Indiana SILC Compliance Report by Qualified Observer

Report of Findings Regarding Compliance of the Indiana Council on
Independent Living

Author:  Kathleen P. Kleinmann, MSW, MPH
May 15, 2002


Executive Summary:

The Indiana Council on Independent Living is conducting business
in a manner that demonstrates clear violation of Title VII of the
Rehabilitation Act and contempt for the purpose of the Act.  As
such, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) must now
sanction the State of Indiana for its poor performance and require
that the Governor of the State of Indiana terminate all current
appointments to the Council in order to halt the expenditure of
Federal funds on activities that are illegal.  Once this action is
taken, RSA and the Governor's office of the State of Indiana can
begin the necessary consultation and planning needed to establish
a new Statewide Independent Living Council that operates within
the legal statue and related regulations. 

I have drawn the careful conclusion that Indiana is violating the
Rehabilitation Act.  This definitive opinion was made due to my
observation that the manner of routine operation is without dutiful
effort by the State of Indiana or the Indiana Council to comply
with the law.  During my observation and collection of materials, I
observed no attempt by the Council to conceal illegal activity. 

Framework for Evaluation:            

Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act sets itself apart from other laws
and others portions of Rehabilitation Act itself by the declaration
within the opening sentence describing its purpose: "The purpose
of this chapter is to promote a philosophy of independent living,
including a philosophy of consumer control, peer support,
self-help, self-determination, equal access, and individual, and
system advocacy, in order to maximize the leadership,
empowerment, independence and productivity of individuals with
disabilities, and the integration and full inclusion of individuals with
disabilities into the mainstream of American society." 

All activities and expenditures of funds under all parts of Title VII
must support this purpose, without exception.  It is a rigid test of
the activities and expenditures of the Indiana SILC, Indiana State
Government, and Indiana organizations participating in the
independent living effort.  

The business of the Council is to establish a comprehensive State
Plan in coordination with the State and members of the public who
are Stakeholders.  The State Plan is to be revised every three
years and to be updated annually.  Public input in to the process is
described throughout Title VII as critically important.  The State
Plan includes the development of a network of independent living
centers and the provision of independent living services, in
general.  Beyond the Four Core Services, the regulations describe
independent living services to include housing, transportation,
attendant care, assistive technology, and 

"Any other services that may be necessary to improve the ability
of an individual with a significant disability to function, continue
functioning, or move toward functioning independently in the
family or community or to continue in employment and that are
not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Act." [§364.4
What definitions apply? Independent Living Services 1-21]

The State has many departments within its administration that are
responsible for providing one or more of the described services. 
Therefore, the State Plan has broad and sweeping impact on the
development and administration of many departments .  In full
development, the State Plan becomes a tool instrumental to
systemic reform in keeping with the purpose of the law for State
Government programs directly provided and provided through
contract. 

Sec. 705 (a) declares that the only way for a State to be eligible to
receive financial assistance under the chapter is to establish a
Council that "shall not be established as an entity within a State
agency."  It is generally understood that the State Plan can never
address its mission if subjugated to a single agency.  The
requirement that regular Council members must be appointed by
the Governor speaks to the desire for autonomy of the Council and
the broad-sweeping oversight of its mission.  

Findings

I.   Philosophical Foundations of the Indiana Council:

A.   Qualifications of the Council membership:

1.  None of the members of the Indiana are qualified to sit on the
Council.  Some demonstrate that they do not have a working
knowledge of the Rehabilitation Act, the regulations, or the rulings
of RSA on related topics.  They do not have a working knowledge
of their own State Plan.  Other individuals may know the
requirements of the law and plan, but violate that law knowingly. 
The manner in which the Council votes to not comply with the
statue, conducts misguided meetings, and the Council's
acceptance of domination by State officials conclusively
demonstrate that the law and State Plan are not used as the
requirements of their behavior.  Therefore, they are not focused
upon the dutiful adherence to the law and their constituency. 

