Blind People Want the PIN to the ATM

By Fred Wurtzel

It is well-documented that, generally speaking, there is a 70-80 percent unemployment rate among blind people of working age. To give this some perspective, during the Great Depression of the 1930’s the worst economic event in American history, the unemployment rate for the general population was around 25 percent. It is also documented that blind people who successfully complete programs in rehabilitation services have an approximate 30-35 percent unemployment rate. Even this lower figure still exceeds the general population unemployment rate during the Great Depression and is more than 3 times the current “high” unemployment rate of around 10 percent.

Blind people and other people with disabilities have gone to Congress and explained these stark facts. Congress has been generous in appropriating funds to provide services to blind people to assist us in finding work.

With figures obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request from the Commission for the Blind the following facts have been uncovered. It is no wonder that the Administration has not shared this data with the Commission board despite the Board’s request at its March meeting. In Michigan, in 2010, the Michigan Commission for the Blind had around
$28 million to serve blind people. One might reasonably ask, “What has the MCB done with this very large amount of money to serve blind people?” Is every unemployed blind person now employed? What would you, the reader, do with $28 million to help your fellow blind person to get a job? Anyone who has had any kind of meetings or has an open case with the Commission will tell you that virtually without exception, the Commission staff believe the agency is under funded and cannot afford to provide the necessary services to assist every client to find employment in their chosen field. The facts simply do not bear this out. Given the very large budget surpluses, MCB has ample funds to fully help all clients.

As a slight aside, here is what the law; Public Act 260 of 1978 says about what the Commission is to do. Remember, shall means that this is the law and is not optional, while “may,” is discretionary and is an option for the agency.

The Commission law reads, in part, as follows:

393.354 Services to assist visually handicapped persons; fee; duties of commission
Generally.
Sec. 4. (1) The commission shall maintain a program of services to assist visually
handicapped persons to overcome vocational handicaps and to obtain the maximum degree
of self-support and self-care.. .

Again, the above is mandatory. It is the law, just like speed limits, drug laws and pollution control laws. Consider that the law uses the term Maximum degree” when referring to reaching a vocational goal. Many clients, of late, are being told that the Commission is only in business to assist with the minimum employment possible, so if a high school diploma will get a job in your chosen profession, then, the Commission will not help with college. It must be noted that administration officials will deny this is the policy, but this author has been in meetings where staff has expressed this position. If the “maximum degree” is the commission policy, then significant staff training is in order. Judging by the paltry amount spent on staff training, this will not be done, soon. We, the consumers, have been advocating for the development of a more comprehensive and intensive staff training effort, while the Commission administration has resisted our efforts at every turn.

Second, during the college policy development, there were hours of discussion on the point of maximum preparation for a career, and assistance with advanced degrees from Colleges or Universities is still resisted in the policy, though perfectly allowable.

In case one wonders if the above is too broad or not clear about how the Commission is to spend its money, consider the following from the same section:
. . .Shall do all of the following:. . .
. . . (g) Place visually handicapped persons in jobs or business enterprises in accordance
With the abilities and interests of the applicant.
(h) Teach visually handicapped persons trades or occupations which may be followed
in their homes and to assist them in whatever manner may seem advisable in disposing
of the products of their home industries.
(i) Aid individual visually handicapped persons or groups of visually handicapped
persons to engage in gainful occupations by furnishing materials, equipment, goods
or services to them, by providing financial assistance as necessary to encourage
and equip them to reach an objective established with them by the commission.
(j) Provide rehabilitation services for blind persons who are senior citizens so
that they may reside within a community.
In case there is a lingering doubt that MCB is to do all in its power to help unemployed blind people the following is added to make sure everyone is clear about the intent of the legislature.
(k) Provide other rehabilitative goods and services as appropriate to each individual
circumstance.
How many times must the law say that the Commission is to make maximum efforts to help blind people get good jobs? Not the minimum, not a minimum wage job, not a sheltered workshop, the law says the maximum effort in accordance with the blind person’s abilities and interests.

So, the reader may ask, what does all this have to do with the budget? A paraphrase of The Bible tells us that where the treasure is, there is the heart, also. It is telling that the cost categories which pay salaries, rents to state government, state retirement, and so on, are the accounts which are the most exhausted. Any account directed to providing direct services and employment to blind people is woefully underspent. One might reasonably wonder why those items that spend money for governmental items are nearly fully spent, fully spent or significantly over-spent while client service accounts are significantly underspent. Is this a reflection of the priorities of the agency? How does the greater Department or state government view rehabilitation funds? Are these funds treated as a convenient ATM to fund outside interests?

Below are some examples of the spending priorities within MCB as published by the agency for the 2009-2010 fiscal year? The first number is the amount appropriated by the legislature, the second is the actual amount spent and the third is the percentage of the total appropriation that was actually spent.

