[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 
EthicsBoard Documents



----- 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 
Documents


Send it out to the State Ethics Board along with the recent stuff related to 
Gwen McNeal and other conflicts of interests please.

Thank you.

Joe Harcz

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, 
Diamalyn (LARA)
  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 
seq.



  You have requested information you describe in your email (copy also 
attached) as:



  "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."



  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 
redacted.



  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.



  Sincerely,



  Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

  Michigan Commission for the Blind



  Attachments:

  1.            Email of 1/7/2012 received 1/9/2012

  2.            FOIA Invoice



  Cc:          Patrick Cannon

                  Mel Farmer

                  Susan Turney

                  Elsie Duell

                  Leamon Jones





  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.; 
Elmer Cerano

  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

  (VIA E-MAIL)



  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 
1973.



  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 
ALWAYS.



  SINCERELY,



  PAUL JOSEPH HARCZ, JR.



  CC: MCB COMMISSIONERS

  CC: FORMER COMMISSIONER MARK EAGLE

  CC: S. ARWOOD, LARA

  CC: RSA

  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







  ADVISORY OPINION

        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.[1][1][1]  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. [2][2][2] It also serves as 
the State Licensing Agency (SLA) for blind entrepreneurs operating food 
service facilities on state and federal properties.[3][3][3]?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 
part.



  2.      Function of the Business Enterprise Program Elected Operators 
Committee



        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.[4][4][4]  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.[5][5][5]       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.[6][6][6]



        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.[7][7][7] 
Commissioner Eagle was active in the Commission's decision-making process in 
addressing recommendations made by his father on behalf of parties before 
the Commission.?4



        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.[8][8][8]



        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.[9][9][9]  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.[10][10][10] 
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".[11][11][11] 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



  D.        Analysis



        The Board of Ethics is a creature of statute and limited by the law 
under which it operates.[12][12][12] Section 2 of the Ethics Act prescribes 
standards of conduct for public officers and employees.[13][13][13] The MCB 
inquiry implicates sections 2(6) and 2(7) of the Ethics Act.[14][14][14]



  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.[15][15][15]



  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.[16][16][16]



         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 interest"

  as:[17][17][17]

  . . . 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,[18][18][18] 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,[19][19][19] 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 
bidding process.



        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.[20][20][20]



        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.[21][21][21]  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 
remedy.?10



        Reicks, made clear that recusal is an inadequate remedy to a 
conflict of interest in certain circumstances:[22][22][22]

  [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,[23][23][23] 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.[24][24][24] 
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:[25][25][25]?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.[26][26][26]



        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.



  E.        Conclusion



        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

  Governor.[27][27][27]

  "Yea" votes:                                           Absent:

  Lynn Jondahl                                       Frederick P. Dillingham

  Mark R. Fox                                            Frank J. Kelley

  John D. Pirich?13

  Mike Pumford

  Rabbi Paul Yedwab



  "Nay" votes:                                            Recused:

  None                                                    None





  BY ORDER OF THE BOARD

  Dated:

              April 29, 2009



  /s/







  Janet McClelland

  Executive Secretary






  [1][1][1] MCL 393.352 (1).

  [2][2][2] The background information was acquired from the DELEG Internet 
site

  for the Michigan Commission for the Blind:

  http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-28077_28313-14762--,00.html.

  [3][3][3] 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.

  [4][4][4] 20 USC § 107.

  [5][5][5] February 26, 2009 Tr (Cannon) p 12.

  [6][6][6] February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) p 13.

  [7][7][7] The MCB Meeting Minutes from the September 2008 Meeting.

  [8][8][8] February 26, 2009 Transcript ("Tr") (Cannon) p 16.

  [9][9][9] February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) pp. 12-13.

  [10][10][10] February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) p. 16 & (Commissioner Eagle) 
pp.

  33-34.

  [11][11][11] MCL 15.341(b)-(c).

  [12][12][12] MCL 15.343; MCL 15.345.

  [13][13][13] MCL 15.342.

  [14][14][14] 1973 PA 196, §§ 2(6-7), MCL 15.342(6)-(7).

  [15][15][15] Since Section 2a, MCL 15.342a, applies to public officers who

  participate in State contracts, it does not apply to this case.

  [16][16][16] See In Re: David Porteous, Chairman, Michigan Strategic Fund, 
ETH

  1994-EA-1, p. 4 (December 9, 1994).

  [17][17][17] In Re: Roger F. Fischer, Director, Office of Regulatory 
Operations,

  PSC, ETH 1989-EA-1, pp. 5-8 (July 02, 1991) pp 5-6, citing to Reicks, 
77-EA-8

  (May 31, 1977); Bellenger, 77-EA-6 (May 31, 1977); Snell, 75-EA-5 (July 
18,

  1975); and Lewis, 74-EA-5 (October 9, 1974). In Re: Travel Commission, 
78-EA-

  5 (May 5, 1978).

  [18][18][18] Fischer, ETH 1989-EA-1, (July 02, 1991).

  [19][19][19] In Re: Robert Hamill, Personnel Officer, Department of

  Transportation, ETH 1980-EA-1, (January 15, 1980).

  [20][20][20] Hamill, ETH 1980-EA-1, pp. 4-5.

  [21][21][21] Snell ETH 1975-EA-5, pp. 3-4.

  [22][22][22] 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).

  [23][23][23] In Re: Nan Smith, Member, Barrier Free Design Board 
Department of

  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).

  [24][24][24] The Michigan Attorney General also arrived at the same 
conclusion.

  See OAG, 1979-1980, No 582 (February 1, 1980).

  [25][25][25] Warren Consol Schools v Employment Relations Comm, 67 Mich

  App 58, 59-60; 240 NW2d 265, 266 (1976).

  [26][26][26] MCR 2.003(B)(6) (a)-c)

  [27][27][27] 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

  (517) 373-0194

  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:



  "





  INVOICE CALCULATIONS



  LABOR

                  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

  SUBTOTAL:         $

  Less waived indigency fee under FOIA Act MCL 15.234 Section 4(1) 
($20.00)

  INVOICE TOTAL:               $30.20



  DEPOSIT*            $0



  AMOUNT TO BE PAID:   $30.20





  Make check or money order payable to:               STATE OF MICHIGAN

  Remit to:                             Department of Licensing and 
Regulatory Affairs

  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

  Phone:  517/373-2063

  FAX: 517/335-5140



  www.michigan.gov/mcb
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net 





More information about the nfbmi-talk mailing list