February 23, 2017

The topic we were asked to address is the connection between disability and poverty. In this state, the connection between disability and poverty is that for every disabled person that stays poor and dependent, someone gets filthy rich.

It’s very important for you to understand the immense power and influence of sheltered workshops in Michigan. Our state government has partnered with the businesses exploiting the disability community. In partnership with Michigan’s sheltered workshops and Michigan Rehabilitation Services, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor have systematically and successfully destroyed and dismantled all consumer-controlled entities in the state.

Taxpayer-funded entities designed to serve the disability community that are no longer functioning include:

• The Michigan Commission for the Blind
• The Statewide Independent Living Council
• The State Rehabilitation Council
• Michigan Protection & Advocacy’s Client Assistance Program, and
• Michigan’s Independent Living Program, which includes 15 Centers for Independent Living funded to the tune of $20 million dollars per year.

What’s going on in the state of Michigan is not normal. Outright corruption in our state government, and I’m speaking specifically about Michigan Rehabilitation Services, coupled with a complete lack of oversight from any federal agency, has created the perfect storm for businesses and their partners in the Governor’s Office to exploit people with disabilities.

Michigan citizens with disabilities are being treated as prey.

I began a campaign to bring consumer control back to Michigan Centers for Independent Living two and a half years ago. In that time, I’ve seen things you would not believe. I’ve been told by my CIL’s Board President that there is no such thing as a disability community and that I do not have the power to create change. I’ve been called “a disgraceful liar… with an axe to grind” by the staff at my Center for Independent Living. In an attempt to suppress free speech and criminalize advocacy, my own Center for Independent Living threatened to sue me (using taxpayer dollars) for speaking my mind.

These are not the actions of legitimate Centers for Independent Living. Michigan Centers for Independent Living are now controlled by vocational rehabilitation. Non-disabled people who are openly hostile to disability rights advocacy control the majority of our CILs.

I believe that consumer control is foundational to the Independent Living Movement.

When the foundation of a house is damaged, the structure will collapse. All of the materials that comprised the house will still be there; but it no longer serves its purpose. The same is true of Michigan Independent Living Program. When consumer control was erased from the IL equation, Michigan CILs began to identify as businesses and partner with the systems oppressing us. A decade later, advocates are no longer welcome in Michigan’s Independent Living Program.  Continue reading →

By Darma Canter

After two years of advocating within Michigan’s publicly-funded local and state Independent Living program, I should have been more prepared for the new President, his loose interpretation of history, as well as facts in general, and his presumption of authority. I should have seen the government moving away from the people and public service, and investing power and authority in the service of corporate entities. Still, every day since January 20, I wake up to the unexpected, shocking new reality.

I have spent a lot of time, too much time, thinking in the last three months. What is the role of government? What is the fundamental nature of democracy? How are units of government, their programs, policies, practices connected to the people? What is my role and responsibility in a democracy, and what responsibilities does the government have to citizens, to tax payers, and to me?

What is the people’s business? How does the public hold its government accountable to act in the public’s interest? These questions are surprisingly hard to answer. The 2016 election results seem to indicate not everyone agrees on the answers – or even the questions themselves.

Independent Living is a political movement developed by disabled individuals to address the social and environmental policies that limit our freedom to fully engage in the benefits of society. Prior to the 1960s, citizens with disabilities were institutionalized, dependent on charities, and viewed as politically irrelevant. No Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, no right to education or employment, no guaranteed right to participate in government services or activities. There were no public funds for Independent Living in the community because those state dollars went to life-long institutionalization. Literally, the “insane and feeble-minded” were dropped off at the hospital door and left for decades. No one was expected to leave alive.

Fifty years ago, this was the reality of disabled lives in America. Building on the civil rights movements of the 1960s and 70s, the disability community began gathering on college campuses and in cities to build a grassroots political entity focused on changing the long history of discrimination of disabled citizens. Our lives didn’t change overnight, but we are living with the accomplishments of 20 to 30 years of advocacy by and for our peers with disabilities. Our network of CILs across the country was formalized and funded in the amended Rehab Act in the early 1990s, but the IL philosophy of consumer run, self-help centers belonged to the people, and the historical changes produced by collective political action must still belong to the people.