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

$28,798,133
$20,552,909
71 percent

According to these figures the MCB had nearly $29 million to spend. It only spent 71 percent of this money. There may well be good cause for not fully expending the amount allowable. The legislature provides authority to spend money, but may not provide the money itself. This is done so the agency may accept outside funds and legally spend them. Even if this accounts for a full 15 percent, that still leaves 15 percent unspent that could have been spent to help blind people find work.

MINI ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM

$100,000

$70,769

71 percent

The above is a long-running, innovative and arguably quite successful program to reach out to blind people around the state to introduce the services of the agency and demonstrate how a full course of services can be beneficial. Notice, this is a direct service to blind individuals and is 29 percent underspent.

CASE SERVICES
$5,431,115
$4,279,761
79 percent

It is difficult to explain that the agency failed to spend around $1 million while telling clients there are no funds for their services. This is the heart of the agencies programs to assist with employment for blind people. This is the reason the agency exists. Case services is where the real work of the agency is accomplished. Without case services, there is no reason for an agency for the blind. We are talking about 21 percent of the money available to help get jobs went unspent. Why? What is the barrier to providing desperately needed services? Remember, there are 70 percent of us who want to work and don’t. Most of the money comes from federal funds. Furthermore, if a client who receives Social Security benefits is successfully placed and ceases to receive Social Security benefits, the Commission is reimbursed 100 percent of the rehabilitation costs and the money is far less restricted in its use than ordinary rehabilitation funds.

One statistic not showing, here, is the percentage of the entire budget set aside for case services. Remember, case services include things like college tuition, adjustment to blindness services, adaptive technology and the vast array of services needed by unemployed persons who want to work.

MCB budgeted less than 20% of the total budget for its core services. To be fair, the entire budget includes stimulus funds which increase the budget above ordinary appropriations. So if these are subtracted, we are still around 25 percent. As will be demonstrated below, the nearly unrestricted stimulus funds remain virtually unspent, so the above caveat exacerbates the issue, not resolves it. It appears that it takes 3 to 4 dollars to spend 1 dollar of rehabilitation funds. This author wonders what the national mean and median percent of the total budget that goes for case services is for agencies for the blind. One concern about raising this low level of case service spending is that the administration will transfer the funds to other non-client categories and spend it all without increasing spending on case services.

SALARIES AND WAGES
$6,539,308
$6,199,397
95 percent

Ok, now we see that 95 percent of salaries and wages are spent while only 79 percent of case services funds are spent. Remember the part about where the heart and treasure are? Commission employees deserve good pay and good working conditions. There are a lot of very good employees within MCB. In this writer’s opinion, we ought to hire more counselors and placement people to reach and get jobs for more blind people. However, in this politically charged environment of cutting government spending, the above numbers with fully spent salaries and underspent case services do not support this premise.

VENDING & CAFETERIA OPERATIONS

$1,480,000
$1,239,911
84 percent

This item refers to the Commission’s Business enterprise Program (BEP). According to the BEP enabling legislation the purpose of the law is to “provide jobs and increase the economic independence of blind persons.” The BEP is the only direct program for employment within MCB. Tellingly, there are a large number of sighted persons operating Business Enterprise facilities and thus occupying jobs legally set aside for blind persons. In addition, the agency is under-supporting the program and not increasing the number of blind people working in the program. Recently, the agency has been trying to reduce upward mobility services designed to assist persons in the program to move into better jobs. Amazingly enough, they say it costs too much even though there is a big pile of unspent money in both BEP and in VR case services. At the most recent operator workshop, according to Elected Committee members, the operators were told there was insufficient funding to pay for recognition awards, though 16 percent of the budget remained unspent. The operators used funds to provide flowers and cards for sick or bereaved operators to pay for the recognitions of fellow operators. Where is the credibility?

STATE IL COUNCIL

$101,000
$100,996
100 percent

Now, here is, possibly, the most egregious example of using the Commission for an ATM. This organization does nothing to employ, train or place anyone. It is particularly disgusting when one takes into account the numbers below about services to older blind persons, those who might be served by Independent living services. MCB has hardly spent any money on these individuals, yet it supports another state agency which does nothing perceptible to help anyone.

COST ALLOCATIONS
$242,139
$356,682
147 percent

Here is an item which exceeded its budget. None of these funds went to serve blind people. In fact, if the Attorney General’s office is paid from this category, these funds were spent to fire, demean and otherwise drag blind people down. They may be defended by saying they are necessary to carry out other services of the agency, but the fact that they are one and one half times more than budgeted while direct services are drastically below budget makes one wonder why agency and state government services get more than their share while blind clients are under-served and thrown into the streets with no job at all. It appears to be the ATM syndrome at work, again. This is an ambiguous category, a better description may help us feel better about its apparently excessive spending in the face of depriving blind clients of service.

