[nfbmi-talk] approved special meeting minutes

[joe harcz Comcast]

APPROVED

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

JULY 20, 2010

201 N. WASHINGTON SQUARE

LANSING, MI  48933

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

Ms. Jo Ann Pilarski, Chair (via Teleconference)

Mr. Michael Geno, Vice Chair

Mr. John Scott

Ms. Geri Taeckens (via Teleconference)

Ms. Margaret Wolfe (via Teleconference)

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT

None

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND (MCB) STAFF PRESENT

Mr. Patrick Cannon            Ms. Sue Luzenski

Mr. James Hull          Mr. Josh Hoskins

Ms. Carla Haynes

GUESTS/ATTENDEES

Ms. Barbara Schmidt                             Mr. Michael King

Mr. Jason Hawkins                   Mr. Casey Hunt

Ms. Marlene Rothenhauser                 Ms. Eljam Jahshan

Mr. Phil Kozachik                   Mr. Kevin Tomczak

Mr. Bill Lozier                           Mr. Ron Fellows

Mr. Mark Eagle                            Ms. Jessica Madden

Ms. Hazell Brooks                   Mr. Terry Eagle

Mr. Joe Sontag                            Mr. Larry Posont

Mr. Dave Robinson

Mr. James Chaney (via teleconference)

Mr. Joe Sibley (via teleconference)

Mr. Greg Keathley (via teleconference)

Mr. Dale Layer (via teleconference)

CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM

     The special meeting was called to order by Chair Jo Ann Pilarski at 12:41 p.m.  Roll call was taken and a quorum was present.

      Chairperson Pilarski informed participants of the procedures for the day.  Each of the parties involved including staff, Elected Operator Committee
(EOC) representative and the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) Operator affected by the decision would be given 5 minutes to present their case.  Each
party can state their case but no new evidence can be introduced at this time and Commissioners can ask questions of each person involved.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDATION – RON FELLOWS (ACTION ITEM)

      Mr. Ron Fellows recounted how getting involved with the Business Enterprise Program (B E P) has affected him and informed attendees of the life path
he had been on before he became an operator.   All he had heard was positive things about the B E P and the lack of direct competition for participants
in the program.  Mr. Fellows said he was promised that any direct competition currently housed in the
Cadillac Place building would be out of the building but within 5 years there was more competition.  He gave specific examples of how his business was undercut.
 Mr. Fellows felt that the administrators of the program did not support him and went against him in court.

      Mr. James Hull, Acting Business Enterprise Program Manager, stated that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) request was to take all steps possible
to stop the direct competition taking place in the Cadillac Place building and the Agency had and has been working with the Department of Management and
Budget (DMB) even prior to Mr. Fellows being in the Cadillac Place building to discontinue the competitive operations.  These other services leases were
grandfathered into the building when the State of Michigan occupied the
Cadillac Place building.  These were existing businesses before the State of Michigan had any offices housed there.  The leases are not terminating for
several years, at lease termination these businesses can be removed.  Mr. Hull informed attendees that the Agency is planning on continuing its efforts
to remove these businesses and diminish their food and coffee services during their current lease.

      Chair Pilarski asked each Commissioner if they had any questions.

      Commissioner questions included whether there was any legal action against developing competition; what, exactly, Mr. Fellows would want as a satisfactory
remedy, which he could not state in exact terms; the steps taken to limit competition within the building, Mr. Hull stated this has been in negotiations
including DMB and the Attorney General’s office for approximately 10 years; Mr. Fellows voluntarily leaving the program which would alter the nature of
the grievance; the reason it took staff 1 year to write a letter to Cadillac Place building management to attempt to resolve this issue; why Mr. Fellows
never bid out of the location and if he had where would he have liked to have gone, he stated he did not know what facilities were available at the time;
how often Mr. Fellows spoke with his Promotional Agent (PA) and what he felt his Promotional Agent could have done more of to remedy this situation, Mr.
Fellows stated he spoke with his PA 1 or 2 times a week but didn’t know what his position description allowed him to do; why staff did not view the Subway
restaurant in the lower level as direct competition; the terms of the leases of existing competition in the building and how long the issue of direct competition
has been an issue at Cadillac Place, which Mr. Hull indicated it took staff months to receive the leases, which were then reviewed and forwarded to the
Attorney General’s office for potential action.

      Mr. James Chaney, Elected Operator Committee (EOC) Chairperson stated he didn’t feel that there has been any progress with the vendor next door to
his business, which seems to spur this vendor on to add more items.  Mr. Chaney shared his opinion that Mr. Fellows left this location because he wanted
to hand it off to someone else before the location was in a negative situation.

