[nfbmi-talk] Business As Usual At The BS4BP

[Fred Olver]

I hope you sent this to the folks mentioned within the communication and 
here's hoping this will come up during the meeting this weekend.

Fred Olver
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 5:58 AM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Business As Usual At The BS4BP


> Hello Fello Federationists and Colleagues,
>
> Below is a classic example of the Snyder and BS4BP "Reinventing" how
> Michigan Government is done and responsive to those it serves.  It only
> demonstrates how the agency allegedly serving the blind citizens, and the
> Elected Operators' Committee, allegedly serving the best interests of the
> state's blind vendors, are unresponsive, disorganized, and lack the 
> concern
> or leadership to adapt to ever changing circumstances.  More thoughts
> following the e-mail communication.
>
> From: "Zanger, Connie (LARA)" <zangerc at michigan.gov>
> Date: March 7, 2013, 9:29:09 AM EST
> Subject: March E O C Meeting in Grand Rapids
>
>
> Good morning, Colleagues;
>
> There has been much ado regarding this weekend's E O C meeting.
> Please know that all the circumstances of the meeting do not lay directly 
> at
> the feet of the E O C chair.  Allow me to explain.
>
> The Committee has agreed to hold its quarterly meetings in various
> cities around the State to make it as easy as possible for Committee 
> members
> to attend and reduce the amount of travel time required to attend each
> meeting.  So, we had agreed that the February/March meeting would be held 
> in
> Grand Rapids.  It was a particular challenge for the Program Secretary to
> find a hotel that could accommodate our meeting needs on the date 
> required.
> Once she found a facility and finally received the quote, we learned that
> the hotel was not registered on MAIN. Unfortunately, the quote wasn't
> received in time to get the hotel registered.   And you all know all too
> well that if a vendor is not registered on MAIN, there is no way to make
> payment.
>
> That the hotel is not registered on MAIN has multiple impacts on our
> meeting.  First, we cannot pay for EOC member lodging on a group billing.
> And as you know, we have asked all of you if you can pay for your own room
> and we will reimburse you for the expense.  In fact, we will be bring 
> Travel
> Reimbursement Request forms to the meeting for you.  I thank you all for
> your kind cooperation in this regard.  Remember that if you request
> reimbursement for meals and lodging, the original receipts must be 
> attached
> to your Travel Reimbursement Request.   Incidentally, a complimentary
> breakfast is included in the cost of the room.
>
> The hotel is kindly providing us a meeting room at no charge.  And
> with that meeting room, they are providing a podium and a single 
> microphone.
>
> Second, we cannot pay for portable microphones.  While certainly we
> can generally all hear one another when we speak during an E O C meeting,
> the microphones are important for the EOC Secretary's recording of the
> meeting.  The single microphone at the podium is simply not be sufficient
> for the recording.  In an effort to facilitate the meeting, with the
> Committee Chair's approval, the Vice Chair will pay for 2 portable
> microphones for the meeting and seek reimbursement from the Agency.
>
> There is clearly a misunderstanding over the issue of participation
> in the meeting via teleconference.  It was the Agency's understanding that
> the Committee no longer wished to permit participation via telephone for
> several reasons.  First, it is typically difficult to capture telephone
> comments on the official recording of the meeting.  Second, teleconference
> participants often leave the meeting and return at the end of a 
> discussion.
> When they return they asked questions about issues that were discussed and
> resolved earlier in the conversation.  This necessitates take the time to
> review what has transpired for the returning teleconference participant.
> And third, we are all too well aware of the consequences of a 
> teleconference
> participant forgetting to put their phone on mute.  It demonstrates a
> disregard for other meeting participants and delays the meeting.
>
> The Agency is making an effort to provide teleconferencing services
> for the meeting.  We have ascertained there is a telephone line in the
> conference room.  The hotel is working to determine if the line is digital
> or analong.  The Agency will take a polycom to the meeting and if the line
> is properly analong, there will be teleconference service.
>
> As Director Rodgers has committed to participating in the meeting,
> Committee Chair Chaney does not wish to cancel or postpone this last 
> meeting
> of this particular Elected Committee.
>
> I am sorry for any inconvenience these circumstances have caused
> Committee members, and I thank you for your understanding and willingness 
> to
> work together to overcome these difficulties.
>
>
> With best regards,
>
> Constance Zanger
>
> Business Enterprise Program Manager
>
> Bureau of Services for Blind Persons
>
> Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
>
> 517/335.3639
>
> 517/335.5140 (facsimile)
>
> Let's examine the explanation, circumstances, and excuses  which
> were written above, and how what was written raises more questions than
> answers.