2.  The more recently appointed members of the Council reported
to the other Council members that they had no understanding of
the IL Philosophy or application of the IL Philosophy.  They were
hopeful that training would provide them with an or ientation. 
Consequently, these members appeared to be confused during
most discussions and disturbed by displays of intense emotion
over the application of philosophy in decision-making and
administration.  Independent Living Philosophy is gained through
reflection on life experiences as a disenfranched disabled minority
group or through a personal insight on the impact of our culture
towards that minority.  Unfortunately, the Council business cannot
wait for them to embrace the knowledge that they need. Council
members need to be knowledgeable on IL Philosophy in advance
of appointment to the Council.  It is irresponsible to appoint
members without this basic qualification due to the fact that the
Council members are the keepers of the IL Philosophy and set the
master plan for related systems change for Indiana under Title VII
and their own State Plan. 

3.  The first requirement of the law regarding composition requires
at least one director of an IL Center chosen by the directors of
centers within the State.  Emma Sullivan was presented to the
Council as that duly elected representative.  The law makes no
requirement that this seat on the Council is appointed by the
Governor.  The Governor has no power to appoint this position as
it is intended by law to represent a specific group of Stakeholders. 
Ms. Sullivan was not recognized as a voting member.  The Council
asserted an illegal requirement that Ms Sullivan be appointed to
the Council by the Governor.  The motion to seat Ms. Sullivan as a
member was voted down by the Council in direct violation of the
law at the April meeting. 

4.  There is no process to recruit, identify, and select Council
members that are qualified.  Therefore, appointments are based
upon the preferences of the State and not in keeping with the
requirements of the law. 

5.  Many of the Council members are not qualified because they
cannot devote the time needed to perform as responsible
members.  They appear to hold unrealistic expectation of the
amount of time membership will require.  Several members indicated 
that their regular jobs did not permit them to give more that the
two hours per month for the Council meeting Committee meetings
are either not scheduled or poorly attended due to the lack of
commitment of members.  Consequently, no progress is the 
report given for most committee reports.  Efforts to extend
meeting times to permit more discussion are voted down.  Efforts
to modify the agenda are unsuccessful.  Stakeholders are
frustrated by not being permitted to make comments until the
meeting is out of regular session.  

6.  Since the process of selection of Council members is unknown
to the Council members themselves, the members do not believe
that they are empowered to assist the "powers that be" in the
appointment of qualified members to the council.  This illustrates
that self-determination and system advocacy is not understood or
practiced by the Council.  A uniform method was talked about
vaguely at each Council meeting without serious commitment to
even a draft protocol for adoption.  Due to the absence of a real
written process, individuals with a self-interest can determine
appointments and ultimately control the actions of the Council.  

7.  There are no identified non-voting members who would
normally serve to represent the various departments of state that
serve state citizens, including citizens with disabilities.  The
apparent absence of participation of these important non-voting
members cuts off the membership from critical information on the
state's operation and eliminates any opportunity for meaningful
discussion or a partnership on system change activities. 

8.  A significant number of council members represent
organizations that receive Title VII funds and other independent
living program funds.  They are conducting themselves in a
manner to increase their funds received under Title VII.  Conflicts
of interest related to the flow of Title VII money to the
organizations that individuals represent are not clearly identified or
acknowledged during critical discussions.  Protocols do not exist
to assist members in avoiding participation in Council activities for
which they have a potential to gain through enhanced funding by
their organizations. 

9.  Council members are uneducated in the Parliamentary
procedure that they are using to conduct their own meetings.  A
parliamentarian has been passively available at the meetings for
questions.  This is insufficient to the needs of the Counci l. 
Council members are not qualified to conduct Council business
without a working knowledge of the procedure that they are
using.  This is an area of member qualifications that can be met by
several hours of training after appointment.  However, there are
no trainings planned and no instructional print materials have been
made available.  During the meeting of April 8, two members
made many motions that were acted upon by vote.  They were
working from a prepared script that was shared with me later.  At
the next meeting, without a prepared script these same members
demonstrated a lack of knowledge on Parliamentary procedure. 

