[Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] open inquire

Joe Sontag suncat0 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 12:57:15 UTC 2011


I approve this message.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "James Hull BEP Temp Mgr" <hullj at michigan.gov>; "lydia Schuck MCB Comm." <laschuck at juno.com>; "Steve Arwood LARA Dep" 
<arwoods at michigan.gov>; "Constance Zanger MCB BEP" <zangerc at michigan.gov>; "Patrick Cannon MCB Dir." <cannonp at MICHIGAN.GOV>; "John 
Scott MCB Comm." <jcscot at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 21:42
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] open inquire


> Dear Ms. Zanger and Mr. cannon,
>
> It has come to my attention that we in MCB have not collected all set asides from sighted, non-disabled tempory operators for some 
> time. I'm a bit confused by this documented fact in that MCB is required by PA 260 and the Randolph Shepard Program to offer a 
> priority to blind folks in these concessions as the State Licensing Agency. I'm also confused in that this set aside is considered 
> income for federal matching purposes.
>
> So, correct me if I'm wrong here but don't we violate the mandates of the RS, VR and other programs when we don't require when 
> using federal funds the same requirements of so-called temporary operators who are not blind in the same manner as we've done for 
> blind operators?  And aren't these inequities primae facae evidence of mass, systemic, and willful violations of the ADA, and 
> Section 504 in their clearcut discriminatory impact in that they clearly set and implement in fact and documented deed 
> discriminatory standards of practice?
>
>
> And, moreover a practical matter here...In short aside from the clear cut misappropriations of federal funds here aren't we as an 
> agency losing appropriate federal match as again set asides are "income" and thus robbing the entire MCB program because of these 
> derelictions of duties and misappropriations of federal funds in the first instance?
>
> I mean think about it you clearly don't ask for the same inventory requirements as documented in fact and deed of these temporary 
> operators let alone the same set aside requirements .
>
> Shoot ALJ decisions in the public domain are rife during recent years where you all yanked licenses from operators, often 
> appropriately for not paying or accounting for federally funded inventories. Oh I guess these were problems because the operators 
> were blind?
>
> But you don't set the same standard, and the same accountability for sighted, non-qualified temporaries?
>
> Are the violations in law and equity here only obvious to an outsider likeme or even the casual observor on the seen?
>
> What gives here?
>
> I'd like some accounting let alone accountability here.
>
> Please remit to me the set asides of all sighted, non-disabled operators during the last fiscal year alone. I want line item 
> accounting and not voodoo accounting too.
>
> sincerely,
>
> Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>
> cc: MCB Commissioners
> cc: Craig McManus, RSA
> cc: Steve Arwood
> cc: OIG, United States Department of education
> _______________________________________________
> 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/suncat0%40gmail.com 





More information about the VendorsMI mailing list