Most often we are told that between 2% and 4% of the general population has a developmental disability (DD).  Applied to the most recent census, that results in approximately 103,000 to 206,000 people with DD living in the State of Minnesota.  In 2005, DHS reported an unduplicated count of 28,833 recipients in the Home & Community Based Service (HCBS) waivers (CADI, CAC, TBI, MR/DD) and Medicaid (MA) program (ICFs/MR); and 12,524 unduplicated recipients in Day Training & Habilitation (DT&H) programs.  If 3% of the state’s population has DD, it follows that only 18.7% of them are receiving HCBS or MA services and only 8.1% receive DT&H services.  Said another way, at least 81.3% of our citizens with DD live without HCBS or MA services and 91.9% either work in typical jobs, are in school, choose not to work, or have retired.  While I do not accept the report’s implication that clients of DT&H programs are under- or un-employed, even if that is one’s opinion, 8.1% is a much different number than the range of 60-70% cited in the report.  It is time to stop using misleading statistics that only engender arguments and never produce action; and leaders within our industry should spend their time meeting the wage expectations of those they support and not concern themselves with unemployment statistics that mean nothing to those we serve.

The “real need” is not to reform the vision and goals driving Minnesota’s educational and rehabilitation systems as called for in the report.  Rather, the real action is to practice genuine person-centered planning for every recipient of HCBS or MA services.  It is not “Employment First” as declared in the report.  Rather, it is “Self-Determination First” as asserted by self-advocates.  As Burton Blatt once said, “Why does reformation always result in sameness?”  Systems are systems and you cannot reform them to be individualized.  Instead, all system initiatives should be focused on minimizing itself to operate within the background with person-centered planning operating in the foreground.  I submit that action happens only at the point of service delivery and, in this case, only through self-determination.

The report asks the question – “Why shouldn’t Minnesotans with significant disabilities live and enjoy their lives as their peers do?”  Who are these peers and, if you can identify them, why do we assume that people with DD want to use them as the benchmark in evaluating how much they enjoy their lives?  I am not sure why being a person with DD is still so undesirable that we need to make them more like us as though us all “enjoy our lives?”  A de-facto reality is that you cannot accurately compare the experiences of someone receiving HCBS or MA services to the general population, so let’s stop trying.  Instead, let’s assist the individuals we support to define their own quality of life and then creatively use our resources to make steady progress in realizing their hopes and dreams.

I understand why some portray the DD cause as a human rights issue.  I respectfully disagree.  A generic definition of human rights would be freedom from arbitrary interference or restriction by government and the term often suggests that the civil liberties or civil rights of an individual or group have not been recognized.  Civil liberties typically refers to fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference; with civil rights most often thought of as rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  With regard to people with DD, while government may not always provide supports and services in the manner preferred by a specific individual or group, government action can hardly be described as interference or restriction.  Moreover, government funds many of the agencies whose sole purpose is to advocate for people with DD.  Instead, we have what some describe as a social change movement that could be defined as an effort to change public expectations on a particular issue.  The report seems to understand this concept as it states that “Changing public expectations is the engine of social change.”  However, the report focuses on just an element of a person’s life – that being employment – whereas I believe we need to focus on the whole person by ensuring that each person with DD has the greatest degree of self-determination they desire to control.

I agree with the report that work is fundamental to adulthood and quality of life, that working age adults with DD should be expected to work, and that our system should have an opt-out versus an opt-in feature when it comes to work.  And, with two edits, I agree with the following statement in the report – “Minnesota can move forward and make historic changes leading to increased job placement and integrated employment in the workforce as a desirable option for all youth and working age adults with disabilities.”  Still, work means more than integrated employment in the workforce and work is not the only valued contribution that people with DD can make to their communities.  So, if a person with DD chooses to attend a post-secondary school, volunteer, participate in habilitation activities, work part-time, or retire before they die – why is this considered a negative outcome?  The SSA definition of disability requires that a recipient is “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity…” presuming, it seems, that most everyone in the HCBS and MA program requires long-term support.  Let’s be honest and recognize that economic self-sufficiency is an unachievable goal for most recipients of HCBS and MA services; and expecting this becomes another failure to erode their self-esteem.  Whereas, less support is an achievable outcome that can be evaluated at least annually with the individual’s support team.

I am not a fan of the one size fits all model called for in the report, with the employment first mantra and implication that all people with disabilities should be integrated into the workforce.  With 60% of the general population having some qualified disability, what is the consensus definition of integration and why do we assume that everyone with DD is willing to accept what can be a stressful situation?  Minnesota enjoys a broad continuum of services offered by rehabilitation agencies, sheltered workshops, DT&H programs, and adult day services that can meet the variety of supports desired by people with DD.  Should we get better at supporting people with DD in paid, integrated employment in the non-disabled workforce?  Yes, but not to the exclusion of the desires of people with DD for other options as determined through a person-centered planning process.

The report calls for “real work at real wages” at “minimum or prevailing wages and benefits” and suggests the “removal of sub-minimum wage” work.  Let’s be clear on this point.  The issue is about economic fairness not the minimum wage (as though the minimum wage can offer economic self-sufficiency).  The special certificate used by most vocational service providers is an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act permitted by the U.S. Department of Labor to pay people with DD a commensurate wage based on their productivity.  It is based on the real prevailing wages of non-disabled workers completing similar real work in the local market.  Done correctly, the commensurate wage system offers the person with DD an opportunity to earn the same real wage as a non-disabled person performing the same real work.  The only time a person with DD is making less than the minimum wage is when their productivity is below the quantity needed to generate that wage.  Everything I’ve heard from self-advocates is about the opportunity to have real work and be valued members of their community.  I’ve not heard them say we want to use public dollars to subsidize our wages to create an illusion that we are valued and respected workers; or that they are willing to lose their MA benefits for a private insurance policy that is less comprehensive.  These special certificates are a good option to offer real work at real wages to people with DD and we need to focus on each individual’s work preferences and wage expectations rather than spend anymore time debating an irrelevant minimum wage issue.