B.   Application of the principle of equal access:

1.  Requests for reasonable accommodation for participants or
Stakeholders with communication disabilities are openly
disrespected and rarely accommodated by the Council. 

2.  Requests for documents distributed by the Council at regular
meetings in alternate formats are generally disregarded entirely
when those requests are made by Stakeholders. 

3.  At the May meeting, the Chairperson made reference to the
Rules of Conduct that had been written on the chalkboard and
asked all in the room to abide by those rules.  A member of the
Stakeholders who was blind requested that the words on the
chalkboard be read.  The Chairperson denied the request, and the
Council members did not object.  

4.  Meeting locations are announced late, changed frequently, and
held in out of the way places in an apparent deliberated effort to
discourage attendance by stakeholders.  Many people with
disabilities do not drive yet the use of public transit for access to
meetings is not possible or even considered by the Council.  Even
those whose participation is necessary find access to the meetings
difficult. 

5.  The Council on a routine basis does not provide sign
interpreters.  One State employee who is deaf serves as a
technician for equipment used by the Council when assigned to do
so by the State.  When he attends the Council meetings, he brings
his own employment related interpreters and the Council budget
absorbs the cost of his interpreters during that period.  Otherwise,
an interpreter service is not reserved for the meeting for the
routine purposes of the frequent Stakeholders who need
interpreters.  

6.  At the March meeting, a deaf participant who requested extra
time beyond three minutes to deliver a brief statement through her
own personal interpreter was denied accommodation of additional
time required to utilize the interpreter by the Chairperson until the
Stakeholders stopped the meeting entirely. 

7.  Although individual members repeatedly protest the denial of
the principles of equal access, the Council in general does not
grasp that they are intended to be role models under Title VII of
the application of equal access for Indiana and all of its activities. 

8.  The Stakeholders are virtually shut out of the Council meeting
process.  The Council barely tolerates Stakeholders in the room. 
Requests for alternate format of Council materials by the
Stakeholders are ignored or openly denied at every Co uncil
meeting.  At the meeting of April 8, the Council moved the public
comment portion of the meeting to an "off the record" time slot
when the Council itself is not convened and when Council
members are not requested to attend.  The frustration level of
these Stakeholders is extremely high.  Many of the Stakeholders
faithfully attend each meeting despite the fact that their
comments, requests, and questions are either ignored or ruled out
of order.  Given their inability to be part of the process and even
dialogue with the Council, a few of the Stakeholders have resorted
to desperate emotional speeches and even heckling.  However,
these Stakeholders fair no better than those who are reserved and
respectful in their attempts to address the Council.  Two of the
Council members attempt to intercede on behalf of the
Stakeholders but the Chairperson appears determined to maintain
a closed process.  The Council as a whole does not appear to
understand their obligations to be responsive and to find a method
to include the Stakeholders.  

C.   Application of systems advocacy:

1.  The general issues of people with disabilities, such as housing,
transportation, attendant care, public access, were not on the
agenda nor mentioned.  The Council does not appear to be
engaged in a plan of offering guidance to the State Government
at various levels in program reform related to independent living
philosophy.  The Council members do not appear to be sufficiently
knowledgeable about the IL Philosophy and the intent of the law
to understand that this is the process that they are charged with. 

2.  The Council focused significant amount of discussion on the
establishment of a statewide network of centers as called for in
the law.  In particular, the Council is concerned with the interests
of certain organizations that the State has funded with Part B
funds to provide some independent living services.  The Council is
making a concerted effort to assist these organizations to obtain
Part C funds.  One or more members of the Council have direct
ties to these organizations. 

3.  The majority of discussion by the Council and the Stakeholders
dwells on the topics of Title VII money, who gets it, the difficulty
with state contracts, and state reporting of Council funds. 
Questions to the State staff by the Council are repeated over and
over but answers are not available or given inaccurately.  The
discussion and paper trail demonstrates that there is a lack of
consistency, timeliness, impartiality, and fairness by the State
related to the financial issues.  The problems created appear to be
deliberate since the problems are not urgently addressed and left
to fester to the detriment of the Council, the majority of centers,
and the Stakeholders. 

