The National Federation of the Blind of Michigan has not stood by while services to blind people have continually gotten worse. We have steadfastly and proudly fulfilled our role as watchdogs on behalf of all blind citizens in our wonderful state. We have diligently, vociferously, and relentlessly called for and worked to achieve exemplary results from the Michigan Commission for the Blind. The Michigan Commission for the Blind, with $25 million to spend to help blind people get good jobs: we cannot expect less. With $25 million to spend on improving the employment of blind people we, blind people, have no recourse except to hold those who are mandated to provide those services accountable to produce the best services available. $25 million is a lot of money. Shouldn’t we expect a prompt return phone call, Braille documents, and freedom from fear of reprisals for speaking out about quality services?

Since 2008 the declining quality of management and services received from the MCB have been the subject of thousands, possibly tens of thousands of hours of meetings. We have attended Commission Board meetings, Consumer Involvement Council meetings, Elected Operator Committee meetings, Planning and Quality Team meetings, Services Delivery Design Team Meetings, College Policy Task Force meetings, Small Business Policy meetings, BEP Task Force Meetings, Training Task Force meetings, Maintenance Policy meetings and on the list goes. Blind people have taken an active role in working to develop legal and quality policies for the agency. We have demonstrated with our shoe leather, our sweat, our knowledge, our passion and freely-given volunteer time in meetings with well-paid state employees our commitment to creating the best agency in the country.

In return blind Commission employees have been illegally fired; blind Business Enterprise Program entrepreneurs have had their licenses illegally revoked. We have been met with negativity, rejection, attempts to close meetings, denial of documents in Braille and other accessible formats and ever-increasing levels of poor services from MCB as an agency.

This author heard, today, that a client from Detroit who moved to Florida more than a year ago received a return call from a counselor that she had placed over 2 years ago. This has to be a world’s record on delay in returning a call. It is only 1 example of the poor responsiveness to phone calls which have been raised for more than 5 years. It is routine for callbacks to take weeks and months.

We now have a strong and active Commission Board that has begun addressing these questions. For the first time in over 10 years there were legally mandated hearings on the Commission’s Rehabilitation State Plan. The Board convened a task force on training and the Board has asked for improved and strengthened training for MCB employees. The Board has set Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-Driven goals for the MCB Director. The Board gave an unsatisfactory evaluation in a chain of ever declining annual evaluations of the Director. The Board has asked for and begun receiving hard data on new cases, cases closed as employed and cases closed unsuccessfully. The Board has asked for the costs of successfully and unsuccessfully closed cases. In other words this board had begun to do as Governor Snyder has been advocating, creating a data-driven results-oriented agency.

Now, Governor Snyder has issued Executive Order 2012-2 that abolishes the Michigan Commission for the Blind. His order destroys the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board, thus eliminating any direct involvement of blind citizens in the policy development of services to blind citizens. If people who fish and people who like to shoot bunnies get input into the Natural Resources Commission or people who use our roadways get input into the Transportation Commission on the way the Transportation Department is managed, shouldn’t blind people with 70% unemployment get to say something about how $25 million is spent to help them get jobs? This Executive Order seems very contradictory to the Governor’s expressed goals. The people who are hurt are blind people, the same people who were being hurt by the poor management of MCB. Though the MCB Director job is abolished, there is no reason to believe the Director will cease to be employed in the management of the agency. This seems to be a prime example of rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

It cannot be said that blind people have not raised these issues to the new administration. It cannot be said that blind people have blamed or criticized the Governor for these long-standing problems. It will not be said that blind people gave up and went home after this rebuke. We will be on the streets, in the Cadillac Place Building, the Escanaba State Office Building, in the Grand Tower Building, in the Anderson Building, in the Farnum Building in the Capitol Building, in the newspapers, in the committee meetings of the legislature, in federal public hearings, and in arbitration hearings of the Business Enterprise Program until we get $25 million worth of quality services. We will not be told to sit down and shut up and be grateful for second-rate jobs, second rate services and second-rate citizenship. We will not settle for receiving services from the agency that provides food stamps, child protective services and the social safety net. We want jobs, not welfare.

