.

Outragious violations of conflicts of interest in the administration of justice for the perpretrators of mass discrimination got the whole system for due process rigged.

Joe

            DRAFT
           
        
 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN COUNCIL FOR REHABILITATION SERVICES

3490 Belle Chase Way, Suite 110

Lansing, MI  48911

517.887.9370 or 877.335.9370

                                                                               

                                                                               

Business Meeting Minutes

MCRS Office

Lansing, MI

Friday February 7, 2014

 

 

Members Present In-person:  Carol Bergquist, Mark Eastburg, Caryn Pack Ivey, Michael Poyma, Anne Riddering, Brian Sabourin, Mitch Tomlinson.

 

Members Present by Phone:  Sue Howell (Department of Human Services – Michigan Rehabilitation Services DHS-MRS), Adam Kaplan.

 

Members Excused:  William Jones, Ed Rodgers (Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs – Bureau of Services for Blind Persons LARA-BSBP), Matthew Weaver.

 

Members Absent:  Sheryl Diamond. 

 

Guests Present In-person:  Valarie Barnum-Yarger (Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council, MiSILC), Tracy Brown (MiSILC), Sara Grivetti (MiSILC), Leamon Jones (LARA-BSBP), Mike Pemble (LARA-BSBP), Beth White (LARA-BSBP).

 

Guests Present by Phone:  Joe Harcz, Allison Loy, Ruth O’Connor (DHS-MRS), Garrett Pazur (DHS-MRS), Harold Wasner.    

 

Staff Present:  Marlene Malloy, Shori Teeple. 

 

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chairperson C. Bergquist.  Roll call determined that a quorum was present.  

 

Welcome & Introductions

C. Bergquist welcomed Council Members and guests.  Introductions were made.

 

Agenda

The draft agenda (February 7, 2014) was reviewed by the membership.  A suggestion was made to move S. Howell’s report up on the agenda to follow the first public comment since she needs to leave the meeting early. 

 

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by C. Pack Ivey, was passed to approve the agenda as amended.

 

Public Comment

The public comment statement was read aloud.

 

Allison Loy

What is today’s topic to be addressed during the meeting?  Are you working on anything specifically?  Has any topic been to look into the structuring and the success of the program?  In my case, I have been with the program for a year and I’m encountering massive difficulty that’s caused me to have to go to the CAP (Client Assistance Program) system and work with Don Dees.  So there’s a lot of concerns being raised at this time.  That’s why I was hoping to hear from somebody else as to what their viewpoints were on how it’s currently operating.  The difficulties are too numerous to describe in a short period of time, but I will tell you, one of them is that I noticed that I used the online application process, and the staff apparently was not trained, or I don’t know if I just happened to get a staff member, because, well, first off, instead of receiving that application appropriately, it was dead-filed and after multiple contacts with the agency, I was then argued with that they never received it, even though I had a letter in my hand from the counselor saying that I was eligible, they argued with me.  Then the confusion went on for a couple months and Don Dees had to get into it to clear it up.  He finally got the counselor working with me, and I met with the counselor three times.  Now this was in February I applied; I didn’t get to see my first meeting with the actual counselor until September.  That’s horrible.  When I did finally start getting on track and seeing a counselor, that counselor never returned phone calls, never got an IPE (Individualized Plan for Employment) plan, didn’t follow any of the program’s outline.  Mr. Dees was greatly disappointed and it went on to even now after Christmas, February, I’m starting all over again with a brand new counselor, so I’ve lost a year, and have gotten nowhere.  Buy my concerns are that when I mention the program to other disabled people, they say ‘I’m getting the same type of responses, even in other counties’.  So, there’s something systematically hindering the program functionality, and you need to be aware of that.  So that’s just my experience, so I was hoping to hear from maybe some of the other call-ins.  Do they have any similar experiences or do they have a better light than what I’m experiencing?  I would like to make public comment again this afternoon.  I would have liked to have sat in and listened to the overall business meeting to see if I can bring some insight or help with it, but for right now I’d like to sit back and see, maybe these things have already been taken care of.  Thank you.