4.  Failure by the State to address the money problems feeds the
frenzy of animosity and competition among the Council members
and stakeholders who seek access to Title VII and State Plan
funding.  Furthermore, this preoccupation with money has
effectively prevented the Council from taking up the real issues of
Indiana citizens with disabilities as required by law. 

5.  Those independent living centers engaged in system advocacy
on the state level report that access to their Title VII funding is
restricted and conditions are punitive.  Those IL Centers have
provided evidence of a paper trail and report a history of
retribution by the state for conducting the advocacy that is their
very mission under Title VII.  

II.  Practice of the Council

A.   Relationships among significant players

1.  There was no evidence of "cooperation, coordination, and
working relationships among various entities" as called for in Title
VII.  Alliances appear to be connected to the flow of Title VII
money.  One alliances is based upon appeasing the state to
acquire money.  The second alliance is based upon demanding an
entitlement under adherence to prior established rules under the
State Plan for obtaining money.  However, discussion and the
paper trail clearly show that the rules are not followed and no
justification is offered.  Consequently, those IL Centers engaged in
systems advocacy are in a constant state of alarm, frustration,
and threat.  Individual members with ties to IL Centers that are
engaged in seeking additional State funding vote to take actions
that are violations of the law and exhibit conflict of interest
behavior.  

2.  At the April 8 meeting, motions were made to follow the State
Plan and the Act on several critical issues.  Most of the motions
were voted down.  

3.  Many of the Council members urge that IL Centers should
demonstrate more of an interest in "getting along" and should
refrain from language or actions that support systems advocacy. 
The State apparently uses money as a reward for non-confrontation 
about problems and does not judicially implement the
rules of play that have been set down in the State Plan and other
documents.  Through this type of administration, the State
effectively thwarts the network of centers and the Council from
having cooperative relationships to implement the mission of the
Council and the State Plan. 

4.  With a total absence of non-voting members representing
programs and departments charged with serving Indiana citizens
with disabilities, the Council is unable to readily access
information on the needs of those citizens entitled to service s and
the IL Philosophical reform needed to administer those programs. 

5.  The Council is operating with a Chairperson appointed directly
by the Governor very suddenly and without notice to the Council. 
I believe Title VII specifically states that the Governor of Indiana
does not have the right appoint the Chairperson.  The Governor
has the power of veto in the State legislation and that dictates his
inability to appoint a Chairperson.  The Council complied with the
order of the Governor without challenge or review of the law by
demoting the elected Chairperson to regular member status.  This
was an illegal act. 

6.  The Governor appointed Chairperson appears to be very
interested in the concerns of the State despite his employment as
a director of a independent living center.  He repeatedly claimed
during meetings that he had no responsibility to respond or
interact with the public.  He does not tolerate discussion that is
critical of the State.  He has made mild statements during
meetings that he is dissatisfied with the financial information
provided by the State but has not taken decisive action to remedy
the problem despite urging from Council members. 

7.  The Chairperson sets the agenda in a manner that specifically
excludes opportunities for discussion, insists on brief status
reports, accepts committee reports of no progress without urging
greater progress and timeliness, and only includes topics on the
agenda that are administrative in nature.  It is inconceivable that
the activities of a Council operating in this manner will take
actions that will benefit disabled citizens of Indiana. 

B.   Ability of Council to address the Independent Living State Plan

1.  There appears to be considerable departure from procedure in
the creation and adoption of a State Plan.  RSA needs to study the
chronology, committee work, public input into the process, and
make a determination as to what constitutes the current State
Plan.  There are credible allegations that the Plan document was
manipulated and adopted unlawfully.  

