[nfbmi-talk] the requested transcripts as enclosure
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Oct 14 18:34:35 UTC 2011
Michigan Commission for the Blind
Hearing Held at:
201 North Washington Square
Lansing, Michigan
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
RE: Special Commission Meeting
__________________________________________________________/
APPEARANCES:
MCB Commissioners Present
via Telephone: Mr. Larry Posont
Mr. John Scott
Ms. Lydia Schuck
MCB Staff: Mr. Pat Cannon
Ms. Constance Zanger
Ms. Sue Luzenski
Mr. James Hull
Guests/Attendees
via Telephone: Mr. Joe Harcz
Mr. Fred Wurtzel
Mr. Greg Keathley
Mr. Dave Robinson
Mr. Dennis Raterink
Mr. Joe Sontag
Ms. Sheila Stelmach
Mr. Scott Armstrong
Mr. Tom Warren
Ms. Susan Przekop-Shaw
TRANSCRIBED BY: REGENCY COURT REPORTING
3133 Union Lake Road, Suite A
Commerce Township, MI 48382
(248) 360-2145
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Michigan Commission for the Blind Hearing 3
Lansing, Michigan
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 8:00 a.m.
* * * * *
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello? Hello? Darn, I'm not hearing anything. Hello? Hello? Hello?
MS. ZANGER: Hello? Good morning.
MS. STELMACH: Hello.
MS. ZANGER: Hello?
MS. STELMACH: Hi, Constance. This is Sheila.
MS. ZANGER: Hi, Sheila.
MS. STELMACH: How are you?
MS. ZANGER: Good. How about you?
MS. STELMACH: Okay.
MS. ZANGER: Good. At the moment, just Sue Luzenski and I here in the conference room. So I'm just going to put you on mute for a few minutes, okay?
MS. STELMACH: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ZANGER: All righty.
MR. HARCZ: Hello?
MS. ZANGER: Good morning.
MR. HARCZ: Hi.
MS. ZANGER: Hi there.
MR. HARCZ: Who is this?
MS. ZANGER: This is Constance Zanger. Am I speaking with Tom Warren?
MR. HARCZ: No. Joe Harcz.
MS. ZANGER: Joe Harcz. Thank you. I'm just in the conference room waiting for the group here to assemble so I'm going to put the phone on mute.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello? Now I'm not hearing anybody.
MS. ZANGER: Hello?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello? You're hearing me?
MS. ZANGER: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. I'll just mute myself.
MS. ZANGER: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Just sometimes when the master mute goes, I get blanked out. You know, when it's switched from that end?
MS. ZANGER: Uh-huh.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's happened the last two teleconferences. It doesn't last the whole thing but I get like the Rosemary Woods, Nixon three missing minutes of recording.
MS. ZANGER: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you. Sue has her computer right here.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. ZANGER: Sue's not in here yet. Well, she's here. She left -- came in and said "Good morning" to you.
MS. LUZENSKI: -- I wasn't here. Okay. Are we --
MS. ZANGER: Not -- yet. No. Sheila Stelmach is on the phone and Hoe Harcz is on the phone.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay.
MS. ZANGER: I don't know who else is on the phone.
MS. LUZENSKI: All right.
MR. HULL: Excuse me.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hey, James.
MR. HULL: Hello. How are --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's up to you.
MR. HULL: (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You want to --
MR. SCOTT: Hello?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning.
MR. SCOTT: Who's here?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who is this?
MR. SCOTT: John Scott.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hey, John. Sue, Pat, James, and Connie are in the room. And I'm not sure -- quite sure who is on the phone yet.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. It's not quite 8:00 is it?
MS. ZANGER: No. Not quite.
MR. SCOTT: Because I got -- my watch may be a little bit fast. I'll be back in a minute. I'm going to put the phone -- still the code for silent? Or mute it?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, *6.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'll be back in just a minute.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Are there any other commissioners on the line?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is 231 --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Looks like Traverse City area code.
MR. WARREN: Good morning.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello.
MR. WARREN: This is Tom Warren.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Great. Thank you. I'll get you labeled. On my conference thing.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thanks for the clarification.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I did. I wanted to talk to you about that before we did that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yep. I was counting on that.
MR. POSONT: Good morning.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Good morning.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Who is that? Is that Larry?
MR. POSONT: This is Larry.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Great.
MR. POSONT: Is everybody on?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. I don't think Lydia is on yet. John is on. He stepped away for a minute.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I received an E-mail from Lydia. She may be a few minutes late in joining us.
MR. POSONT: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Hello?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hello.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is that you, John?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Larry is on the phone but Lydia is not yet.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. She -- I read something last night that she might be late.
MS. SCHUCK: Hi. This is Lydia.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Great. Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: Hi there. I'm here. I'm on my cell, which isn't going to last real long and I'm having problems with the landline conference. So I'm walking in the hallway as I speak to the lady who can hopefully hook up my phone for me, so -- but we can -- we can go ahead and start if the Commissioners are there. Is Larry there?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So --
MR. SCOTT: Well, -- Larry?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. He muted himself. Okay, --
MR. POSONT: I had to un-mute my line.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So I'm calling the meeting to order. Larry and John have just asked me to chair this meeting. And I know the least about this so that's probably good. I was about to step into an elevator then I realized that would probably cut off the phone. I'm still walking.
So, first of all, roll call of the Commissioners. I heard Larry and John and I'm here. And that would establish our quorum.
The next thing would be to identify everybody who is in the room. So can everybody on the call or in the room there say who is here?
MS. LUZENSKI: Sue Luzenski is here.
MR. CANNON: Pat Cannon.
