[Nfbk] Fwd: I-71 appointment
Cathy Jackson
cathyj1949 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 30 18:23:25 UTC 2016
Good Afternoon,
At Dennis Franklin's request I am posting the transcript of the meeting which lead to the appointment of the vendor to the I-71 location. It is disturbing to me that our OFB and BEP staff have sat back and allowed this happen. I understand why Dennis has decided to withdraw his grievance. However, I can tell you the National Federation of the Blind was ready to fight this decision. I can also tell you that Patrick Shirley, the State attorney was made aware of our involvement and that he wasn't looking forward to the battle.
Happy reading!
Cathy Jackson
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Dennis Franklin <franklinvending2003 at yahoo.com>
> Date: December 27, 2016 at 12:25:49 PM EST
> To: "cathyj1949 at gmail.com" <cathyj1949 at gmail.com>
> Subject: I-71 appointment
> Reply-To: Dennis Franklin <franklinvending2003 at yahoo.com>
>
>
>
> Cathy,
>
>
> Here are the documents, I said I would send you.
>
>
> I have withdrawn my request for an evidentiary hearing, even though , I believe in time I would have won, I just don’t think, it would have been worth the time, effort and money it would have taken to win it. I have learned a valuable lesson, and that is when it comes to Equal Oppurtunity, some are a little more equal than the rest of us..
>
>
>
>
> DECEMBER 22, 2016
>
>
>
> MICHAEL HEAD
>
> HEARING OFFICE
>
> ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BRANCH
>
> OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
>
> 1024 CAPITAL CENTER DRIVE
>
> FRANKFORT KY 40601-8204
>
>
>
> PATRICK B. SHIRLEY
>
> STAFF ATTORNEY
>
> OFC OF LEGAL & LEGISLATIVE SVC
>
> EDUCATION & WORKFORCE DEV CAB
>
> 300 SOWER BLVD, 4th FLOOR
>
> FRANKFORT KY 40601
>
>
>
> RE: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION NO. 16-WDC-0198
>
>
>
> Gentlemen;
>
>
>
> This is to advise you I am hereby withdrawing my request for an evidentiary hearing.
>
>
>
> I am enclosing the relevant documentation, which clearly shows, that the rules were ignored, in favor of appointing the pre-selected vendor. If I chose to persue this matter, I think there is every reason to believe I would prevail. However, since the Office for the Blind feels it cannot correct its mistake unless they are ordered to do so after a an expensive hearing process, I believe it is in the best interest of both parties if I do not pursue this any further.
>
>
>
> I believe, that I have accomplished, at least, a little reflection on the way the appointment process is supposed to work, and I hope that will help the Office for the Blind avoid making the same mistake again.
>
>
>
> Thanks for your help in getting me through this process.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> DENNIS R. FRANKLIN
>
> 3639 HURSTBOURNE RIDGE BLVD.
>
> LOUISVILLE KY 40299-6506
>
>
>
>
>
> December 1, 2016
>
>
>
> TO: Dennis Franklin
>
> 3639 Hurstbourne Ridge Blvd
>
> Louisville, KY 40299
>
> FROM: Zack Coblens Director
>
> Kentucky Business Enterprises
>
> RE: Dennis Franklin
>
> v.
>
> Kentucky Office for the Blind (“OFB”)
>
> Administrative Action - No. 16-WDC-198
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. Head:
>
>
>
> The purpose of this memorandum is to recount the reasons as to why David Raynes was selected for the I-71 vending facility instead of Dennis Franklin. Vendor Dennis Franklin has requested an Administrative Hearing contesting the awarding of that location to another vendor with less seniority than himself. Essentially, Mr. Franklin wants to know why he wasn’t selected for the vending location.
>
>
>
> This memorandum is based on the recollection and notes of Allison Flanagan, Executive Director of OFB, who was present during the bid selection phone call, and a conference call that was held on November 9, 2016 at approximately 10:00 a.m. to discuss the I-71 bid selection process with the following in attendance:
>
>
>
> Patrick Shirley – Staff Attorney, Education and Workforce Development Cabinet
>
> Zack Coblens – Director of Kentucky Business Enterprises (“KBE”)
>
> Larry Hall - KBE State Committee of Blind Vendors chairman
>
> Mark Dolzadelli – Upward Mobility committee
>
> Buster Mayne – Upward Mobility committee
>
> Jerry Grimes – Upward Mobility committee
>
> Pam Minton – Administrative Specialist for OFB
>
>
>
> The Upward Mobility committee is a subcommittee of the State Committee of Blind Vendors. See 782 KAR 1:010 § 8. The Upward Mobility committee participates with OFB in the selection of vendors for vending facilities. See 782 KAR 1:010 § 5(3).
>
>
>
> The conference call of November 9, 2016, was held to get on record the reasons as to why the Upward Mobility committee members chose Mr. Raynes for the I-71 location. Patrick Shirley asked that Upward Mobility committee members give their basis for their decision. Zack Coblens explained that what the hearing officer asked for, on Dennis’ behalf, was not so much why he didn’t get selected (although that is part of it) but rather an accurate summary of the bid selection call itself and how the decision was arrived at.