In summary, I didn’t find the “consensus recommendations” in the report to be particular new or insightful; and I certainly don’t think we need to divert limited funding from client supports to a new “Training and Technical Assistance” bureaucracy.  Also, I am not inspired by the idea of Minnesota being a “leader” as I know from experience that no other state will follow our practices anymore than Minnesota will follow theirs.  The report was useful in understanding why a systems reform approach that focuses on “employment first” is not the strategy to follow.  Instead, we need a holistic approach that permits the individual to determine for themselves the support needed to have preferred housing, satisfactory work, reasonable transportation, and meaningful relationships.  To that end, politicians and bureaucrats need to minimize the system to simply determine recipient eligibility, assess service options, authorize providers, account for expenses, protect health & safety, measure quality, and get out of the way.  Professionals need to commit themselves to self-determination and genuine person-centered planning so that each client’s unique needs, expressed preferences, and informed choices are known and acted upon.  And, people with DD need to keep striving for social change.  If we listen to them, we may eventually get it right.

Disability:

The Social Security Administration (SSA) defines disability as “The inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity (SGA) because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that can be expected to result in death, or has lasted or can expect to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months” (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/redbook/eng/overview-disability.htm#5).  The “medically determinable or mental impairments” recognized by SSA include the following TWELVE categories:  cardiovascular system, digestive system, genitourinary system, hematological disorders, immune system disorders, malignant neoplastic diseases, mental disorders, musculoskeletal system, respiratory system, skin disorders, special senses and speech, and impairments that affect multiple body systems.  I did not review all these categories, still I guessed it captured a lot of people so I searched for some disability prevalence statistics and found the following two sources.  First, according to the 2006 American Community Survey, 15.1 percent of the civilian non-institutionalized population 5 years and over in the United States, or about 41.3 million people reported a disability (www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/whatsnew.html).  Second, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that in 2005, disability prevalence across all 50 states ranged from 11.4% to 25.8%, with an average or median estimate of 20% (www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dh/disabilityprevalence.htm).  Based on the current U.S. Census data this means that 60,885,046 citizens, or 2 of every 10 people you encounter on a daily basis, have a physical or mental impairment that meets the very severe SSA disability definition.

Integration:

“The bringing of people of different racial or ethnic groups into unrestricted and equal association” from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition;
“Coordination of mental processes into a normal effective personality or with the individual’s environment” from Merriam – Webster’s Medical Dictionary; and
“The state of combination or the process of combining into completeness and harmony” from The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary.
 

Segregation:

“The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination” from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition;
“The removal of certain parts or segments from a whole or mass” from The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary; and
“The act of segregating, or the state of being segregated; separation from others; a parting” from Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
 

For me, the key terms of integration I got from these definitions are:  unrestricted and equal association, coordination with the individual’s environment, and combining into completeness and harmony.  The key terms of segregation I got from these definitions are:  the policy or practice of separating people, removal from a whole or mass, and separation from others.  I will come back to these terms because, for me, they are somewhat abstract without some personal reference.  To this end, I chose to analyze my Outlook contact list to understand my own I/S status with the following results:

There are 627 people in my contact list;
These 627 people fall into the following 3 self-defined categories – 442 are acquaintances (70%), 143 are family members (23%), and 42 are friends (7%);
The 442 in the acquaintance category fall into the following 4 self defined groups – 308 are professional contacts (70%), 67 are people in my community (15%); 44 are my children’s friends (10%); and 23 are my school or college classmates (5%);
The 143 in the family category include relations going as far as 2nd cousins from both my wife’s and my family that we see on a regular basis; and
The 42 in the friend category fall into 3 self-defined groups – 19 are from my community (45%), 16 are my school or college classmates (38%), and 7 I befriended through my professional activities (17%).
 

Here is what I learned.  First, 70% of the people I know are acquaintances and, of this group, 70% are people I only interact with professionally.  Since they are working, I can assume they do not meet the SSA definition of disability.  However, they may have less severe conditions in any of those SSA categories or other conditions that impair their functioning.  Since integration requires an awareness of people’s differences, and I am mostly unaware of any impairments these acquaintances may have, the issue of I/S becomes irrelevant.  Second, my family is a segregated group (separate from others by genetics or marriage) that accounts for 23% of my contacts.  Third, my friends (despite my zubaz) account for only 7% of my contacts, are the only group where integration is relevant to me, and only 17% of these contacts come from my professional activities with 83% coming from my community and/or school activities.  All of this leads me to the following questions:

My results suggest that the most productive place to realize integration would be in the individual’s own community and secondarily in the public schools which already emphasize integration by “mainstreaming” students with DD into the “regular” classrooms.  So, why do we expect work activities for people with DD to primarily address the Question of I/S when, for me, 35 of my 42 friends came from my community and school activities?
A common explanation of integration seems to be that the person with DD should be interacting with people not paid to support them.  In my case, 50% of the people I know are professional contacts who are paid to interact with, and sometimes support, me.  So, what does paying someone to interact and support another person have to do with integration?
People with DD have unrestricted access to their community, and equal association can only be determined by the group someone chooses to join.  Coordination with the individual’s environment can be facilitated through assistive technology, reengineering space, and connecting a person to their local community.  Accomplishing completeness and harmony can only be determined by the individual.  Why is where a person with DD works more important than these realities.
The State of MN does not have a policy or practice of separating people, removing them from a whole or mass, or separating them from others.  Quite the contrary, in 2005 DHS reported that the statewide average for community work crews and individuals placements was 8.7% and 39.3% respectively.  Using these numbers, of the approximately 13,000 people served by DT&H programs, 40% or 6,240 people are supported in integrated settings.  Given that few people with DD are still living in our state hospitals, whereas many of the comparison states offered by our critics have significant state hospital populations, whats the beef with Minnesota?
However, even my questions are irrelevant; and that is the seminal point.  Utlimately, the Question of I/S is only relevant as part of a self-determination and person-centered planning discussion that genuinely addresses the person’s:  (i) unique needs; (ii) expressed preferences with regard to housing, satisfactory work, reasonable transportation, and meaningful relationships; and (iii) informed choices.  How can choosing to work with a peer group that shares your personal characeteristics, interests, and situation be compared to a “state of being segregated”?  We need to realize the Question of I/S has been asked and satisfactorily answered; and it is time to focus on individual objectives rather than contradictory system values that seek “sameness” by creating an awareness of “differences.”