BEP OCCUPANCY
$1,040,000
$1,008,368
97 percent

Again, this money goes to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget and is virtually fully spent. This money is allegedly to pay for space which is occupied by BEP foodservice facilities for state employees. First, this expenditure does not even belong within the BEP budget. The cost of space for state employee foodservices and break areas ought to be a cost for each agency, just like hallways, elevators and bathrooms. These spaces are for the benefit of employees and the cost ought to be included in the rent paid by the various agencies for housing their employees. This would not increase the cost of occupancy for the state as a whole, but would free up money for serving blind people by allowing more funds for matching federal funds.

Second, a large number of the BEP facilities are being operated by sighted people while qualified blind people are being denied the opportunity to work. So money appropriated to serve blind people is paying rent on space where sighted people are working. Many of these sighted people are not paying their fees to the agency, while blind operators are being removed for far less serious offenses.

Again, though the amount of money spent to operate the program is underspent, the money inappropriately going to DTMB from the MCB ATM for their purposes is fully funded. Is there something wrong with this picture?

MCB RENT AND OCCUPANCY

$450,000
$412,717
92 percent

Of course the MCB needs office space and other space in which to operate from. Again, the Department of Technology, management and Budget is getting funds from the MCB ATM provided to serve blind people while blind people’s cases are going wanting and blind people are being told there is insufficient money to provide needed goods and services. At a minimum, rent ought to be reduced to 79 percent, the same extent that case services are.

STRATEGIC PLANNING

$3,000
$1,096
37 percent

Strategic planning is a federal requirement under the Rehabilitation act. Clearly, as demonstrated by the federal monitoring report and the defiance of the law as shown in this under expenditure MCB does not take the Rehabilitation Act or such requirements seriously. Proper strategic planning ought to be looking at the facts in this budget and wondering why more resources aren’t going to the people who the agency is legally mandated to serve. It is difficult to imagine, based on this budget summary what planning was done and what the goals and outcomes were.

STAFF TRAINING
$29,000
$9,214
32 percent

Again, there is an apparent disdain for staff training in the face of a federal monitoring report and many policy development meetings where federal rules were flagrantly violated. As recent as 2 weeks ago, a client was illegally told they are required to use their SSI funds for their rehabilitation services costs. This is strictly prohibited by the law. Maybe some training on the rehabilitation act would prevent the agency from violating the law. (Incidentally, MCB administration was fully aware of all the violations contained in the monitoring report, including misappropriation of funds, in time to provide staff training during the subject fiscal year, not to mention the present year.)

ARRA – TITLE I

$2,000,000
$4,068
0 percent

This is stimulus funding. It has far fewer restrictions than ordinary rehabilitation funds. To MCB’s credit, it planned to use this funding to hire interns in state government and has done so. Judging by the expenditures, not too many blind people got these jobs. The inability to spend $2 million to help blind people get jobs is not surprising in view of the fact that MCB cannot even spend its ordinary rehabilitation case services money. Based on these facts, one may be led to believe that all the blind people in Michigan are working and jobs are easy to get. We must be being misled that Michigan’s economy is depressed and there are blind people looking for work.

ARRA – OLDER BLIND

$1,187,077
$471
0 percent

ARRA – PART B

$156,528
$6,337
4 percent

The above 2 items are also known as “stimulus funds.” These are for older blind individuals. There are few restrictions and a limited time during which the money is to be spent, otherwise it must be returned to the federal government. Commission staff has called the NFB asking for donations of Perkins Braillers because they don’t have funds to provide equipment to seniors. Given the numbers, above, this is unimaginable. What in the world is happening, here? How can staff believe there is no money with budget surpluses in the millions of dollars? Again, there are good staff people out there who are not being properly trained, informed or supervised.

Last December during the quarterly Commission Board meeting, at the annual recognition of staff and clients who are doing extraordinary things there were some really good stories of quality rehabilitation work and positive outcomes. This leads one to wonder how many more such outcomes could have been achieved if there had been more and better planning, more and better staff training and a willingness to provide more goods and services to blind clients of MCB. Judging by the lack of spending of money targeted to help blind people, there is no need for the service. Somehow, it is doubtful this is true, based on the people I talk to on a daily basis, the adult children of blind seniors who want help for their moms and dads. The college students who are being told there is no money for technology, room and board and so on. All blind people who are looking for jobs have all the computer training and adaptive equipment they need to go to work. What other explanation could there be for this vast surplus of money? Could the explanation be a commission Director who is out of touch with what is happening in the agency? Could it be that the priority is to keep insiders funded while blind citizens go neglected and fired and discriminated against by the very agency that is legislatively established to assist them to get good jobs?

