Same Words, Same Tune: "Oh, You Misunderstood"

 By Joyce Scanlan, President

In the presidential report delivered at our 1995 National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota convention on October 14, I referred to a proposed reorganization of the Minnesota Department of Economic Security (MDES) which could lead to a merger of State Services for the Blind (SSB) and the Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS), the general rehab agency in this state. Since 1985 when SSB was moved to the Department of Jobs and Training, now the MDES, the two rehab agencies, one serving blind people, the other serving those with other disabilities, have been separate entities, each with its own Assistant Commissioner. State law providing for the transfer included language giving SSB its own budget and separate status from the general rehab agency. The Federation fought for this language, because we knew only too well how zealously public officials take to changing departments and whimsically reorganizing various agencies. We have seen this numerous times throughout the country as bureaucratic maneuverings have dismantled rehab agencies serving blind people by merging them with general rehab agencies. When such combining is completed, one has difficulty locating or identifying programs dealing with blindness. So, the direction for the future had to be stated in statute.

Late in the summer of 1995 as talk of "block grants" spread from the nation's capital throughout the land, I began to hear rumors from officials and staff in the Department of Economic Security that Commissioner R. Jane Brown was proposing a grand scheme of reorganizing, restructuring or realigning the department to prepare for workforce centers and the federal block grants which would inevitably come. In the early discussions, there was recognition that "consumers in the blind community" had strong feelings about having a separate agency. Then, there was the suggestion that perhaps Services for the Blind and DRS could share administrative services. As the reorganized "branches" appeared on the proposed chart, Services for the Blind and DRS somehow fell within the same "branch." Of course, all this was done without public involvement. The Commissioner knew our feelings against any merger, so she had to move in secret. But when hundreds of people receive the information, how can such a proposal remain secret? An administrative merger of the two rehab agencies was a sign to Federationists that the camel's nose was creeping under the tent, and we had to take action.

On October 4, 1995, I wrote the following letter to Commissioner R. Jane Brown:

October 4, 1995

R. Jane Brown, Commissioner

Minnesota Department of Economic Security

390 North Robert

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Dear Commissioner Brown:

Upon several occasions during the past three years I have had the pleasure of writing to commend you for the improvements in the quality and results of services provided by State Services for the Blind under your direction. The programs have been more responsive to the actual needs of blind citizens; more blind Minnesotans have achieved competitive employment, and an atmosphere of cooperation and hope has been created in the blind community as never before. All of us, especially you as commissioner, can be justifiably proud of these accomplishments.

Now I have been hearing from a number of sources that you are reorganizing your department and that you are proposing, among other things, "shared" administrative functions for the two Rehabilitation divisions. Such proposed changes would violate state statute and would begin the dismantling of the quality rehabilitation programs for blind people Minnesota has been proud of.

I am writing to request a meeting with you to discuss this very serious matter. There is too much history with other state agencies for the blind already going down this road to destruction being planned for Minnesota, and we cannot sit idly by and let it happen. Programs for blind people in many other states are virtually nonexistent now because a public official had a grandiose reorganizational plan. I am certain you have the best of intentions, but such plans for SSB are not acceptable.

I look forward to your prompt response so we can meet and discuss this problem as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Joyce Scanlan

President

I regarded this as a very gentle and friendly letter and a reasonable request for information and a meeting. The Commissioner, as I understand, prides herself on her quick responses to correspondence. Not so in this instance. I had expected to hear by the time of our state convention on October 14. No response was forthcoming.

At the October 7 meeting of the Rehabilitation Advisory Council for the Blind, the members of the council decided to write a letter expressing to the Commissioner the council's position that Services for the Blind must retain its separate identity. The council's letter was sent on October 19. Thus, the Commissioner heard the same position from yet another source.

On October 10, Federationists met with Representative Phyllis Kahn and Senator James Metzen, chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Governmental Operations, which have jurisdiction over certain state departments, including MDES. Their committees must be informed of proposed reorganizations, and we were certain that if the alleged realignment or reorganization of MDES was in the offing, these two would be aware of it. We were surprised to learn that they knew nothing of the proposal. They were aware of the existing laws giving State Services for the Blind separate status and giving them authority over proposed changes. They were especially surprised at our news, since they said the Commissioner and her staff had been asked at a recent meeting if there were any plans for reorganizing, and they had given no indication that there were any plans whatsoever. Representative Kahn and Senator Metzen said that they would write a joint letter to Commissioner Brown requesting information relating to the proposed realignment. Here is the letter they sent:

October 12, 1995

R. Jane Brown, Commissioner

Department of Economic Security

390 North Robert Street

St. Paul, MN 55101

Dear Commissioner Brown:

Several customers of your agency's services have told us recently that you are said to be undertaking a major reorganization of your department, to take effect later this fall. They are, understandably, concerned, especially since they, as major stake- holders, have heard nothing officially, but have instead had to rely on rumors.

