[nfbmi-talk] buring the commission and pa 260
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Thu Jun 5 11:28:01 UTC 2014
Now fast forward to this month with the illegal operation at Cora's Cafe and literally hundreds of thousand of VR dollars squandered and unaccounted for by the State of Michigan in this illegal operation right under the noses of the legislature which did pass PA 260 years ago, did not rescind it or promulgated rules, and which appropriates funds for this illegal misappropriation of funds.
Not to mention that this was also one of the reasons for the unconstitutional Executive Order that destroyed the Michigan Commission for the Blind to begin with.
Joe Harcz
APPROVED
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING
201 N. Washington Square
Victor Center Building
2nd Floor Conference Room
Lansing, MI
February 8, 2012
9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
VIA Conference Call
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT VIA TELEPHONE
Mr. Larry Posont Ms. Lydia Schuck
Mr. John Scott
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
None (2 Commissioner vacancies currently exist)
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF PRESENT
Mr. Pat Cannon Ms. Sue Luzenski
Ms. Constance Zanger Mr. James Hull (via telephone)
Mr. Josh Hoskins (via telephone)
GUESTS/ATTENDEES
Mr. Joe Sontag
GUESTS/ATTENDEES VIA TELEPHONE
Mr. Joe Sibley Mr. Joe Harcz
Mr. Fred Wurtzel Mr. Terry Eagle
Mr. Rob Essenberg Mr. Greg Keathley
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Commissioner Larry Posont called the special meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was present.
Discussion of State House of Representatives Cafeteria Proposal
Commissioner Posont asked for a report of the Elected Operators Committee meeting from Monday evening, February 6. Mr. Rob Essenberg, Elected Operator Committee Chair, reported that the solicitation proposal was read to the nine members present at the meeting and there was discussion and questions about how it will be ensured that a blind operator would be running or be a presence in the facility, the legality of this arrangement in relation to Public Act 260, concerns about a precedent being set and about management of the building where the cafeteria is located being involved in the process. Mr. Essenberg shared that the EOC made some motions and some language in the proposal was amended.
Commissioner Posont asked if the amendments could be read as adopted. Ms. Zanger read the EOC amendments to the solicitation proposal as they were added. Commissioner Posont asked if this process follows the Promulgated Rules. Commissioner Scott stated he had the same concern, that going contrary to the Promulgated Rules is going contrary to law. Commissioner Schuck expressed a concern about opening up this cafeteria opportunity to sighted people and questioned if there was a chance that a blind vendor may not be awarded the facility. Mr. Essenberg clarified that a qualified blind vendor will be given first priority. There was discussion about what the timeline would be if this proposal was passed by motion at this meeting.
Commissioner Posont expressed concern over a possible violation of the Promulgated Rules and asked that Rule 47 (1) (e) be read. While waiting for the rule to be referenced, Commissioner Schuck asked Mr. Essenberg to clarify that the EOC is comfortable with the process being presented. Mr. Essenberg indicated that he felt the EOC would be well represented on the selection panel. Commissioner Schuck also asked for clarification of the cafeteria certification rule and whether that certification rule would apply here.
Ms. Zanger read the rule and there was discussion about whether this rule was being violated by potentially not being applied evenly to all operators and whether there needed to be a change to the Promulgated Rules. Ms. Zanger reviewed the other two times that there had been a temporary change request of the Promulgated Rules.
Director Cannon answered a question from Commissioner Scott about P.A. 260 and the building managers’ right to reject having a cafeteria in a State building. Commissioner Scott also asked what the process will be for selecting the operator for the House of Representatives cafeteria. Mr. Essenberg reviewed the process, including that a blind operator will be given preference for this facility and will be running the facility for 2 years.
Commissioner Schuck referenced an email that she had just received that gave reasons why the proposal is illegal. She then reviewed the contents of the email and there was discussion about the validity of the information.
Director Cannon thanked the Elected Operator Committee for their hard work on developing this process and working through an awkward situation.
COMMISSIONER SCHUCK MOVED TO ADOPT THE SOLICITATION PROPOSAL; SCOTT SECONDED
Discussion: Commissioner Schuck asked if the Board was comfortable with the proposal not having any written mention of a two year commitment or a commitment to hire a blind person. Commissioner Posont stated that he wasn’t happy that legal counsel from the Attorney General’s office wasn’t available to be at this meeting and part of the discussion, shared that he is against it as it is written and if a change needs to be made to the Promulgated Rules then the proper channels need to be followed. Commissioner Scott said that he is against the proposal as it is written but would consider passing it with the added amendments that Commissioner Schuck mentioned. Mr. Essenberg stated no objections on adding the amendments as suggested.