What is the Commission Board doing to monitor and control this travesty, this amazingly blatant rip-off of blind people while lining the pockets of sighted people and other agencies. How much does one agency director need to do before someone begins to question their competence? A short list of allegations includes a failing monitoring report from the federal government, illegally firing blind staff for belonging to the National Federation of the Blind, illegally firing the director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center with no due process, illegally taking jobs from blind vendors while illegally providing employment to sighted people in the Business Enterprise Program, allowing the entire staff of approximately 35 of MCBTC to sit idle for weeks with no work at a conservatively estimated cost of $75,000/week, no computers, no phones at full pay. How many offenses against blind people have to be committed before the Commission Board exercises its lawful duty to evaluate this person and take appropriate action? It is time to give blind people the PIN to the MCB ATM and allow us to join society as first-class tax-paying working people.

National Federation of the Blind of Michigan Quarterly Board Meeting

The National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is having the next Quarterly Board Meeting in Ann Arbor on Saturday, May 14, from
10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. The meeting will take place at St. Pauls Lutheran Church,
420 W. Liberty
Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

Watch this space for the agenda. If you have suggestions for the agenda, please call President Larry posont at 517-482-1800. For comments or questions, please email president.nfb.mi.gmail.com. Our meetings are open to all and all are invited.
As a fund raiser for the Ann Arbor chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, we will have a spaghetti luncheon.
For $6, lunch includes: spaghetti, garlic bread, brownies, and a drink. We hope to see you there!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DATE: March 1, 2011

CONTACT: Mike Powell – 586-754-1325 or Larry Posont – 517-482-1800

Governor Snyder Fills 2 Vacancies on Michigan Commission for the Blind board

Lansing, Michigan – The national Federation of the Blind of Michigan (NFBM) is proud to announce that Governor Rick Snyder has appointed Larry Posont, president of the national Federation of the Blind of Michigan as Chairperson of the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB). Governor Snyder has also appointed Parents Of Blind Children member Lydia Schuck to a 3-year term on the MCB Board. President Posont was notified by telephone on Friday February 25 of the 2 appointments.

“I am honored that the Governor has placed his trust in me to lead this very important Commission. The Commission is important to the thousands of blind people in Michigan who, without rehabilitation services, face a 70% unemployment rate. Michigan can do better than this.” Posont commented by phone from his Dearborn heights home. “The commission has a quality staff and adequate funds to provide the highest quality services available in America. Michigan has a strong law which provides that the 5 person policy-making board has at least 3 blind members. We expect to act aggressively to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. Every employee of the agency needs to have quality, well-paying jobs for all blind MCB customers as their first priority. Through the years, various studies of rehabilitation programs show that $5-6 are returned for every dollar spent on quality rehabilitation, when blind people are moved from public benefit rolls to taxpayer rolls. It is a privilege to have a job and pay taxes, said Posont, a retired 30-year veteran of the business Enterprise program and entrepreneurial program sponsored by the Commission.

“The Michigan commission for the Blind will be an active participant in Governor Snyder’s program to help Michigan regain its strong role in our nations’ economy and provide high quality jobs for our state’s citizens. We are committed to quality effective data-driven government services that put the customer first,” Posont said.

Lydia Schuck from Mason, near Lansing, a parent of a blind child, a Transition Specialist and a doctoral candidate in Interdisciplinary health Science at Western Michigan University commented, “I hope to work to increase the capacity of the Michigan Commission for the Blind to work collaboratively with the Department of Education to increase results and opportunities for blind students in Michigan schools. I have the experience, background and passion to help improve services to create an environment where blind people can compete on terms of equality and achieve first-class citizenship.”

Posont and Schuck join Jo Ann pilarski, a school teacher from Alpena, Geri Taeckens, a retired School Social worker from Sault Ste Marie and john Scott, an attorney from Detroit on the MCB board which sets policy for the 34 year old Commission.

******

The national Federation of the Blind is the oldest and largest consumer organization of blind people in America. Founded in 1940, the Federation advocates for quality services and programs, sponsors Newsline for the blind, a free Newspaper and periodical service, scholarships and is a leader in technology to assist blind people, including the Blind Driver Challenge, where for the first time, a blind person navigated a car on a road course at the Daytona Race track in a Demonstration of how blind people can accomplish things never before thought possible.

Visit www.nfb.org and www.nfbmi.org to learn more about the national Federation of the Blind of Michigan.

National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

20812 Ann Arbor Trail

Dearborn Heights, MI 48127

December 15, 2010

Dear Jo Ann,

Below are 2 emails from 2 of the most dedicated people in the MCB. They are speaking out about one more system within MCB that is broken. As you are aware, much of the relationship with RSA is data driven. That is, the agency performance is measured and evaluated in quantitative measures. There are few, if any qualitative measures.