MS. ZANGER: Constance Zanger.
MR. HULL: James Hull.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. WARREN: This is Tom Warren from the Attorney General's Office along with Dennis Raterink.
MS. SCHUCK: And he's an assistant of yours or your boss or something?
MR. SCOTT: What is he?
MS. SCHUCK: Yeah, what did you say, Mr. Warren?
MR. WARREN: Mr. Raterink is my boss.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh, he really is.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: And if Ms. Przekop-Shaw arrives, she asked if she was going to -- she could -- in as well, but she's not here yet.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Well, thank you, Attorney General Warren, for being with us. Just one second here. I'm going to talk to the person --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's more people on the phone to identify, so. If they choose to.
MS. STELMACH: Sheila Stelmach.
MS. SCHUCK: I can.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: I'll go back up and get my notes and come down. Okay. Thanks. That's okay. All right. So they're going to just get me squared away with a different phone but I'm going to have to go back up and get my notes. Okay.
Has everyone identified themselves then?
MR. SCOTT: Sheila Stelmach -- anybody else?
MR. SONTAG: Joe Sontag is here.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. HARCZ: Joe --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Hi, Joe.
MR. HARCZ: -- is here.
MR. SONTAG: Hi.
MR. ARMSTRONG: -- Armstrong.
MS. SCHUCK: Mr. Armstrong, are you the person who took the facility in Grayling is it?
MR. ARMSTRONG: No, that's my brother, --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. ARMSTRONG: I'm --
MS. SCHUCK: Got it. Okay. Anyone else?
MR. HARCZ: Joe Harcz if I'm not muted.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yep. I've got you, Joe.
MR. HARCZ: All right, --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- on the phone.
MR. ROBINSON: Dave Robinson.
MS. SCHUCK: Anyone else? I'm going up and down sets of stairs here. Being rather informal, I'm sorry, but it's just the nature of the situation right this minute.
Okay. So we have -- now I'm out of breath. We have Mr. Warren here from the Attorney General's Office to give us some enlightenment about the possible -- whatever could come about as a result of the issues that are coming before the Board.
And for me, just a little help on understanding the difference between an AG and an ALJ would be helpful to start out.
MR. WARREN: -- Administrative Law Judge, and I'll refer to the person under the System as it existed when this case was heard; worked -- State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules. His function or her function is to serve as the hearings officer for contested cases, which are authorized under Chapter 4 of the Administrative Procedures Act. The Michigan Commission for the Blind disputes, under Rule 56, incorporate the Administrative Procedures Act for contested cases.
Therefore what happens is if the matter is not resolved administratively or informally, then a formal hearing is held. Exhibits are introduced, a transcript of the testimony is taken, and under the procedures that are set up, the administrative procedures -- under the Administrative Procedures Act, the ALJ makes a recommended decision. And that recommended decision is then presented to the Commissioners, who have, under the rules, the authority to make a final Agency decision. And a final Agency decision is one which requires a recitation of the statement of facts and the conclusions of law that lead to its final decision.
An Assistant Attorney General is an employee of the Department of the Attorney General -- Mr. Schute (ph) -- particular circumstance (inaudible) represents some 18 different administrative agencies; the Michigan Commission for the Blind is one of the agencies that we represent and provide legal counsel to.
MS. SCHUCK: So you are our lawyer and the ALJ is someone who goes between parties to commission business.
MR. WARREN: Well the ALJ is the hearings officer assigned to the case that arises when a party makes an appeal under --
MS. SCHUCK: Right.
MR. WARREN: -- (inaudible).
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. And I'm familiar with that part of it. I wanted -- I think I'm more clear on how you're separate too now. So that's good. And hopefully that was helpful to other people too.
Do either of the other Commissioners have questions for Mr. Warren right now?
MR. SCOTT: I just had one. Mr. Warren, I am assuming, but I think I should ask; the ALJ comes under the judicial branch. Is that correct?
MR. WARREN: No. The ALJ is -- falls within now the Michigan Administrative Hearing System, which is an administrative agency, which is part of the executive branch.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: And I'm -- please forgive me. I'm going to have to learn to identify your voices.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. I'm sorry. John Scott.
MS. SCHUCK: And on a phone call like this, and especially with a lot of blind people too, it's not uncommon to just say your name first. So if you just start talking, it's okay to say, "This is Mr. Warren again."
MR. WARREN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay? That would work out real well for everybody.
Okay. I'm going to set the phone down and try to call back in. But I think we could see if Larry has any questions of Mr. Warren before we go into the Stelmach case, so. Let me see.
MR. POSONT: I don't have any questions currently. I just -- my question is what is our options?
MR. WARREN: And to that extent, I think it would probably be best if before we enter into a discussion of the specifics of this case, that we enter into a discussion about the overview of the role of the Commissioners in reviewing such cases and -- that may be helpful in whittling out questions that we don't need to and -- to address or that -- answer and then we can get to the meat of the matter.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Sounds good to me. John Scott speaking.
MS. SCHUCK: Hi. I'm back in on a landline now.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Great.
MS. SCHUCK: That was me leaving the call on my other phone.
Okay. And let's see. John had a couple of questions we talked about but -- okay. And I'm really ready to dig in. I'm very sorry about that everybody.
So Mr. Warren, you -- I think it was your voice that was suggesting that maybe we should just talk about the role of Commissioners in decisions of this kind. So if you'd like to go ahead, that would be great.
MR. WARREN: Well, I think it's important to understand the structure that you're working in. And the parameters and the factors that are going to be -- going to play a role in your decision making process.