Jeni is a young lady that enrolled at Merrick in 2007, just after graduating from a school transition program.  Currently, she does not work, which may seem odd for a person so young, and is very involved in the many therapeutic activities available here.  When Jeni first came to Merrick she was having difficulty going 100 feet in her gait trainer and, in less than six months, has now progressed to a distance of 1000 feet, three times a week.  Her body strength has improved dramatically and staff are in awe of her progress.  Always sassy and a social butterfly, Jeni is active in self-advocacy, which has helped her to meet new friends and learn the power of her voice.  As much as she loves to be social, Jeni is also very comfortable doing an activity alone or sitting next to someone listening to music.  It is not uncommon to see her doing something different every time you see her throughout the day.  She loves working in the greenhouse and helps with watering, cutting, and planting; and seems to have developed quite a green thumb.  We continue to support Jeni through the Alternative Services area in our DT&H program; and her charisma, independence, and perseverance, along with the love she has for people, makes others seek her out when they need a hug and smile to know everything is going to be okay.

Jerry is deaf and was referred to Merrick while still in school.  When our staff went to meet Jerry, school staff working with him wore metal-plated gloves because he had a history of biting and reportedly had severely injured someone’s hand.  We were also told of his severe aggression and property destruction that would prohibit him from working off-site.  Despite this history, we admitted Jerry and chose not to use the metal-plated gloves thinking that this may be a catalyst to the behavior and not the answer to the biting problem.  We quickly learned that much of Jerry’s behavior was due to his need to communicate with others, understand his environment, and know what was expected of him.  As it turned out, the biting was better addressed through sensory integration; that providing a highly structured environment nearly eliminated property destruction; and by establishing a strict schedule, most aggression was avoided.  Staff in his area have been trained in American Sign Language and are expected to give Jerry ongoing opportunities each day to discuss important topics and to engage in sensory activities.  We know that soda is something that Jerry obsesses over and that denying him access can lead to aggression and property destruction.  As an alternative, we have given Jerry controlled access by knowing exactly when and where he will receive soda and he trusts that this schedule will not vary.  We continue to support Jerry through the Enhanced Services area in our DT&H program and we have all been enriched by his presence.  He currently works five days per week with one staff and two other clients on an off-site recycling crew going in and out of grocery stores, interacting with the public, and amazingly walking right past cases of soda on a daily basis.  He has successfully held his job for several years without injuring himself or others, and as of this month, Jerry has not needed a Rule 40 program for 18 months.

When Brian came to Merrick in the summer of 2000, he immediately knew that he wanted to work outside doing landscaping.  Brian joined an off-site crew that worked at a college greenhouse; and after many different assignments due to facility improvements, curriculum changes, and budget revisions – a potential dream job began to emerge.  The college built a veterinary medical center (VMC) and Brian was hired to clean and disinfect animal stalls and clean the general area within the clinic and hospital.  Brian and his supervisor have a close relationship referring to each other as “big brother” and “right hand man” respectively.  Brian continues to love his job and is very happy with the salary he earns.  In October 2008, Brian, his supervisor, and the VMC were recognized by the Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities for being an innovative employer.  We continue to support Brian through the Individual Services area in our DT&H program.  In the future, Brian wants to get his driver’s license and buy a truck with a plow so he can run a side business in the winter, plowing parking lots.

Sovanny has had many dreams in her life.  In recent years, many of those dreams have come true.  Due to her severe hearing loss and brittle diabetes, few thought she would be able to be “independent.”  However, Sovanny has learned more about diabetes through the Diabetes Expo and the Diabetes Association Convention.  She has become empowered over the management of her own health by monitoring her insulin pump and sugar readings, and has continued to be in stable health by exercising and eating well.  Sovanny is also a strong advocate for disability rights and has received letters from President Bush, Governor Tim Pawlenty, Senator Norm Coleman, and the Diabetes Association, praising her support of bills to revise the ADA.  She also is in the process of setting up a meeting with Governor Pawlenty and is working on her “elevator speech” along with a longer written presentation.  Sovanny was excited to be a first-time voter in the 2008 general election.  Sovanny also recently became the President of one of Merrick’s self-advocacy groups with hopes to share her knowledge and grow as a leader.  In the professional world, Sovanny has always been interested in beauty and is a member of a crew placed in an upscale salon.  We continue to support Sovanny through the Off-Site Services area in our DT&H program; and she works twenty hours per week, with eight of these hours working independently from the crew, and hopes to work-up to a goal of four eight-hour days.  Sovanny has taught salon employees sign language and has mastered her SideKick to help her communicate.  Sovanny also assisted salon stylists during the Raffa show at the Myth and will begin classes at Century College in January 2009 to be a Nail Tech.  Personally, Sovanny recently returned from a vacation to Hawaii (it’s the Bahamas next year) and she’s looking forward to eventually getting her driver’s license.  Also, Sovanny says, “I am working out twice a day at home and am looking like a female wrestler!”  In addition, she would like to live in an apartment, get married, and have children.  Sovanny is proof that advocacy, hard work, persistence, creativity, and not settling for the answer “no” can get you a long way in life.

Katie McDermott had a bit of a rough childhood.  She has said, in part, that due to her disability she was often taken advantage of by others.  All that changed when she came to Merrick and began attending a self-advocacy group.  Soon she found herself running to be the President of one of the groups and was elected.  Katie has proven herself to be a natural leader with a very outspoken personality and was a member of the redesign team for the Metro Self Advocates of Minnesota (SAM).  Because of these traits, Katie was invited to make presentations to:  Partners in Policy Making, the Institute of Community Integration at the U of M, the Minnesota Day Activity Center Association, Advocating Change Together (ACT) and, perhaps most exciting, a SAM program in Baltimore, MD.  Just recently, Katie was asked to be a member of the ACT Board of Directors and was featured in two videos; Get Out the Vote and Offense Taken.  She is also looking to produce a program for Public Access channels talking about disability issues and self-advocacy.  We continue to support her through the Utility Services area in our DT&H program; and she works on-site which allows her to participate in many self-advocacy activities during the work day.  While her Presidency of one self-advocacy group was completed in 2008, she decided to run for the Presidency of another self-advocacy group and has been elected.