 

Harold Wasner

Madam Chairperson, members of the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services, my name is Harold Wasner.  I live in Beverly Hills, Michigan and I bring you greetings today for your first meeting of the year for the Council on behalf of the Michigan Rehabilitation Association (MRA).  I want to make a few comments on behalf of the Association.  First of all, some of the members may not be acquainted with that Association.  Who are we?  The Michigan Rehabilitation Association is an interdisciplinary, professional, consumer-oriented rehabilitation organization that functions in both the public and private sectors and at the national, state, and local levels.  The mission of the Michigan Rehabilitation Association is to promote and support professional, ethical, and effective rehabilitation services as (?) full inclusion in all life activities for persons with disabilities.  MRA provides leadership in advancing the rehabilitation professions.  The goals of the Michigan Rehabilitation Association are:  Advocacy, MRA works to remove barriers that prevent people with disabilities from being included in all areas of society; Education and Training, MRA and division chapters sponsor conferences and seminars to assist its members to develop their skills as rehabilitation professionals; and thirdly, Legislative Action, MRA supports legislation that advances the employment and inclusion of people with disabilities.  The purpose of my comments this morning is simply to reiterate as we have in the past that MRA stands ready to cooperate and collaborate with the Council in any way that meets our mutual interests and that can help both of our organizations to carry out their respective missions.  We wish the Council a successful year and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

 

Joe Harcz

First of all, I have received no written report relative to the prior public comments, but they continue, in BSBP is not accessible to the blind, and to myself within accordance with the law.  Secondly, you folks, whether I like it or not, have been designated as our statewide rehabilitation council.  I need to have you folks demand all of the state plan information in a timely factor and to scrutinize it just as you do to MRS.  Right now, we don’t even get reports upon request.  I don’t even get basic meeting minutes of the so-called advisory committee upon request.  Last meeting, Mr. Pemble said they sent out all kinds of consumer satisfaction surveys; I’ve requested them, never had them.  Besides that, the agency isn’t supposed to be doing the consumer satisfaction survey; you guys, or some independent party is supposed to do that.  We’ve got no funding, no funding information, even upon request.  I had to go to my state representative to get the basic expenditures from this VR (vocational rehabilitation) program.  Also, and I’m happy that Miss O’Connor and Mr. Sabourin are on this call because the Michigan Administrative Hearings System is not accessible to people with disabilities and to people who are blind.  Numerous cases, people have requested information in accessible format from the adjudicatory process and they have been denied.  That was reported last week, or last meeting, and that’s an ongoing problem.  There is an ongoing problem with CAP (Client Assistance Program) and with Protection and Advocacy as well, as Mr. Harcz and several other people have made complaints about the very access to this program and the adjudicatory process and they aren’t even logged.  They aren’t even logged.  It’s shameful that the Rehabilitation Act, in Section 504, is more than forty years old and Joe Harcz and other advocates and individuals can’t even get a simple email.  I had to fight to get an application for services in accessible form.  This is an outrage ladies and gentlemen.  We also have, within BSBP, the designated state agency plowing all kinds of funds into all kinds of other programs with no accountability.  We had dozens upon dozens of student interns hired to do non-VR tasks or to do tasks that are related to others within BSBP, and, by the way, not a one of them are blind, not one.  Today, right now, as I speak, the so-called Blind Commission, Advisory Commission, is meeting, you know they haven’t sent me prior meeting minutes, even upon request, and they haven’t even put a notification of that meeting out, even on their website.  I just find by guerilla warfare and Google searches.

 

Minutes

The draft minutes (December 6, 2013) were reviewed by the membership. 

 

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by M. Poyma, was passed to approve the minutes as presented.

