MICHIGAN COUNCIL FOR REHABILITATION SERVICES

3490 Belle Chase Way, Suite 110

Lansing, MI 48911

517.887.9370 or 877.335.9370

Business Meeting Minutes

Lexington Hotel

Lansing, MI

Tuesday May 14, 2013

Members Present: Lou Adams (Department of Human Services – Michigan Rehabilitation Services DHS-MRS), Carol Bergquist, Mark Eastburg, Trina Edmondson, Mary Ann Greenawalt, Adam Kaplan, Deanna Middlebrooks, Caryn Pack Ivey, Michael Poyma, Anne Riddering, Ed Rodgers II (Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs – Bureau of Services for Blind Persons LARA-BSBP), Brian Sabourin, Dennis Stanford, Mitch Tomlinson, Matthew Weaver.

Members Excused: Sheila Ashcraft, Sheryl Diamond.

Guests Present: Valarie Barnum-Yarger (Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council MiSILC), Brittany Carter (LARA-BSBP), Lisa Kisiel (LARA-BSBP), Sue Luzenski (LARA-BSBP), Gerry Moore (DHS-MRS), Ruth O’Connor (DHS-MRS), Sante Perrelli (Attorney General’s (AG) Office), Susan Przekop-Shaw (AGs Office), Beth White (LARA-BSBP).

Staff Present: Marlene Malloy, Shori Teeple.

Call to Order

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

Agenda

The draft agenda (May 14, 2013) was reviewed by the membership. Two items for correction/addition were noted: 1) Action Items #2 and #3 should be for ‘Approval’ instead of ‘Acceptance’, and 2) a discussion about public comment was added, in response to public comment made at the previous business meeting and the suggestion to provide more than one opportunity for public comment during MCRS business meetings.

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

Minutes

Members reviewed the March 22, 2013 draft business meeting minutes.

A motion, made by D. Middlebrooks and seconded by A. Riddering, was passed to approve the March 22, 2013 draft minutes as presented.

Executive Team (ET) Report – C. Bergquist

The ET has met three times since the March business meeting, with focuses on business operations, partnerships, establishing a partnership with BSBP, budget and funding challenges, the Bylaws, implementation of the Strategic Plan, looking at scheduling for FY 2014, developing some work tasks for BSBP, and looking at the State Plans for both BSBP and MRS. Additionally, focus groups were recently conducted with customers at the Michigan Career and Technical Institute (MCTI). We have been busy focusing on a lot of things that will put us in a good place to start FY 2014. We know there will be an ongoing need to make changes to move forward, with recommendations made from people at our previous meetings.

MCRS Open Meetings Process – M. Poyma

a MCRS Open Meetings Process document, which was included in the meeting packet, has been reviewed and finalized.

MCRS Branding Tools – D. Middlebrooks

The MCRS logo, business card, banner, letterhead, and home page of the website have been reviewed and finalized.

MCRS Bylaws – B. Sabourin

Members had discussion about the updated Bylaws. The ET has designated B. Sabourin and two other members (S. Diamond and A. Riddering) to form a Bylaws Work Team to review and advise the membership if further changes to the Bylaws are needed.

A motion was made by A. Riddering and seconded by D. Middlebrooks to accept the Bylaws as presented. A question was asked to clarify what needs to be done with the Bylaws if a work team is being convened. It was clarified that the Council should have Bylaws in place to move forward, and then the work team will review input for changes and advise the membership if changes need to be made.

S. Przekop-Shaw (AGs Office) stated several concerns that the Council should seriously consider their decision to approve the Bylaws, since some sections are illegal and contraindicate the state and federal laws, as well as the Governor’s Executive Order (EO). Specific sections that were referenced include Article II (General Purposes) - these items do not reflect what you see in the Rehabilitation Act or the EO - the Governor created this new Council, with functions and objectives that this Council needs to abide by, which are not reflected in this section; Section B (Functions and Section 105) - you have specific functions given to you by the Governor that this doesn’t recognize - the Governor has said to this Council, ‘if I come to you or the Directors of the Departments (LARA or DHS) as ask you to do some functions relative to what’s happening in Michigan, you need to do those’ - the Bylaws circumvent the EO; Article III (Membership Size) - this is in violation of the EO - the Governor has chosen who is to be on this Council - these Bylaws expand this, which is contrary to the EO; Article III, Section A, #2; the Governor has said otherwise for numbers of members to be represented for specific categories; and under the Ex-officio Members section (Community Resource Members) - while in the past they were part of the old Council for many years, since the Governor did not authorize Community Resource Members in the EO, the Council cannot create this new type of membership for this Council - only the Governor can do that. It was further stated that the Council does not need Bylaws to operate.

C. Bergquist shared that an email was received last night from S. Przekop-Shaw about all of these issues. The Bylaws Work Team has been established by the ET, with the first meeting scheduled for mid-June to address these and other issues. With the information shared during today’s discussion, the question now to the membership is how does the Council choose to proceed at this point?

A question was asked regarding how the Bylaws have been used in the past to guide the activities of the Council. It was explained that about 10 years ago, with assistance from the AGs Office, a major update was made to the Bylaws, which have been used for the foundation by which the Council operates. The Council has always also had Policies and Procedures Handbook for how it is to conduct business.

Following an initial motion to approve the Bylaws, a recommendation was made to rescind the motion that is on the table. Next, a motion should be made for the Bylaws Work Team to consider all of the input that has been received at their June meeting, and then bring back a final draft version for the membership’s review of and approval at the August 9th business meeting.