Jason has been a client at Merrick for several years and a vital part of the on-site cleaning crew.  Recently, Jason was hired by a local florist to work in their greenhouse and we now support Jason through our Supported Employment Services program.  In addition to work, Jason has been taking computer classes at Century College and attended a couple of micro-enterprise workshops with hopes to start his own computer business in the future.  Jason currently lives in his own apartment, recently got his driver’s license, and bought a car.  He is very involved in his community, particularly through his church, and also attends a weeklong religious retreat in Montana every year.  Jason is a member of the Metro Chapter of Self-Advocates of MN (SAM) and has been selected for the Partners in Policy Making leadership training program.  In the future, Jason would like to be more involved politically, get married and have kids, and travel throughout the United States.

For years Ann worked on-site at Merrick in the Utility Services area and specialized on the card contract.  Watching Ann do her work was truly amazing as it looked like she was in a fast-forward mode due to her astounding speed.  Ann wanted a job around children and this fall she accepted a position at the local YMCA where she hopes to extend her personal network of friends.  We continue to support Ann through a vendor contract in our DT&H program.  Outside of work, Ann’s real passion is fundraising for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) because she lost a dear friend to this horrible disease in 2007.  For the 2008 ALS walk, Ann raised over $500 through solicitations and organizing a bake sale.  Next year, she wants to double that amount and increase the number of walkers from five to ten.  She also would like to be on the ALS event planning committee or volunteer at next year’s walk.

When Nick came to Merrick in 2005, he began working in the afternoons with the It’s In the Bag plastic recycling crew.  It was there that he learned some important skills such as working with others, staying on task, and handling anger and frustration.  About two years later, Nick chose to pursue his interest in office work and began digital imaging documents for Merrick.  Through this experience he validated his interest in clerical tasks and acquired excellent computer skills.  In the fall of 2008, Nick was hired by the Social Security Administration to do administrative tasks.  We continue to support Nick through our Ticket To Work program; and he now takes Metro Transit to his job, works full time, earns a good salary, and has access to full benefits.  In addition to work, Nick has been certified as a Skywarn spotter and wants to be connected with his local police and fire stations to volunteer.  Nick is currently very happy with his support system of family and friends, but would like to have more acquaintances.  He also hopes to move to a safer neighborhood, own a townhouse, get his driver’s license and buy a car, join Merrick’s Safety Committee, and be more involved politically.

With resources from the Secretary of State’s Office and the MN Disability Law Center, self-advocates at Merrick have been busy all year in “get out the vote” activities.  Of the 176 clients that attended voter training programs, 127 voted (72%) and of those that voted, 48 (38%) were first-time voters.  One of the clients that voted was Scott.  At first, Scott had stated that he did not intend to vote.  Even so, he did attend an Arc Civic Engagement workshop, a MN Disability Law Center Voter Registration session, and internal self-advocacy meetings where the election was discussed.  The day after the election Scott told staff in a very deliberate and low voice, “I VOTED!”  In a subsequent conversation, Scott’s mother commented that Scott would come home and share what he was learning about the election process and decided two days before the election that he wanted to vote.  On Election Day, Scott and his mother went to the polling place together.  He enjoyed the excitement in the polling place and being able to cast his ballot for the very first time.  That evening, he watched the election results like most Americans knowing that he had cast a vote that was being tabulated to elect the next President of the United States.  Consistent with our core belief of “Civic Responsibility”, two employees of Merrick agreed to staff the central hub for “Metro Rides to the Polls” on Election Day.  This hub alone coordinated rides for 220 citizens to get to their polling place and vote.  A self-advocate also volunteered that day to be a rider.  Matt completed the training with 40 other volunteers and, for 5 hours on Election Day, rode with a driver as a rider writing down directions, assisting people at the polling place, and providing support during the transit.  At the end of the night, he commented, “I don’t want this day to end.  I am usually on the sidelines but today I made a difference in other people’s lives.  When can I do this again?”

In closing, I am pleased to be with an agency that has been part of these success stories and to know that if we listen to clients we can make a difference one person at a time and cumulatively reform the system.  I am satisfied to know that success is not singularly defined by where the client works (i.e. independent, work crew, on-site work, or on-site habilitation); it also matters that people listen to their preferences, respect their choices, and value their contributions.  Finally, I am encouraged by the remarkable supports and success stories of people with disabilities served by the many qualified providers in Minnesota.  However, mostly I am thankful that the words of our critics cannot diminish the success these individuals have achieved.

For the minimum wage issue it seems useful to have a common frame of reference before reaching any conclusions.  So, let’s begin with some history on the minimum wage issue with information obtained from the Department of Labor website (www.dol.gov/esa/whd/minimumwage.htm).

The federal minimum wage provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “Act”) and go back to 1940 with an amendment that excluded Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands from the statutory rates applicable elsewhere in the U.S.  On May 14, 1947, the Act was amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act that resolved some issues as to what constituted compensable hours.  In 1949, the minimum wage was raised from 40 to 75 cents an hour for all covered workers and coverage was expanded to include workers in the air transport industry.  Also, a specific section was added granting the Department of Labor (DOL) authorization to control the incidence of exploitative industrial homework.  In 1955, the year I was born, the minimum wage for covered hospital workers caring for my mother and I was raised to a whole $1.00 an hour!

The 1961 amendments greatly expanded the Act’s scope in the retail trade sector and increased the minimum for previously covered workers to $1.15 an hour effective September 1961 and to $1.25 an hour in September 1963.  Retail and service establishments were allowed to employ fulltime students at wages of no more than 15 percent below the minimum with proper certification from the DOL.  Congress further broadened coverage with amendments in 1966 that extended coverage to public schools, nursing homes, laundries, and the entire construction industry.  Farms were subject to coverage for the first time if their employment reached 500 or more days of labor in the previous year’s peak quarter.  The minimum wage went to $1.15 in February 1968, $1.30 in February 1969, $1.45 in February 1970, and $1.60 in February 1971.