 

Update - Department of Human Services – Michigan Rehabilitation Services (DHS-MRS):  Garrett Pazur, Deputy Division Director, Policy and Business Services/Southeast Division, MCRS Liaison

Congratulations were extended to S. Howell as the new State Director for MRS.  S. Howell deferred to G. Pazur to provide the MRS update for this meeting.

 

G. Pazur announced that he will be retiring from MRS as of February 14, 2014.   

 

Transitions

The past two months have seen many transitions for MRS, as the Acting Director, Lou Adams, retired and the new MRS State Director, S. Howell, was announced.

 

FY 2015 State Plan

MRS is beginning to assemble a work team to begin looking at the current plan and identify changes that will need to be made.  S. Howell, along with the rest of the MRS Executive Team, will be involved in this process, which will take place over the next several months.

 

Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Monitoring

A monitoring review is expected from RSA this spring.  Since November, a monitoring work team has been meeting to prepare the agency for the review.  Conversations have taken place with Ohio Vocational Rehabilitation, since their agency was most recently visited by RSA for monitoring.  Insights have been gained as to some of the focuses that should be expected during the review.  Topics expected for review include transition programming, financial accountability, and the relationship between the designated state unit (DSU), MRS, and the designated state agency (DSA), the Department of Human Services (DHS), as well as MRS’ placement within DHS.  The work team is using the Monitoring Review Guide from RSA to answer all questions about their program, so that they will know where they stand relevant to strengths and weaknesses.  RSA will also be looking at innovative programming for initiatives that could potentially be replicated across the nation and/or held up as a model for other state agencies. 

 

Permission to fill counselor position at Michigan State University (MSU)

News has been received that a new partnership with MSU will enable MRS to place a vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselor on campus.  Services will be provided to students who are determined eligible and living on campus.  The VR counselor will work in conjunction with other campus resources in terms of placement and other necessary supports, as students complete their degrees and move ahead to employment.  This innovative programming opportunity is very exciting for MRS; it will come with some funding from MSU and other opportunities for match and replication at other universities if successful.

 

C. Bergquist extended the Council’s thanks to G. Pazur for all of the support he has extended to the Council over the years.

 

G. Pazur expressed his enjoyment of working with the Council.  He encouraged Council members to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity to be strong advocates for customers, to assure that they receive the kinds of services that they need and that the program is responsive to the needs of all customers.  Members can work hand-in-hand with MRS to make sure that they are positioned in terms of resources and staffing, so that MRS can be responsive to the needs of people with disabilities in the state.  As a staff member for MRS for 32 years, he described there being no more rewarding work, nothing more meaningful to do, than to assist individuals with independence.  Going forward, a lot of good things can happen in the partnership between the MCRS and MRS.  We have a model program and collaborative partnership between the Council and MRS; much has been accomplished in the past and there is much more to accomplish in the future.

 

A question was asked of S. Howell as to whether or not she has any updates about the recently proposed updated budget request to DHS for the Council’s funding through the end of this fiscal year, including a request for a 3-year grant.  S. Howell responded that she gave her full support to DHS to move the proposal forward, including some bullet points for the benefits of the Council, as well as its mandated responsibilities with MRS.  The proposed budget has been received for consideration by DHS and is currently being reviewed by DHS Chief Deputy Director Duane Berger.  It was stated that the MCRS budget request is a priority for S. Howell.  She added that DHS has been extremely supportive of her transition into her new position, as well as the priorities that she has brought to their attention, with the Council’s funding being one of them.  The Council will be kept informed of any progress/updates regarding DHS’ response.

 

Executive Team (ET) Report

Members reviewed the proposed Final ET Minutes for September 10, September 24, and December 5, 2013.  

 

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by B. Sabourin, was passed to accept and place on file the ET Minutes as presented.

 

A question was asked about a January 14th ET meeting, with a request for minutes to be included in the next meeting packet.  It was clarified that those minutes will be reviewed by the ET at their next meeting, and once approved, they will be included in the next business meeting packet for review and acceptance by the membership.