As I mentioned before, the Agency, the Commissioners, have final authority or issue the final Agency decision. And that final decision, -- Agency decision, is to find in the Administrative Procedures Act, is being made up of two parts. One is a list of the findings of fact and the other is the conclusions of law.
Now the findings of fact are those things which are included in the administrative record, okay? And the Record --
MS. SCHUCK: -- we get that document that has findings of facts and his recommended --
MR. WARREN: What you get -- what you have received in that regard is the recommended decision of the ALJ. But that is based upon a Record of the proceedings that took place at the Rule 56 hearing. That means that you should receive a copy of the transcript of the testimony and you should receive all Exhibits that were admitted or proffered at that hearing and reviewed by the Administrative Law Judge. So you're -- the first requirement here is that you must have a complete Record of the proceedings that occurred at that contested hearing. Otherwise, you are not going to be in a position to know whether or not the recommendations have any basis in fact or whether or not they're authorized by law.
So I guess the first marker along the road here has to be, you know, that the Commissioners receive, from staff, the complete Record. And when you have received that, then the rules trigger a timeline by which you must make a decision and -- with regards to any given case.
So the first question I would have is, have you all received the full and complete Record of this case and had an opportunity to review it?
MR. SCOTT: John Scott speaking. We have received a transcript. I don't think we received the Exhibits.
MR. WARREN: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: That's -- I agree. This is Lydia. I agree.
MR. WARREN: Okay. Under those circumstances then, you -- you know, the first prerequisite here is that you have a complete Record before you proceed on to making a final Agency decision. Otherwise you're going to be making this decision on an incomplete Record.
MS. SCHUCK: And we should -- I know in the Reese Patrick (ph) case, I remember there were Exhibits. And we should assume there's Exhibits in this one too. I can't remember the document as well when I read it.
MR. WARREN: Yeah. So as I say, the first step is you must receive the complete administrative Record. The complete Record of the hearing. The second is, then you examine the Record with an eye towards determining whether or not the facts as found by the Administrative Law Judge are in fact supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. That is a constitutionally mandated standard for the review of contested cases in the state of Michigan.
So therefore, while you get the suggested findings of the ALJ and he or she may set forth 15 or 20 different facts that they find, it's the Commissioner's job to determine if those facts are in fact supported by the competent, material, and substantial evidence in the Record that you've reviewed. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. I'm -- this is Lydia. I've just opened the Stelmach transcript and it shows a list of Exhibits. And I don't -- there are no attachments to this I don't believe.
MR. WARREN: Okay. So --
MS. SCHUCK: Sue could maybe tell me if I'm wrong about that because I know she sent it, but.
MS. LUZENSKI: No, I -- this is Sue speaking. And I have the transcript but that is all I received was the transcript. I don't have any of the Exhibits. I get the recommendation and then, you know, just in the last year and a half or so, we began getting a full transcript made. But that is all I have to forward.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MS. LUZENSKI: -- need to look into that.
MR. WARREN: It may be that you may have to contact SOAHR to get a copy of the Exhibits and the Record.
MS. LUZENSKI: Correct. That's -- yeah, I'll look into that because I've never received anything more than the recommendation, you know, or the recommended decision. And as I said, in the last I think year and a half, we then started sending the recording out to get a full transcript made and that is all that I've ever received.
MR. WARREN: Okay. So when you have the Record, and as I mentioned, then the Commissioners must turn their attention to whether or not the specific findings of fact are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. To the extent that you find that they are not, then you ought not be adopting them as findings of fact. To the extent that they are, then you are free to adopt them as findings of fact and you are also free to review the Record and make additional findings of fact, so long as they're supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
So if the Administrative Law Judge makes findings 1 through 15, and you see that there are two other additional factors that are critical, then the Commission may make additional findings of fact. Is that clear?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mm-hmm.
MR. WARREN: Okay. Again, --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And if --
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Warren? John Scott speaking. I don't think we have time for it now but I -- competent, material, and substantial evidence really as terms (inaudible) significance, is that correct?
MR. WARREN: Yeah. Competent, material, and substantial evidence means -- and let me find my definition here. It is that evidence that a person would reasonably rely on. Okay?
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: Could you say the two terms again? Substantial evidence and competent --
MR. WARREN: Competent, material, and --
MS. SCHUCK: Material.
MR. WARREN: -- and substantial evidence.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Good. Thank you. I'm just trying to take a note here.
MR. WARREN: And the definition is that it is -- it establishes a fact -- it must be of such a nature that a reasonable mind would accept it as sufficient to support the conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of the evidence but less than a preponderance of the evidence. Okay?
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: So it's not a particularly high standard. It's not like a criminal case where it's proof beyond reasonable doubt or where, you know, you have absolutely no question as to what the evidence shows. It's just -- there has to be some evidence, that is competent and material, that would tend to establish that fact. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: I didn't know --
MR. WARREN: And it doesn't exclude any other possibility. Somebody might look at some evidence and see it two different ways. That's fine. It doesn't mean that just because one view is adopted, that another view is not competent, material, or substantial.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: If we're in a Commission meeting where -- well, you know, like today say, where, you know, our item is to either affirm or reverse or modify the ALJ's recommendation and we have concerns like that or I see something or one of our Commissioners knows the BEP program inside and out, you know, has information that leads him to want to know more, then we can ask some -- we can ask the person to come and give more testimony? Does it weigh the same or how does that work?
MR. WARREN: Okay. And in looking at the minutes of the meeting that -- where this case -- where a case was previously discussed, there were some things there that I -- that I'll bring to your attention and just say that I'm not sure these are good practices.