In 1974, Congress included under the Act all non-supervisory employees of Federal, State, and local governments and many domestic workers.  The minimum wage increased to $2.00 an hour in 1974, $2.10 in 1975, and $2.30 in 1976 for all except farm workers, whose minimum initially rose to $1.60.  Parity with non-farm workers was reached at $2.30 with the 1977 amendments and established a new uniform wage schedule for all covered workers.  The minimum went to $2.65 an hour in January 1978, $2.90 in January 1979 (the year I graduated from college and got my first fulltime professional job), $3.10 in January 1980, and $3.35 in January 1981.  The amendments eased the provisions for establishments permitted to employ students at the lower wage rate, allowed special waivers for children 10 to11 years old to work in agriculture, and eliminated the overtime exemption for employees in hotels, motels, and restaurants.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision led to amendments that permitted State and local governments to compensate their employees for overtime hours worked with compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay, at a rate of 1 1/2 hours for each hour of overtime worked.  The 1989 amendments eliminated the minimum wage and overtime pay exemption for small retail firms.  Thus, employees of small retail businesses became subject to minimum wage and overtime pay in any workweek in which they engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce.  The minimum wage was raised to $3.80 an hour beginning April 1, 1990, and to $4.25 an hour beginning April 1, 1991.  Finally, the amendments established an overtime exception for time spent by employees in remedial education and civil money penalties for willful or repeated violations of the minimum wage or overtime pay requirements of the law.

The 1996 amendments increased the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour on October 1, 1996, and to $5.15 an hour on September 1, 1997.  The amendments also established a youth sub-minimum wage of $4.25 an hour for newly hired employees under age 20 during their first 90 consecutive calendar days after being hired by their employer; revised the tip credit provisions to allow employers to pay qualifying tipped employees no less than $2.13 per hour if they received the remainder of the statutory minimum wage in tips; and amended the Portal-to-Portal Act to allow employers and employees to agree on the use of employer provided vehicles for commuting to and from work, at the beginning and end of the work day, without counting the commuting time as compensable working time under certain conditions.

The 2007 amendments increased the minimum wage to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.  In its current form the Act permits:  (i) youths under 20 years of age to be paid a minimum wage of not less than $4.25 an hour during the first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment (employers may not displace any employee to hire someone at the youth minimum wage); (ii) employers to pay employees on a piece‑rate basis, as long as they receive at least the equivalent of the required minimum hourly wage rate; (iii) employers of tipped employees (i.e., those who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips) to consider such tips as part of their wages, but employers must pay a direct wage of at least $2.13 per hour if they claim a tip credit and meet certain other conditions; and (iv) the employment of the following individuals at wage rates below the statutory minimum wage under certificates issued by the Department of Labor:

Student learners (vocational education students);
Full‑time students in retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education; and
Individuals whose earning or productive capacities for the work to be performed are impaired by physical or mental disabilities, including those related to age or injury.
Many states also have minimum wage laws that provide greater employee protections and, in those cases, employers must comply with both.  Referencing our State’s website (www.doli.state.mn.us/minwage.html), Minnesota has established the following minimum wage requirements:  $6.15 an hour for large employers (any enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $625,000); $5.25 an hour for small employers (any enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is less than $625,000); and $4.90 an hour for training new employees who are younger than age 20 during their first 90 consecutive days of employment (permanent or current employees may not be displaced by new employees covered by the training wage).  Minimum wage rates apply to all hours worked, whether part time or full time.  No employer may take a tip credit against an employee’s wage under Minnesota law and employees must be paid the current minimum wage rate, regardless of the method of compensation.  Exempt employees include (partial list):  babysitters, taxicab drivers, volunteers of nonprofit organizations, elected government officials, people providing police or fire protection, and employees subject to the provisions of the U.S. Department of Transportation (drivers, drivers’ helpers, mechanics and loaders).  In January 2007, legislation was introduced to increase the State’s minimum wage to $7.75 by August 2008, index the State’s minimum wage to inflation, and repeal the State’s sub-minimum wage for teen workers.  Although it passed both bodies of the legislature, the bill was vetoed by Governor Pawlenty at the end of the 2008 legislative session.

So, what conclusion seems relevant to people with disabilities paid by DT&H programs?  Unless I am missing something, the Act applies ONLY to “covered employees” which does not include people with disabilities “paid by” a DT&H provider.  My reasoning for why people with disabilities paid by a DT&H are not employees of the agency is as follows:

1. As recent as November 2005, we received a determination from the U.S. Department of Treasury that states “We find the worker is not an employee of Merrick, Inc., for Federal tax purposes”.  Now one can argue that this determination only applies to the relationship between a specific worker and the company, and that this determination could either be affirmed or overturned in a subsequent IRS audit; still it is what it is and many DT&H providers have similar determinations on file that make it clear that an employee-employer relationship does not exist when services are provided to people with disabilities and the following conditions are met:

The services are for therapeutic or rehabilitative purposes;
The services are not performed as a means of earning a living;
The services do not take the place of services that would otherwise be performed by the firm’s regular employees;
The individual’s physician, rehabilitative or therapeutic center, or workshop retains final control of the individual;
Such control is protective control and not the control of an employer over an employee.
I submit that, by license, all these conditions are met by all DT&H providers; and this position is supported by Private Letter Ruling 9410012 reinforcing Revised Rule 65-165 on facts at least as favorable as those at Merrick and, I suspect, other DT&H programs as well.

2. There are numerous experts that consult and provide training on the Act and commensurate wage compliance that assert an employment relationship exists whenever and individual, including an individual with disabilities, is “suffered or permitted” to work; which appears to be defined as physical or mental exertion resulting in something that benefits the employer.  This is further clarified with the following condition that a major factor in determining if an employment relationship exists is whether the work performed is of any consequential benefit to the organization.  While I am not sure what the IRS would consider “consequential”, I am sure that using audited numbers Merrick could prove that our cost to “permit” clients to work is greater than the revenue generated.  Further, the work being “suffered” is desired by the client(s) and would be immediately discontinued if no client was interesting in performing the tasks.  Therefore, there is no employment relationship between clients enrolled in our program and the company.

3. Finally, there is the “common sense” view that clients are not employees of the DT&H based on the simple fact that they are “enrolled in the program and not hired or fired”.  If we do not “control” this basic element of an employee-employer relationship, then clients are simply not employees of the DT&H provider.