The RSA recently completed a monitoring report which was a very poor reflection on the agency. As you read the comments from Karyn Silky, you can sense her frustration as she tries to do her work and cannot do it efficiently and meet the demands of the administrative management information system (System 7). As she points out, even the accounting is broken. She cannot charge costs to the proper accounts. If these are not caught and manually corrected, RSA will, again, find that MCB is misappropriating funds.
The bottom line here is that System 7 is failing.

If that were the only major administrative problem in MCB it would be very serious and demand immediate and drastic action.
Unfortunately, this is only one among at least 4 other systems that have failed within the past year. Or should I say, more correctly, which have been reported in the past year. Certainly the monitoring report covers a broader time span and shows ongoing mismanagement by the Director.

Here is a brief recap of some of the failed and broken systems at MCB:

1.. 37 MCBTC staff are sitting idle and did so all last week at a cost of more than $75000/week, because there was inadequate planning to anticipate issues that may arise in commencing a major construction project. This project has been in some stage of planning since around 2005; it did not sneak up on anyone. This failure alone ought to be enough to demand drastic action from the board. It is easy to predict that Pat will blame Melody Lindsey, Christine Boone or Sherri Heibeck. He will not ever take responsibility for anything. Who is accountable?

2.. The Business Enterprise Program is in meltdown. With 15 facilities on the bid line and not enough blind people trained to fill these positions it is just going to continue to cause major problems for MCB. Sooner or later, there will be a major incident someplace which will create public relations problems and possibly attract negative legislature attention.

The last BEP training class of only 8, had no one in charge. Trainees were left to sit unsupervised with no assignments and no
oversight. An interpreter at $40/hour was allowed to sit while the person for whom they were to interpret had no activity. Fred
Wurtzel, the retired BEP administrator called James Hull and offered to supervise the class during John McEntee’s absence. No teacher was apparently better than a 20 year veteran. There have been talks of early retirements for years. It could be anticipated that such an event would occur, yet there was absolutely no planning. This is difficult to understand, since placements of blind clients are down and there allegedly very few jobs, except there 15, today in the Business Enterprise Program. Who will take the fall for this. Will anyone take responsibility? Will anyone be held accountable? Certainly not Pat Cannon, Heaven forbid.

3.. The RSA monitoring report showed a monumental lack of oversight and numerous instances of violations of the law and rules. It is alleged that RSA is wrong and MCB is not to blame. It is doubtful if this argument will hold water. Consumers have brought many of these issues to the attention of the Commission Board, the MCB director and various staff people over the years. Some of these, consumers could not easily detect, like misappropriation of funds by serving ineligible clients below the age of 14. Pat alleged in a meeting with the NFB that he provided a copy of the preliminary monitoring report to you, Jo Ann, more than a year ago. You have denied having a copy. I’m not sure of the truth, here. It certainly appears that Pat is, again, dumping responsibility on you and not taking his own responsibility. Who will be blamed for this? Will it be Leamon, the MCB Board, and the counselors or, as we heard, it is RSA’s fault. Amazing!

4.. Back to System 7. This is the very heart of managing the MCB. RSA will use data from System 7 to evaluate the agency performance.

5..

6.. Yesterday, in the Services Delivery Design Team meeting staff expressed much dissatisfaction with System 7 and MAIN. it was
mentioned that blind staff, after how many years, now, still cannot do many of the administrative tasks which most state employees
must do either as a regular part of their job or as incidental parts of carrying out their duties. For example blind staff in state
government cannot even complete their own time sheets, let alone do a large number of tasks required for state jobs. The Commission
may become the only place where blind people can work if they need to use MAIN. The whole “MAIN” system is inaccessible and Pat
cannon is the state ADA coordinator. Michigan is at risk for a giant ADA suit such as the ones in Arkansas and New york. These
states had exactly the same problem with their statewide accounting systems. Is the Governor aware of this threat? Pat Cannon
cannot even advocate for his agencies’ constituency, himself or anyone else it seems. Who is at fault for this system failure? It
must be Connie Zanger, right? She has been doing the job for the past few months and did not fix it. Or, could it be Sherri
Heibeck? She was in charge for several years. Or is it Libera? Did they follow the MCB specifications incorrectly? Or, is it
DTMB for not monitoring the system progress. Oh, how about Pat Cannon? Could he, as administrator be accountable? No, he is no
computer guru, so it must be someone else.

These are just 4, (did I say “just” 4?) items that, in most places of employment just 1 problem of the magnitude of these would have
caused major disciplinary action, that are plaguing MCB Yet, given all these, you just gave this man a satisfactory job rating.
This seems inconceivable.