>
>
>
> In her recollection, Allison Flanagan stated that 13 bids had been received for the I-71 location. During the bid selection call Former KBE Director Scott Fricano suggested he begin the decision making process by considering the qualifications of the five (5) bidders with the most seniority. The Upward Mobility committee agreed with his recommendation.
>
>
>
> According to Ms. Flanagan the most senior bidder was Faye Autry. The next most senior bidder was Dennis Franklin, followed by David Raynes. According to Ms. Flanagan, the Upward Mobility committee discussed the fact that Mr. Raynes was being displaced with the closing of the Capital Plaza Tower. However, Ms. Flanagan reminded the Upward Mobility committee that was not part of the consideration in the regulations unfortunately. See 782 KBA 1:010 § 5.
>
>
>
> According to Ms. Flanagan, Mr. Fricano began to review the 4th highest seniority when Larry Hall interrupted and asked Jerry Grimes to tell them who his top two picks are. Finding Mr. Hall’s behavior puzzling both Ms. Flanagan and Mr. Fricano exchanged glances. Mr. Grimes stated David Raynes was his first choice and Paul King was second. According to Ms. Flanagan, Paul King was 6th on the seniority list, and his qualifications had not even been discussed at this point. Then Mr. Hall asked Buster Mayne to pick his two and he picked David Raynes first and Paul King second. Mark Dolzadelli picked David Raynes first and Paul King second.
>
>
>
> During the November 9, 2016, conference call Mr. Hall stated that Mac Carnes is the chairman of the Upward Mobility Committee. However, the KBE committee asked Mac to step aside because of a conflict with one of the bidders. Mr. Carnes agreed to step aside. Mr. Dolzadelli stepped in as chair for the Upward Mobility Committee.
>
>
>
> Mr. Hall stated that because there is nothing in the vendor files good or bad it forced the Upward Mobility committee to discuss amongst themselves what they considered to be known fact. Mr. Hall then stated this ultimately fell back on the Upward Mobility committee but also added that it falls back on the agency as not doing their jobs as they should be doing. Mr. Hall encouraged the program area coordinators to do a better job in the future as far as site visits, such as making observations as to whether the vendor was around and asking questions to other people as to whether the vendor was at the facility. Mr. Hall asserted this information would help the Upward Mobility committee make decisions. (As stated 2 paragraphs earlier, Mr Fricano was, in fact, in the process of reviewing each vendor’s file when that process was interrupted. Faye Autry’s file is approximately 8 inches thick, Dennis Franklin’s and David Raynes’ are both 3-4 inches thick. All of the files have ample numbers of site visits and correspondence which was the basis for the review Mr Fricano was systematically conducting).
>
>
>
> Mr. Dolzadelli stated that during the bid call that Mr. Mayne was the chair for the Upward Mobility committee. Mr. Dolzadelli said that his memory served him as going to the top two senior vendors, which were Faye Autry and Dennis Franklin. Mr. Dolzadelli stated that the Upward Mobility committee asked questions pertaining to records in their files of the nine points mentioned in the regulations. He said there was some question about what may or may not be late set aside payments for Faye Autry that were not documented in the file according to OFB staff.
>
>
>
> Mr. Dolzadelli stated that there were questions asked about Dennis Franklin’s site visits and his involvement with his facility that were not documented in the file according to OFB staff. There were questions about the financial records with no documentation in the file. Mr. Dolzadelli stated that what the committee does know with regard to Dennis Franklin is that he lives in Louisville, his site is 138 miles from his home in Louisville, that the facility was being serviced by people who live in the area of the facility, that there is an unknown amount of time for how often the vendor visited the facility or made a physical presence or knew what was going on in the facility. There is no documentation and or questions that were asked to substantiate if that was the case.
>
>
>
> Mr. Coblens stated that what he is hearing is that there was nothing in the file that stated that because Mr. Franklin lived 138 miles away he was unable to operate the facility properly or that there were complaints on the facility. Mr. Dolzadelli stated that under Section 5 of the regulations it is the obligation of the Upward Mobility committee to systematically go thru the applications for vacancy of vending facilities based on the highest seniority and are able to use the 9 points.
>
>
>
> Mr. Dolzadelli also stated that the Upward Mobility committee doesn’t have to use the 9 points and that there is latitude and that the Upward Mobility committee has its own points and systematically discussed those and based on the information that was provided from the SLA the selection of the Upward Mobility committee was David Raynes. He stated that there were positive things said about Mr. Raynes from the agency but couldn’t remember what they were.
>
>
>
> Buster Mayne stated that his questions pertained to the people who had seniority and how much they actually worked at their facilities. Mr. Mayne stated that he was questioning people based on information he had been hearing from what is known as the “blind vine” which is primarily what other vendors are saying. In his best estimation the person who would work the best would be David Raynes.