Following is a letter written to Steve Arwood about a secretive video recording of a Commission Meeting. To their credit Mr. Hillfinger, Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Arwood met with some of our members following the receipt of the letter to assure us that this would not happen again. They understood the issue it raised. We were pleased that Mr. Arwood agreed to work with us to attempt to reduce the number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. This effort got off to a good start, then Mr. Arwood felt it was no longer helpful, though progress was being made.

As the letter below shows, even though we were unhappy about the actions of MCB, we were not critical of Governor Snyder, his policies or decisions. Why did the Governor turn against blind people in this way? Blind people are not the culprits here. Why is our ability to affect our services being reduced?

Thu 7/14/2011

Dear Mr. Arwood:

I received the item below describing the recent video recording of the June Commission meeting from the National Federation of the Blind list serve to which I subscribe. I cannot imagine what people are thinking to spend this kind of money in these supposedly strapped times of state government. What in the world is going on?

First, this recording was made without the knowledge of meeting participants who were blind, though many of my sighted friends were aware and simply figured that we knew. I was not alone in my ignorance of this assault on my privacy. I attended this meeting and did not know until the following Monday that it was recorded on video. Why was it recorded? Why was it so important to spend this kind of money to make such a recording? I am dumbfounded that you and the other administrators of LARA would allow such a frivolous and extravagant expenditure for such a small event.

It is understandable that you are annoyed at the state of things with regard to citizen dissatisfaction with MCB. Can you imagine why blind citizens are outraged about the mismanagement of such an important agency? How can it be made any clearer: there is a 70% unemployment rate among blind people? Shouldn’t citizens(taxpayers) be outraged when such offensive behavior as recording people in a public meeting by the government without those people’s knowledge and then compounding it by spending more than $5,000 on top of it? This is money meant to help blind people get jobs. All this is carried out by responsible authorities? Five thousand dollars is about what it takes to get a blind person a job at MCB. Was that film worth a blind person’s job? A job, a chance to be a first-class citizen, a contributing taxpayer, a part of the fabric of our community. What kind of priorities are these?

Mr. Arwood, I have heard that you are an experienced administrator. Since you are part of the Snyder administration, I would suppose you have some general tendencies toward sensibility. Despite the entire clamor, it seems that this Governor is doing a very good job navigating in very dangerous waters with the difficulties presented by taxation, unions, declining revenues, international bridges and on and on. Would the Governor think this incident at MCB fits his vision of how state government should be run? Taking advantage of blind people to basically spy on them and then spend money appropriated to help them get jobs seems like a surrealistic juxtaposition of events not up to the high expectations of this administration. I need to say it one more time: “use money intended to get jobs for blind people to insult and intimidate them?” It’s amazing!

I hope you reconsider your approach to MCB and begin to consider that people like me with three decades of experience in government and an advanced degree in administration are not out in left field. After all, we are on the outside; the problems are from the inside. We did not illegally fire anyone. We did not mismanage the remodeling of the MCB Training Center. We aren’t the ones who cannot fix the System 7 computer system after 10 years of effort and heaven knows how much money. We aren’t the ones under-spending the budget on services to unemployed blind people while using this same precious money attacking those same people. We are not the ones violating the Rehabilitation Act. We are not the ones scheduling meetings in inaccessible facilities. We are not the ones paying $5,000 to spy on and intimidate blind Michigan citizens. We are not the ones making these problems.

We believe in the Rehabilitation Act and Public Act 260 of 1978. I believe in the Governor’s abilities and motives. This problem did not arise on Governor Snyder’s watch, it was inherited. The video recording did happen on his watch. I respectfully request an explanation, from you, of this seemingly insane event. I certainly hope it was an aberration and does not signal future attitudes and actions.