      Additional questions from Commissioners included Mr. Fellows standing within the BEP when he left the program which he indicated was good; an event
that Mr. Fellows was owed money from (MCB 30th anniversary); is Mr. Fellows eligible to re-enter the voc rehab program in which he stated he has a hearing
pending to be allowed back in the program as he had been told by MCB staff he was rehabilitated; at what point is an operation deemed not viable and placement
of operators cease at that location, Mr. Hull indicated that the minimum is an income 120% of the federal minimum wage; Mr. Fellows stated he was not able
to meet this minimum requirement although evidence submitted at the hearing on a spreadsheet from Mr. Fellows indicated that he did meet this requirement;
has any legal action from the Attorney General’s office been pursued, Ms. Barbara Schmidt, Assistant Attorney General (AG) answered that the AG’s office
has been working with the parties involved for the last year and a half;  the possibility of a conflict of interest between the 2 State entities involved
in this issue, which Ms. Schmidt stated that different divisions within the AG’s office handle different departments; it was also asked if Mr. Fellows
left in good standing and he had as he had been awarded another location and chose not to accept it; Mr. Fellows voluntarily left the program in December
2008 with no formal counsel advising him;  it was asked if legal counsel was provided in any grievance situation, it was stated the Elected Operators Committee
works as an advocate for the Operator upon their request.

      Other discussion included the assertion by the ALJ that this is a moot point in regards to Mr. Fellows even when another operator is currently housed
in the BEP location, and issues of building management and direct competition still being allowed to happen.

COMMISSIONER TAECKENS MOVED TO REJECT PART 1 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDED DECISION THAT THIS ISSUE IS A MOOT POINT; COMMISSIONER SCOTT 2nd

      Discussion included that this should not have been rendered a moot point because the Agency did not support Mr. Fellows doing what it could have done
and he should be compensated.  The Judges ruling provided for an alternative outcome and the current motion made does not define a remedy.  Issues brought
up with this case included that a witness was not required to appear and there was no legal counsel provided to Mr. Fellows.

     Following the discussion a vote was taken:

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE

MOTION CARRIED

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED TO ACCEPT PART 2 OF ALJ RECOMMENDED DECISION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NEW EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE ENTERED IN, A FAIR AND VALID PROCEEDING
REGARDING WITNESSES NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REMEDY OF MONETARY COMPENSATION TO MR. FELLOWS;

THE MOTION FAILED WITH NO SUPPORT

COMMISSIONER TAECKENS MOVED TO REJECT THE ALJ RECOMMENDED DECISION THAT THE AGENCY DID ALL IT COULD AND THAT THE BOARD DISCUSS A RECOMMENDATION FOR COMPENSATING
MR. FELLOWS FOR HIS LOSSES;

THE MOTION FAILED WITH NO SUPPORT

COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED TO REJECT THE ALJ RECOMMENDED DECISION THAT THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND DID ALL IT COULD DO AS AN AGENCY; COMMISSIONER
TAECKENS 2ND

      Chair Pilarski asked for a plan of action to be created with a timeline and stated outcomes.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, JO ANN PILARSKI

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE, MICHAEL GENO

MOTION CARRIED

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED THAT AS A BOARD AN ACTION PLAN SHOULD BE DEVISED BY THE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOP A RIGOROUS RESOLUTION TO THE LOCATION
COMPETITION PROBLEM AND A REMEDY FOR MR. FELLOWS; COMMISSIONER TAECKENS SECONDED.

      Discussion centered around the motion having two parts that aren’t connected.

MOTION WITHDRAWN FOR REFRAMING IN SEPARATE PARTS

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED THAT AS A BOARD THEY DIRECT THE COMMISSION AND CONSTITUENTS, MAKING IT FULLY INCLUSIVE, TO FORMULATE AN ACTION PLAN BY THE DECEMBER
2010 COMMISSION MEETING WITH SOME GUIDELINES TO ADDRESS THE COMPETITION PROBLEMS WITHIN THIS LOCATION (CADILLAC PLACE); COMMISSIONER SCOTT SECONDED.