We trust that those rumors are unfounded. As you know, the 1995 Legislature passed -- and Governor Carlson signed -- a bill prohibiting any reorganization of your department until a body appointed by the Legislative Coordinating Commission has reviewed the state's economic assistance programs and has submitted a report to the full Legislature. That report is due February 1, 1996. In addition, no reorganization may occur until the Legislative Auditor has completed a review of those programs. We refer to Laws 1995, chapter 248, article 8.

In addition, at least one part of your agency's organizational structure is set in statute and may not be changed without legislative action. Minnesota Statutes 1994, section 248.07, subdivision 1, requires your department to maintain a "distinct organizational unit to be known as the division of services for the blind and visually handicapped, separate from the vocational rehabilitation unit and with its own activity budget."

Finally, on September 27, a joint subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee and of the House Committee on Ways and Means met, in accordance with chapter 248, to review issues related to any potential reorganization affecting your department. You and other representatives of your agency were present. Had you been contemplating any reorganization of the agency, we are sure you would have had the courtesy to inform the joint subcommittee of your plans. Since neither you nor any other agency representative did so, we again assume that rumors of an imminent reorganization are without basis.

We would, however, appreciate your assurance that our assumption is correct.

Sincerely,

JIM METZEN, Chair

Senate Governmental Operations and Veterans Committee

PHYLLIS KAHN, Chair

House Governmental Operations Committee

You will notice that the date on the joint letter is October 12, 1995. The response to their letter was dated October 27, a remarkable turnaround time considering that no response had yet been received to our letter of October 4.

About this time a significant change began to appear in the organizational charts circulating throughout the MDES regarding the realignment. Services for the Blind and DRS began to be shown as separate branches. Of course, that just happened to appear at this time. Here is the letter from Commissioner Brown to Kahn and Metzen:

October 27, 1995 (Faxed)

Senator Jim Metzen Representative Phyllis Kahn

303 Capitol Building 367 State Office Building

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Dear Legislators:

In response to your recent letter, let me assure you that our department Is not undergoing a 'reorganization.' Rather, we are aligning our headquarter activities to support the massive restructuring initiated in December 1993 to merge our local offices and partner agencies into Workforce Centers. This huge undertaking is in response to our commitment to improve service to our customers, conserve resources, and finally fulfill the vision of the 1977 legislation that created this department.

Our "refocusing" discussions this fall centered on the need to get support services and administration within our various divisions to be more supportive in working out the myriad of details involved in our local mergers. (One of our objectives, in fact, was to stop dividing our department into "divisions", thus, that term has been replaced by "branches.") We have identified our department's main business functions: Prepare the workforce; rehabilitate the workforce; and place the workforce. Currently existing branches will not change; we are simply pulling out high-production activities and creating one additional branch. This will streamline the business functions in the two affected branches, thereby allowing Assistant Commissioners more time to give direct support to the creation of the Workforce Center System. This change will improve program management, operating efficiencies, and productivity measurement.

I am enclosing three charts illustrating the realignment that is occurring:

* Figure 1 is the identification of the business functions. Each oval on this chart identifies a business function. The narrative under each oval provides a brief description of the function.

* Figure 2 is an organization chart illustrating the headquarters structure that will be implemented November 1.

* Figure 3 is an organization chart illustrating today's headquarters structure.

It is obvious when comparing Figures 2 and 3 that our realignment was designed to streamline productivity without altering the reporting, or status, of the assistant commissioners.

We are aware of the 1996 session law Chapter 248, Article 8. This realignment is a step in an ongoing reorganization that has been fully supported by the legislative committees to which our department reports; it did not occur to us that there would be any question of our not complying with that session law. Further, no staff positions are being eliminated in this realignment. It will, however, help us to better downsize through attrition, which is our strategy to deal with our federal cuts. Also, the alignment is "on paper" and does not necessitate a physical move.

You question why we didn't mention our refocusing efforts at the September 27 joint subcommittee hearing of the Senate Governmental Operations Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means. Deputy Commissioner Wilson was outlining our progress toward the Workforce Center System when the Chairman indicated that the testimony was not consistent with the purpose of the hearing. He further indicated that he would like to hear more about it at a future date.

You expressed concern about the possible impact on State Services for the Blind (SSB). This is particularly interesting because SSB is the only branch that is totally unaffected. I believe the outcry was caused by an internal memo suggesting that SSB and the Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) work together to address the fact that neither has had regular representation on MDES's Information Policy Steering group. Our thought was to have one person represent both entities, as there is apparently not enough work for a full-time information systems professional in either branch. The goal was to save scarce resources which, in turn, could be devoted to direct services to our customers. Clearly our intent was misinterpreted.

In all of the discussions regarding our business activities, we have never considered reorganizing SSB, or merging SSB with DRS. We are very aware of not only the statutory language but the long-standing, emotionally-charged history behind that separation. It has been, and will remain, a "distinct organizational unit...separate from the vocational rehabilitation unit with its own activity budget."

