Friday, June 27, 2014

Partial victory for Greg M, but Is the Board of Mangers still snubbing Greg?

Greg BEGGED me not to post this.. but I feel the man is getting shafted for a one time incident. And he serves as an example of whats wrong with the administration and the board of managers at the home.

Greg, I hope this doesn't get you banned again, if so, its my fault.

This blog is about the truth and the truth is you are getting screwed. - Angry.

Greg M Tells us his lawyer made a last ditch effort to bring a non judicial resolution to his on going mess with the Veterans home and the board of managers.

Greg tells us that his lawyer sent out the letters to every member of the board well before the scheduled May 22nd meeting. And finally, on June 8th, (according to their letter), the board (?!) has finally relented and are allowing him to return to Guitars for Veterans.

The board did NOT address his request to be able to go and visit the guys. Nor did they mention anything about a probationary period.  They are only letting him go to Guitars for Veterans meetings.

Guitars 4 Veterans are the National charity group chapter, which hold their meetings at the home, where they teach veterans how to play guitar and allow the veterans to earn a brand new one by graduating from the basic class. So far over 60 veterans have graduated from this group, and the Grand Rapids group is one of the first 5 chapters started in the nation.  The G4V main HQ is in Wisconsin and they can be found via Google, or on Facebook.

Now Greg claims he has NEVER been given the opportunity to present his discharge case to the full board. He says he filed a basic appeal in November 2012, and was told he needed to get outside counseling which he did, and for which he provided paperwork to the Board in June of 2013.

 He then planned on presenting his whole case, at his second appeal, that he applied for in June of 2013, but his request to appear to the board was never answered until after he applied a 2nd time, in response to Chairman Meyers notice that he was to stay off property until the board gave him permission to return.

Finally in September, he was told to appear before the board, and chairman Meyers did not hear his case, but instead berated him for taking the advice of a lawyer, and ranted for 5 minutes on how he, the chairman ran the home and not a lawyer. He then tabled Gregs appeal until the October meeting and told him he would be notified to appear and to finish his appeal then. However then Chairman Meyers lied, and refused to hear the case, instead made a decision before the October Meeting, banning Greg from the property and tell him to take the case to court if he did not like the boards decision.

This is no longer about the fact that Greg blew his top when the home put a towing citation on his car, threatening to have it towed off the property, of which he thought they were intending to steal his car.
Nor that the home was in direct violation (a criminal act) of not having a licensed mental health expert on staff at the home, at the time of this incident. 

And its not about the home not helping him nor providing any counseling when he needed it as a patient in the Dorm Unit.

This is not about the fact that in his panicked state of mind he threatened to remove the head of anyone who had his car towed in writing instead of going down to the office and screaming it at the top of his lungs 3 inches away from staff members faces, which would probably have gotten him a few days time out instead of a discharge.

This is not about the fact that the home denied him any Administrative due process before they decided to discharge him 5 days after they made their decision.

Let me say that again. They waited 5 days to notify him of his discharge. If he was a threat to safety of any one at that institution they would have had him removed immediately.

This is not about safety of any of the members, or the staff. If they had really felt threatened, they would have had him removed from the home the same day they decided to discharge him.

Greg was banned from the property since his discharge of Oct 10, 2012, and for a while was homeless. During that time, he made a mistake and went on home property after taking the advice of a lawyer he talked to on the internet.

And during the time that Greg mistakenly went on home property during the 3 week period of Last week of July and first 2 weeks of August 2013, Where many staff who knew him saw him, if they had felt any threats to their safety they would have had him removed immediately. They did not.

Not only did they not have him removed; during one of the visits a volunteer group was doing a cookout for the vets, and the Activity director for Rankin 3 (dom unit) served 2 visiting veterans including Greg, a plate full of food. Now if Dianna Knoll though he was a threat to anyone's safety, would she have done that? Also Josh the security guard and Mr. Thomas, head of the homes Security Department, saw and talked with him that day.. No one did anything.  So whats the real reason here for keeping him from being able to visit his friends? Just because he lost it one time?

2 years at the home without a single incident and then 1 big one that got him kicked out.

No this is about a short period of time (the 3 weeks mentioned above)  when there was a misunderstanding, and one Egotistical board member, who lied to Greg and again denied him proper administrative due process.

Greg has never harmed anyone at the home. And its time to bring this petty bullshit to an end. He is willing to let the past be the past, and to move on to the future. But he cannot if this injustice is allowed to continue.

He just wants to go visit friends and return to instructing as an instructor with the Guitar 4 Veterans group that meets at the home once a week, the latter which has been granted, but only under specific circumstances. The person in charge of Guitars 4 Vets is being held responsible for Gregs behavior. There won't be any problem there.  However, they are saying that since Greg will not volunteer as a registered volunteer (he didn't even know he could do that and is still not sure he can), they treating him with special circumstances.

This is not about Earnest Meyers chairman of the board at the time, lying to Greg at the Sept 2013 board meeting where Meyers chewed him out for 5 min's about taking the advice of a lawyer.

This is not about Earnest Meyers and the boards ignoring the testimony given by 2 top level volunteers who said the would like to see him come back.

This is not about the fact that Greg had more people to testify if needed, but since Meyers lied to him about returning to the October meeting, Greg was unable to call those witnesses on his behalf.

This is not about the fact that at the time, Meyers was supposed to be the Ombudsman for the veterans at the home, speaking on their behalf - which he did NOT do.

No, this is an abuse of power being over used for a petty incident.  And its time to stop it.

Rumor has it, that Meyers brought up the latest request by Greg and his Lawyer. Greg has also stated that every member of the board was sent a copy of that letter by his attorney, so why did Meyers bring it up? The new Chair person should have done so. Is the Home interfering with the mail? As that is where I assume the letters were sent as it is the official mailing address according to the Michigan Veterans website.

So what is next? Since the letter sent to Greg did not mention any chance of his being able to visit friends under the same rules/laws that apply to any other visitor, what are his options? Few if you ask me.

Greg says he is grateful that the board is allowing him to return to Guitars. But wishes he could come and visit friends during regular visitation hours just like anyone else can, subject to the same rules as any other visitor.  He just wants to do Guitars 4 Vets, and to be able to visit with friends. Nothing more.

I say he is still getting shafted by the administration and the board.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments are screened for privacy reasons, and those posted are posted "as they were written" minus any information that the writer sent to us that is for our use only or for which they requested be made private.