[nfbmi-talk] Fw: Fw: Response to FOIA Request Dated 1-7-12 - MI EthicsBoard Documents
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Fri Feb 3 15:35:33 CST 2012
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "Larry Posont MCB Comm." <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
Cc: "lydia Schuck MCB Comm." <laschuck at juno.com>; "John Scott MCB Comm."
<jcscot at sbcglobal.net>; <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:43 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: Response to FOIA Request Dated 1-7-12 - MI
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Response to FOIA Request Dated 1-7-12 - MI Ethics Board
Send it out to the State Ethics Board along with the recent stuff related to
Gwen McNeal and other conflicts of interests please.
cc: MCB Commissioners
cc: NFB MI
----- Original Message -----
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA)
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net)
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ;
Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Jones, Leamon (LARA) ; Gaston,
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56 PM
Subject: Response to FOIA Request Dated 1-7-12 - MI Ethics Board Documents
February 3, 2012
Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net
1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
Re: Michigan Ethics Board Communications Regarding M. Eagle
Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:
This letter is in response to your January 7, 2012, email request for
copies of public records, received January 9, 2012, of which a ten day
extension was taken to January 30, 2012. Please be informed that the
Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this
request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et
You have requested information you describe in your email (copy also
"I am writing today to request the December 4, 2008 letter from Patrick D.
Cannon and indeed all communications to the state of Michigan Ethics Board
related to the matter of Mark Eagle attached in ful after my signature
Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records in the
possession of the Department falling within the scope of your request.
Section 4(1) of the FOIA, MCL 15.234(1), provides that a public body may
charge a fee for public record search, including the mailing, costs, the
cost of duplication or publication including labor, the cost of search,
examination, review, and the deletion and separation of exempt from
nonexempt information. The Department has estimated that a minimum of 2
hours of employee time must be drawn away from their respective duties and
assignments to search, locate, and retrieve records to determine if they are
responsive to your request, and to examine and review the responsive records
for possible statutory exemptions from public disclosure. For the above
reasons, the Department, pursuant to MCL15.234, Section 4(3) of the FOIA,
has determined that failure to charge a fee in this particular instance will
result in unreasonably high costs to the Department. The estimated costs to
process this request, based on the hourly wages (including fringe benefits)
of the lowest paid Department employee capable of performing the necessary
tasks to comply with the request is $50.20.
Therefore, in order to complete the processing of your request, based on
the hourly wages of the lowest paid Department employees capable of
performing the necessary tasks to process the request, under MCL 15.234,
Section 4(2) of the state's FOIA, the Department requires a payment of
$30.20, which includes a $20.00 fee waiver per MCL 15.234, Section 4(1) of
the FOIA. See the attached Invoice Calculations illustrating estimated costs
and payment instructions
The above estimate is based on an estimated 166 pages of documents
responsive to your request. The majority of this cost is for the review of
the 166 pages for items that are exempt under the FOIA and may have to be
After receipt of the payment and upon completing the process of your
request, the Department will notify you in writing of any balance due and
payable (or owed you) before copies of the requested records are forwarded
to you; and will explain any statutory basis for the exemption of any
records in or in part, and your remedial rights.
Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator
Michigan Commission for the Blind
1. Email of 1/7/2012 received 1/9/2012
2. FOIA Invoice
Cc: Patrick Cannon
From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 9:17 PM
To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Cc: Larry Posont MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.;
MPAS; Arwood, Steve (LARA); Mark Eagle; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: request mark eagle case related info
JANUARY 7 2011 REQUEST INFORMATION RELATED TO MARK EAGLE
PAUL JOSEPH HARCZ, JR.
1365 E. MT. MORRIS RD.
MT. MORRIS, MI 48458
JOEHARCZ at COMCAST.NET
TO: PATRICK D. CANNON
DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
DEAR DIRECTOR CANNON,
I AM WRITING TODAY TO REQUEST THE DECEMBER 4, 2008 LETTER FROM PATRICK D.
CANNON AND INDEED ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ETHICS BOARD
RELATED TO THE MATTER OF MARK EAGLE ATTACHED IN FUL AFTER MY SIGNATURE LINE.