     Discussion included adding language to the motion for a specific timeline to be stated.  Mr. James Hull indicated a timeline of the August Commission
meeting was too soon as getting all of the stakeholders together could prove challenging.  A plan of action could reasonably be in place by the December
Commission meeting.  Mr. James Chaney noted that a committee coming to
Cadillac Place to see what the issues are would be helpful to this process and stretching the timeline to December would assist with this.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, MARGARET WOLFE, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  NONE

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

COMMISSIONER WOLFE MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION BOARD REMAND MR. FELLOWS BACK TO THE ALJ FOR FULL HEARING TO DETERMINE DAMAGES AND LOSSES THAT MR. FELLOWS
MAY HAVE SUFFERED AT CADILLAC PLACE; COMMISSIONER GENO SECONDED.

      Discussion clarified that the Agency and Mr. Fellows could work on a settlement agreement before this reaches the hearing stage.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, MARGARET WOLFE, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  NONE

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

      Chair Pilarski thanked all the parties involved for being thorough and looking at everyone’s responsibilities.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDATION – HAZELL BROOKS (ACTION ITEM)

      Chair Pilarski asked Mr. James Hull to speak for the Agency’s side of the revocation of Ms. Brooks’ license.

      Mr. James Hull stated that the Agency took the steps for revocation in response to the actions that Ms. Brooks has taken including violating the promulgated
rules and rules governing conduct on property within the State of Michigan.  The Agency gave Ms. Brooks several opportunities to settle these proceedings
short of the license revocation action, at one point both parties had agreed on a settlement, with Ms. Brooks then backing out of the agreement.  Ms. Brooks
and her representative failed to attend the evidentiary hearing resulting in the ALJ transcript not reflecting both sides.  He reported that Ms. Brooks
made no request for continuance, adjournment or rescheduling and opted to not present her side of the case.  Mr. Hull again stated that license revocation
was a result of her actions within the facility.

      Mr. James Chaney stated that this could have happened to any of the operators because they rely on Public Act 260 to protect them. He shared that
Operators are told they are entitled to this business.  He noted eighteen months have passed and it is time to let Ms. Brooks back in the program.

      Ms. Hazell Brooks shared she went to the Training Center in 2006, she already had a degree, had always worked with people and was asked to participate
in the B E P.  Ms. Brooks took the GOB site in 2007, there were multiple problems and issues with this site.  After discovering a store being run in the
building she filed a grievance.  She stated this was when her problems started and she has been painted as an angry person.  She indicated that she doesn’t
want to come back into the BEP under the current situation.

      Chair Pilarski asked for questions from Commissioners.

      Questions included clarification if suspension or revocation of the license is the issue being discussed today, the current issue is whether the license
should be revoked; there was an issue of Ms. Brooks not returning a computer, she shared that the Agency owes her $1,200 for inventory money and she kept
the computer in trade; where was the Promotional Agent during this time, Ms. Brooks indicated he was not available; why Ms. Brooks did not take the opportunity
to present her case and she indicated that she gave a statement to the State when given the opportunity and when the settlement was offered for a new location
not all the locations were specified; whether Ms. Brooks was angry during the confrontation and if she refuted this portrayal of her and she indicated
she was not intimidating or angry but did call some witnesses that were available to her to testify although Mr. Cannon, who suspended her license, was
not available to testify; Mr. Brooks was asked what a satisfactory remedy would be for her, she stated her license being reinstated, compensation and dealing
with issues of Public Act 260; specifically why Ms. Brooks did not appear at the May 7 hearing, she shared that she asked for an adjournment because of
the Judge hearing the case but was not granted the adjournment; what were the other ways Ms. Brooks was offered settlement, she stated these offers included
several ways to settle the inventory discrepancy, that the Commission pay for her to attend an anger management course, and that she would be allowed to
accept a facility that was similar in sales to what she had been removed from; Ms. Brooks stated the facilities offered were monetarily lower than the
facility she left and not all of the available facilities were offered and she didn’t believe she needed anger management classes; whether Ms. Brooks was
interested in returning as a B E P Operator, she answered yes she would like her license reinstated and she lost money; [The issue of confidentiality regarding
BEP operators was raised and Mr. Hull was asked if staff commenting on the operator's possible reaction constituted a breach of confidentiality. Mr. Hull
stated he didn’t believe, in this instance, that the statements made constituted a breach of confidentiality]; there were questions on the same Judge hearing
the extensions of cases and whether a person has a right to request a judge, Ms. Schmidt indicated that it makes sense for a Judge who is already familiar
with a case to hear the case during the next steps, it is very difficult to have a judge recused from a case and the extension paperwork came in the day
before the hearing; Commissioners asked what would Ms. Brooks do differently if the same situation arose today with respect to the outside catering in
the building, she stated she would look the other way.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED TO REJECT THE ALJ RECOMMENDED DECISION REVOKING MS. BROOKS LICENSE; COMMISSIONER TAECKENS SECONDED.