Commissioner Posont summed up the four options to qualify for this facility:
1. A licensed vendor that is qualified;
2. A vendor in the program;
3. A person who is blind who could make it who is outside the program;
4. A teaming partner which would hire blind people and would team up for up to two years;
The added amendments are:
· Second preference would be given to any other individuals who are blind (added to the fourth paragraph)
· For a minimum of 2 years (added to the first paragraph)
THE MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE WITH SCHUCK AND SCOTT VOTING AYE AND POSONT VOTING NAY.
The Commissioners asked that when dates are set to begin the interviewing process if they could be advised and an update provided at the March Quarterly Commission meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Dave Robinson: First of all I would like to inform the Commissioners about some information that was conveniently deleted from the discussion today by the Agency. One of the things under the rules in the bid process, if there’s a cafeteria on the bid line and nobody bids on it that’s cafeteria certified and it’s open to all licensed operators for bidding therefore after two weeks on the bid line they are considered qualified to bid on that facility. That’s a part that was conveniently left out. The other thing was that the Commission for the Blind built this facility. They built it with rehab money for the purpose of employing a blind person, that’s their mandate. They knew what type of facility it was. They knew what type of training it would take to run that operation successfully, ok, so it was their facility. Now when you talk about requiring operators to have a teaming partner, what does that mean? The Teaming partner comes in to work with the operator but they also take some part of the profit from that operator. It could be a 50/50 split, it could be 49/51 it could be whatever which results in the operator paying for their training and the training which was supposed to be the responsibility of the BEP program. Now remember the BEP facility, they knew what it would take to train somebody in that facility and they didn’t train the people in the program to run that facility successfully. Now, now they’re going back and putting the burden of the training on the operator because the operator is basically paying for their own training. Now you can put this and mix it anyway you want to but the reality is the agency is negating their responsibility to train a person successfully for this employment opportunity and yet there’s lots of times when the Commission for the Blind spends thousands of dollars training people for their particular employment. Job coaches, trainers whatever and now we’re telling a blind person that they have to pay for their own training. So it’s a sham that the agency is purveying and you guys just voted for the illegal procedure. It’s illegal no matter how you twist and turn it and provisions, recommendations, won’t undo that. So I just want to let you know where you stand in terms of what you did.
Mr. Joe Harcz: In the 1930’s Adolf Hitler had his brown shirts set fire to the Reichstag and then used that as an excuse for violating the rule of the law. Tierney is always started when we put the rule of man over the rule of the law. What we’ve had and this echoes somewhat what Dave just said is we have fundamental violations by this agency, dereliction of duty, everybody goes ‘oh we don’t have enough cafeteria certified people to handle this’, well whose responsibility was that to begin with? And abdicating and violating and reversing the rule of law, oh on this so called one time basis it is more than a slippery slope ladies and gentlemen. The other issue that was never discussed was that we, the Michigan Commission for the Blind are the State Licensing Agency and not building management. Even if this interview process was legal to begin with we’re basically putting a building manager outside this program in the position of granting a license. Period. The license is the contract, the priority and the mandate are clear. Again and again these go to fundamental violations that go on over and over again in this system because we are a general VR program and we are required to supply the competent training of individuals in whatever their career choice is. Constantly, in over a decade, I’ve seen this occur, the Agency is derelict in its duties, violating the Rehab Act, violates Randolph Sheppard Act, violates Public Act 260, violates it’s charge and yet it goes to the Commission Board or some subcommittee or the EOC in this case, you know to try and rubber stamp those violations. These are substantial things Ladies and Gentlemen. We have lit a match, we have burnt the Reichstag, and when I say we I am talking about the Agency and now we’re claiming an emergency. Where does the responsibility go? Thank you.
Mr. Joe Sibley: I heard great discussion here. I’m not an expert here, I wasn’t an operator, I know many people who were but I thought I heard great discussion this morning. I thought I heard good scrutiny, good discussion. The operators committee is on board with this, those that know the law seemed to be on board with this, I think it was a good move. I think this location is vital which is a showplace location and I think it needs to be scrutinized and really have a first class operation. I think you covered all the bases with this proposal and its changes so I salute the board and all participating.