MOREOVER AS A PERSON WHO IS LEGALLY BLIND I REQUEST THAT ALL DOCUMENTS ARE
PROVIDED IN A TIMELY AND ACCESSIBLE MANNER WITHOUT A SURCHARGE PURSUANT TO
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (TITLE II,
SUBPART E, COMMUNICATIONS), AND SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF
MY OONLY REQUEST FOR ACCESS AT THIS TIME IS TO HAVE ALL DOCUMENTS SENT TO
MY E-MAIL ADRESS LISTED ABOVE AS EITHER WORD ATTACHMENTS OR PLAIN TEXT
ENCLOSURES FOR MY COMPUTER "TALKS".
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT AND ACCESSIBLE RESPONSE TO THIS INQUIRY AS
PAUL JOSEPH HARCZ, JR.
CC: MCB COMMISSIONERS
CC: FORMER COMMISSIONER MARK EAGLE
CC: S. ARWOOD, LARA
CC: NFB MI
CC: ELMER CERANO, NISH, MPAS
ATTACHMENT FOR REFERENCE IN TOTO:
STATE OF MICHIGAN
BOARD OF ETHICS
ETH ETH 2009-EA-01
IN: MARK EAGLE, COMMISSIONER
RE: MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH
April 29, 2009
TO: PATRICK CANNON, DIRECTOR
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LABOR, & ECONOMIC GROWTH
201 N. WASHINGTON, 2ND FLOOR
P.O. BOX 30652
LANSING, MI 48909
By a December 4, 2008 letter, Patrick Cannon as Director, and on
behalf of the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB), asked this Board to
address 1) whether a conflict of interest arises where Mark Eagle is a
member of the MCB and his father, Terry Eagle, represents various operators
whose complaints ultimately come before the Commission for final resolution
and, 2) whether the appointment of Commissioner Eagle's aunt, Cheri Eagle,
to the Business Enterprise Program Elected Operator Committee creates a
conflict of interest that affects his ability to deliberate and vote on
issues in which his aunt is involved.
The State Ethics Board (Board) found that Commissioner Eagle had a
personal interest that created a prohibited conflict of interest. The Board
recognized that under ?1certain circumstances a conflict of interest may be
cured by the public officer's recusal from those matters in which he or she
has a personal interest. The Board found that the conflict of interest in
this situation could not be cured since it was continuous, recurring, and
pervasive. In light of this, it noted that Commissioner Eagle could not
effectively function as a MCB Commissioner and that the only remedy for this
conflict of interest was for Commissioner Eagle to resign or to be removed
from his appointment.
A. Pertinent Facts
1. Function of the Michigan Commission for the Blind
The Michigan Commission for the Blind, established pursuant to MCL
393.351, consists of five members, three of whom must be blind, who are
appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the
senate. Annually, the Commission provides various services to
nearly 4,000 blind or visually impaired individuals throughout the state.
These services include vocational rehabilitation services, independent
living services for the older blind, and youth low vision services for
visually impaired students in the K-12 system.  It also serves as
the State Licensing Agency (SLA) for blind entrepreneurs operating food
service facilities on state and federal properties.?2
The MCB established a Business Enterprise Program (BEP) to help
facilitate the food service initiative. Under this program a blind person
becomes an operator (licensee) in the BEP and is allowed to run a concession
in a government building following evaluation, training, and other services.
The operator and the MCB enter into a contract that provides, among other
things, that the operator will pay a certain percentage of the concession
profits to the MCB. The MCB, in turn, will provide supervision and advice,
needed equipment, and an initial stock of goods.
Additionally, as the SLA, the MCB also has a quasi-judicial
function. For instance, when issues arise concerning an operator's failure
to adhere to the rules governing the operation and administration of the
BEP, the operator may request that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hear
her/his case. Once the ALJ reviews the case and makes a recommendation, the
MCB decides whether to adopt or reject the recommendation, in whole or in
2. Function of the Business Enterprise Program Elected Operators
The BEP consists of approximately 90 blind operators. These
operators elect 15 members to the Elected Operators Committee (EOC)
annually. The EOC's authority and responsibilities are granted by the
Federal Randolph-Sheppard Act. The EOC helps advance policies to
the Commission and actively offers its input on major administrative
decisions, policy, and program development decisions affecting the overall
administration of the state's vending facilities program. The members of
the EOC also work with BEP staff to resolve program policy issues. In
addition, the ?3EOC receives and transmits operator grievances. The EOC
presents recommended motions to resolve policy issues to the Commission for
its approval. The MCB ultimately makes the final decision on all motions
presented by the EOC. The majority of the motions on which the Commission
must render a decision originate from BEP.