The Commission's role is to make the final Agency decision. It is not to interject itself into the fact-finding process, either as a witness or to become advocates for one side or the other. It is to weigh the evidence and to look at it and to make a final Agency decision.
There is nothing in the rules or the law that requires that a party be allowed to speak at the meeting where the cases are being decided. And in fact, there's a great danger in inviting that because what you may get is you may get facts being offered to you during the meetings that are inconsistent with or different or supplement things that were contained in the Record.
Your decision has to be based on the Record. And you put yourself in an odd position if you interject yourself into an extended portion of the hearing process by renewing it in front of the Commission during a meeting such as this.
So if there are issues or questions as to whether or not facts have been sufficiently developed, the appropriate procedure is to send it back to the Administrative Law Judge for the taking of additional evidence on the issue that you have. It is not to invite comment or input from Commissioners, who may very well find themselves in a position of being a witness in the case if they're speaking to their own experiences that they -- may be relevant here. That person puts themselves in a position where they may have to recuse themselves from the decision.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: If we send it back, does -- do they -- they just hear what we send it back to have more information about.
MR. WARREN: Yes. You're supplementing the Record. You're not --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. It doesn't redo the whole thing from scratch. That's good.
MR. WARREN: Go back to square one. You simply pick up with the issue that the Commission may want to have the ALJ flesh out, to assist it in making its decision.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Who else sees the transcript and the decision besides the Commissioners and of course Sue and Pat, you know?
MR. WARREN: I'm not sure I understand the question.
MS. SCHUCK: My question is this; is there any -- suppose someone in the consumer committee -- community or someone on the elected operator committee or someone else in the BEP had a concern and sent correspondence to the Board saying -- would they have seen any of this to say "I have a concern about this area and I want to draw it to your attention," or would that not happen? This is my ignorance of the process. Are we the only people who see it, the Commissioners? And other relevant, you know, immediate parties like Pat and Sue?
MR. WARREN: Well, to the extent that you haven't made a decision yet, it's a document that is within the Agency's control.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Okay? And again, inviting somebody else to make, you know, comment is -- might be some thin ice to be out on.
MS. SCHUCK: I understand. All I'm saying is would someone have seen it and approach us?
MR. WARREN: Yeah, --
MS. SCHUCK: But no, they shouldn't have.
MR. WARREN: The -- if a person wishes to get a copy of a public document, then they may, you know, acquire it under FOIA with cost. You know, there is no prohibition against somebody doing it. There is, however, your control as to what you're going to allow by way of the process and your review of it. There's no provision for, you know, in the rules, for somebody to -- for simply individuals not associated with the hearing to come in and have their two cents worth.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: It's a matter between this Claimant and the Commission for the Blind.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: Yes. And both of whom had their chance to come to the table with some representation and talk about it, so.
MR. WARREN: Absolutely. That's --
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. WARREN: Rule 56 allows a Claimant to appear with their, you know, at the contested hearing with Counsel or with their representative as they choose. And it's there that they flesh out what their claim is. And if their claim includes points A, B, and C, then that's all they're claiming. And you know, points X, Y, and Z aren't on the table. Okay? And weren't --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: -- on the table.
MS. SCHUCK: So Larry or John or Mr. Warren, did you want to continue talking about the process? Or Larry or John, did you want to ask questions?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's a second prong to this but I think maybe we ought to stop at the findings of fact -- in the Record and see if there's any questions there.
MR. CANNON: Tom, this is Pat Cannon with a question. You said only when Commissioners have all of the materials including the ALJ recommendation, the transcript, and any of the documents that should be part of the Record, can Commissioners consider this. Is that when the 60-day clock starts?
MR. WARREN: Right. Sixty-day clock on your rule, I believe, says that you have 60 days from the receipt of the Record.
MR. CANNON: Okay.
MR. WARREN: And so if the Record is to include and must include all of the Exhibits, then the 60 days doesn't start until the Record is fully in the hands of the Commissioners.
MS. SCHUCK: Which this one isn't. But can we -- if they don't have specific questions right now, we can move on to just hearing about the whole process. We may not have time with you like this again, so.
MR. WARREN: Well, you've got my time if we can make the calendar. If we can make the --
MS. SCHUCK: Right.
MR. WARREN: Let me clarify. Your 60 days in your rule says receipt of the proposed decision. Well you can't review the proposed decision without the Record.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: And, you know, you can ask that it be sent forward to you. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: Gentlemen, do you want to make a motion to that effect and -- does this mean we table Stelmach for today? I hate to even let those words come out of my mouth, but.
MR. SCOTT: I -- well, I think we should make the motions at the end, after we --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. How do you want to go with this? I want to learn more about the process because it's going to be applied again and again. And then we had some specific questions just about Stelmach's case -- Mrs. Stelmach's case too. So I don't know; what do you think, John?
MR. SCOTT: I understand your (inaudible) because we have not got the Exhibits, that -- we have an incomplete Record and can't make a decision anyway. I think we just continue -- continue with the process being explained to us.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. And the questions that -- the things that you mentioned to me in an E-mail, John, is possible things that we, you know, could consider because I asked you what, in your lawyerly wisdom, you think about -- there are things that are general about all cases. Or can be about all cases. So we can ask those as they come up too, yes?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: I don't remember exactly what I wrote last night, but.
MS. SCHUCK: You mentioned -- the things you mentioned were how the promulgated rules might restrain the Board, if we modify the ALJ's recommendation, what are the parameters, do we have the power for the -- the specific things about the Stelmach case, about the difference in money and equipment, and then -- and I'm not even sure how that exactly fits in with the transcript we've gotten or if this is just something that's come afterwards. And then if we -- it says here -- this was one of the general questions, which is one of the reasons why we called in the AG I believe; was if we simply affirm the decision of the ALJ, then what effects of arbitration are there on the process and on us as Commissioners?