>
>
>
> Patrick Shirley inquired about whether or not there was any type of scoring or was it based on general discussion. According to Mr. Mayne, it was the general discussion of the Upward Mobility committee to choose David Raynes. It was also the consensus of the Upward Mobility committee that when a question is asked of the agency as to what is in the file the committee they were told that there is nothing in the file good or bad. Mr. Coblens agreed that there are inconsistencies with regard to documentation in the KBE vendor files. Mr. Shirley and Mr. Coblens both agreed that in the future the agency would do a better job of documenting site visits.
>
>
>
> Jerry Grimes stated that when it came down to it, David Raynes was a better vendor and was the best choice. Mr. Coblens asked what made Mr. Raynes the better choice. Mr. Grimes stated when it came down to sitting at home 7 days a week and not knowing was is going on at your facility that Mr. Raynes was their choice. Mr. Grimes felt that a vendor should go at least 3 days a week to the vending facility. Mr. Coblens asked if the members of the Upward Mobility assumed that Mr. Franklin never went to the facility or did he go a few times a year. Mr. Grimes stated that he did know that but that he did know that Mr. Franklin had two people working for him. Mr. Grimes stated that he doesn’t know how Mr. Franklin gets his money or when he goes to the facility. There was no documentation in Mr. Franklin’s file regarding site visits. Mr. Shirley asked if there were any site visits in the file for David Raynes. Mr. Grimes stated he didn’t know. The conference call concluded at this point.
>
>
>
> THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE ABOVE NAMED RECIPIENT AND IS NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OR DISSEMINATED IN ANY MANNER.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> December 1, 2016
>
>
>
> Dennis Franklin
>
> 3639 Hurstbourne Ridge Blvd
>
> Louisville, KY 40299
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Franklin,
>
>
>
> On behalf of Kentucky Business Enterprise, I offer you sincere apologies for the manner in which the Upward Mobility bid decision was handled in regard to the I-71 Vending Location in Oldham County Kentucky. I realize that you had waited patiently for this opportunity and that the inconsistencies in this decision were to your detriment.
>
>
>
>
> I have thoroughly reviewed your file and business practices which clearly show that you have consistently operated your vending facilities in a profitable and high quality manner. Further, in having been past chairman of the Blind Vendors Committee, you have demonstrated your willingness to serve the program in the interest of strengthening it to the benefit of all vendors. On behalf of KBE, I thank you for your 44 years of service and welcome your continued participation should you choose to do so.
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> Zack Coblens
>
> Director, Kentucky Business Enterprise
>
> Office For The Blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Section 5. Vendor Appointment. (1) Announcement of vacancy.
>
> (a) If a vending facility vacancy is identified, the director shall notify all licensees and vendors of the available position.
>
> (b) Announcements of a vacancy shall be made in alternative format and shall include the closing date and time by which bids shall be received by the director.
>
> (c) Information on the vending facility’s operation requirements, previous vending facility gross sales, and arrangements for visitation of the vending facility shall be included in the announcement.
>
> (2) Bids. Any vendor or licensee may make an application for a vacancy by submitting a completed Application for Vending Facility Vacancy Form to the director by the bid closing date. All bids shall be considered without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, political affiliation, and disability.
>
> (3) Selection.
>
> (a) The director shall appoint a vendor or licensee to manage each vending facility, in accordance with this subsection.
>
>
>
> (b) Except in cases of emergency appointment pursuant to subsection (5) of this section, the director shall solicit the active participation of three (3) representatives of the State Committee of Blind Vendors, who shall be appointed by the committee chair, on each vending facility manager appointment.
>
> (c) The selection process shall begin with compilation of the seniority of each bidder based on currently existing KBE records. Beginning with the bidder with the most KBE seniority, the director and committee representatives shall review that bidder’s business practices as documented in the KBE vending facility files in areas such as:
>
> 1. Customer relations;
>
> 2. Cooperation with property management;
>
> 3. Cooperation with KBE staff;
>
> 4. Complaints and commendations;
>
> 5. Timely and accurate submission of monthly financial reports and set-aside payments;
>
> 6. Financial management;
>
> 7. Recordkeeping;
>
> 8. Audit reports; and
>
> 9. Nonnegotiable payments to KBE or suppliers.
>
> (d) The committee representatives shall advise the director of their first and second choice recommendations. The director shall balance the most senior bidder’s documented business practices with the requirements of the specific vending facility vacancy. If the bidder’s business practices are reasonably satisfactory as they relate to the specific vending facility requirements, in the judgment of the director, the bidder with the highest KBE seniority shall be offered the appointment to the vending facility vacancy.
>
> (e) If the bidder with the most KBE seniority is not offered the appointment under the criteria of this subsection or declines the appointment, the director shall apply the criteria of this subsection to the next bidder with the highest KBE seniority until a bidder is selected and appointed by the director.
>
> (f) If two (2) or more bidders have equal KBE seniority, each bidder’s business practices as they relate to meeting the vending facility requirements shall be balanced by the director. The most qualified bidder for the specific vending facility vacancy, in the judgment of the director, shall be selected and offered the appointment by the director.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20161230/ddb4ab89/attachment.html>
More information about the NFBK
mailing list