      Discussion included being troubled by the one-sided view of this ALJ decision, that two witnesses didn’t show up when subpoenaed and it appeared the
judge lost their objectivity. Also whether there was a police report filed, which it was determined there was. It was stated that it does not appear the
Agency is doing everything it can in terms of supporting the Business Enterprise Program Operators.  It was stated that this is a difficult situation,
especially when there is not time nor opportunity to flesh out the truth from both sides, and everyone needs to move forward, build trust and get people
back to work.  There needs to be steps in place to support and uphold Public Act 260 and the Randolph Sheppard Act as not supporting the operators creates
its own conflict issues.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE

MOTION CARRIED

Chair Pilarski wished Ms. Brooks luck.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RECOMMENDATION – KEVIN TOMCZAK (ACTION ITEM)

      Chair Pilarski stated that Mr. Tomczak had a hearing and the Board had made a decision on that ALJ recommendation but was given wrong information
regarding a possible demotion option of the Operator.  At this time the Board will discuss whether this decision should be reversed only because of error
of information.

      Mr. James Hull spoke on behalf of the agency stating that it was his recollection that Mr. Geno asked Ms. Zanger whether she would consider a demotion
for Mr. Tomczak in which she replied no.  The reason why, which was not elaborated on at the meeting was because Mr. Tomczak would not have been eligible
for a demotion at that time.  His facility had deteriorated which resulted in there not being, at that time, a facility which offered less in gross sales
or less complicated or demanding requirements for its operation.  The agency stands by this decision as Mr. Tomczak was given one year to work on a corrective
action plan to return to compliance with the rules of the program and Mr. Tomczak did not take any active steps towards this goal.

      Mr. Kevin Tomczak stated that Mr. Hull is incorrect.  He further stated that Mr. Hull lied to him about the opportunity there, when he received the
route it was only a portion and the operator before him had run it into the ground.  Mr. Tomczak’s best evaluations were while he held this vending route
and the Commission isn’t doing their job because he didn’t get evaluated for 2009. Mr. Tomczak stated that when Mr. Joe Pelle became his PA he had issues
with him from the beginning.  Mr. Tomczak said he wants his job back.  He only received one half of a vending route and he feels the Commission dropped
the ball.  He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to come forth and stated his appreciation that Commissioners are calling in to EOC meetings to
hear what is talked about and not just hear the Agency’s side.

      Mr. Greg Keathley spoke on behalf of the EOC, stating that this is a perfect example of an operator who has made every effort to stay in the program
and try to stay employed.  Mr. Tomczak was made promises that the Agency couldn’t keep.  His location never came close to reaching the potential that he
was promised.  He was given more places to go, spending more money, paying a driver and his facilities just kept going down.

      Chair Pilarski asked for questions from the Board.

      Questions included if Mr. Tomczak had ever requested reports in a font larger than 14 from the Agency, he indicated that he used a computer until
his broke down and his evaluations were read to him very clearly and given to him in a larger font; why were the vending machines either half full or old
items were in them, Mr. Tomczak stated that was because he only went every 2 weeks and put a few items in so what was there wouldn’t expire, he disputes
that there were old items in the vending machines; did Mr. Hull remember giving Mr. Tomczak an award in 2006 for the most improved location, Mr. Hull stated
yes; do you want to stay in this program, Mr. Tomczak said yes he does; was legal counsel available to Mr. Tomczak during the hearing process, he said
no but would consider contacting others next time; Mr. Tomczak was asked what would he do differently if coming back into the program, he stated he would
ask for more help and he would work harder towards customer service; clarification was asked for why no demotion was available, Mr. Hull again stated that
there was no facility available which had lower gross sales; Mr. Tomczak could not be demoted back to his old site because it had higher sales; Mr. Hull
was asked if this promulgated rule can be changed, Mr. Hull said yes but he cautioned that consideration be given to the ramifications of such a change;
when a route is broken up is there a reevaluation of the expected outcomes of profit, Mr. Hull stated the Locations and Repair Subcommittee is consulted
in such situations, Mr. Tomczak’s location was a vending building but as places were added became a vending route, and the operator has to request a profit
percentage exception review; the operator would have been made aware of this process during training and when he and Mr. Hull were working together;

      Commissioner Geno made a motion specific to this case only:

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED THERE IS SOME INDICATION THAT MR. TOMCZAK WOULD BE ABLE TO FUNCTION AT A FACILITY MORE SUITABLE TO HIS ABILITY, THEREFORE BASED
ON WHAT WE NOW KNOW ABOUT RULE OPTIONS THAT WERE NOT EVIDENT TO US AT THE TIME OF OUR PREVIOUS DECISION I THEREFORE MOVE TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT
OF THE ALJ IN HIS DECISION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ALJ RECOMMENDED THAT REVOCATION WAS THE PROPER REMEDY.  I FURTHER MOVE
THAT MR. TOMCZAK BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DEMOTED OR TRANSFERRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 47 THEREFORE RESTORING ELIGIBILITY FOR THAT PURPOSE;

COMMISSIONER GENO WITHDREW HIS MOTION.

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECONSIDER THE DECISION MADE CONCERNING THE TOMCZAK CASE; COMMISSIONER TAECKENS SECONDED.

      There was no discussion.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO, JO ANN PILARSKI

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE

ABSENTION:  JOHN SCOTT

MOTION CARRIED

COMMISSIONER TAECKENS MOVED TO REJECT THE ALJ’S RECOMMENDED DECISION TO REVOKE MR. TOMCZAK’S LICENSE;

THE MOTION FAILED WITH NO SUPPORT

COMMISSIONER GENO STATED THERE IS SOME INDICATION THAT MR. TOMCZAK COULD FUNCTION SUCCESSFULLY AT A FACILITY MORE SUITABLE TO HIS ABILITIES AND MOVED THAT
MR. TOMCZAK BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE DEMOTED OR TRANSFERRED IN ACCORDANCE TO RULE 47 AND RESTORED TO HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR THAT PURPOSE;

THE MOTION FAILED WITH NO SUPPORT

COMMISSIONER SCOTT MOVED TO SET ASIDE THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE; COMMISSIONER TAECKENS SECONDED.

      Discussion included reasons to reject the ALJ recommended decision such as Mr. Tomczak not being allowed to bring in evidence that he believed would
show that the information the Agency had for revoking his license was accurate. Mr. Tomczak was promised routes and then the routes were cut in half and
the PA did not provide the kinds of support and information that would have helped Mr. Tomczak move forward and be successful.  There was clarification
made that within the motion the term “set aside” was equal to reversing the motion.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE

MOTION CARRIED

COMMISSIONER TAECKENS MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION TO REINSTATE MR. TOMCZAK UNDER RULE 47, SECTION 3 AND FORGIVE ANY DEBT OWED AT THIS TIME AND
MAKE HIM ELIGIBLE TO BID ON ANY AVAILABLE FACILITY; COMMISSIONER GENO SECONDED.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE

MOTION CARRIED

PUBLIC COMMENT

     Mr. Greg Keathley stated that he sent out a lot of information on the Kevin Tomczak case and he commended the Board for taking the information and
doing what’s right with this information.  This is building trust and he shared he is filled with joy about this operator being restored.

      Mr. James Chaney congratulated everybody for doing a great job and he is happy that there are operators going back to work but he shared a concern
about Commissioners doing for one of the operators but not for all.  He said Commissioner forgave Mr. Tomczak’s whole debt and gave Mr. Fellows the opportunity
to get financial assistance but nothing was said about Ms. Brooks.  He urged Commissioners to look at who they gave financial reprieve to today and what
they have in common as the Board could have a potential lawsuit on their hands.

      Ms. Hazell Brooks asked the Agency to determine what she owed them but truly feels like the Agency owes her.  She does have a laptop that she is willing
to return and she has been out of work for 2 years just like anybody else.  Ms. Brooks stated that if there is a tone being set for the healing process
then it needs to be fair.

      Chair Pilarski asked if there was, in fact, a debt owed by Hazell Brooks and should have there been a motion called.  It was determined that the Board
could move out of public comment to make a motion if desired.

COMMISSIONER TAECKENS MOTIONED TO MOVE OUT OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND BACK INTO OFFICIAL BOARD BUSINESS; COMMISSIONER GENO SECONDED.

There was no discussion.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO, MARGARET WOLFE

NAY:  NONE

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

      There was discussion on Ms. Brooks not needing to return her computer.  Ms. Schmidt stated that Ms. Brooks did not show up for the hearing and there
are no damages noted on the record.  It was determined that there is no evidence of a dollar amount owed.