So sorry, Mr. Warren, I threw all that out on the table at once. But those are the kind of general things we can talk about regardless of what we do about what happens with Stelmach from here on out.
MR. WARREN: I agree that it's probably a good use of our time to discuss the general terms because in doing that, you may find that the specific questions or specific discussion will be resolved. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So --
MR. WARREN: -- (inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: -- let me look at our -- let me look at our timeline real briefly. We have 8:50 we have scheduled for public comment. We probably need -- stop me, Larry or John, please, if I'm -- but I think we have five -- we can take five minutes to make our motion about the Stelmach case and then that takes us to 8:45 and it's almost 8:30 so we have about 15 minutes to learn more about the process.
Is that good with you, Larry?
MR. POSONT: Yes, it is.
MS. SCHUCK: Is that good with you, John?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. So how about, Mr. Warren, there you go, 15 minutes to teach us the most you can.
MR. WARREN: Okay. Well, we've covered the concept of having a complete Record. We've covered the concept of the findings of fact and that you may adopt the findings of fact, the recommendations of the ALJ, you may reject them, but in rejecting them, if you wish to, to amend and add additional findings of fact, you must do that because the Agency order, the final Agency order has to include findings of fact and conclusions of law.
And if the Record is not complete enough for you to have -- to believe that it's -- that any fact has been established or that you want it fleshed out more, then you may return the matter back to the hearing stage and it's picked up and continued at that point.
The third prong here, beyond Record and findings of fact, is that the decision is the conclusion of law that must be followed. And again, constitutionally, the decisions of administrative agencies must follow the law and be authorized by the law. So in other words, an administrative agency is not free to simply wield unlimited power and do whatever it chooses to do with regards to any particular set of facts. It's limited by the Constitution, it's limited by its own statute, it may be limited by other statutes that impact upon the process or the matter that's before it, and it may be limited by the administrative rules that the Agency has.
So the authorized by law standard is one that does tend to limit what an Agency may do and how it may ultimately decide a case. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: And does it act like precedent too?
MR. WARREN: Within the Agency, it serves as a guide too to your action. But you -- if facts vary enough or if you decide to take a different approach to a question, you have freedom to review that.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WARREN: Okay? So the question on authorized by law then is probably best first approached by asking the question what is it that you want to do? What result do you wish to achieve? If you wish to achieve a result that says the Claimant is not responsible for income tax for the rest of her life, well, that may be a wonderful goal, but it's not authorized under your act or your rules or -- and certainly would be in conflict with the Internal Revenue Code.
So you must first identify what you wish to achieve. And then you must determine do the facts support that goal; is it supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, and then, is the goal that you achieve or the result you wish to bring about in conflict with any other statutes or rules or procedures. If it is, then you should be careful and question whether or not in fact your decision is authorized by law and meets that constitutional standard that we spoke about.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Does that make sense? So it -- you know, when you get to a case and you decide, okay, what can we do, you know, to -- let's presume that you have a case where you find that the Commission acted inappropriately or didn't satisfy something that it should have done. The question is, well what can you do to make it correct or to remedy the situation, and then test that against those limits that are out there, not only in your statute but in your rules and then other relevant statutes and the constitution to see if in fact what you wish to do is what's within your power to do.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: So there -- any questions with regards to that concept, as to --
MS. SCHUCK: We can't --
MR. WARREN: -- how then you -- what the framework ought to be in addressing or looking at some of these, at reviews of Administrative Law Judges or their recommended decisions?
MR. SCOTT: John Scott speaking. From what you are stating to me, you're saying that it's within the discretion of the Commission to take the acts -- choose the act as -- first, competent, material, and substantial facts and support of what was to be done. There's no conflict of laws -- conflict of laws, it's not against any constitutional state statute -- constitutional state statute, or promulgated rule, then we can act. Because I'm thinking that if there's not a specific -- for example, promulgated rule saying you cannot do something, then it's within the authority of the Commission to do what it wants to do.
MR. WARREN: Well, the Commission's rules grant the Commissioners and grant the Board the policy making authority for the Commission with regards to the BEP program or the vending facility program here. So therefore, in that context, you have the authority to set policy. Okay?
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MR. WARREN: And as long as your policy does not run up against and contrary to those statutes, rules, ordinances, you know, constitution, then you are probably going to be free to establish the policy in the way that you are.
Where you will get in trouble is when it does run up against one of those other statutory or administrative rule provisions. And then that acts as a limit on what you can do within the context of this program that you have policy-making authority over. The Commissioners don't have policy-making authority over all aspects of the operations that are handled by staff.
For example, civil service or personnel issues are staff oriented. They're not a matter for the Commission to decide. But with regards to the vending facility program and this aspect, this is your playing field.
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: And is that described in that Rule 56 too? Which aspects we look at this way?
MR. WARREN: No. The Rule 56 simply adopts the Administrative Procedures Act --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: -- and the constitution overarches all of it. But if you're looking for a good guide here, if you turn to the Administrative Procedures Act and you look at Rule 306, it's MCL 24.306. You're going to find a list of factors that the courts would reverse an Agency Determination or decision on. And it'll set forth, you know, arbitrary -- capricious, contrary to statute or law, unconstitutional. Basically those are good touchtones to look at and to set against your proposed decision and say, "Well okay, am I running up against any one of these things?"
MS. SCHUCK: Sue, would you be able to find that and send that to at least the three of us?
MS. LUZENSKI: Sure.