3. Pertinent Background Information
Mark Eagle is a member of the MCB, appointed by the Governor in the
fall of 2007. Commissioner Eagle's father, Terry Eagle,
represents various operators whose complaints ultimately come before the
Commission for resolution. Although Terry Eagle is not an attorney, the
rules do allow operators to be represented by non-attorney representatives
in the hearings. Terry Eagle was not a representative at the time of Mark
Eagle's appointment to the MCB.
At the September 2008 MCB meeting Terry Eagle stated that he served
as the representative of an operator whose case was under consideration.
With this announcement, the question of a conflict of interest arose with
Commissioner Eagle's participation in the deliberation and vote on this
particular matter. The MCB did not vote on the conflict question and
Commissioner Eagle participated in the deliberations and voting.
Commissioner Eagle was active in the Commission's decision-making process in
addressing recommendations made by his father on behalf of parties before
The issue of conflict also arose at the December 2008 meeting when
it was time to vote on three ALJ recommended decisions. Terry Eagle
represented the two operators involved, one of which was Commissioner
Eagle's aunt, Cheri Eagle, who had two cases pending before the MCB. At
this meeting, Commissioner Eagle recused himself from the deliberations and
did not vote.
The issue of conflict arose once again on December 6, 2008, when
Cheri Eagle was appointed to the EOC after one of its members resigned. The
Board has since learned that although Ms. Eagle continues to be an operator
in the BEP, she resigned from the EOC a couple weeks prior to the Board's
February 26, 2009 meeting.
Mr. Cannon informed the Board that during the appointment process,
he informed the Governor's office that Terry Eagle was a former operator and
client of the Commission and that from time to time he interacted with the
agency. However, shortly after Commissioner Eagle's appointment, his father
became highly involved in various aspects of the Commission's operations,
particularly the BEP and EOC. At the Board's meeting, both
Director Cannon and Commissioner Eagle acknowledged that Terry Eagle
currently represents over 50 percent of the operators whose complaints will
ultimately come before the Commission for final resolution.
Commissioner Eagle stated he recused himself when matters involved family
members Cheri Eagle and Terry Eagle, and would continue to do so because he
believed it was the right thing to do.?5
B. Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues
The State Ethics Act applies to "public employees" and "public
officers". As appointees of the Governor, MCB Commissioners are
public officers and are subject to the Ethics Act.
C. Board Decisions
After deliberation, based upon the discussion of the parties, the
information submitted and consistent with its prior decisions, the Board
decided as follows.
Under the Ethics Act, a personal interest of a public officer
includes the interest of a public officer's father or aunt, even though the
public officer may not receive monetary or pecuniary remuneration. The Board
held that Commissioner Eagle has a personal interest in matters before the
Commission where his father or aunt is involved. The Board recognized that
under certain circumstances when a conflict of interest is present, the
individual with the conflict of interest can recuse himself or herself from
the deliberative process or abstain from voting on
those matters. However, the Board found that because the conflicts of
interest presented in this situation are continuous, recurring, and
pervasive, recusal or abstention would not be an adequate remedy. In light
of this, it held that Commissioner Eagle could not effectively function as a
MCB Commissioner and that the only remedy for this conflict of interest was
for Commissioner Eagle to resign or be removed from his appointment.?6
The Board of Ethics is a creature of statute and limited by the law
under which it operates. Section 2 of the Ethics Act prescribes
standards of conduct for public officers and employees. The MCB
inquiry implicates sections 2(6) and 2(7) of the Ethics Act.
Section 2(6) provides:
Except as provided in section 2a, a public officer or employee shall not
engage in or accept employment or render services for a private or public
interest when that employment or service is incompatible or in conflict with
the discharge of the officer or employee's official duties or when that
employment may tend to impair his or her independence of judgment or action
in the performance of official duties.
Section 2(7) provides in relevant part:
Except as provided in section 2a, a public officer or employee shall not
participate in the negotiation or execution of contracts, making of loans,
granting of subsidies, fixing of rates, issuance of permits or certificates,
or other regulation or supervision relating to a business entity in which
the public officer or employee has a financial or personal interest.