>
> First, indeed there was much questioning by some EOC members of the
> unilateral decisions about the meeting made by the Chairs and BEP
> management, without input by other members of the EOC.  The email begins 
> in
> an attempt to minimize or remove blame from the EOC Chair.  Blame 
> assignment
> or deflection is not what is needed, but rather, first and foremost,
> sensitivity, respect, and consideration for the entire EOC and all blind
> vendors, as the EOC and agency are charged by law to represent and act in
> the best interest of such seventy other blind vendors.  Secondly, what is
> needed is open, honest, and transparent communication to and between the
> EOC, the agency management, and the seventy other blind vendors for whom 
> the
> EOC and agency are to be representative and working.  After all, it is
> because of those seventy other blind vendors that agency management are
> collecting a bi-weekly paycheck and enjoying generous fringe benfits, and
> EOC members are receiving and running up promotional points for 
> enhancement
> of facilities, income, and favor.  One would logically believe that for 
> such
> compensation, those in alleged leadership would at least pander to their
> fellow EOC members and seventy other blind vendors concerns and interests,
> with regard to minimal communication dialogue.  More about pandering and
> dialogue below.
>
> The meeting date and place.  Certainly it is admirable that EOC
> meetings be scheduled around the state, especially to encourage attendance
> by those among the seventy other blind vendors in the area in which 
> meetings
> are held, rather than the convenience of travel of EOC members, as was
> explained in Ms. Zanger's e-mail.
>
> Now let's examine this particular meeting, and the explainations given by
> Ms. Zanger.  First, it is notable that the scheduled February meeting date
> was changed to this wweekend, to accommodate the travel plans of EOC Chirs
> and agency management to attend the ACB Randolph-Sheppard conference in 
> Las
> Vegas, beginning the Monday following the scheduled Saturday meeting. 
> That
> meeting change alone raises several questions.  First, had the previously
> scheduled meeting been arranged at a place that addressed the concerns and
> challenges discussed by Ms. Zanger in her e-mail, like payment and audio
> needs issues?  Why were the issues of payment and audio needs not 
> addressed
> as a requirement in the solicitation for meeting space?  It is not as if
> this was a first-time go-around in seeking meeting facilities.  As with 
> the
> annual workshop, things are scheduled at the latest possible date, and so
> blind vendors are the ones who are ultimately and all too often
> inconvenienced. Look at the additional work created by this meeting 
> change.
> Now EOC members are required to attend in-person, at out-of-pocket 
> expense,
> whether they can afford to wait for reimbursement or not.  Then Ms. Zanger
> states that reimbursement forms will be brought to the meeting.  Are the
> forms in a format that can be accessed and used by blind persons?  Then
> there is the added and unnecessary processing of the reimbursement forms, 
> at
> a hourly pay and benefit rate of at least $31.00 per hour; time and
> expenditure that could be better utilized to make materials available to 
> EOC
> members and blind vendors in Braille, in accordance with the law.
>
> Ms. Zanger speaks about the audio issues, and how the agency cannot
> pay for portable microphones.  Well, where is the audio equipment and
> wireless microphones, and the videotaping equipment, that the agency
> outright purchased for use at meetings of the now defunct Commission for 
> the
> Blind Board.   Given that outright purchase of audio equipment, why is it
> necessary for Mr. Essenberg to even expend money, and the blind vendors
> reimburse for portable microphones.  Is it just that nobody had given
> thought to use of that outright purchased audio and video equipment?  Or 
> can
> it be explained away as among the unaccounted for equipment noted in an
> state auditor's report?  Or was it simply left and abandoned at the site 
> of
> the final meeting of the MCB Board, never to bee seen again (no pun
> intended, given such a serious issue)?  Also, that same equipment could be
> used to stream the EOC meeting over the internet, ridding Ms. Zanger and 
> the
> EOC Chairs of all their excuses for not tele-broadcasting the meeting. 
> Now
> if only if someone would account for the whereabouts of the audio and 
> video
> equipment!
>
> Additionally, let's further explore explainations offered by Ms.
> Zanger regarding not teleconferencing the EOC meetings.
>
> First, Ms. Zanger offers that it is the agency's understanding that
> the Committee desires to no longer offer participation by teleconference.
> It would be welcomed by blind vendors and citizens alike, for Ms. Zanger,
> Mr. Chaney, and Mr. Essenberg to identify the meeting and minutes that
> communicate such understanding regarding the COMMITTEE no longer desiring
> teleconferencing of meetings?  A close review of available EOC and EOC
> Subcommittee minutes do not verify or justify such an understanding 
> between
> the COMMITTEE and agency.  Perhaps Ms. Zanger is confusing her public and
> private understandings between her, the official COMMITTEE, and Chairs
> Essenberg and Chaney.  And neither Chair Essenberg nor Chaney are vested
> with the authority to unilaterally made decisions for the COMMITTEE, and 
> it
> is for this reason that there was quote "much to do" unquote by EOC 
> members
> about not teleconferencing the EOC meeting.
>
> Next, Ms. Zanger offers concern about EOC members minimally
> participating during meetings through the use of teleconference.  So why
> should potentially seventy other blind vendors be inconvenienced and 
> forced
> to travel, without reimbursement and point compensation, to hear what is 
> or
> is not happening with THEIR Business Enterprise Program.  Tfhere are two
> simple solutions to this problem with EOC members.  First, amend the EOC
> Bylaws to require EOC members to appear and attend EOC meetings in-person.