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED THAT THE BOARD REMAND THIS ISSUE TO THE HEARING PROCEDURE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REASONABLE DETERMINATION OF MONETARY DAMAGES, WITHOUT
THE ASSUMPTION THAT DAMAGES EXIST AND THE COMPUTER IS RETURNED TO THE AGENCY BY MS. BROOKS PRIOR TO THE HEARING;  COMMISSIONER TAECKENS SECONDED.

There was no discussion.

ROLL CALL VOTE

AYE:  JOHN SCOTT, GERI TAECKENS, MICHAEL GENO

NAY:  MARGARET WOLFE

MOTION CARRIED

      Chair Pilarski stated that the Board has taken a chance and is dealing in good faith in trying to do the right thing with these cases and she hopes
that the efforts here today are respected.  Commissioner Taeckens added that money and losses are easily manipulated and if money actually owed can’t be
proven at a hearing then everyone will be hurt, causing good decisions like this to be impossible to make in the future.

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED TO RETURN TO PUBLIC COMMENT; COMMISSIONER TAECKENS SECONDED.

There was no discussion.

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Public Comment

      Mr. Joe Sontag expressed a nagging concern about the Tomczak motion which reinstates him only because the word used was “recommend” and should have
been “direct”.

      Mr. Kevin Tomczak thanked the Commissioners and was thankful how the Board is now working with the EOC.  He stated he won’t make the Board sorry they
reinstated him.

      Ms. Garnett Prentice thanked the Commission Board for all the time and patience in working with the Operators.  This effort shows that the Board has
the Operators interest at heart and this is one of the most interesting meetings she has sat in on.  She stated operators complain about the Agency but
we have to give them credit because without this program a lot of the attendees would not have the livelihood or the privileges they have.  She stated
this program is like a family.

      Mr. Joe Sibley commended the Board for examining each case rather than just rubber stamping each one.  Each of these cases today showed mistakes by
both the Commission and the Operator.  Mr. Sibley stated he sees a need for a way to mediate these problems before they get out of hand to possibly alleviate
the attitude of us against them between the Commission staff and the Operators.  He also shared the next day is the first meeting between the BEP Ad Hoc
Committee and he is hoping the dialogue process can continue and wishes everyone involved well.

      Mr. Larry Posont, President, National Federation of the Blind of Michigan stated that this is definitely a start for changing attitudes within the
blind field in Michigan and it’s not the end.  The NFB has made a commitment to making the Agency a better one and making the Board responsive to the needs
of the blind.  He shared that all are heading down the right road and it has been made clear to the Agency today that things will not be rubber stamped
anymore and will continue to move ahead.

      Chair Pilarski thanked Mr. Posont for his comment and stated that she does not feel confrontational toward the Agency and loves when someone takes
credit for something good that happens, when we’re really all in this together.  Chair Pilarski also mentioned in response to Ms. Prentice that there are
around 100 operators in this Agency and most of them are sailing along and not experiencing problems.  There are lots of good operations and most are thankful
to have their jobs.

      Commissioner Taeckens commented that she doesn’t want anyone to make her do anything, she does things because she feels they’re right not because
she has been forced to do something.  One of the joys of being a Commissioner is working with the Director and staff, even though we may not always agree
we have the freedom to disagree which is very valuable.  She thanked all the Commission staff and the EOC for allowing this process to happen.

      Mr. James Chaney stated if the Agency, the Operators and the EOC were being serious about working together we should all take an anger management
course.

      Commissioner Geno recognized Ms. Barbara Schmidt of the Attorney General’s office in helping everyone work through things today.

      Mr. Terry Eagle congratulated the Board on having a backbone to take a position that is favorable to Operators and to back up and say that a wrong
decision was made and change it.  He stated the only problem he has with the new format is that staff, the operator and EOC can speak but also allowing
an Agency representative to speak and no one else causes this to not be a pure process and opens the door for some legal problems and decisions being made
off the record.  Mr. Eagle also commented on information he received from Peter Plummer and the problems which exist within the hearings process with blind
vendors and particularly Judge Mead.  Mr. Plummer informed Mr. Eagle that there are three Judges randomly assigned to the Commission but Judge Mead has
been assigned to the last ten.  He asserted that this seems corrupt.  Mr. Eagle commented on his process and reasons of attempting to get a continuance,
but the continuance was denied.

Adjournment

COMMISSIONER GENO MOVED TO ADJOURN, COMMISSIONER SCOTT SECONDED.

THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m.

_______________________________

Chair Jo Ann Pilarski

Date:___________________________

MCB Special Commission Meeting            7/20/2010