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by D. Middlebrooks, was passed to rescind the motion to approve the Bylaws.

Another motion was made to have the Bylaws Work Team, as established by the ET, review all input at their first meeting (June 14th), review the current Bylaws, make changes as needed, and then present the updated draft Bylaws to the membership for review and approval at the August 9th MCRS business meeting.

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by D. Middlebrooks, was passed as presented to have the Bylaws Work Team, as established by the ET, review and evaluate the current Bylaws, make changes as needed, and present to the membership for input and approval.

S. Przekop-Shaw added that the Bylaws Work Team cannot make the changes. They can recommend the changes to the membership. A suggestion was made to amend the motion from “make changes” to “recommend changes”.

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by D. Middlebrooks, was passed to amend the previous motion to change the “make changes” phrase to “recommend changes as needed to the Bylaws” as presented.

Attachment 4.2 for FY 2014 Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) State Plan – D. Stanford

Discussion took place about Attachment 4.2 for FY 2014 BSBP State Plan, along with an overview of the State Plan process for BSBP. The Council is continuing to develop a working partnership with BSBP, which includes the Council’s submission of Attachment 4.2. BSBP will include the approved Attachment 4.2 in submission of its State Plan to Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).

FY 2012 edit needed in paragraph that beings “FY 2012 Overview”.

A motion, made by A. Riddering and seconded by D. Middlebrooks, was passed to approve Attachment 4.2 for FY 2014 BSBP State Plan as amended.

Attachment 4.2 for FY 2014 Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) State Plan – D. Stanford

Discussion took place about Attachment 4.2 for FY 2014 MRS State Plan, along with an overview of the State Plan process for MRS. A need for an edit was noted for page 6 (line 20) - Fiscal Management should reflect FY 2013.

Recommendations have been carried forward from the previous State Plan. MRS has been really challenged by resources this year. With the Council serving as the ‘Customer Voice’, one of the recommendations (#4) has been strengthened. It is being recommended that DHS provide an exception to their current hiring freeze so that MRS can fill the staff vacancies in the field that are needed assuring that all customers coming through their doors can be served. This is a critical issue for MRS. MRS is an Order of Selection for Services (OSS) state. If resources become challenged, it is the expectation of RSA that the DSU first have the opportunity to adjust resources (staff and/or money), which MRS has continued to do since establishing OSS at the beginning of FY 2013. At this time, they need 17 counselor positions filled, but they need to respect the direction from DHS that they do everything required to avoid implementing OSS, which would result in a statewide waiting list. MRS should have an exception to filling these counselor vacancies. This Council’s role is to serve as the “customer voice” and support MRS’ efforts to be able to fill their counselor vacancies to be able to adequately provide services to customers.

A motion, made by B. Sabourin and seconded by M. Poyma, was passed to approve Attachment 4.2 for FY 2014 MRS State Plan as amended.

MCRS Financial Operations

FY 2012 Financial Review

An overview of the Financial Review was provided.

A motion, presented by D. Stanford and seconded by B. Sabourin, was passed to accept and place on file the MCRS FY 2012 Financial Review as presented.

Overview of Financial Operations

Budget and funding for the Council has been very unstable and challenging for this fiscal year. The Council started off with a 6-month budget from MRS, with another 3-month budget from MRS to follow, which will carry us through the end of June 2013 for funding staff and business operations. Despite multiple meetings that have taken place with BSBP, MRS, LARA, DHS, and others, as of this date, the Council has not received funding from BSBP. Expenditures have been limited; the support staff person was laid off at the end of March 2013, with those administrative responsibilities being absorbed by the Executive Director (ED) and Assistant Director (AD).

A question was asked regarding funding for the Council: with it coming from the DSUs that the Council has oversight over, is this considered any kind of conflict of interest?

It was described that yes, the Designated State Units (DSUs), BSBP and MRS, are the funding sources of the Council, with the Council working in partnership with both DSUs. It is critical for the Council to work to assure its autonomy from the DSUs. The ED and AD perform work tasks behind the scenes to support the work of the Council and have acted as conduits by attending MRS Work Groups and other activities on behalf of the volunteer membership.

S. Przekop-Shaw stated that the state entities, together, are supposed to be working as one to work in coordination with BSBP, MRS and the Council to have achievements. A reorganization was determined necessary so the Council can serve as the “voice of the consumer”. The term “oversight” was used, but the Council’s role is not about oversight of the DSUs. The Council’s role is instead about advising the DSUs and not telling them what to do. If Members think they have oversight over the DSUs, then they should refer back to the Governor’s EO to be reminded what their responsibilities are. Your responsibilities are much less than what they used to be with the previous Council. The EO places this Council within DHS to assure that federal funds are being properly spent. DHS is undertaking review of the Resource Plan to make certain that what the Council has done in the past, with regard to staffing the Council, aligns with the law. DHS is looking at civil service requirements and its processes to make sure they meet federal law and EO requirements. If the Council wants to have the existing process proceed with staffing, then be sure you are moving forward legally, whether staffing changes need to be made to be following civil service rules. If you want to disperse federal funds, then you have to meet four standards; if all four are met, then you can proceed with the Resource Plan and staffing. It’s not a conflict because federal law and the EO recognize this type of process. It’s a time of upheaval for everybody. Legally, we have evaluated the circumstances – there may be a conflict with the ED’s conflict of interest with negotiations, and this may be something that the ET and full Membership may want to address.