2.  RSA funded the Ruben Center as a new independent living
center in 1998.  The State Plan called for the State to contribute
funds on a top priority to a new center so that the total budget for
a center is $250,000.  That amount is generally acknowledged as
the threshold at which a center can begin to operate within the
requirements of Title VII.  The State has thus far failed to provide
that funding and has chosen to use applicable funds to contract
with different agencies to provide independent living services. 
The Council has cooperated in this violation of the State Plan. 

3.  The Council voted to use the new center funding for the
upcoming fiscal year to award three tiny grants to three unnamed
organizations in specific counties.  This was not a priority under
the State Plan.  There were clear intentions that th e successful
organizations were already selected by the State and in some
cases had representatives on the Council.  Advance meetings have
been held with the Council and these predetermined organizations. 
The small grants of $21,000 cannot possibly enable an
organization to operate as a center nor to comply with the
standards and assurances under Title VII.  However, the Federal
award may entitle the organizations to claim other money from the
State.  If this is the case, the Council is planning to award money
in a biased manner as the Ruben Center was not given this same
opportunity

4.  The members have no knowledge or sense of continuity with
their Council's past or a vision of their own destiny.  They seem to
struggle to operate in a type of information vacuum.  Information
on prior practice of the council is not shared and questions by
members are left hanging.  At each meeting I heard the same
questions by members.  The Chairperson or the State
representative promised to find out and report back only to get the
same response at the next meeting.  Motions were passed and
commitments were made without follow through by any member
to achieve progress on the issues. 

5.  Use of Parliamentary procedure is not uncommon but at the
Council it is used is a pretext to violating the law unnecessarily. 
The Parliamentary procedure does not require respectful dialogue
and sharing with Stakeholders.  The law does require that
respect.  The procedure does not require reasonable
accommodation, but the law does.  

6.  Recently, the Chairperson sent out correspondence on the
recent motions that were passed by the Council to inform them
that the motions were not binding in order to set the stage for
inaction. 

7.  The Council is engaged in a process of revision of the Bylaws. 
There is lack of consensus that the working copy is a complete
version or the most recently adopted one.  The draft that was
presented to the Council did not provide the standa rd format that
would illustrate portions of text removed or added to the original
document.  At the April and May meetings, the committee
members complained that the committee chairperson was not
conducting committee meetings nor allowing input in to the
proposed revisions.  Rather, the Bylaw Committee members were
asked to submit comments to the draft just as any other member. 
Members complained that the agenda did not plan or allow for
discussion or debate of the draft.  As typical of many topics 
introduced, there did not appear to be any process for dialogue or
creating consensus.  A minority of Council members complained
about the unusual and unfair process.  The majority of members
appeared resigned to accept the usual status of not exercising
power over their own operations. 

8.  I directly observed representatives of the State repeatedly
provide financial data that did not meet the needs of the Council
nor satisfy their specific requests.  The Council has absolutely no
information about the current budget of the Council although the
Council is presented with lists of charges against Council funds. 
The Council has no oversight or approval rights on the use of any
funds attributed to the Council.  Requests from the Council to
expend funds were entirely subject to State approval and State
procedures.  All aspects of the budget and funding of the Council
were clearly in the hands of the State without accountability to
the Council.  This is illegal. 

9.  The Council has no control of its own staff.  The council
cannot hire, direct, or evaluate the performance of any staff.  Two
employees of the State attended the Council meetings and were
assigned to serve as staff to the Council but all as signed duties
are under review of the State.  The staff appeared to perform only
clerical functions for the Council, such as assistance with setting
up meetings and preparing minutes.  Tasks requested of the staff
were frequently not performed.  The staff was not able to make
any decisions regarding the State's response on any question
posed to them during the meetings.  The staff stated that they
would have to talk to a higher-ranking VR staff person and report
back.  They appeared unable to answer questions on the financial
reports, contract related inquiries, or obtain in-depth program
operation information from VR or any other department of State. 
The staff did not take action on behalf of the Council when
motions were passed unless those actions were clerical in nature. 
Some of the information that they reported to Council was later
found to be incorrect.  The Council including the Chairperson
exhibited frustration over the inability to obtain needed information
and follow-up from the state staff. 