Sincerely,

Fred J. Wurtzel

Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:58 PM
To: nfbmi-talk@nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: FOIA Emails RE: J Harcz

—– Original Message —–
From: Farmer, Mel (LARA)
To: ‘joe harcz Comcast’
Cc: Arwood, Steve (LARA) ; Brown, Melanie (LARA) ; Morrow, Mario (LARA) ; Cannon, Patrick (DELEG) ; Haynes, Carla (DELEG) ; ‘sally.conway@usdoj.gov’ ; Przekop-Shaw, Susan (AG)
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:31 PM
Subject: FW: FOIA Emails RE: J Harcz

Mr. Joseph Harcz, this notice is in follow up to my July 8, 2011 email response (enclosed) regarding your June 30, 2011 request for a copy of the DVD of the June 17, 2011 MCB general meeting in accessible format. As you were previously informed, the Department does not have the in-house capability to convert the DVD of this 6 1/2 hour meeting into the accessible format you requested; and, thusly, the Department must contract a private- sector vendor to perform this service. The vendor indicates that it does not expect to have the DVD conversions completed until the end of this week, or the first part of the week commencing Monday, July 18, 2011. Further, when the vendor provides the Department the DVD, the Department will need 2-3 days to add the audio description portion to it.

Also, in follow up to the Department’s July 6, 2011 response to your July 2, 2011 request for records you describe as “a line item accounting of how much this video recording cost the taxpayers or any records related to costs such as inter agency transfers from the MCB/LARA or a third party vendor for filming the event to begin with”, please be informed of the following:

–Filming Cost: At minimum, the wage/benefits of the Department’s lowest paid employee capable

of recording the MCB meeting (General Office Assistant 5) at $25.10/hr X 6.5hrs = 163.15

–Private Sector Vendor Cost: The vendor informed the Department that its actual charge is

$3,750.00.

–Audio Description Cost: Estimated to take 2-3 days and cost about $1,200.00.

–Postage: Estimated to cost about $6.00

The total estimated cost to film and convert this requested DVD into the accessible format

requested is about $5,119.15.

——————————————————————————–

From: Farmer, Mel (LARA)

Below is another Free Press article. Link is provided at end of text for reference.

Abolishing commission for blind people could mean lawsuit

March 2, 2012 |
Paul Egan

By
Paul Egan

Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau

Lansing
Rick Snyder
Farmington Hills
University Of Michigan
list end

LANSING — A dispute over an ordered shake-up in services for blind people could evolve into a legal test of Gov. Rick Snyder’s executive authority, a prominent
blind attorney said Thursday.

Richard Bernstein of Farmington Hills, who has brought disability cases against the University of Michigan, Delta Air Lines and the Detroit Department of
Transportation, said he is researching a possible federal lawsuit against Snyder for his executive order last week abolishing the Michigan Commission for
the Blind.

“This was probably the most inconsiderate, mean-spirited, hostile thing that you could do to people whose lives are already made challenging,” said Bernstein,
a Democrat who unsuccessfully sought the nomination for state attorney general in 2010.

More than a dozen blind people and supporters protested Thursday outside Snyder’s Lansing office.

Snyder said last week that his reorganization will improve efficiencies and services to blind people. Mario Morrow, a spokesman for the Department of Licensing
and Regulatory Affairs, said Thursday that the administration is “researching and evaluating the concerns.”

Advocates for blind people say Snyder’s change violates federal rules; puts at risk nearly $15 million in federal rehabilitation and training funds, and
oversteps executive authority by abolishing a commission established by the Legislature in 1978 that gave blind Michigan residents a role in decisions
that affect them.

Snyder’s plan moves services for blind people out of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and splits them. The Department of Human Services takes over vocational
rehabilitation services, and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget becomes responsible for licensing blind vendors who operate in state buildings
and rest areas.

Source:

http://www.freep.com/article/20120302/NEWS15/203020338/Abolishing-commission-for-blind-people-could-mean-lawsuit

Support to retain a Separate Vocational Rehabilitation Agency Specifically for the Blind and Visually Impaired of Michigan

-The United States Congress through Federal Law has acknowledged that the unique needs of blind and visually impaired vocational rehabilitation consumers are sufficiently
distinct from the broader disability community to warrant separate rehabilitation agencies to serve the blind and visually impaired.

-Almost all organizations of and for the blind agree with conclusions drawn from research data, (cited below), that specialized rehabilitation service for the blind result in high numbers of blind persons placed in competitive employment, at higher wages and at no greater cost than a combined disability rehabilitation service mode.

-Blind consumers require specialized services to gain employment, such as Braille and adaptive computer use, that can only be acquired within an agency setting staffed with uniquely trained counselors and programs that prioritize the needs of blind persons.