MR. SCOTT: And -- John Scott. I believe you can Google that, -- Michigan Compiled Law --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: -- 24.306 and it should come up.
MS. SCHUCK: All right. Sue, you're off the hook.
MR. WARREN: Yeah. Going back to the scope of the, you know, Mr. Scott, the scope of your question as to what you can do, again, if a statute lists a certain number of options, okay?
MR. SCOTT: Uh-huh.
MR. WARREN: Then you can take those, you know, those options. What you may not do is do more than what is specifically set out in a list. If in fact the list was intended to be the, you know, the limitation on the authority. Okay?
MR. SCOTT: Mm-hmm.
MR. WARREN: Secondly, or even beyond that is you then have the question as to whether or not what you intend to do is within the intent of the statute or the rule itself. So there's two sort of checklists there. You have to look and see are they setting out a list that was intended to be specific? If so, that's what we have to follow and we can go no further. Or, are they giving us a broader reach? And if they are, that's fine, but again, it runs up against what the scope or reach of the statute or rule is. So that has to be, you know, constantly kept in mind. Otherwise, you'll find yourself heading off and attempting to do things that are beyond your reach.
MS. SCHUCK: Only to have them overturned for some reason somewhere along the way so it makes it counterproductive.
MR. WARREN: It does. So --
MS. SCHUCK: Better to look at it ahead of time.
MR. WARREN: Yeah. Prudence and caution at the front end is probably a good guide.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. We have -- still about five minutes.
MR. WARREN: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: We're learning at your feet.
MR. WARREN: The, you know, this presentation or this talking of it so far I think is, you know, should hopefully give you a feel that when you pick up these cases and you receive the recommendation from the Administrative Law Judge, you know, one way to address it is you may look at it, see if in fact the Record supports the Judge's conclusions of law --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. WARREN: -- findings of fact. See if the Judge's conclusions of law are not -- are authorized and not in conflict with other statutes, rules, -- then your final Agency decision can be to adopt that recommendation as written by the ALJ. That saves the Commissioners and staff from having to write your own findings of fact and conclusions of law.
If, on the other hand, you disagree and you wish to modify those, then there must be some writing to create those findings of fact and conclusions of law that will form the basis for your decision. You know, based on the Record that you've got. What you can't do is simply say, "Well we disagree with the ALJ, --
MS. SCHUCK: Mm-hmm.
MR. WARREN: -- and we're going to rule this way."
MS. SCHUCK: Right.
MR. WARREN: Without having established what facts it is or that there are that you find support your conclusion.
MS. SCHUCK: And if it's not there and we want more information, we just send it back rather than deciding.
MR. WARREN: Yeah. Yeah. Don't attempt to supplement the Record at your hearing -- or at your meeting. That's not the forum for it. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: Mr. Warren, we're all happy to serve on the Board but we all, you know, I think have -- at least I do have this little inkling of concern of how -- can it come back to me personally? Be sued or something? If -- John probably has no questions about this because he's a lawyer and understands. But, you know, I'm not a lawyer.
MR. WARREN: You are a State -- you're an individual operating or in the capacity of a State Agency. You have immunity.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: Okay? So in --
MS. SCHUCK: Not an excuse for bad behavior, but --
MR. WARREN: You know, don't go out and do a willful act or an intentional -- go out intentionally setting about to harm somebody. But to the extent that you or staff are engaged in discretionary functions and you make decisions in certain ways, you know, there's -- you're immune from a lawsuit claiming damages from you for that wrong. Okay?
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: One more point I want to make with regards to your final Agency decision; let's say that you -- that a matter comes up and there is a disagreement between Commission staff and the Claimant as to what occurred and what ought to be the remedy. And let's say that at the time when the Commissioners address --
MS. SCHUCK: Can I just ask who is speaking real briefly? Who is speaking?
MR. WARREN: Still Mr. Warren.
MS. SCHUCK: Still Mr. Warren. Okay. I'm sorry.
MR. WARREN: That suppose that the Commissioners -- that staff's interpretation is incorrect and that the findings of fact and conclusions of law ought to favor the Claimant. Okay. Then the Commissioners can task staff to draft or assist in drafting that final Agency decision. Okay?
Now I can imagine that staff might be in a position of thinking, you know, we thought we were right, but you folks as the Commissioners, you're the ones who dictate what the final Agency decision will look like. Okay? It has to be, again, following the Record, supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, authorized by law. But the final Agency decision is yours as to the BEP decisions. Okay?
MR. SCOTT: Mr. Warren, John Scott. Suppose the Commissioners find -- believe the findings of facts and conclusion of law of the ALJ are correct but don't agree with the remedy. Can there be an alteration?
MR. WARREN: You may issue your final Agency order and issue the remedy that is authorized by law. But under the circumstances, it's one of those where you might want to take a second -- a real hard look at what the ALJ is recommending and why. Because the ALJ has had the facts presented to her or him and, you know, more often than not may have seen a case -- some cases like this and knows sort of what the parameters are as to what may be an authorized decision.
The danger of the Commission wanting to choose a different remedy is that you may be interjecting an issue into the decision that wasn't there before the ALJ.
For example, supposed that, you know, your Claimant wants tax amnesty for the rest of his life. Well, if they never raised that before the ALJ, the ALJ's decision isn't going to include that. Okay? You may not then interject that as a remedy without making findings of fact and you're not going to be able to find those facts because they're not in the Record.
So your review in that regard is, you know, is limited to what's in the Record and what the facts will support. If they support an alternative conclusion or an alternative remedy that was raised, then you may be okay. But there's great danger to go the other way.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Can we ask the Administrative Law Judge for example on -- say we have another possible -- we want to consider to ask the ALJ to give -- I guess the discussion or, you know, state his or her position on that particular remedy, saying why it is or is not possible?
