My best dog-friend died last week in a freak accident and we are heartsick. Lucy was eleven years old, in good health, and in fine shape, but her luck ran out. Now we must do what she would have wanted: carry on, live for the moment, be kind to our animals, and do not get too angry when the dog gets into the garbage.
Lucy was a Labrador Retriever and Treeing Walker Coonhound mix. This is not an ideal combination if you are looking for a calm dog with good social skills to build rapport with neighbors and visiting relatives. She was hyper alert, always watching us to see what our next move would be and whether it would involve food. She also scouted continuously for new hunting opportunities. In her younger years, before she mellowed with age, she caused me some embarrassment when we went for walks together. When a neighbor with a dog approached us, Lucy would go into a low crouch, expertly stalking the neighbor or the dog, it was hard to tell which, as they passed nervously by. She never actually attacked or bit anyone, but try telling that to someone who is being stalked by a hunting dog.
Lucy was insanely happy, as most Labs are. She possessed a goofiness that was as entertaining as it was sometimes disconcerting. Fortunately for the cats, she did not treat them as prey, but she did instigate playful combat with them. A recliner chair that also rocks and spins around in circles was the perfect venue for such combat. One cat sat up on the back of the chair to watch while the other stationed herself in the seat. Lucy thrust her nose threateningly at the lower cat, who then set in motion a carousel-like ride, propelled by the cat slapping Lucy’s muzzle with her paw every time the chair spun around to meet the thrust of Lucy’s nose.
With the exception of her often troubled puppyhood, Lucy never had a sad day. She loved to wake up in the morning, she loved to sleep away half the day, and she could sit for hours in the evening, always on the furniture that allowed her to observe us at eye level, watching to make sure we didn’t do anything without her. Her loyalty to her immediate family was beyond reproach. She protected us from deer, other dogs, and strangers approaching from half a block away.
Lucy made us better people for her time with us and we could not have hoped for a better dog.
An article in the Detroit News from March 10, 2014, "Mich.slaps health care union with 2nd largest elections fine ever", by Chad Livengood, covers campaign financing law violations by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) during a campaign to support a ballot proposal in the November 2012 election. The headline does not convey a surprising fact: Michigan disability advocates were involved as the treasurers of the campaign fundraising committees that were investigated and called to account for their handling of campaign funds and failures to meet reporting requirements in the law. The body of the article goes into some detail about Proposal 4, which was defeated in the election, and the campaign committees
supporting it.
The article summarizes the actions by the Michigan Secretary of State:
"Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s office slapped the labor union with a $199,000 fine for multiple campaign finance violations after it used a nonprofit corporation to funnel $9.36 million in contributions into a ballot campaign seeking the passage of Proposal 4 in 2012. The fine is the second largest in Michigan elections history...
"The ballot campaign, Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care, received nearly all of its funding from a single company called Home Care First Inc., which received its funding from SEIU and Michigan-based affiliates, according to a Bureau of Elections investigation.
"Home Care First Inc. 'belatedly' set up a ballot committee that reported after the November 2012 election that all of its money came from SEIU and its affiliates, an investigative report states.
"The state found SEIU and campaign treasurers for the two committees violated the Michigan Campaign Finance Act for 49 transactions of commingling funds in multiple bank accounts, 31 contributions involving incomplete or inaccurate campaign statements and three late contribution reports."
Dohn Hoyle, the Executive Director of The ARC Michigan, a state advocacy organization for people with developmental disabilities, was the treasurer of the Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care (CAQHC). Norman G. DeLisle, Jr., who has been the Executive Director of the Michigan Disability Rights Coalition (MDRC) since 1997, was the treasurer of Home Care First Incorporated (HCFI).
The campaign committees were both formed in March 2012. CAQHC received donations funneled through HCFI without disclosing that the HCFI funds came entirely from SEIU-affiliated organizations. HCFI did not file all required forms with the state until just before the 2012 election and did not reveal the source of its funding until after the election.
Hoyle, DeLisle, and the SEIU did not admit guilt and no criminal charges were filed as a result of the investigation. Instead, a conciliation agreement was reached with the Secretary of State's Office with regard to the complaint, D'Assandro v Home Care First, Inc and Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care and the $199,000 fine was levied by the Secretary of State. The SEIU and the disability advocates admitted that "mistakes were made" and claimed that they had not fully understood the campaign financing law. This is surprising, since presumably both the SEIU and the committee campaign treasurers had access to attorneys to advise them when they set up the campaign committees.
Filling in the blanks: Why were disability advocates involved in a ballot proposal campaign?
Proposal 4, a statewide ballot proposal that was defeated in the November 2012 election, was meant to amend the Michigan constitution to continue to allow union representation and collective bargaining rights for Medicaid-funded Home Help Workers and to reinstate the Michigan Quality Community Care Council, which had been defunded by the legislature, and rename it as the Michigan Home Quality Care Council. The Council would continue to be made up mostly of advocates for people with disabilities and seniors and would act as the representative for employers of Home Help Workers for the purposes of collective bargaining with the state. The employers of home help workers are the seniors and people with disabilities who receive Medicaid funding to pay for help with household chores and personal care in their own homes. The Council would also have maintained a registry of workers who had passed background checks and would offer training to improve job skills.