-Specially trained vocational rehabilitation counselors are most effective in breaking down negative stereotypes and misconceptions about blindness that often stand in the way of competitive employment.

-Improved quality control and greater accountability are ensured when services to the blind and policies affecting them are driven by blind consumers.

-After considering consolidation of rehabilitation services, many states have determined that true cost-effectiveness, efficient and timely service delivery, focused management and competent , targeted leadership are best accomplished in a separate agency with qualified trained staff.

-In Michigan in 1978, the State House of Representatives worked with blind consumers to enact legislation to establish a separate agency for vocational rehabilitation services to blind consumers. Public Act 260 created the Michigan Commission for the Blind. The same needs identified in 1978 remain relevant today.

HELP REVERSE EXECUTIVE ORDER 2021-2 AND RETAIN APPROPRIATE SERVICES TO ENSURE COMPETITIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR THE BLIND OF MICHIGAN

Cavenaugh, Brenda S., Giesen, J. Martin, & Pierce, Steven J. “Blindness Rehabilitation in Separate and Combined Agencies.” Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness ( in press).
Cavenaugh, Brenda S., & Pierce, Steven J. “Characteristics, Services, and Outcomes of Rehabilitation Consumers Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired Served in Separate and General Agencies.” Mississippi State, Mississippi: Mississippi State University Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Blindness and Low Vision. 1998.
Florida Department of Education, Division of Blind Services. Report to the Governor, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Minority Leaders of the Senate, and the House of Representatives, the State Board of Education, and the Commissioner of Education (Report from the Commission to Study the Delivery of Services to the Blind). Tallahassee, Florida: Author, 1994.
Kirchner, C., Johnson, G., & Harkins, D. “Research to Improve Vocational Rehabilitation: Employment Barriers and Strategies for Clients Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired.” Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, July-August 1997, pp. 377-392.
McNeil, J.M. Americans with Disabilities 1991-2, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P70-33. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993.
National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC). Outcomes Achieved by Consumers with Vision Loss Served by Specialized and General State VR Agencies, FY ’94: Review of Selected Variables. New York: NAC, 1997.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF Michigan

20812 Ann Arbor Trail
Dearborn, MI 48127
Website Nfbmi.org Email president.nfb.mi@gmail.com

The Shocking Likely Results of Executive Order 2012-2 Eliminating the Michigan Commission for the Blind

40 blind people out of work, plus 100 employees at $30,000 average equals 3 million dollars in lost wages

40 blind entrepreneurs and their 100 employees possibly declaring bankruptcy, applying for food stamps, receiving Medicaid and other assistance

14 million dollars of federal funds to rehabilitate blind people gone

2,500 blind clients of MCB ceasing to receive services including job training, college assistance, Braille and cane travel training, and independent living training

Executive Order 2012-2. This order abolishes P.A. 260, the Commission for the Blind Act and moves all services to blind persons to the Department of Human Services, the welfare department.

Blind people want work, not welfare.

PROBLEMS

No consultation with blind people, organizations of blind people or even the staff of the agency for the blind.

Against federal law.

Jeopardizes federal funds and threatens jobs of blind entrepreneurs in Business Enterprise Program.

Disenfranchises blind people by eliminating direct input into the management of rehabilitation programs for the blind, abolishing the Governor appointed Commission for the Blind which has statutory authority to select the Commission Director, evaluate the Director and set policy for services to blind people.

Contact:

Spokesperson: Fred Wurtzel, 517-485-0326, 517-256-5575; Email f.wurtzel@att.net
Larry Posont, MCB Commissioner, President, NFB of Michigan 313-727-3546, 313-271-3058; Email president.nfb.mi@gmail.com
Lydia Schuck, MCB Commissioner, 517-676-4621; Email laschuck@juno.com

On February 24, 2012 Governor Rick Snyder issued Executive order EO2012-2 below. The order essentially does 4 things.

1. Rescinds Public Act 260

2. Abolishes the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board

3. Separates the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program and transfers it to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.

4. Transfers the remnants to the Department of Human Services (the welfare department) in an extremely ambiguous way. It is not clear at this juncture, whether it is to be combined with the Michigan Rehabilitation Services or left as a distinct organization.