MR. WARREN: Well, I guess my initial reaction is why would you want to interject an issue into the proceedings that the parties didn't? Now you sound like or it might be viewed that you've chosen a -- you've chosen sides here. And that again is not your role. Your role is to determine what the facts and conclusions of law -- what are the proper findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the Record. And if the Record is silent on a particular issue, then it's silent on that issue and you make your decision based upon the facts and the recommendations and the conclusions of law that were made by the ALJ.
MS. SCHUCK: I'm going to interrupt because my clock is saying 8:47 and I want to make sure that public comment happens at the time we said. In case people are coming in for it. So I think we're going to have to -- we may have to get more information about some of these things later.
Mr. Warren, I probably interrupted you. So maybe you can finish, you know, your thought and then one of the two Commissioners, can we get a motion on the floor regarding the Stelmach case?
MR. WARREN: Right. The --
MS. SCHUCK: So Mr. Warren, it's to you again right now.
MR. WARREN: Thank you. The last comment I would make is, is always keep in mind that the ALJ's remedy may not be authorized by law as well. So again, you know, the document that comes forward to you and those findings of fact and conclusions of law are for you to review and determine if they're in fact correct. And where they're not correct, then, you know, then you have certain means by which you can affect some correction. Okay?
MR. SCOTT: Okay.
MS. SCHUCK: Yes. And if there's something we don't like about the remedy, we can ask for a certain part to be fleshed out further in the ALJ process.
MR. WARREN: If -- you may. I would suggest that if it's within the realm or the subject matter that was raised by the parties.
MS. SCHUCK: Right. We can't just bring in something that we thought of.
MR. WARREN: The problem with bringing in --
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. WARREN: -- something that you think of is that it begins to look like the proceedings are taking a bias toward one side or the other.
MS. SCHUCK: Right. I see your point.
MR. WARREN: And you can't do that.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Mr. Warren, I'm going to thank you now in case I forget to. Thank you for coming in and I don't remember your boss' name exactly but I'm glad that -- thank you for -- thank him too for being there and the other people too.
Let me hear from my fellow Commissioners now about a motion.
MR. SCOTT: John Scott. In light of the fact that we had not gotten -- received the full Record, that being the Exhibits, I move at this time that we table decision on the Stelmach case until we get the Exhibits.
MR. POSONT: I second it.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Motion is on the floor and seconded. Is there any further -- is there any discussion?
MR. POSONT: I would think that the only question I have and I don't know where I got this from, is it's not clear in the decision of the Administrative Law Judge from my point of view the time factors of when the location was bidded out and was awarded to the other operator to make a decision if there was something else happening, clearly in the decision when they made the decision and moved the vendor. I don't see that as clear. Maybe I'm -- making it clear. But I see a problem of fact where I didn't understand where the time factors were clear enough.
MS. SCHUCK: Do we want to -- I mean we're going to be asking for the Exhibits. We have the rest of the Record. Do we want to ask now to have a timeline fleshed out better or do we want to wait until we have the Exhibits? What's your thought, guys?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MR. SCOTT: I understand where Commissioner Posont is coming from. The thing that's going through my mind is my -- I didn't have (inaudible) timelines in -- Exhibits are probably, I would think are all dated. I think we need to review the Record as received and then make a determination whether or not we need more fleshing out.
MS. SCHUCK: And we definitely -- I mean we know from other things we've heard that sometimes a temporary situation should have -- should be set up while things get worked out and that didn't happen here and that's something to consider, you know, separate from this case. Because that's not -- wasn't necessarily the policy to always do it that way. That is something we want to set out to talk about in the future.
But John, I think I'm with you that we should just get those Exhibits and if we can identify anything specific we want fleshed out, then we need to bring it to the table in September? Is that where we want to leave this or do you want to try to meet in two weeks so that we -- if -- or should we let each other know if we should talk to Director Cannon, one or all of us, if we want to meet again to talk about this so that we can move to have something else fleshed out before our September meeting? I don't want to wait, you know, over a month again just to say, "We need to have this part heard again."
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If we get the Exhibits and give us time to work on those Exhibits and then we would have the evidence or what we believe -- to make a decision.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. CANNON: Lydia, this is Pat with just --
MS. SCHUCK: Yes, sir.
MR. CANNON: -- comment. One, doing the calculation in my head, I think if all of the Exhibits in theory were received by Commissioners today and the 60 day clock would start today, that takes us to September 18th. So I think we have time for Commissioners to be thorough in their review, what takes place next.
And my other suggestion is because the word "table" has specific connotations under Robert's Rules of Order, --
MS. SCHUCK: Yes.
MR. CANNON: -- I would suggest rather that we use the word "defer action" rather than "table."
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I guess then, you know, as soon as possible, we want the Exhibits. The 60-day clock starts then. And if we're -- so we're moving to defer action on -- I'll state it, gentlemen, you can correct me, okay? And we're moving to defer action on the Stelmach case until 60 days after -- within -- we're going to act within 60 days after receiving the items that need to be attached, the Exhibits.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. And in that 60 days, we could -- well, we can come together at the September meeting and say that we need a certain part fleshed out again if we see that in there. Or we can do that ahead of time if we want to call a special meeting just to do that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Correct.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay.
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: Is that --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- question.
MS. SCHUCK: Sue, how did you write that down?
MS. LUZENSKI: What I've just put was "Scott moved to defer action on the decision on the Stelmach case within 60 days of all Exhibits being received. Posont seconded."