> Secondly, abolish the promotion points given for EOC membership.  We all
> know there are some on the EOC that don't speak at meetings and contribute
> in any meaningful mmanner to the best interest of all blind vendors.
> Elimination of the promotion points will likely remove that sole incentive
> for some to be on the EOC.  Why should such non-participation and 
> disregard
> for the respect and best interest of all  blind vendors be rewarded with 
> the
> award of promotional points?  Is this not a business program of
> professionals?  If the answer is yes, then it should be run and function 
> as
> professionals.  Also, if were the audio and video equipment accounted for
> and used, meetings could be streamed via internet , while EOC members 
> attend
> in-person.  Also the additional option of teleconferencing could be 
> offered
> for blind vendor and citizen listening, with the phone system being in 
> muted
> mode, so that in-person meeting attendees could not hear those on the 
> phone,
> as was done during the now defunct Commission Board meetings.  There would
> be the added benefit that area blind and sighted vendors could attend
> in-person and actually interact with EOC members, asking questions of 
> their
> EOC representatives and the agency management, were there ever to be open
> uncensored questions-and answer dialogue welcomed and permitted by the 
> EOC.
>
> Lastly, on the teleconference issue, Ms. Zanger addresses the issue
> of official meeting recording quality.  With regard to that issue, the
> meetings need not be recorded through the telephone.  Were the EOC 
> Secretary
> to be in-person and a quality digital recorder be provided to the 
> Secretary,
> a quality recording could be obtained of each meeting.  In fact, if the
> aforementioned outright purchased audio and video equipment were to be
> accounted for and used in conjunction with a quality digital recorder, the
> official recording could  record even the softest voice.  Another
> alternative is to comply with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act,
> permitting attendees the use of their audio and video equipment..  Again, 
> if
> this Committee is of a professional stature, then it ought to be run and
> function in a professional manner.  Even active participation advisory
> status does not translate to or require functioning in a non-professional
> manner.
>
> Lastly, on Ms. Zanger's e-mail statements, she offers that because
> Mr Rodgers has committed to travel the distance to attend the meeting, 
> Chair
> Chaney unilaterally decided he did not want to cancel or reschedule the
> meeting.  This once again raises the question of who's best interest  does
> the EOC serve, the blind vendors or those of the agency?  It certainly
> appears the EOC Chairmen are pandering to the whims of the agency, rather
> than conducting business with involvement of the other EOC members, and
> without regard to respect and best interest and accommodation of the blind
> vendors.
>
> The final question to be answered is simply this:  Why was the
> meeting simply not moved to a location that would have eliminated the many
> alleged concerns offered by Ms. Zanger and Chairmen Essenberg and Chaney,
> with a commitment of the next meeting being held in Grand Rapids?  After
> all, the meeting date was changed to accommodate out-of-state conference
> travel by the Chairmen and agency management, so why was the location or
> date not changed to accommodate EOC members and seventy other blind 
> vendors
> to attend by telephone.  It only raises more questions as to the real
> reasons why the decision was made without input of the other EOC members.
>
> It is likely that EOC Chairman Chaney will once again accuse NFB
> members of throwing rocks at him, however, we actually admit to throwing
> simple and valid questions at him, his fellow chairman, and agency, as to
> why so many issues go unaddressed regarding the impact and future of
> opportunities for blind vendors and the Business Enterprise Program as a
> whole.  For example, why is the Anderson Building facility in the 16th 
> month
> without a blind vendor?  Who is behind the legislation to strip blind
> vendors of work opportunities, creating more unemployment and
> WORK-TO-WELFARE among the blind?  Why has the EOC not addressed and taken 
> a
> position on these and mmany many other issues facing the program, like why
> is the EOC not involved in revising the new BEP rules?  If left to the
> agency and Essenberg to do, they certainly will not be blind vendor 
> oriented
> or friendly, as already suggested by the first draft.  And why is a 
> sighted
> person still operating a Detroit vending route several months after the
> facility was awarded to a blind vendor?  What happened to the temporary
> operator 30 day notice policy?  Or does it have more to do with the status
> and relationship of the individuals involved?  Does anyone among agency
> management and EOC understand the business concept that perception is
> reality?  Or that actions speak louder than flowery words?  Is it likely
> that the agency has an incorrect understanding that the Committee no 
> longer
> wants to have quote "active participation" unquote in matters of
> administration and issues affecting blind vendors?  If that is the case,
> then the agency and EOC chairmen are sorely mistaken, as it relates to the
> wishes of EOC members and blind vendors.
>
> In closing, while we the NFB members are accused of hurling rocks,
> in the spirit of cooperation and improvement and retention of viable job
> opportunities for current and future generations of blind persons, we have
> offered sound , workable, and easy to implement solutions to best serve 
> the
> desires and needs of blind vendors, while creating and establishing a
> professional image and method for conducting EOC meetings in the future.
> The truth and proof will be in implementation action or inaction.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/goodfolks%40charter.net
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6154 - Release Date: 03/07/13
>