First, are we, the consumers, the cause or the victims here? It is clear, we, the consumers did not cause this to happen. Two unfortunate forces converged within MCB. First, generally speaking the field of rehabilitation of blind people is arcane and thus not well understood by the vast majority of public administrators. It is the job of the agency administrator and other influential parties to articulate this to decision-makers in order to direct public policy in favor of positive rehabilitation outcomes.

Second, unfortunately, MCB has been directed by an inept, uneducated and self-promoting director. Don’t be fooled as so many have been, the Director, despite the above, was not ineffective. To assume this, would be wrong. When he had a personal goal he was quite effective in attaining it. It even appears that he used some of this effectiveness to make positive changes. He orchestrated the move of MCB from the welfare agency to the Labor department. Second and even more important, he was able to acquire a better split of federal funding between MRS and MCB. Tragically, Larry Best, the Commission’s financial manager, died about that time and there were no more such beneficial outcomes for MCB within state government. It was Larry Best who managed the budget and was liaison among various departments including between the Labor finance people and MCB. The MCB Director has no financial acumen and ceded all authority to the Department finance people following Larry’s death. In government, like almost every situation, loss of budget control means virtually complete loss of control of the organization.

There is an appropriate role for the MCB Board. There are those who argue that the Board is not to micro-manage life on a daily basis for MCB staff. This is true. The board, clearly, has a role to set good policy based on sound management practices and sound rehabilitation principles. The board needs to see to it that the Director is the conduit between these 2 segments of the agency. This is where the constraints of the Michigan Constitution get in the way. P.A. 260 was a little too ambiguous on the ability of the board to manage the Director.

The Director inappropriately acquired too much power over the board by manipulating the appointment process and then emasculated the board by controlling the agendas, the information they received and partitioning them from training about the budget, the laws and their role.

The most recent board was demanding data. Data, like the costs for closing cases either successful or unsuccessful. The numbers of intakes and training information about the agency’s clientele. They were demanding appropriate legal counsel on those arcane points of law that they were responsible to carry out. These actions are both professional and appropriate. But, it was also not in the interest of the Director who wished to keep the Board out of the loop on what is happening.

In one critical area, the board was pushing hard to improve the training of the rehabilitation staff. Again, even in the general field of rehabilitation, blindness rehabilitation is specialized and different from the general agency. Most of MCB’s new-hires were from MRS or did not have much if any blindness training or experience. This was leading to poor services and the proposal of poor and even illegal policies for the agency. To me it is totally appropriate for the board to advocate for quality and targeted training. Good training empowers staff to provide good services!

Now come a whole batch of new administrators with the new Snyder administration. They see the tension and even hostility created by the Director’s inability to manage the agency and immediately, as if following an ages-old script of paternalistic knee-jerk reactions. They blame the clientele for being dissatisfied, instead of grateful that anyone would throw them a few crumbs. The Snyder administration, despite much evidence, was unwilling or unable to directly manage the Director. They followed, quite logically, but very wrongly a misguided course of action. They said, well these people are unhappy, we’ll show them how it is going to be because we know about administration and never mind the purpose of the agency. We’ll figure out a better way and tell those amateurish ungrateful poor blind, incapable children, how it is going to be. It was an unprofessional, immature and emotional reaction, but here we are.

Now what to do? We have a communication and marketing problem. We have a great product. We want good-paying jobs for lots of successful blind people. Blind people, who can live independently, contribute to the community, support their families, pay taxes and be good citizens. This seems like a great product and an easy sell. Now, our task is to create a mechanism to make the product. This process is nuanced and has its own technology which has been proven, but is mainly unknown to the ordinary citizen, administrator or policy maker. Successful blindness rehabilitation focuses on attitudes. Attitudes about blindness and a belief in the innate ability of any blind person to fully compete on the basis of equality with his/her sighted peer. How do we insert such a system into state government in a way to get our outcomes and meet the needs of the political system? To me, an astute politician would jump at the chance to create such an agency, given the positive benefits of success. We need to figure out how to sell such a process to the decision makers.