Therefore, if clients are not employees of the DT&H provider the minimum wage provisions do not apply to their earnings and, by extension, a commensurate wage certificate is not required!  Now there will be plenty of people saying I am wrong and, admittedly, even I am having difficulty with this conclusion.  So, I sent a draft of my article to an expert for comment and, though I know it was received, I got no reply.  Therefore, perhaps I am right?  Wouldn’t this be a change in the status quo leading to some interesting possibilities?  For example, DT&H providers could be more competitive in their bidding practices thereby securing more work options for clients and higher earnings.  It might also mean that businesses would employ more clients of a DT&H because they could pay them a commensurate wage, thus providing an incentive to employ more people with disabilities in an integrated setting.  Both of these, higher earnings and integrated jobs, seem to be good outcomes.

I am hoping that one of two things happens from this editorial.  First, someone will offer concrete evidence that clients paid by a DT&H are covered employees or that an amendment of the Act extends the minimum wage provisions to this group.  If this happens then we can move on and discuss the economic fairness of the commensurate wage certificate.  Otherwise, I hope that the U.S. Department of Treasury finally decides to clarify the status of these “unclassified workers” so that all of us can move forward with a common and consistent definition.  This group of workers is becoming larger, with greater earnings potential, and we need a national policy on their classification status.

The easy answer is to say “we need to know what a client can’t do” so we can fit the peg into the correct shaped hole.  The harder question is to ask “what can the client do” and then work on their behalf to develop a job that both meets their interests and is valued by the business.  Referred to as “customized employment”, this shift in practice is something that we are beginning to embrace at Merrick and in June 2010, 5 of our employees will begin participating in a 1-year customized employment (CE) training program through the U of M.

While many in the industry feel that CE only applies to clients hired directly by a business, I feel it is just as relevant to clients that choose to work on-site.  Admittedly, my view is unpopular with those that declare themselves as “champions” of CE and feel that on-site supports are just the latest version of institutional warehousing.  I can only defend my position based on the many personal victories I have witnessed here and suggest that our critics be brave enough to look from the inside out.

One of our Coordinators shared the following thought with me – “When clients are referred to us, they often come in with a documented history of significant behavioral challenges.  In a sense, they are labeled as ‘aggressive, abusive, self-injurious, behavioral…’  Based on the premise that it is normal to be abnormal, we have come to expect that each person comes to us with these special gifts.  However, we do not enter a relationship with them with the idea that we are going to change them.  We do not have a mold for which we try and fit people in.  Instead we try to figure out how to safely get them from one place to another, how not to allow anxieties to take control, and to understand their wants and needs when they communicate in unconventional ways.  We get rid of the pressure on them to change, and find the great gifts that make them who they are.  The work we put into understanding and helping them overcome challenges forces us to open our minds and look at things differently.  We find better ways to ambulate, communicate, initiate, and achieve our ‘best outcomes’ not only within our four walls but also to creatively serve people at home, at work, and in the community.”

So, while we will continue to sharpen our skills in CE, it is just as important to stay true to person-centered planning and support a client’s choice even if it does not match the philosophy of others.  We will certainly make mistakes as we shift from the “can’t not” to the “can” perspective; and we hope others will join us in recognizing that system reform only happens at the point of service delivery.  Regardless, we will persist because we become better people when we see the abilities in others and it is truly a gift when you see how they benefit from the support provided

I spent months getting ready for this trip by gathering information about where I was going and learning everything I could about the RV; even writing a “RV for Dummies Manual” (RDM).  The day we left we had 7 “problems” with the RV that required my RDM, some troubleshooting, and spending the night parked in front of the Dawson, ND City Hall waiting for the gas station to open in the morning.  Lesson – Don’t get too comfortable, the “check engine” light just came on.
As the old saying goes “we are all alone in this together”.  Yet I met the following 26 wonderful people who made my odyssey immensely better:  Marty, Larry, Stacey, Keith & Trina, Dan & Laurie, Wayne & Nina; Marvin, Mur & Pat; Craig, Mike, Joe, Tom, Bert, Jeff, Mark & Lana, James, Ken, Tom & Jean, Shari, and Julia.  I hope I was as generous to them as they were to me.  Lesson – Do your best, be nice to those you meet, and enjoy the trip.
I bought the XM radio package figuring it would be better than regular radio and bringing along many CDs for the long drives.  Plus I would be able to pick-up the MN Twins games.  With all the channels, and thousands of songs across many genres, I didn’t expect to hear the same song twice.  Yet, on day 1 I heard “Back In the Black” by AC/DC on 2 different stations.  Lesson – You would be surprised at how many firsts are really just repeats.
Ross and I drove 8 hours in one day to make Bozeman and one day we fished for 8 hours to try and catch dinner.  Whether it is important (driving) or fun (fishing), don’t get too excited with the possibilities.  Lesson – Everything can only go so far.
One day it was really hot so we had the AC units on to cool down the RV.  Two hours later we needed the RV furnace to stay warm.  Lesson – Hot and cold are an example of how our experiences are just a change in the status quo.
The more stuff I’ve acquired over the years the less I’ve wanted to use things because of the effort and cost to clean, repair, or replace them.  Whereas Ross had no hesitation to use every function available in the RV.  This helped me to see that the RV worked and was easy to maintain.  Lesson – It is better to use your stuff and break it than to keep it ready for another day.
I had never parked an RV in a campground or hooked-up to the utilities (electric, water, and sewer).  So, when I pulled into my first campground I explained to the host that I was a rookie that might need some help.  He was only too happy to help and followed me to the parking stall to walk me through the steps.  He also provided some great local information on where to golf, directions to the local Ford RV Dealer, and where to go for fly fishing information.  Lesson – Stop, look, listen, and ask.
A mantra most of us have heard all our lives is to “stick with the plan”.  As a result, it seems we approach most situations in a defensive posture to minimize surprises instead of an inquisitive approach looking for and embracing change.  Today’s dynamic world is a lot like a long RV trip in that you have to adjust quickly.  Lesson – The best plans change.
I was fishing for a couple of hours on my own and caught a nice 2-3lb brown trout that I quickly named dinner.  I kept it in my net held at the bottom of the river bank until Ross joined me so that he could take a posed picture of me and the fish.  When he got there we did a high five and I knelt in the water with the fish in front of me for the picture.  The fish slipped out of my grasp into the river and was gone.  No picture, and worse yet, no dinner as we did not catch another fish that day.  Lesson – Posing can cost you the prize.
Daily activities are at best a distraction, and more likely avoidance, from the reality that few of us are really prepared to survive.  When you cut through the distractions we allow to clutter our days, the choices become clear:  faith in a god, an ideal, or a purpose larger than yourself; devotion to family and traditions; integrity and loyalty; having fun and keeping things simple.
Along the way I saw 43 notable animals including:  1 elk; 6 moose; 12 black bears; 7 grizzlies; 3 eagles, 6 loons, 1 osprey; 2 humpback whales; 2 wood bison; 1 stone mountain goat; and 2 stone mountain sheep.  I learned the following 9 Canadian sayings:  Eh; Right; Mydear; Tied-Up; Beauty; Blubbering A Bib Full; Chewing the Rag; Its all good; and Slippy.  Don’t be surprised if you hear me use them in a conversation.