We, the disability community, are on the verge of another shift, but not one of our making, and it may very well be one that undoes the changes we fought for. The systems that many people use to live and to participate as full members of the community, had lots of shortcomings, but I don’t think the new Administration will be reforming systems to our benefit. The new Secretary of Education didn’t know disabled students have the right under federal legislation to a free and appropriate education. The new Attorney General has a troubling history of voting against the ADA. The new Secretary heading up the Medicaid programs has a strong preference for block grants to states with fewer mandates, and we will likely be forced to justify independent living supports economically. I am afraid for myself and my people.

So how will we, the disability community, protect our essential civil rights and health services? 600 CILs across the country can help to gather and inform the 56 million disabled individuals about policy issues and advocacy strategies. But critically, it is the millions of informed voters with disabilities that must manage and shape the programs and policies they rely on. This is a time to act on the issues experienced almost exclusively by the disabled. Centers for Independent Living and their constituents will have to debate what issues and actions they will commit to for years ahead.

Many Centers for Independent Living may want to protect their revenue from state and federal budget cuts, but at what cost? If Michigan CILs and SILC defend the rights of consumers and protect essential community-living supports, they will become pertinent to the disabled. If Michigan’s Independent Living system scrambles to maintain their identity business entities at the expense of the needs of the disability community, they will continue to be irrelevant to the disability community and the IL Movement.

Greetings from the “Laws Don’t Apply to Us” State!

Consumers have been pointing out that the Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council is operating in open violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Open Meetings Act (OMA) for years.

Now we have a direct answer. Let’s unpack the SILC’s absurd arguments about why they do not need to heed input from the community they are funded to represent and why the law simply doesn’t apply to them. Read their (unsigned, undated) arguments in full below.

• SILC Argument 1: FOIA doesn’t apply to the SILC (no supporting arguments presented).

Reality Check: FOIA absolutely applies to the SILC, as the SILC itself has acknowledged since its inception. The SILC is a public body. The same standards that make it a public entity under the Open Meetings Act (which are acknowledged in their response) make it a public entity under FOIA. Even the Governor’s claim that his staff is exempt from FOIA cannot be rationally applied to the SILC because the SILC is not part of the Governor’s staff. The SILC is actually required to maintain autonomy. If the Michigan SILC is suggesting that they work for the Governor’s Office, the SILC is out of compliance with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act. The SILC does not work for the Governor.

• RSA’s Technical Assistance Circular (2014 – PDF) states: “Section 705(a) and its implementing regulation stipulate that the SILC may not be established within a state agency, including the designated state agency (DSA) or designated state unit (DSU), and that the SILC must remain independent of the DSU and all other state agencies (34 CFR 364.21(a)(2)).”

When the Governor issued his most recent SILC Executive Order, consumers immediately raised red flags. The new Executive Order specifically noted placement of the SILC within the Governor’s Office, despite the requirement that the SILC remain autonomous. As Michiganders, it wasn’t hard to see what was going on: the Michigan SILC was establishing itself as another wing of the Governor’s Office in order to exempt itself from FOIA and the OMA. Right on cue, the Michigan SILC immediately closed all meetings to the public (except the four annually required by the Rehabilitation Act) and completely stopped responding to FOIA Requests.

• SILC Argument 2: The OMA does not apply to committees and subcommittees composed of less than a quorum of the full public body if they “are merely advisory or only capable of making ‘recommendations concerning the exercise of governmental authority.'”

Reality Check: Over the course of the past year, the Michigan SILC administratively re-labeled all of its committees as “advisory”. The SILC then restricted membership on its committees so that a quorum can never be reached (because a quorum would trigger open meetings requirements). The problem is that these committees are not advisory. The committees in question directly participate in the SILC’s policy-making decisions. Re-naming a committee advisory does not make it so.  Continue reading →