This is where we all are. We, the NFB, are a civil rights movement. We view events and actions through this lens. We are flexible, but in the end, to us it is all about equality and equal opportunity.
Any solution or course of action will need to take this perspective into account. Among our goals is the means of acquisition of jobs and full participation in society. A government agency cannot fully accomplish these goals, but it can create opportunities and conditions to make it happen. I hope you and others can come together with us to figure this out. It will not be easy. The only people who like to be changed are wet babies. Our Governor has created change. It is now up to us to reassert ourselves and retake the change process for blind people. We can do it. It will take some time and a lot of hard work in the halls of the legislature and on the streets. We have done it before and we will do it, again.

EXECUTIVE ORDER ?No. 2012 -2

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ?DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET ?DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ?DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS ?COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND ?BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD ?MICHIGAN REHABILITATION COUNCIL ?MICHIGAN COUNCIL FOR REHABILITATION SERVICES ?DISABILITY CONCERNS COMMISSION ?
RESCISSION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 2007-48 ?

EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION ?
WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 vests the executive power in the Governor; and
WHEREAS, Section 2 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 empowers the Governor to make changes in the organization of the Executive Branch or in the assignment of functions among its units that the Governor considers necessary for efficient administration; and
WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides that each principal department shall be under the supervision of the Governor, unless otherwise provided by the Constitution; and
WHEREAS, there is a continued need to reorganize functions among state ?departments to ensure efficient administration; and ?
WHEREAS, the rehabilitation needs of Michigan residents can be best served by consolidation of existing programs and services; and
WHEREAS, the management of vendor facility programs is most efficiently ?performed in conjunction with other state facility management services; ?
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Richard D. Snyder, Governor of the state of Michigan, by
virtue of the powers and authority vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution
of 1963 and Michigan law, order the following:

1. BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
A. Except as specified in Section I.C. of this Order, any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement, of the Commission for the Blind and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs relating to the Business Enterprise Program and other vendor licensing programs relating to the blind or visually impaired are transferred from the Commission for the Blind and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, including but not limited to the following:
1 The Blind and Visually Disabled Persons Act, 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 to 393.369.
2 Section 7a of the Michigan Historical Commission Act, 1913 PA 271, MCL

399.1 to 399.1 0.
1 Section 2 of the Limited Access Highways Act, 1941 PA 205, MCL 252.51 to 252.64.
2 Section 4 of the Business Opportunity Act for Persons with Disabilities, 1988 PA 112, MCL 450.791 to MCL 450.795.
3 Section 208 of the Michigan Museum Act, 1990 PA 325, MCL 399.301 to MCL 399.51 0.

B. Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, of the Director of the Commission for the Blind or the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs relating to the Business Enterprise Program or other vendor facilities and licensing programs relating to the blind or visually impaired are transferred to the Director of the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.
C. Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds of the Commission for the Blind granted by 1999 AC, R 393.16(9, 393.34 and 393.56 are transferred to the Director of the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.
II. THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD
A. The Blind and Visually Impaired Services Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) is created as an advisory board within the Department of Human Services.
B. The Advisory Board shall consist of five members appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the Governor.
C. The Advisory Board members shall have a particular interest or expertise in the concerns of the blind or visually impaired community.
D. The Governor shall designate a member of the Advisory Board to serve as its Chairperson. The Chairperson shall serve at the pleasure of the Governor.
E. The Director of the Department of Human Services shall perform all ?budgeting, procurement, and related management functions of the Advisory Board. ?
F. The Advisory Board shall do the following:
1 Study and review the needs of the blind and visually impaired community in this state.
2 Advise the Department concerning the coordination and administration of state programs serving the blind and visually impaired community.
3 Recommend changes in state programs, statutes, and policies that affect the blind and visually impaired community to the Department.
4 Secure appropriate recognition of the accomplishments and contributions of blind and visually impaired residents of this state.
5 Monitor, evaluate, investigate, and advocate programs for the betterment of blind and visually impaired residents of this state.