These two provisions form the context of the Board's analysis. The
two-fold purpose of these prohibitions is to prevent conflicts between a
public officer's official duties and private interests and to prevent
individuals from using their position as public officers to obtain favorable
treatment for themselves or another person or entity.?7
Public officers and employees are expected to exercise independent
judgment in the performance of their official duties. Section 2(6) of the
Ethics Act prohibits any employment that "may tend to impair" the public
officer's independence of judgment or action in the performance of his or
her official duties. Based on the facts in this case, the Board finds that
Commissioner Eagle did not violate section 2(6) of the Ethics Act since he
has not performed any services that may tend to impair his official duty and
his father's or aunt's services cannot be imputed to him.
Under Section 2(7) of the Ethics Act, MCL 15.342(7), the
Legislature prohibited a public officer from participating in the issuance
of permits or certificates, or other regulation or supervision relating to a
business entity in which the public officer or employee has a financial or
personal interest. This section is applicable because the MCB regulates
blind entrepreneurs running food service facilities on state and federal
properties by adopting standards that an operator must meet in order to be
eligible to operate a concession.
Prior Board opinions hold that the interest of a public officer's
family member is a personal interest of the public officer and define
. . . personal profit, financial benefit, incompatibility or conflict,
impairment of judgment or action, a direct or an indirect financial or
personal interest, the interest of the employer, the interest of a
company that is doing business with the employer, the interest of a
spouse, and the interest of one with whom an intimate relationship
exists . . .?8
In Fischer, during the settlement negotiations, the
Director of the Public Service Commission's Office of Regulatory Operations,
publicly disclosed the fact that the president of Michigan Gas Company
(MiGas), a regulated utility, was a close personal friend, and that his son
was employed at the utility. Mr. Fischer initially abstained from any
participation in the case, but later became involved when negotiations had
failed. The Board was asked to determine whether a violation of the Ethics
Act occurred based on the facts outlined above.
The Board determined that a personal interest includes the
father-son relationship as well as a close friendship which has risen to the
level of an intimate relationship. The Board held that Mr. Fischer had
violated the Ethics Act when he participated in the settlement negotiations
but found that since the personal interest is not continuous, recurring, or
pervasive, Mr. Fischer could avoid violating the Act by abstaining from
matters involving MiGas.
Similarly, in Hamill, the Board addressed whether a
conflict of interest existed where sons of two Michigan Department of
Transportation (MDOT) employees, a State Project Engineer and Senior
Inspector, were employed by a private general contractor who was awarded a
building contract by the MDOT. The sons sought and obtained the temporary
summer employment entirely on their own and the contractor paid them the
lowest hourly laborer wage offered by the contractor. The MDOT employees did
not have any control over the general contractor's work assignment for the
two sons. In addition, since all construction contracts awarded by the MDOT
are ?9handled by the Department of Management and Budget through competitive
bidding, the MDOT employees had no control or input in the competitive
The Board found that a personal relationship as contemplated by the
Act did exist but concluded that the employment of these two sons by the
general contractor was purely coincidental. Unlike the instant case, the
Board found that there was no Ethics Act violation because any personal
interest that would be present would be de minimus since the sons were hired
as the lowest paid laborers.
In other decisions, however, the Ethics Board has found that if the
involvement is continuing, recurring, or pervasive, the public officer or
employee cannot avoid violation of the Ethics Act by merely abstaining on
specific occasions. In the case of Hillary F. Snell,
Commissioner for the Department of Natural Resources, the Board found that a
conflict of interest would exist where Snell served as a Commissioner and a
partner in her law firm that simultaneously represented a group which
regularly appeared before the Commission.
The Board acknowledges that the MCB has many functions other than
its SLA function, but also recognizes that the SLA role is a major function
subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. In this situation, since Terry
Eagle represents over 50 percent of the operators whose complaints will
ultimately come before the MCB, this conflict of interest is definitely
continuous, recurring, and pervasive. Commissioner Eagle's willingness to
abstain from participating in matters in which his father or aunt is
involved is both commendable and expected. However, this is an inadequate
Reicks, made clear that recusal is an inadequate remedy to a
conflict of interest in certain circumstances:
[A] public officer or employee can avoid violating the Ethics Act if he or
she abstains from participation in a matter in which the personal interest
of the public officer or employee is involved, unless the involvement is
continuing or recurring, in which case the public officer or employee cannot
avoid violating the Ethics Act by abstaining.
Further, it is also appropriate to examine sources other than prior
Board opinions when analyzing whether a conflict exists. The Board, in
Smith, issued an advisory opinion concluding that, although the
circumstances in that case did not constitute a violation of the ethical
standards of Section 2 (6) of the Ethics Act, the rule in Warren
Consolidated Schools v Employment Relations Commission, 67 Mich App 58; 240
NW 2d 265 (1976), was applicable to the circumstances presented.