How about some other items like the firing of Christine Boone on false pretenses with no MCB Board oversight, though the board is
the direct supervisor of the Director and P.A. 260 calls for such oversight, 2 instances of breaking and entry into the MCB office
where computers were stolen, allegations of misuse of travel by a staff person, questions about BEP inventories, questions about bep
judge shopping resulting in overturned administrative hearings? How many more do you need?

Read both Bernie’s and Karin’s messages. They are afraid of reprisals. Pat Cannon has managed by bullying and intimidation. Why
should an employee be afraid to report problems with the software they are depending on to do their jobs? This is the very software
the agency will depend on to report accurately to RSA to account for the $20 million the agency is entrusted with each year to serve
blind people. Fear is the management style of preference and as you can see from the list above it is not very effective as a
strategy. When will someone take responsibility? Are blind people so inconsequential that a person earning more than 120000 per
year is allowed to behave in any manner they choose wit impunity?

It is up to you. We are depending on you as the legally appointed body to oversee the Commission to take charge. When will this
madness stop and who will stop it?

Sincerely

Larry Posont, President

National Federation of the Blind of Michigan

517-482-1800

Email: president.nfb.mi@gmail.com

Web page

www.nfbmi.org

Subject: RE: System 7 issues

All,

Good afternoon.

Is this another case of Manager’s making decisions WITHOUT ANY INPUT OF

STAFF?

I can’t even count the number of times we have just shoved stuff down the chain,

(in our case the West Region) to Field

Staff and

Administrative Support

.

What affect does this have on the overall push down to us; to increase Competitive

Closures?

There most surely is POLITIC with this latest decision to revamp System 7? It must

have to do with funding to LIBERA? Appease RSA?

Does anyone hear, or read of staff and

administrative support

input to the latest from Libera? Does anyone care about this

Staff

; BUT, particularly here in the West Region? Kisiel and I do! Some of the West

Staff may not agree with me; and that’s OK.

How much more can this agency from Commissioner’s, right down thru the “THE CHAIN

OF COMMAND” ask of this

Staff?

For one time can we be straight and honest to the hardest worker’s we have? OK;

worker’s may not be a good title but is this how MANAGEMENT sees it’s

front line employees

? Sherry Gordon, Lisa Kisiel and the writer have always tried to put our

STAFF first. We tried

but maybe never enough

, to stand up to what we felt was right? I always lived with FEAR, i.e., what can

“they” do to me? And, I am a former Colonel in the United States Army.

I have sat by for many days now; first thinking WHAT CAN THEY DO TO ME if I respond?

In good

conscience I have to

! I have the highest of respect for the professionalism that Karyn Silky and ALL

STAFF of this agency bring to the table.

For so many years I supported the Director’s approach which began upon arrival in

1999. As a Manager I became a learning person as was suggested to me, not by my

Boss then; but the Director. Eleven years ago I honored that attempt.

It pains me to see after these eleven years, that I have to ask;

have we made any progress

? THIS IS A BURNED OUT FIELD STAFF in the West Region.

BERNIE P. KRAMER

West Region Manager

Michigan Commission For The Blind

350 Ottawa NW

Grand Rapids, MI

616-356-0183

Subject: System 7 issues

Julia,

First, thanks for being patient with all of us as we struggle through this mess.

My comments below are not directed toward you, please know that.

My first question is why can’t we be allowed to view all consumers who are in the

System? I needed to check to see if someone from the other side of the state was

currently open etc. for a new referral that came in with the same first and last

name, and I was not able to view any case information because I wasn’t assigned to

the case.

If the response is that the counselor assigned to the case must change it, then this

is just not acceptable. What if the counselor/teacher doesn’t do it in a timely

fashion? What if the person assigned to the case has retired? Doesn’t Libra understand

how this complicates service delivery for consumers? Not everyone sits at their

desk 8-10 hours per day – most, if not all of us, are out in the field for the majority

of the week.

Secondly – why can’t our support staff be able to do IPE amendments for counselors/teachers?

Apparently the counselor/teacher assigned to the case must do the IPE amendment,

approve it then our support staff can follow through and do an authorization. Again,

this is not allowing us to do our jobs in a timely manner. It’s not that support

staff are actually writing the auth – it’s that some of us might call/email in a

request to have support staff input the information into system, with all the particulars,

when we can’t access or get to the system for various reasons like being on the road.

If timely service delivery is being asked of staff, this problem does not make it

very feasible. It’s insane that all of the methods we used to have in the old version

aren’t still there. The new requirement to go into the IPE and Amendments and date

when services were rendered and the outcomes is also a huge issue. How are we supposed

to know when this has been done if we didn’t have the case when original services

were planned? This process does not make our system “efficient” – it is taking an

incredible amount of time for staff to even do a simple IPE amendment. Case note

entries should document that services were rendered. Sounds to me like someone doesn’t

want to review case files to get this information and want a “quick fix”.