MS. SCHUCK: Does that -- is that acceptable to you gentlemen?
MS. LUZENSKI: Is that clear?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, that's fine.
MS. LUZENSKI: Okay.
MR. POSONT: That's okay.
MS. SCHUCK: Larry? Okay. All right. So I'm going to call for the vote. All in favor?
MR. SCOTT: Aye.
MR. POSONT: Aye.
MS. SCHUCK: Aye. Did you hear all of us, Sue?
MS. LUZENSKI: Yep. I got it.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. And now -- gentlemen, if it's all right with you, we will open it for public comment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Let me un-mute everybody.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. And then please state your name and make your comment. My clock says 8:54. I have permission to be a little late to class. I don't know if John has permission to be late to Court, so --
MR. SCOTT: Well, it's not (inaudible) be picked up between 9:00 and 9:20.
MS. SCHUCK: I was trying to make you sound really important, like they're holding a case for you. Anyway. Okay, so --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Everybody is un-muted.
MR. WURTZEL: Fred Wurtzel, Madam Chair.
MS. SCHUCK: Go ahead, Fred.
MR. WURTZEL: I'm sorry -- my coughing is using up my three minutes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I restarted you, Fred.
MR. WURTZEL: -- I want to commend Mr. Warren. I came on a little late so I didn't really hear the beginning. However, I am so pleased with this presentation this morning, having been the administrator of the Business Enterprise Program for many years. What was presented this morning sits perfectly with my understanding of the process and the procedure.
I've also had some classes in administrative law and if those things are followed, it will make your job so much easier to do. And it will also prevent some of the extraneous noise that's happened around Commission meetings with regard to these cases. Because I just -- I think that the whole process has become a little bit unwieldy, unruly, and I think that this is going to make your life so much simpler and it gives you quite a bit of latitude, but yet it gives you necessary limits which will be very helpful to you. And it also makes things easier for staff when presenting material because it sets up who is in charge of what.
So I'm very happy that this presentation has happened this morning. I hope that you get a good recording of this and listen to it three or four times before each -- time you have to make these decisions, because you'll find it very useful.
So thank you for your presentation, Mr. Warren. That was great and I'm really glad that you as -- gotten some competent advice on this -- on these matters.
MS. SCHUCK: Thank you, Fred.
MR. WARREN: Thank you for your kind words, sir.
MS. SCHUCK: Who is next?
MR. HARCZ: Joe Harcz.
MS. SCHUCK: Go ahead, Joe.
MR. HARCZ: Yes. I want to echo what Fred said. I also would like to comment on the elephant that's been in the room. For as long as I've been in Michigan, much of this goes to both Commissioners, people within the entire process getting information in a timely and accessible manner. And I would like to add to what the Attorney General said. What we're dealing with in this circumstance are federal civil rights laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is going to have it's 21st birthday coming up in about ten days, and Section 504. And they do override. They are at play throughout the entire process. We're dealing with blind people here. They need to have their information to get due process of law within these administrative law proceedings. We have blind Commissioners who are asked -- for ten years to make determinations without the full package.
And so that's a real problem and it's riddled throughout. It's riddled not -- not only within the Michigan Commission for the Blind, which should be the leader on this standard, but also throughout every state agency, in part because the Michigan Commission for the Blind hasn't been proactive in those regards.
So I'd like to echo what Fred said -- or what Fred said and I would also like us to keep our eyes on the prize. Because you people can't make good decisions, the clients within the process cannot make good, informed decisions, and we've already seen where many don't even get their IPE. Nobody can make appropriate decisions without the information in a format that they can use (inaudible). I thank you.
MS. SCHUCK: Thank you, Joe. Anyone else?
MR. KEATHLEY: Madam Chair, Greg Keathley.
MS. SCHUCK: Go ahead, Greg.
MR. KEATHLEY: Sorry I wasn't on here earlier. I didn't think it started 'til 8:45 and I was on mute when I did come on.
Anyway, I just wanted to disagree with Fred and Joe a little bit. I think some of what Mr. Warren said was totally off base, and I think the Board obviously agreed by wanting to review these Exhibits.
I don't think you guys are a judicial board and everything is not about law. What you guys are doing is about what's right. And who was fixing what was wrong. Everybody's always saying, "Well you gotta go by what the ALJ says" and this and that. That's not true at all. In my opinion. And I think that this Board obviously sees that by the fact that they want to review these Exhibits. And I think once they do, they'll see this case and understand it and see that Sheila was wronged and she's just asking for a suitable remedy for what she suffered during when she was wronged. That's my comment. Thank you all very much.
MS. SCHUCK: Okay. Thank you, Greg. Anyone else? If there's no more further comment, I -- are there any concerns from the Commissioners or shall we adjourn? I guess I need a motion to adjourn if you would like to.
MR. POSONT: I make a motion that we adjourn.
MS. SCHUCK: I think I need you to second, John.
MR. SCOTT: I second it.
MS. SCHUCK: Thank you. Okay. The motion is on the floor. I'm going to assume there's no discussion. So I call for the vote. All in favor of adjourning?
MR. POSONT: Aye.
MS. SCHUCK: Aye.
MR. SCOTT: Okay, --
MS. SCHUCK: Are you saying "Yes," John?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MS. SCHUCK: You're willing to adjourn? Okay. Thank you everybody. We'll look forward to those -- getting those Exhibits and move on from there.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible)
MS. SCHUCK: Thanks everybody. Thanks. Bye-bye.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right. Thank you.
MR. SCOTT: Okay. Bye-bye.
(WHEREUPON, the hearing was adjourned at 9:01 a.m.)
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list