Ill. MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
A. Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement, of the Commission for the Blind not previously transferred to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget under Section I. of this Order are transferred from the Commission for the Blind and the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Human Services.
B. Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement, of the Director of the Commission for the Blind or the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs relative to services to the blind and visually impaired and not previously transferred to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget under Section I. of this Order are transferred to the Director of the Department of Human Services.
IV. MICHIGAN REHABILITATION SERVICES
Michigan Rehabilitation Services is transferred by a Type II transfer from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Human Services.
Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement, of Michigan Rehabilitation Services are transferred from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Human Services.
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSFERS
A. Any authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement, used, held, employed, available, or to be made available to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs for the activities, powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities transferred by this Order are transferred to the receiving department.
B. The director of the department receiving the transfer, after consultation with the Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, shall provide executive direction and supervision for the implementation of the transfers. The assigned functions shall be administered under the direction and supervision of the director of the receiving department.
C. The directors of the departments impacted by this Order shall immediately initiate coordination to facilitate the transfers and shall develop a memorandum of record identifying any pending settlements, issues of compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations, or other obligations to be resolved.
D. The directors of the departments impacted by this Order shall administer the functions transferred in such ways as to promote efficient administration and shall make internal organizational changes as may be administratively necessary to complete the realignment of responsibilities under this Order.
VI. CREATION OF MICHIGAN COUNCIL FOR REHABILITATION SERVICES
A. The Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services (“Council”) is established within the Department of Human Services.
B. The Council shall include the following sixteen (16) voting members:
1. The following members are appointed by the Governor, after soliciting recommendations from representatives of organizations representing a broad range of individuals with disabilities and organizations interested in individuals with disabilities:
a. One individual representing the Statewide Independent Living Council established under Executive Order 2007-49.
b. One individual representing a parent training and information center established under Section 67 1 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law 91-30, as amended, 20 USC 1471.

4
c. One individual representing the client assistance program established under Section 112 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93- 112, as amended, 29 USC 732.
d. One individual representing qualified vocational rehabilitation counselors with knowledge of, and experience with, vocational rehabilitation programs. The individual appointed under this paragraph shall not be an employee of Michigan Rehabilitation Services.
e. One individual representing community rehabilitation program service providers.
f. Four individuals representing business, industry, or labor, including at least one individual representing the Talent Investment Board created by Executive Order 201 1-1 3.
g. Four individuals representing disability advocacy groups, including a cross-section of all of the following:
i. Disability advocacy groups representing individuals with physical, cognitive, sensory, and mental disabilities.
ii. Disability groups representing representatives of individuals with disabilities who have difficulty in representing themselves or are unable due to their disabilities to represent themselves.
h. One individual representing current or former applicants for, or recipients of, vocational rehabilitation services.
i. One individual representing the director of a project carried out under Section 121 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-1 12, as amended, 29 USC 741, providing vocational rehabilitation services grants to the governing bodies of an Indian tribe or to a consortium of tribal governing bodies.

2. The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his or her designee, from within the Department of Education.
C. The Bureau Director of Michigan Rehabilitation Services shall serve as a non-voting ex officio member of the Council.
D. A majority of the members of the Council shall be individuals with disabilities and shall not be employed by the Department of Human Services. When appointing members of the Council, the Governor shall consider, to the greatest extent practicable, the extent to which minority populations are represented on the Council.
E. Of the members of the Council initially appointed by the Governor under Section VI.B., six (6) members shall be appointed for a term expiring on December 31, 2012, five (5) members shall be appointed for a term expiring on December 31, 201 3, and five (5) members shall be appointed for a term expiring on December 31, 2014. After the initial appointments, members shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years.
F. A vacancy on the Council occurring other than by expiration of a term shall be filled by the Governor in the same manner as the original appointment for the balance of the unexpired term. A vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining members to exercise the duties of the Council.
G. Except for a member appointed under Section VI.B.1 .c. or Section
VI.B.1.i., a member of the Council shall not serve more than two consecutive full terms.
VII. CHARGE TO THE COUNCIL
A. After consulting with the Talent Investment Board, the Council shall do all of the following:
1. Review, analyze, and advise Michigan Rehabilitation Services regarding the performance of the responsibilities of Michigan Rehabilitation Services under Sections 100 to 141 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-1 12, as amended, 29 USC 720 to 753a, particularly responsibilities relating to all of the following:
a. Eligibility, including order of selection.
b. The extent, scope, and effectiveness of services provided.
c. Functions performed by state departments and agencies that affect or that potentially affect the ability of individuals with disabilities in achieving employment outcomes under Sections 100 to 141 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-1 12, as amended, 29 USC 720 to 753a.