SCHUCK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING; SCOTT SECONDED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
____________________________ ____________________
Larry Posont Date
APPROVED
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING
201 N. Washington Square
Victor Center Building
2nd Floor Conference Room
Lansing, MI
February 8, 2012
9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
VIA Conference Call
MINUTES
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT VIA TELEPHONE
Mr. Larry Posont Ms. Lydia Schuck
Mr. John Scott
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
None (2 Commissioner vacancies currently exist)
MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF PRESENT
Mr. Pat Cannon Ms. Sue Luzenski
Ms. Constance Zanger Mr. James Hull (via telephone)
Mr. Josh Hoskins (via telephone)
GUESTS/ATTENDEES
Mr. Joe Sontag
GUESTS/ATTENDEES VIA TELEPHONE
Mr. Joe Sibley Mr. Joe Harcz
Mr. Fred Wurtzel Mr. Terry Eagle
Mr. Rob Essenberg Mr. Greg Keathley
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Commissioner Larry Posont called the special meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was present.
Discussion of State House of Representatives Cafeteria Proposal
Commissioner Posont asked for a report of the Elected Operators Committee meeting from Monday evening, February 6. Mr. Rob Essenberg, Elected Operator Committee Chair, reported that the solicitation proposal was read to the nine members present at the meeting and there was discussion and questions about how it will be ensured that a blind operator would be running or be a presence in the facility, the legality of this arrangement in relation to Public Act 260, concerns about a precedent being set and about management of the building where the cafeteria is located being involved in the process. Mr. Essenberg shared that the EOC made some motions and some language in the proposal was amended.
Commissioner Posont asked if the amendments could be read as adopted. Ms. Zanger read the EOC amendments to the solicitation proposal as they were added. Commissioner Posont asked if this process follows the Promulgated Rules. Commissioner Scott stated he had the same concern, that going contrary to the Promulgated Rules is going contrary to law. Commissioner Schuck expressed a concern about opening up this cafeteria opportunity to sighted people and questioned if there was a chance that a blind vendor may not be awarded the facility. Mr. Essenberg clarified that a qualified blind vendor will be given first priority. There was discussion about what the timeline would be if this proposal was passed by motion at this meeting.
Commissioner Posont expressed concern over a possible violation of the Promulgated Rules and asked that Rule 47 (1) (e) be read. While waiting for the rule to be referenced, Commissioner Schuck asked Mr. Essenberg to clarify that the EOC is comfortable with the process being presented. Mr. Essenberg indicated that he felt the EOC would be well represented on the selection panel. Commissioner Schuck also asked for clarification of the cafeteria certification rule and whether that certification rule would apply here.
Ms. Zanger read the rule and there was discussion about whether this rule was being violated by potentially not being applied evenly to all operators and whether there needed to be a change to the Promulgated Rules. Ms. Zanger reviewed the other two times that there had been a temporary change request of the Promulgated Rules.
Director Cannon answered a question from Commissioner Scott about P.A. 260 and the building managers’ right to reject having a cafeteria in a State building. Commissioner Scott also asked what the process will be for selecting the operator for the House of Representatives cafeteria. Mr. Essenberg reviewed the process, including that a blind operator will be given preference for this facility and will be running the facility for 2 years.
Commissioner Schuck referenced an email that she had just received that gave reasons why the proposal is illegal. She then reviewed the contents of the email and there was discussion about the validity of the information.
Director Cannon thanked the Elected Operator Committee for their hard work on developing this process and working through an awkward situation.
COMMISSIONER SCHUCK MOVED TO ADOPT THE SOLICITATION PROPOSAL; SCOTT SECONDED
Discussion: Commissioner Schuck asked if the Board was comfortable with the proposal not having any written mention of a two year commitment or a commitment to hire a blind person. Commissioner Posont stated that he wasn’t happy that legal counsel from the Attorney General’s office wasn’t available to be at this meeting and part of the discussion, shared that he is against it as it is written and if a change needs to be made to the Promulgated Rules then the proper channels need to be followed. Commissioner Scott said that he is against the proposal as it is written but would consider passing it with the added amendments that Commissioner Schuck mentioned. Mr. Essenberg stated no objections on adding the amendments as suggested.