In Warren, the Court of Appeals vacated a decision of the Michigan
Employment Relations Commission and remanded the matter back to the
Commission because one of the commissioners, who was a brother and former
law partner of the attorney for one of the parties to the case, actively
participated in the decision. In ruling, the court stated:?11
The object of this rule of absolute disqualification is more than a
guarantee that a legal dispute will be resolved objectively by unbiased and
impartial persons. It is also a shield against any suspicion on the part of
the litigants and the public that any subjectivity, bias and partiality
contributed to the outcome of the dispute. The thought behind such a rule
was best expressed by Justice Frankfurter in Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186, 267;
82 S Ct 691, 737-738 (1962):
The Court's authority -- possessed of neither the purse nor
the sword -- ultimately rests on sustained public confidence
in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by
the Court's complete detachment, in fact and in appearance, * * *
We find attainment of what the rule seeks to accomplish impossible with
brother arguing to brother whether the proceeding be judicial or
administrative, and even where the only impropriety on the record is the
fact that one brother participated in the decision of a controversy in which
his brother was one of the advocates.
The Warren court held that the rule of absolute disqualification
applicable to judicial proceedings is also applicable to administrative
proceedings. MCR 2.003 provides that a judge shall be disqualified when he
or she cannot impartially hear a case because a person within the third
degree of relationship is 1) a party to the proceeding, or an officer,
director or trustee of a party, 2) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding, or
3) known by the judge to have a more than de minimis interest that could be
substantially affected by the proceeding.
Thus, in accord with our previous decisions, we find that when
disqualification is continuous, recurring, or pervasive, it is not enough
to merely abstain. Even if Commissioner Eagle were to abstain and not
participate in the any of the matters in which his father or aunt is
involved as he has stated he would do, we find that his inability to
participate would impede the full and faithful discharge of his public
duties. Considering Terry Eagle's continuing representation of various
operators whose?12 complaints ultimately come before the MCB for final
resolution, there is no way that Mark Eagle can perform effectively as a
member of the MCB by disqualifying himself when these matters are brought
before the Commission.
It is the opinion of the Board, therefore, that under the Ethics Act
a personal interest of a public officer includes the interest of a father or
aunt, even though the public officer may not receive monetary or pecuniary
remuneration. The Board finds that Commissioner Eagle has a personal
interest in matters brought before the MCB where his father or aunt is
involved. The Board recognizes that under certain circumstances when a
conflict of interest is present the individual with the conflict of interest
can recuse himself or herself from the deliberations or abstain from voting.
However, the Board finds that recusal or abstention would not be an adequate
remedy in this situation since the conflicts of interest presented are
continuous, recurring, and pervasive. In light of this, the Board is of the
opinion that Commissioner Eagle cannot effectively function as a MCB
Commissioner and that the only remedy for this conflict of interest is for
Commissioner Eagle to resign or be removed from his appointment.
The Board requests that this Advisory Opinion be conveyed to the
"Yea" votes: Absent:
Lynn Jondahl Frederick P. Dillingham
Mark R. Fox Frank J. Kelley
John D. Pirich?13
Rabbi Paul Yedwab
"Nay" votes: Recused:
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD
April 29, 2009
 MCL 393.352 (1).
 The background information was acquired from the DELEG Internet
for the Michigan Commission for the Blind:
 MCL § 393.359 requires that "[a] concession in a building or on
property owned or occupied by this state shall be operated by a blind
person." Additionally, in MCL § 393.363, the legislature designated the
Commission to implement the Randolph Sheppard vending stand act pursuant to
20 USC § 107 et seq.
 20 USC § 107.
 February 26, 2009 Tr (Cannon) p 12.
 February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) p 13.
 The MCB Meeting Minutes from the September 2008 Meeting.
 February 26, 2009 Transcript ("Tr") (Cannon) p 16.
 February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) pp. 12-13.
 February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) p. 16 & (Commissioner Eagle)
 MCL 15.341(b)-(c).
 MCL 15.343; MCL 15.345.
 MCL 15.342.
 1973 PA 196, §§ 2(6-7), MCL 15.342(6)-(7).
 Since Section 2a, MCL 15.342a, applies to public officers who
participate in State contracts, it does not apply to this case.