2. In partnership with Michigan Rehabilitation Services, do all of the following:
a. Develop, agree to, and review the goals and priorities of this state in accordance with Section 101 (a)(15)(C) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-1 12, as amended, 29 USC 721 (a)(15)(C).
b. Evaluate the effectiveness of the vocational rehabilitation program and submit reports of progress to the federal government in accordance with Section 101 (a)(15)(E) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Public Law 93-1 12, as amended, 29 USC 721 (a)(15)(E).

1 Advise the Department of Human Services and Michigan Rehabilitation Services regarding activities authorized to be carried out under Sections 100 to 141 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-1 12, as amended, 29 USC 720 to 753a, and assist in the preparation of the State Plan and amendments to the State Plan, applications, reports, needs assessments, and evaluations required by Sections 100 to 141 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93- 112, as amended, 29 USC 720 to 753a.
2 Perform all other functions required by 29 USC 725(c)(4)-(8).
3 Perform other functions related to the Council’s responsibilities as requested by the Governor.

VIII. OPERATIONS OF THE COUNCIL
A. The Council shall select from among its voting members a Chairperson of the Council and may select other officers as it deems necessary.
B. The Council shall adopt procedures consistent with federal law, Michigan law, and this Order governing its organization and operations.
C. A majority of the voting members of the Council serving constitutes a quorum for the transaction of the Council’s business. The Council shall act by a majority vote of the voting members of the Council serving.
D. The Council shall meet at least four times per year in a place that the Council determines necessary to conduct Council business and conduct forums or hearings as the Council determines appropriate.
E. The Council shall conduct all business at public meetings held in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.261 to 15.275. Public notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting shall be given in the manner required by the Open Meetings Act, 1976 PA 267, MCL 15.261 to 15.275.
F. The Council shall carry out its functions as required by 29 USC 725(d)-(e) and 29 USC 725(g).
IX. DISABILITY CONCERNS COMMISSION
All the authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, and allocations or other funds, including the functions of budgeting and procurement, of the Disability Concerns Commission, created by Executive Order 2009-40, previously transferred by Executive Order 201 1-4 from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Civil Rights by a Type I transfer, are hereby transferred to the Department of Civil Rights by Type Ill transfer as defined by Section 3 of Act No. 380 of the Public Acts of 1965, as amended, being Section 16.1 03 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
X. ABOLISHED ENTITIES
A. The Michigan Rehabilitation Council, created by Executive Order 2007-48, is abolished, and Executive Order 2007-48 is rescinded.
B. The Commission for the Blind, created by MCL 393.352, and the Commission Board, created by 1999 AC, R 391 .I et seq, are abolished.
C. The position of Director of the Commission for the Blind created by MCL 393.352(1) is abolished.
D. The Disability Concerns Commission, created by Executive Order 2009-40, is abolished.
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. All rules, orders, contracts, plans, and agreements relating to the functions transferred to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget and Department of Human Services by this Order lawfully adopted prior to the effective date of this Order by the responsible state agency shall continue to be effective until revised, amended, or rescinded.
B. Any suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commenced by, against, or before any entity transferred to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget and Department of Human Services by this Order shall not abate by reason of the taking effect of this Order. Any lawfully commenced suit, action, or other proceeding may be maintained by, against, or before the appropriate successor of any entity affected by this Order.
C. The invalidity of any portion of this Order shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the Order, which may be given effect without any invalid portion. Any portion of this Order found invalid by a court or other entity with proper jurisdiction shall be severable from the remaining portions of this Order.

In fulfillment of the requirements of Section 2 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the provisions of this Order shall be effective 60 days after the filing of this Order.
Given under my hand and the Great Seal of the state of Michigan this 24th day of February, in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand Twelve.
GOVERNOR
BY THE GOVERNOR:
SECRETARY OF STATE
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE

On 2-24-2012 at 11:00 a.m.