I’m concerned that management does not have a full grasp on how difficult this “upgrade”

has made our jobs. I would suggest that those supervisors without case loads sit

down and try to muddle through this mess and get things done in a timely fashion.

I mean actually try to write an IPE amendment, try to print one out and see what

happens, try to do an authorization, add a new consumer, try to find an existing

consumer etc. . . and do this without having all the rights that you likely would

have. The upgrade is not acting like it did in training nor is it working like it

did during the testing phase. I’m appalled that there doesn’t seem to be an upper

management statement being made to Libra about the urgency of fixing these issues

if not taking us back to the old way of doing things. If it is being done on the

Director or upper management level, it would be nice for staff to know that this

is happening – communicate with us on what is being asked to be fixed or corrected,

let us know that you are all supporting our concerns. I know that I am speaking

for most if not all of my colleagues when I say that we are fed up, tired and angry

with what has been occurring.

My last issue is huge and has been asked of Libera already, but is creating a serious

problem – staff (all staff) must be able to plan and do authorizations from the appropriate

accounting codes. Can’t anyone see that when authorizations are being done, they

are being pulled from AARA funds versus VR because it can’t be changed? What about

YLV students – what if they are VR and we need to do both YLV authorization as well

as a VR service? It won’t let you do this. Why are we being required to do ILOB

plans when only IL was supposed to have plans. While I’m on it, what is the definition

of an IL consumer versus a homemaker? When do we serve someone as IL and not VR

homemaker? This question was asked during the testing phase of the upgrade when

we learned there would be a split in the funding for IL/ILOB. That was months ago.

How can you implement a new approach to fund and serve IL/ILOB without defining for

us what that means? Leamon, you must address this issue because there will be and

possibly are consumers out there not getting services through general IL who have

the right to services and/or are being put in the wrong program.

This “upgrade” is not an upgrade – it is a completely new system. Upgrades only

fix minor issues – not create disasters.

I feel sorry for whoever will be in charge of gathering financial data at the end

of Fiscal 2011 because the way things are going, nothing will be accurate.

My appeal to all staff who are trying to use this system is this – if you are struggling

with all of these issues, let management know directly via email or phone calls.

Specific issues must be identified to them and how it is impacting your job, how

long it is taking to do tasks (literally track the time) is absolutely necessary

in order for users of the system to get our point across.

I might be putting my neck on the line sending this, but frankly, I don’t care anymore.

Karyn

–
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 7 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 888 of my spam emails to date.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message

_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk@nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbmi-talk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40att.net
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG – www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3304 – Release Date: 12/15/10 07:34:00

October 17.2010
First Christian Church
1001 Chester Rd
Lansing, MI
Tickets are $10 or 2 for $15

John Overbeck and his competition Bar-B-Que team of HEERE PIGGY PIGGY are putting on a benefit Bar-B-Que to support The youth of FCC and the youth of The National Federation. of the Blind of Michigan.

HEERE PIGGY PIGGY will prepare a variety of pork and chicken recipes for you to try. You may then vote for your favorite. The winning recipe will be used for the next competition for this fun-loving, energetic, imaginative and dedicated team of chefs. Come join us to support our youth and enjoy a delicious, mouth-watering meal of freshly prepared bar-b-que.

In addition, Schwan’s Frozen Foods will be providing ice cream. Pre-order forms for Schwan’s products will be available with 10-20% of sales going to the youth. Our youth will be selling the tickets and distributing the pre-order information. Pre-order pickups will be available on the day of the event. Schwan’s products will be available for purchase during the event with a percentage benefiting our youth. Also, get your Younker’s Community Day packets for only $5.

In the aftermath of a successful, yet painful and costly, pursuit of a consumer-friendly college policy campaign, I must reflect on the process and hope we have learned something. The cost of this process was high in monetary and human terms. It has alienated consumers, tarnished the image of a former Commission Board member and called into serious question the leadership of the Commission administration. Bullying, intimidation and attempts to mislead did not in the end, prevail. Consumers got a quality policy, at what cost? We, the NFB of Michigan, will not refrain from our pursuit of justice and fairness in the provision of quality services to blind people.

Why cannot our officials understand P.A. 260? It is plain English. The law, P.A. 260 creates a higher standard for MCB than the open meetings law, alone. As you will read, below, the word “any” applies to all business created under the authority of the Board. The consumer friendly, common sense approach would be to defer to the most open means of conducting Commission business, possible. Why not? What outcome is worth creating hostility, mistrust and an air of secrecy and elitism. After all, ultimately, the public will become aware of the players and their tactics and honesty, eventually.