 See In Re: David Porteous, Chairman, Michigan Strategic Fund,
1994-EA-1, p. 4 (December 9, 1994).
 In Re: Roger F. Fischer, Director, Office of Regulatory
PSC, ETH 1989-EA-1, pp. 5-8 (July 02, 1991) pp 5-6, citing to Reicks,
(May 31, 1977); Bellenger, 77-EA-6 (May 31, 1977); Snell, 75-EA-5 (July
1975); and Lewis, 74-EA-5 (October 9, 1974). In Re: Travel Commission,
5 (May 5, 1978).
 Fischer, ETH 1989-EA-1, (July 02, 1991).
 In Re: Robert Hamill, Personnel Officer, Department of
Transportation, ETH 1980-EA-1, (January 15, 1980).
 Hamill, ETH 1980-EA-1, pp. 4-5.
 Snell ETH 1975-EA-5, pp. 3-4.
 In Re: George H. Reicks, Member, Air Pollution Control
Comm, ETH 1977-EA-8, p. 3 (May 31, 1977) citing to In Re: William S.
Ballenger, Director, Licensing and Regulation, ETH 1977-EA-6 (May 31,
1977). Also see E.g. In Re: Kenaga, ETH 1977-EA-12 (December 15,
1977). In Re: Snell, ETH 1975-EA-5 (July 18, 1975); and In Re:
Chairman, Michigan Environmental Review Board, ETH 1975-EA-3
(March 10, 1975).
 In Re: Nan Smith, Member, Barrier Free Design Board
Labor and Richard Smith, Administrative Assistant for Barrier Free Design
to the Director Bureau of Construction Codes Department of Labor, ETH
1979-EA-11, (June 12, 1979).
 The Michigan Attorney General also arrived at the same
See OAG, 1979-1980, No 582 (February 1, 1980).
 Warren Consol Schools v Employment Relations Comm, 67 Mich
App 58, 59-60; 240 NW2d 265, 266 (1976).
 MCR 2.003(B)(6) (a)-c)
 MCL 15.345 (4)
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT INVOICE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF REQUESTER:
Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.com
1365 E. Mt. Morris Road
Mt. Morris, MI 48458
REQUEST RECEIVED: January 6, 2012
TYPE OF REQUEST: Email
REQUEST PARTIALLY DENIED: No
EXEMPT INFORMATION WITHHELD/REDACTED: To be determined
EXTENDED RESPONSE NOTICE ISSUED: No
REQUESTED INFORMATION WILL BE: Emailed/Invoiced For Partial Payment
ACCOUNT CODE: Index: 36200 PCA: 11343
DLARA CONTACT: Melvin Farmer, Central FOIA Coordinator
Ottawa Building, 4th Floor, 611 W. Ottawa, Lansing, MI 48909
The FOIA provides that the department may charge a fee to comply with
requests for public records. The processing fee is composed of hourly wages
and benefit costs of the lowest paid employee(s) capable of processing the
request; the duplication of records at assessed costs per page; mailing
costs; and other related special costs. Prior to searching and copying
requested records, the department may request full payment or 50% of the
estimated costs exceeding $50.00 with the balance required before mailing
the records. Assessed costs are related to your request for:
Locating and Duplicating Cost:
Number of Hours: .5 hrs. x Hourly Rate:
$25.10 = Amount: $12.55
Examining and Extracting Cost:
Number of Hours: 1.5 hrs. x Hourly Rate:
$25.10 = Amount: $37.65
TOTAL LABOR: $50.20
POSTAGE (estimate): $0
DUPLICATING: Number of Pages times Copying Rate of $.25 $0
OTHER (overtime, audio tapes, discs, photos, security, etc.): $0
Less waived indigency fee under FOIA Act MCL 15.234 Section 4(1)
INVOICE TOTAL: $30.20
AMOUNT TO BE PAID: $30.20
Make check or money order payable to: STATE OF MICHIGAN
Remit to: Department of Licensing and
Office Services Mailroom
7150 Harris Drive, PO Box 30015
Lansing, MI 48909
RETURN ORIGINAL COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR PAYMENT
*Please note that if a deposit is requested, the indicated amount is an
estimate of the cost of complying with your request. The actual cost may
vary somewhat from this amount.
Carla Miller Haynes
DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind
201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 30652
Lansing, MI 48909
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
More information about the nfbmi-talk