 

Financial Operations

Members reviewed the Financial Statements for October, November, and December 2013.  An overview was provided of the recent adjustments made to the MCRS budget request to DHS, as well as the 15% (BSBP)/85% (MRS) split for Title I funds as they are received from both DSUs.  The FY 2013 Financial Review resulted in another clean review.  Karen Stevens at MARO is to be congratulated for her excellent 10-year management of the Council’s funds.   

 

A motion, made by B. Sabourin and seconded by A. Riddering, was passed to accept and place on file the Financial Statements for October, November, and December 2013 as presented.

 

Members reviewed the FY 2013 Financial Review.

 

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by B. Sabourin, was passed to accept and place on file the FY 2013 Financial Review as presented.

 

Update-Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs – Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (LARA-BSBP):  Mike Pemble, Deputy Director

A written report was shared with the membership, which outlines the FY 2013 goals and accomplishments for BSBP.

 

Questions were asked about whether a response was provided (within the 30-day timeframe) to public comment made at the December business meeting, and also whether it would be appropriate for the agencies that have responsibilities for concerns that were expressed to directly comment to Council members.  It was shared that while a response is in process, a formal response has not yet been delivered.  An explanation was provided for the process steps that have been taken to collect information in order to be able to respond to the public comment.  Themes have emerged about public access to BSBP documents, but other topics related to meeting notifications of other public entities, accessibility of One Stop Centers, and other concerns do not directly relate to the work of the Council.  Next steps were outlined for communicating with BSBP Directors to discuss concerns and obtain a response, which will then be communicated back to the Council.  

 

M. Eastburg encouraged fellow Council members to consider expectations for a more timely response to public comment made at business meetings.  

 

Report of the Executive Director (ED):  M. Malloy

A written staff report was referenced.  Staff continues to manage daily business operations for the Council, while working with the Executive Team on next steps for the strategic planning and upcoming state plan processes.  Looking ahead, staff will be engaged in getting the Council more involved with both DSUs related to roles outlined in the Rehabilitation Act, including customer satisfaction, the comprehensive statewide needs assessment, and policies and practices.  Brief discussion took place about recent adjournments and rescheduling needs of hearings for customers.  Staff continues to await word from the Appointments Office staff regarding pending appointments for the current six vacancies. 

 

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) State Plan Overview

On overview was provided and discussion took place about the VR state plan process.  A powerpoint was reviewed that described the state rehabilitation council’s (SRCs) role in development of the state plan and how the SRC is to work together with the DSU(s) to facilitate updates and mandated requirements for submission of the state plans to RSA by June 30th of each year.  SRCs are responsible for completing Attachment 4.2 in the state plans to report about activities they have engaged in with DSUs during the previous fiscal year.  The MCRS has the responsibility to complete Attachment 4.2 for both the BSBP State Plan as well as the MRS State Plan.  A state plan work team will be assembled with B. Sabourin as the chairperson; the work team will review updated attachments for both state plans, make inquiries as needed for clarifications, and develop draft recommendations for the Council’s consideration to be included in Attachment 4.2 for both state plans.  Council members C. Pack Ivey and M. Tomlinson volunteered to join the state plan work team.

 

Strategic Plan Updates and Next Steps

Following recent Executive Team discussions, plans for moving forward include scheduling meetings for the three work teams within the next month.  Work teams will have further discussion and make recommendations back to the full membership.  During the morning session of the May business meeting, it was proposed that the membership will meet to have discussion about the strategic plan, determine goals, establish advisory work teams, and initiate a 2-year plan.

 

Partner Reports - Brian Sabourin, Vice Chair

Client Assistance Program (CAP) – B. Sabourin 

A written report was included in the meeting packet.  137 cases were opened; this number does not include information and referral contacts with individuals.  Information was shared about recent new hires for CAP and Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, including a CAP Advocate, Information & Referral Advocate, and attorney; current vacancies were also described.  A legislative luncheon will take place on February 25th at the Capitol, with an emphasis on the Employment First initiative.  A meeting will also be taking place with WIPA (Work Incentives Planning and Assistance) Coordinators to review schedules for future trainings.  Questions were asked about trends and how numbers in the CAP report should be interpreted.  In response, explanations were provided for reasons why customers call CAP, assistance that is provided, and the potential for visuals to be created to help Council members to evaluate the data and more easily identify trends.