For instance, some of the outcomes of the process were that: the college policy took an extra year to redo; the unfair and inexcusable trashing of Mark Eagle as being ethically questionable; the search for bullet proof skirting for meeting tables; security guards at Commission meetings. Were these wounds worth it? Why not let interested people participate, or at least observe? There did not seem to be a limit on the number of expensive staff in attendance at the college policy meetings, yet, consumers, who could not even get lunch paid for were excluded. In the end, consumers and courageous Commissioners had to correct the mean-spirited and anti-blind policy created by that original limited group. I hope we have learned something.

Below is an excerpt from the Commission law and a Q and A provided by Joe Harcz through his tenacious digging for truth and justice with Director Cannon. You will read how Director Cannon either deliberately or out of ignorance of the law, mislead and inaccurately advised the Commissioners.
Wouldn’t it be simple to have a copy of the law at a Commission meeting to refer to?

Clearly the Director is not reliable.

393.365 Conducting business at public meeting; notice; availability of writings to public

Sec. 15.(1) The business which the commission or any committee appointed under this

act may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or committee

held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 15.261

to 15,275 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of the time, date, and place

of the meeting shall be given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of the Public

Acts of 1976.

(2) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the commission

in the performance of an official function shall be made available to the public

in compliance with Act No. 442 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections

15.231

to 15.246 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

History: 1978, Act 260. Eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

Chair Pilarski asked Director Cannon to address the question of the OMA. Director Cannon responded that most of the internal groups within the Commission are open to all to attend and participate in, but there are committees that have designated representatives to participate and speak for each of their groups. Ms. Pilarski indicated that each of the representatives should be going back to their respective groups and filling them in on the meeting. Director Cannon noted that meetings of the MCB Board are subject to the OMA since the Board is a public body under the law.
He added that other committees and groups within the Commission, including its Consumer Involvement Council (CIC) are not considered public bodies and not required to be open meetings under the law. Sue Luzenski read a statement by Judge Andres Friedlis, the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules in response to an inquiry about the statute ” . none of these groups would be considered public bodies subject to the OMA. They are all formed to provide advice; none have decision making functions. And their formation was not required by statute or rule. They consist of people having knowledge or an interest in the Commission’s ultimate decision but none of the groups have any ability to decide these questions. If these groups are only advisory they are not ‘Public Bodies.’ Also they must be created by resolution, statute, ordinance, etc. to be considered Public Bodies.”

Ms. Taeckens stated she served on ad hoc committee for the Training Center which consisted of 21 people and it was hard to get input from all of the participants. A bigger group would make it even more difficult to get the job done and can impede the function and goal of the group. There are times when meetings should be closed as long as there is peer representation.
Several consumers attending the meeting expressed their views on consumer participation, open meetings and dialogue opportunities.

Ms. Pilarski suggested that suggestions or comments could be put in writing either on the listserve or on the website.

As you can read, above, neither Cannon nor Friedliss were correct, since they, apparently, did not read the Commission law. The Commission law does not require the standard of a “public body” as does the OMA. I repeat, here, from P.A. 260: “The business which the commission or any committee appointed under this act may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or committee held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976,. . .

Speaking as a member of the NFB I have no doubt it worth our cost to stand up for our values and philosophy. I would, without question, do it again to get a quality outcome for thousands of blind people to come. I wonder if others feel the vicious and unfair attack on Mark Eagle was, in the end, worth it. This was a low-point in the misuse of power and influence to gain a point. What about the questions raised when security guards appeared at a Commission meeting? Some people wonder about the kind of fear that provoked such extreme measures. What truly motivated that fear?

Let’s learn from our experience. Let’s be open and welcoming. Let’s accept all views and consider them as sincere efforts to provide the best quality services possible. Let’s abandon deception, obfuscation, misinterpretation and intimidation as our tactics of choice for managing the MCB. It has been shown that, at least this time, the consumers will do what is necessary, in an open way, to assure quality outcomes.

Let DMB speak for itself. From FOIA request, received today.

From: Luzenski, Sue (DELEG)
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:24 PM
To: Heibeck, Cheryl (DELEG)
Subject: For FOIA request

Attachments: DMB-123 Blind Comm Victor.doc

—–Original Message—–
From: Pratt, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Luzenski, Sue (DELEG)
Subject: Fwd: FW: Braille and Tactile Signs

Sue,

Thank you. Pat asked that I arrange for a security guard on Mar. 19 & 20.
Attached is a DMB-123 that I need to have you complete and have signed by your agency then returned to my attention. I will also need a point of contact and phone number for these two days as well as an understanding of what the guard’s duties will be. I do know that on the 20th the guard will need to be posted at the entrance as the building will be locked. It would be helpful if a list of those authorized to enter so that the guard knows who is authorized.

Thanks,
Jeff