I am confused about why this issue has arisen. SSB has never enjoyed a more prominent position, nor received more support under this administration. In the past SSB was led by a Director who reported to the Deputy Commissioner, while DRS has always been headed by an Assistant Commissioner reporting to the Commissioner. This administration elevated SSB to Assistant Commissioner status, reporting directly to the Commissioner. We then conducted a national search to fill the Assistant Commissioner position. Additionally, this administration initiated and actively worked to relocate SSB headquarters from a totally unsatisfactory environment to a modern, ADA accessible facility. We appreciate the distinct and important role SSB performs in assisting Minnesotans who are blind or have other visual impairments.

Thank you for this opportunity to clarify matters.

Sincerely,

R. Jane Brown

Commissioner

October and November passed with no response from the Commissioner. There was no appointment to discuss the matter, no sign of interest, no phone call, no contact whatsoever. Then on December 20 came a letter written by Assistant Commissioner Dick Davis on her behalf saying that the whole thing was just a misunderstanding on our part. Here is the letter prepared for Commissioner Brown:

December 20, 1995

Ms. Joyce Scanlan, President

National Federation of the Blind of Minnesota

100 East 22nd Street

Minneapolis, MN 55404

Dear Ms. Scanlan:

Commissioner Brown has asked me to respond to your letter to her of October 4, in which you express concern about a reorganization of our department and its effect on State Services for the Blind (SSB), especially as it pertains to shared administrative functions between SSB and the Division of Rehabilitation Services (DRS).

Our department's business realignment, to which you refer, is a change in the way we look at our primary business functions. These are: prepare the workforce, rehabilitate the workforce, and place the workforce. We are focusing headquarters activities to support the massive restructuring initiated in December 1993 when we made the decision to merge our local office and partner agencies into Workforce Centers.

The realignment is a dynamic and flexible activity focused on meeting the needs of our customers. Because of the newness of the concepts, it is possible to confuse business functions with organizational structure. The enclosed charts prepared by our department should help clarify the difference between the two:

* Figure 1 shows our department's business functions, illustrated by ovals, with a narrative explaining each. DRS and SSB are in the same business function, that of Workforce Rehabilitation.

* Figure 2 shows our department's organization chart as of November 1. DRS and SSB are now separate organizational branches.

* Figure 3 is our department's previous organization chart. It shows that DRS and SSB were separate organizational divisions.

In the discussions regarding our department's business activities, Commissioner Brown has stated categorically that SSB and DRS will remain separate. She respects both the statutory language and the intent of blind customers in this regard. SSB is the only branch whose structure is totally unaffected by the realignment. It is, and will remain, a "distinct organizational unit...separate from the vocational rehabilitation unit with its own activity budget."

Perhaps your concerns were generated by an internal department memorandum suggesting that SSB and DRS work together to improve their representation on MDES' Information Policy Steering group. The suggestion, which was not implemented, was that one high level information systems professional might be shared by both branches, saving funds which could be better directed to serve customers.

SSB has never enjoyed a more prominent position, nor received more support than under Commissioner Brown's administration. In the past, SSB was led by a Director who reported to the Deputy Commissioner. She elevated its Director to Assistant Commissioner status, made a full division, relocated its staff and customers to new, attractive offices, and provided the kind of support that brought about the improvements noted in your letter. She values State Services for the Blind and Minnesota's blind citizens.

If you have other issues or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Richard C. Davis

Assistant Commissioner

Despite what Commissioner Brown may say now, the organization charts given to MDES staff in October show one organizational unit combining SSB and DRS. The charts sent by Assistant Commissioner Davis in December show two units, one for SSB and one for DRS. Did we misunderstand? Hardly. Did the change come about because of our intervention? Absolutely.

Once again we have escaped the bureaucrat's eraser. The role of the National Federation of the Blind is to maintain vigilance over governmental and private entities providing services to blind people. Although commissioners and assistant commissioners and others may try to hide out and proceed with their private agendas, the National Federation of the Blind has resources to keep abreast of what is going on. We make no secret of our position on the need for separate services for the blind. Anyone who has dealt with us knows well how we feel. Therefore, when such a proposal as came from the commissioner's office regarding a realignment of the department which would be detrimental to blind people came forth, many within the department and in state government realized that the Federation would want to know. We have many friends and colleagues who keep us informed.

We have saved Services for the Blind from a certain destruction. The organized blind have again put down a grand scheme of reorganization which would have combined all rehabilitation in the state under the Division of Rehab Services, the general agency serving everyone. The programs we have developed to meet the specific needs of blind people would be lost in the effort to serve cross disabilities. We have won another battle, but the war goes on. Another R. Jane Brown or a commissioner by another name will try again whenever the opportunity presents itself. At least for this time, we have once again won a victory. Many people knew of the potential problem. Only the National Federation of the Blind came out to block the proposed change. And despite what they say, it was a real threat to the existing agency; it was a definite plan. And the National Federation of the Blind spoke out and defeated it.