The 49-day trip also helped me realize that I don’t feel as old as I look, happiness is real only when shared, and we are all traveling in a circle.  For some it is like a merry-go-round in that every day they travel in a very small circle.  For others it is more like a rollercoaster with a large loop, ups and downs, and twists and turns that seem new each ride.  Regardless we are all born, we live, and then we die.  Since that cannot be escaped, we need to break out of our circles and take time for those side trips, eat at different restaurants, try new activities, and talk with strangers.  You cannot imagine the adventures that await.

The book explains that where you identify discomfort you’ve found the place where leadership is needed and proclaims that today’s heretics are the new leaders because they are willing to challenge the status quo.  Whereas recent leaders were great at managing people, the new leaders create movements by empowering the Tribe to communicate as opposed to commanding people to follow them.  The new leader increases the effectiveness of the Tribe and its members by (i) transforming the shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change; (ii) providing tools to allow members to tighten their communication; and (iii) leveraging the Tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members.  The movement happens when people talk to one another, when ideas spread within the Tribe, and most of all, when peer support leads people to do what they always knew was the right thing.  The book offers the following six principles to create movement:

Transparency really is your only option;
Your movement needs to be bigger than you;
Movements that grow, thrive;
Movements are made most clear when compared to the status quo or to movements that work to push the other direction;
Exclude outsiders, who isn’t part of your movement matters almost as much as who is; and
Tearing others down is never as helpful to a movement as building your followers up.
 

An important concept to embrace is that the only thing that makes people and organizations great is their willingness to be not great along the way.  The desire to fail on the way to reaching a bigger goal is the untold secret of success.  The message that really resonated with me was – “The secret of leadership is simple:  Do what you believe in.  Paint a picture of the future.  Go there.  People will follow”.  This is very comforting as I have had many moments when greatness was the antonym to describe my outcome and what I am attempting here is new to me.

Over the next two years the waivered service system in Minnesota will undergo dramatic reform.  To their credit, DHS is attempting to include stakeholders in multiple workgroups on topics such as NFLOC, Quality, Contracting, Rates, and much more.  As the MnDACA representative on both the Expert Panel and Rate Setting Methodologies Intensive workgroup, I have an obligation to engage the membership in these discussions.  I attempt to do this by providing a summary of each meeting, encouraging others to visit the official workgroup website, and bringing feedback from my constituency back to the workgroup.  To date this has not been very effective.

So, taking a lesson from the book, let me offer a goal that I hope other disability service stakeholders share and will inspire them to get connected:

We want system reform to be based on individual preferences and support a stable provider network so that people with disabilities have real choices.

We need a holistic approach that permits the individual to determine for themselves the support needed to have preferred housing, satisfactory work, reasonable transportation, and meaningful relationships.  To that end, I believe the decision makers need to minimize the system to simply determine recipient eligibility, assess service options, authorize providers, account for expenses, protect health & safety, and measure quality.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Unfortunately, it is quite possible that the system will become even more complex than it currently is with the current architects so deeply immersed that they cannot see the forest because of the trees.

I am willing to challenge the status quo, however, I am not capable of either doing it alone or by representing a group that lacks organization or unity.  I need to be connected to you in a way that creates movement and increases membership.  To this end, I am willing to develop and launch a blog site to connect anyone that wants to share their ideas on how to change the status quo of the MN disability service system; I just need to know you are there and interested.

So, if you are interested, drop an email to jwb@merrickinc.org with your contact information and I will add you to a distribution list.  If enough people express interest, I will proceed with the blog site and consider other ways to tighten communication so that we can talk to one another, share ideas, and offer peer support so that people do what they always knew was the right thing.  Together, we can make a positive difference in the lives of people with disabilities, realize our professional beliefs, and be good citizens.

I’m calling – is anyone listening?

From everything I have heard and read, citizens of Minnesota are unhappy with the continuing degradation of the quality of life in our State.  Yet the Governor, and some legislators, seem intent on funding reductions to balance the State’s budget in spite of the negative consequences that most Minnesotans find objectionable.  It really is time for each of us to acknowledge that more funding cuts crosses the “line in the sand” and we need to send a message to the 2010 Legislature that enough-is-enough.  It is time to find more revenue and make funding reductions with a scalpel and not an axe; and to realize that spending on health and human services not only meets our social contract to care for our most vulnerable citizens – it is also a huge investment in our State’s economy.

The following is Merrick’s 2010 Legislative Agenda approved by our Board of Trustees on March 10, 2010, and some suggestions on how to take action.

No further reduction in Medicaid (MA) or Children’s and Community Service Act (CCSA) rates.  No further limits on waiver slots.  Restore or sustain services as much as possible.

The Governor’s supplemental budget recommendation proposes a 2.5% rate reduction for home and community based waiver programs, home care services such as personal care, nursing facilities, ICF/MR homes, and continuing care grants effective July 1, 2010 on top of the 2.58% enacted last year.  Make sure legislators understand what DT&H programs do and how additional cuts will negatively impact the people we serve.  Urge a balanced approach to balancing the state budget that includes fair and sensible cuts that requires all Minnesotans to share the burden.  Make sure that $81 million “claw back” from federal MA spending goes to support human service expenses and not other operating expenses.  Support increases in revenues that will allow us to continue to invest wisely in the future of Minnesota and to fund the priorities that have made Minnesota a strong and vibrant state and provides opportunity for all Minnesotans.  Oppose cuts that put our most vulnerable citizens at further risk or further erode their ability to live independently as valued members of the community.  Cuts in human service funding are a form of taxation that targets our most vulnerable citizens.  Instead we need innovation that will provide sustainable solutions that:

Expand systems and supports that give clients greater control over their funding, staffing, and living arrangements.
Focus on the participation and values of the person with a disability and work to ensure quality cost effective supports.
 