10.  State staff received correspondence on behalf of the Council
since the Council does not have an independent office.  The State
representative admitted that she did not forward such
correspondence to the Council as intended.  She indicated that
she regarded such information as sent to the State and chose only
to forward to the Council those items she chose to forward.  This
is further evidence that the Council is not in control of its own
affairs and is operating within a state agency.  

11.  Given that the State assigned staff did not act on behalf of
the Council, progress on actions passed by the Council frequently
did not occur.  When inaction was discovered, the Chairperson
appeared at a loss as to how he was supposed to get it done and
sometimes voiced the expectation that the person who made the
motion should have performed the action.  Most of the Council
members reportedly are employed full time.  It was clear that
these members were unable to contribute a significant nu mber of
hours of labor outside the monthly two-hour meetings.  Efforts to
extend the number of hours of the meeting in order to accomplish
more were reportedly difficult for many of the members and
agreed to reluctantly.  

12.  At the May meeting, the State Director from the Chapter Two
funded services was a speaker.  The program was described in
perfunctory and brief terms.  The Council did not present any
important issues to the director on behalf of the citizens who may
have problems with the services.  The Stakeholders who had
concerns were not able to pose questions or comments to the
speaker until the public comment portion at the conclusion of the
meeting.  The Director agreed to stay until the end of the meeting
to provide this opportunity.  At the assigned time, the Stakeholder
asked about a formal complaint that had been filed related to
services several months ago without response.  The Director
stated that there were no complaints being processed and that
she had no knowledge that one had been filed.  The Council did
not express any interest in the significant problem in their domain
that had just been revealed.  As in the past observations, the
Council did not respond to the Stakeholders on their concerns. 

13.  Problems related to the functioning of the Council have been
reported and known to RSA for several years.  RSA has
acknowledged with written findings in 1999 that serious problems
exist.  Recently, verbal guidance and some correspondence we re
provided by RSA.  However, there has been no definitive written
policy directives or sanctions against the State or Council. 
Consequently, these practices have continued and the affect of
these practices has increased the friction between those who
want the problem remedied and those who benefit from it. 

III. Conclusions

A.  RSA must take action to stop the State of Indiana from
drawing down Title VII funds without adherence to the
requirements of the law.  

B.  RSA must require that funds denied to Ruben Center since
1998 be awarded in full. 

C.  RSA must take action to advise the Governor of Indiana that
the current Council operation is violating the spirit and the intent
of the law. 

D.  RSA must take action to assure that the current Council is
removed and that a new qualified Council is formed. 

E.  RSA must take action to assure that the new Council adopts
public policy and operating procedures that comply with the law.  

Background Notes:

I have been retained by RSA to serve as a qualified observer,
evaluator, and reporter related to the activities of the Indiana
Council as they pertain to Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act and
the State Plan prepared under that Act.  I served as the
non-government portion of the RSA team to set the groundwork
for a full Federal review and evaluation of the Indiana Independent
Living Program including the Indiana IL Council.  I am very active
nationally in the Independent Living Movement; and consequently,
individuals from ICOIL and Indiana who are also active in national
events in the IL Movement are known to me. 

I was present on February 20 and 21 at the official forum for the
purpose of gathering information provided by the State of Indiana,
the Indiana Council, and those entities contracted under Title VII
and other miscellaneous State funding to provide independent
living services.  The focus of the two-day meeting was to allow
the involved parties to describe the problems that the State and
other players have experienced in complying with the
Rehabilitation Act. 

I have observed the State and the Council's manner of conducting
the business of the Council at regular Council meetings on March
13, April 8, and May 10.  I also observed the Council's interaction
with Stakeholders who are intended to benefit b y the Council's
activities and are classified as "the public" under the agenda.  I
have received written and verbal reports, transcripts, and other
evidence of the activities of the Council.  I responded to
independent contacts made to me by Council members and
Stakeholders.  The Council made videotapes of each meeting that
I attended.  These tapes will testify to many of my findings.