Other relevant facts:
The financial stake in the pro-Proposal 4 campaign was significant: The SEIU collected about $6 million per year in dues and fees from Home Help Workers and, prior to being defunded, the Council received about $1.1 million per year from the state.
Many factors make Home Help Workers a difficult and unusual population to unionize:
- About 75% of the Home Help Workers in Michigan are family members or close friends of the seniors and people with disabilities who hire them. Often the employee is the parent or another family member. Even more complicated is the fact that the employee may also be the legal guardian of the employer, the senior or disabled person.
- In 2005, when the election for unionization of Home Help Workers was held, only about 20% of those employed voted. There was confusion, especially among family members, about whether unionization applied to them at all, because many of them did not consider themselves "employees".
- Because the work takes place in the employers home, it is difficult to assess or regulate working conditions.
- The union was limited in how much it could bargain for increased wages because of appropriations decisions made by the legislature.
It does not appear that seniors and people with disabilities had any say in who represented them in the collective bargaining process.
The Home Help program has been around since the 1980's and its continued existence was not threatened by either the passage or defeat of Proposal 4.
Advocacy for whom?
The
financial entanglements of
the disability advocates with the SEIU during the proposal 4 campaign
seems to be a conflict of interest with the advocates' representation of people with disabilities and seniors.
When advocates and their organizations claim to represent people with disabilities, they need to maintain their independence and avoid conflicts of interest. In this convoluted campaign to amend Michigan's constitution, advocates allied themselves with a labor union while simultaneously seeking to continue to represent seniors and people with disabilities in collective bargaining with the union. The participation of disability advocates in campaign shenanigans of this magnitude certainly did not enhance the lives of people with disabilities nor did it protect the reputations of their organizations.
More information:
Michigan Secretary of State press release on the finance campaign investigation.
For more information on Proposal 4, see The DD News Blog.
To see documents relating to the complaint investigation, link here to the Secretary of State's website. Then scroll down to 8/30/2013, D'Assandro v Home Care … and link to documents in the right hand column, parts 1 - 12.
More news coverage on the campaign finance violations from Mlive and the Detroit Free Press
*****************************
P.S. - Irony Alert!
During the campaign for Proposal 4, a report from MIRS Capitol Capsule for April 10, 2012, quoted Mr. Hoyle as he complained about the the Governor signing a bill to reverse the ability of home help workers to unionize as state employees and the defunding of the MQCCC:
" Hoyle said he doesn’t understand people who have not talked with or dealt with MQCCC but are 'so bent on changing things without regard for what it does to people.'
"'To me it is just an ideological problem when people get so bent in one direction and ignore people who are on the other end of it, those with disabilities and those who are older,' he said. 'That’s just sad in my mind.'"
Many families will appreciate the irony of Mr. Hoyle's complaints, considering his own ideological bent and the adverse effects it has on people with disabilities. See "The ARC Michigan to state: Stop funding congregate settings" and "The ARC Michigan: Our way or the highway"
The Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council approved a policy called "Employment First in Michigan" in August of 2013 which was then submitted to the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) for consideration as state policy. [As a new member of the DD Council, I did not attend any Council meetings until September 2013 and did not vote on the policy.] The vote by the DD Council was not unanimous.
A meeting was held on November 20, 2013 with representatives of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) to discuss the proposed policy where many good suggestions were made to make the language consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Supreme Court Olmstead decision interpreting the ADA, and to honor the right to choice and self-determination.
The proposed policy, however, was not changed to reflect any of the comments from the November meeting. Bob Brown, a parent of an adult with developmental disabilities and a member of the DD Council wrote to James Haveman, the Director of MDCH, voicing his concern that if changes were not made, the document would lead "…to an outcome that restricts and diminishes an individual's choices rather than expanding them." Bob is most concerned that the policy as currently worded will be used to eliminate the choice, based on individual need and preferences, for programs where people like his daughter receive community-employment through a center-based program that also offers skill-building services for people with cognitive disabilities.
I would further emphasize the broad spectrum of people with disabilities, many of whom can work successfully in integrated employment settings and others who, like my sons, are unlikely to achieve anywhere near this level of accomplishment without a miraculous recovery of functioning or some other unlikely medical breakthrough. High expectations and lofty goals for achievement can be inspiring for some, but demoralizing and damaging for others, taking the focus off appropriate services that help individuals achieve realistic goals and assure safety, good health, appropriate care, and well-being.
You can see Bob Brown's comments here. His recommendations include changes that are consistent with federal law regarding employment for people with disabilities. A Word version of the proposed policy, without comments, can be found here.
If you wish to support Bob's comments (or not) on the Employment First Policy or add comments of your own, address them to:
Mr. James Haveman, Director
Michigan Department of Community Health
Capitol View Building
201Townsend Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913
You can e-mail comments to Nancy Grijalva at grijalvan@michigan.gov or Sharon Danielis at danielis@michigan.gov in Mr. Haveman's office.