 

Governor’s Talent Investment Board – W. Jones (excused)

Report not available.

 

Hannahville Indian Community - C. Bergquist  

A written report was included in the meeting packet.  A brief overview was shared of VR and other services provided at the Hannahville Indian Community.

 

Michigan Alliance for Families – C. Pack Ivey 

Information was shared about services provided to families through the parent training and information center.  Expansion funding has enabled the organization to provide services statewide.  Interviews are taking place for a new parent mentor for the southwest region of the state.  They will be reapplying for their grant from the Michigan Department of Education this year.  It was shared that MRS is generally reported as a source of dissatisfaction by parents and educators, who report difficulty with getting MRS representatives involved with transition plans and IEPs (individualized education plans). Brief discussion took place with regard to the Council’s involvement with MRS’ Transition Services for Youth and possible trainings/education for the future. 

                                

MI Department of Education/Special Education - S. Diamond (absent)

Report not available.

 

DHS-MRS Administrative Hearings Manager – R. O’Connor

A written report was included in the meeting packet.

 

Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council (MiSILC)

A written report was included in meeting packet.  A brief overview of the SILC was shared, as well as outcomes of recent attendance at the SILC Congress meeting in San Diego.

 

Public Comment

The public comment statement was read aloud.

 

Allison Loy

I would like to support both Joe and the gentleman who is retiring comments from this morning that it’s important that agencies include the clients, the type of clients, on their panels that they service.  Most agencies do that in other think tanks, but I see that it’s strikingly absent from this program.  So under that, I’m going to recommend that more effort be made to bring disabled people who have analytical skills and those set of skill sets into the work groups and focus groups.  My second comment I’d like to make is on the categories, that they were as non-severe, severe, and totally severe with the non-severe category being cut first.  I think that should be reallocated that the non-severe shouldn’t be cut first because they are the most capable of receiving help from this agency.  Thank you.

 

Joe Harcz

I guess I’m going to state the obvious again.  This meeting is supposed to be fully accessible, including all materials.  The state plan and the state plan development is supposed to be fully accessible, including all materials.  I’ve requested everything, everything that gets submitted to this SRC (state rehabilitation council), in real time, in real time, to be fully accessible.  The other thing going back to the assurances, is one of the assurances that’s filed with RSA (Rehabilitation Services Administration) is that we are in compliance, both DSUs (designated state units), in full compliance with both the programmatic and effective communications requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504.  Ladies and gentlemen, they are not, not at all, not on a macro level and not on a micro level.  I should not have to ask for information and then be denied, or have it be turned into a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.  That should be made by law, pro quo forma.  It is not forthcoming.  This stuff is done in writing.  I’m going to ask everybody except for Leamon to close their eyes, right now please, and then you look at your pieces of paper and you tell me if you have access, or you look at all the visually delivered information and you tell me you have equal access, in real time.  Blind people are denied access to the system, period, by nature of the printed word and the failure of these rehabilitation agencies, over and over again, to follow the basic civil rights of people who happen to be blind.  These aren’t just a matter of customer service; these are a matter of law, these are a matter of federal law, federal civil rights laws, and I am sick and tired of the agencies abusing state law like FOIA as a means of circumventing their federal civil rights obligations.  Thank you.

 

Adjournment

There was no further business for discussion.

 

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by M. Tomlinson, was passed to adjourn the meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m.

 

NEXT BUSINESS MEETING: 

Friday May 2, 2014

MCRS Meeting Room, Lansing
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clip_image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 14796 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20140212/1e4e6442/attachment.gif>