Commissioner Posont summed up the four options to qualify for this facility:
1. A licensed vendor that is qualified;
2. A vendor in the program;
3. A person who is blind who could make it who is outside the program;
4. A teaming partner which would hire blind people and would team up for up to two years;
The added amendments are:
· Second preference would be given to any other individuals who are blind (added to the fourth paragraph)
· For a minimum of 2 years (added to the first paragraph)
THE MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE WITH SCHUCK AND SCOTT VOTING AYE AND POSONT VOTING NAY.
The Commissioners asked that when dates are set to begin the interviewing process if they could be advised and an update provided at the March Quarterly Commission meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Dave Robinson: First of all I would like to inform the Commissioners about some information that was conveniently deleted from the discussion today by the Agency. One of the things under the rules in the bid process, if there’s a cafeteria on the bid line and nobody bids on it that’s cafeteria certified and it’s open to all licensed operators for bidding therefore after two weeks on the bid line they are considered qualified to bid on that facility. That’s a part that was conveniently left out. The other thing was that the Commission for the Blind built this facility. They built it with rehab money for the purpose of employing a blind person, that’s their mandate. They knew what type of facility it was. They knew what type of training it would take to run that operation successfully, ok, so it was their facility. Now when you talk about requiring operators to have a teaming partner, what does that mean? The Teaming partner comes in to work with the operator but they also take some part of the profit from that operator. It could be a 50/50 split, it could be 49/51 it could be whatever which results in the operator paying for their training and the training which was supposed to be the responsibility of the BEP program. Now remember the BEP facility, they knew what it would take to train somebody in that facility and they didn’t train the people in the program to run that facility successfully. Now, now they’re going back and putting the burden of the training on the operator because the operator is basically paying for their own training. Now you can put this and mix it anyway you want to but the reality is the agency is negating their responsibility to train a person successfully for this employment opportunity and yet there’s lots of times when the Commission for the Blind spends thousands of dollars training people for their particular employment. Job coaches, trainers whatever and now we’re telling a blind person that they have to pay for their own training. So it’s a sham that the agency is purveying and you guys just voted for the illegal procedure. It’s illegal no matter how you twist and turn it and provisions, recommendations, won’t undo that. So I just want to let you know where you stand in terms of what you did.
Mr. Joe Harcz: In the 1930’s Adolf Hitler had his brown shirts set fire to the Reichstag and then used that as an excuse for violating the rule of the law. Tierney is always started when we put the rule of man over the rule of the law. What we’ve had and this echoes somewhat what Dave just said is we have fundamental violations by this agency, dereliction of duty, everybody goes ‘oh we don’t have enough cafeteria certified people to handle this’, well whose responsibility was that to begin with? And abdicating and violating and reversing the rule of law, oh on this so called one time basis it is more than a slippery slope ladies and gentlemen. The other issue that was never discussed was that we, the Michigan Commission for the Blind are the State Licensing Agency and not building management. Even if this interview process was legal to begin with we’re basically putting a building manager outside this program in the position of granting a license. Period. The license is the contract, the priority and the mandate are clear. Again and again these go to fundamental violations that go on over and over again in this system because we are a general VR program and we are required to supply the competent training of individuals in whatever their career choice is. Constantly, in over a decade, I’ve seen this occur, the Agency is derelict in its duties, violating the Rehab Act, violates Randolph Sheppard Act, violates Public Act 260, violates it’s charge and yet it goes to the Commission Board or some subcommittee or the EOC in this case, you know to try and rubber stamp those violations. These are substantial things Ladies and Gentlemen. We have lit a match, we have burnt the Reichstag, and when I say we I am talking about the Agency and now we’re claiming an emergency. Where does the responsibility go? Thank you.
Mr. Joe Sibley: I heard great discussion here. I’m not an expert here, I wasn’t an operator, I know many people who were but I thought I heard great discussion this morning. I thought I heard good scrutiny, good discussion. The operators committee is on board with this, those that know the law seemed to be on board with this, I think it was a good move. I think this location is vital which is a showplace location and I think it needs to be scrutinized and really have a first class operation. I think you covered all the bases with this proposal and its changes so I salute the board and all participating.
SCHUCK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING; SCOTT SECONDED.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
The meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m.
____________________________ ____________________
Larry Posont Date
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list