Use current regulatory reform agenda, prompted by federal oversight, to redesign state and local government agencies administering MA, waiver, and related programs; and redirect more resources directly to consumers.

In the face of continued fiscal constraints, encourage legislators to push the Department of Human Services (DHS) to press for comprehensive reorganization that will reduce administrative costs without jeopardizing appropriate oversight and free-up resources for direct service.  Where are the cuts in government overhead and administration?

Ramsey County must ensure an appropriate funding level for adequate day services chosen by the individual which meet their needs as stated in their individual service plan.  CCSA should be amended to require the county to fund day services unless it can show a compelling reason, other than the availability of CCSA funds, to deny the provision of these services.

Encourage more employment opportunities by state government

Our industry trade associations (MnDACA, MHC and MACRO) are pursuing legislation to require that the state award more contracts to people with disabilities for digital imaging and other services.  State government needs to walk its own talk and we need opportunities to generate non-government revenue.

Insurance reform for transport

Representative Gardner has authored H.F. 298 and Senator Dibble has authored the companion bill S.F. 2814 to encourage more efficient and environmentally responsible transportation.  Current insurance underwriting, policies, and practices create barriers for efficient transportation of persons with disabilities, particularly adults with developmental disabilities served by DT&H providers.  Support legislation that will remove those barriers.

Quality Assurance and other Statewide Reform Initiatives

Monitor closely to ensure that initiatives deliver desired results, are compliant, responsive to the needs of clients, and fair to providers.

Maintain/reinstate sunshine laws

Ensuring the quality of care and protecting the safety of individuals with disabilities can best be accomplished by limiting 24-hour control of an individual by government and other service providers.  The quality of life for individuals with disabilities is enhanced by having multiple individuals or entities involved in the life of the individual.  It is preferable that the individual leave their residential site for day services of their choice unless documented medical conditions preclude it, the individual has chosen to have a DT&H provider provide services in their own home or residence, or if the individual is retired from work.

Require consistent annual reporting of statewide goals and benchmarks for services and supports not just spending

DT&H statewide survey of wages and hours and other relevant planning information has not been conducted since 2005 and even that survey had inconsistencies in data reported.  More current reports (MN DHS CCA 2007 and Minnesota State Profile 2009 both of long term service system) focus on spending only, not other outcomes like employment, types of employment, hours worked, wages and income earned, and supports required for all of the above.  Create and support initiatives that will demand and ensure regular publication of good data to make good decisions.  Support legislation that requires establishing baselines, goals, outcomes, and measurable benchmarks, so we can determine the progress and impact of our investment in human services, as we work to ensure that people with disabilities have an opportunity to live, learn, and work as independently as possible in their communities.

How can I influence the public policy debate?

As a voter, taxpayer, and person directly impacted by these public policy decisions, your voice is very powerful and the one that has the most credibility with legislators.  Your voice becomes even more powerful when your legislator hears from multiple constituents, each with a unique story or personal touch, but all with a common theme that influences their vote on a matter.  Most people don’t take the time to share their concerns with their legislators, and those that do get heard, particularly when the stories are personal, to the point and heartfelt.

Who represents me and how do I locate my legislators?

Minnesota has great resources to help you identify your legislators.  Go on line and either click on the following link or copy it into your internet browser – http://www.gis.leg.mn/mapserver/districts/

This is the District Finder.  Enter your street address, city, state, and zip code and click search.  The search engine will identify your Minnesota State Representative and State Senator as well as your Federal Congressional Representative and both U.S. Senators for Minnesota.  Now you are ready to take action!

What are some of the key messages I might want to share with my legislators?

No more budget cuts.  Funding for day and employment services is an investment in our community – money well spent that pays the following dividends and must continue:

Meaningful employment, vocational support, and other life enrichment activities that increases independence and self sufficiency, provides an improved sense of self worth, allows persons to make choices about and improve their quality of life, and establishes an important link for a person’s social and support network.
Employing persons with developmental disabilities taps an underutilized labor pool and fosters employment among a segment of the population with the highest rate of unemployment and underemployment.  Our clients rely on our support to obtain and maintain employment.  These services promote diversity, inclusion, and social responsibility in the workplace.
We are an important link in the transportation network for the elderly and persons with disabilities.
These services have a positive ripple effect in the economy through employment of staff and clients alike and the resulting benefits to families and society of the money earned, saved and spent, taxes paid, and more costly welfare expenses avoided.
 

Other tips to get your message heard:

Pick your favorite method of communication – the one most comfortable for you.  Send a letter typed on the computer or handwritten (as long as legible) or send an email.  You can also make a phone call or schedule a personal visit.  Prepare a script to use and even leave behind.
Use your personal stationary or blank paper and include your name and home address (include your telephone number and email address if you want to be contacted that way).  Introduce yourself and why you are interested in the issue.  Only discuss one issue or bill (cite the bill number) per letter.
Use your own words.  The fact that you took the time to craft a personal message is what makes your communication so powerful.  Your tone should be sincere and polite.  Guard against being whiny or aggressive.  State how the issue will impact the clients and/or yourself personally.  Give a personal story about how the legislation will affect you.
Keep it brief and polite – one page if possible.  Identify why you are writing in the heading or first sentence.  Tell the legislator what specifically you want them to do.  Thank the legislator for considering your position, and if desired, request a reply.
Encourage your co workers, family, and friends to do the same.  We have a parent who shared his son’s story in a letter to his church.  Several members were so touched that they too wrote to their legislators protesting further budget cuts to human services.
 

If you care about the quality of life in Minnesota, or you are just simply tired of the political wrangling at the Legislature, it is time to let the politicians know that as a voter your heels are against the line in the sand and you are counting on them to do the right thing for our most vulnerable citizens.