From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Apr  5 02:06:00 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 22:06:00 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP
	workshop
Message-ID: <8191C72B04DB4F4086A60D1D7AB7F3D1@Reputercat>

This is the complete thread up to now on the matter.  I can say only that we 
did discuss my baseline points at a meeting last June and that certain 
things were alleged to be "true" by Mr. Hull, but I don't recall anything 
happening that told me that Mr. Hull was taking notes of any kind, nor is it 
likely that his reader/driver was doing the same.  She was too busy reading 
information from printed documents that Lucy was providing at various times. 
In other words, any "notes" that may be produced now are suspect at the very 
least and probably do not reflect what actually happened at the June 
meeting.  Further, if notes were produced, why is it that only now are they 
being offered to me or anyone else?

This is the problem that many of us have with the operator selection system: 
An operator has as many points as the Program Manager says he/she has, and 
there's no practical way for anyone to verify the accuracy of anyone's point 
total or the way in which it was determined.

I ran a complex location and followed the rules and obeyed applicable laws 
regarding employer responsibilities and have been punished for doing so, 
with the punishment being applied only after leaving the  facility.  The 
previous operator of Constitution Hall and at least one of the operators who 
followed me  cannot honestly make that claim.

Joe Sontag

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "Hull, James (LARA)" <hullj at michigan.gov>
Cc: "Zanger, Connie (LARA)" <zangerc at michigan.gov>; "Edmonds, Lucy (LARA)" 
<edmondsl2 at michigan.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:54
Subject: Re: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP workshop


> James, we did not reach consensus, and you can be sure that I would not 
> have brought up this matter now and in the past if the record was clear. 
> as no explanation was given for the manner in which the penalty was 
> determined and at no time was any supporting documentation, let alone 
> accessible documentation supplied.  At no time did you or anyone from the 
> BEP inform me that my operation of the Constitution Hall facility was 
> deficient in any significant way or explain why its sister facility at the 
> Operations Center, which you alleged was expected to operate at 
> twenty-five percent and which enjoys certain competitive advantages, is 
> said to be performing adequately at a profit percentage minimum that is 
> eight points under Con Hall's, or how it was that no action was taken 
> against my license for failure to meet the higher standard for Con. Hall.
>
> I say now, as I have said in the weeks and months following the June 2011 
> meeting, that at no time did I agree that my management of Con. Hall was 
> substandard or that the fifteen+ point penalty was justified and 
> adequately supported.
>
> Joe Sontag
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Hull, James (LARA)" <hullj at michigan.gov>
> To: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Zanger, Connie (LARA)" <zangerc at michigan.gov>; "Edmonds, Lucy (LARA)" 
> <edmondsl2 at michigan.gov>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:10
> Subject: RE: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP workshop
>
>
> Joe,
>
> Thank you for bringing your concern about last years workshop to my 
> attention.  You may not be aware, however, all points for this year were 
> calculated by hand as our system does not yet have the capability to run 
> this report.  Consequently, mistakes may have been made and I thank you 
> for bringing this to our attention.  I will review our documentation and 
> make the appropriate changes.
>
> As for your baseline points, I recall that we met last summer to discuss 
> this matter and we had, to my recollection, reached consensus on the 
> matter. I will review my notes and try to provide you with a copy from 
> that meeting. I am out of the office currently and will need some time to 
> research this. If I have not gotten back in touch by 11 April, please do 
> not hesitate to contact me again.  You may reach me directly at 
> 517/373.2064 or at hullj at michigan.gov.
>
> Cordially,
>
>
> James Hull
> Assistant Business Enterprise Program Manager
> Michigan Commission for the Blind
> ph: 517/373.2064
> fax: 517/335.5140
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Sontag [mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 7:23 AM
> To: Hull, James (LARA)
> Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Larry Posont; Lydia 
> Schuck; John Scott; Edmonds, Lucy (LARA)
> Subject: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP workshop
>
> As you know, James, every registered attendee's workshop packet contained 
> a statement of the operator's selection points and a detailed description 
> of how the total value was determined.  Upon examining my statement 
> carefully, I noticed that I was given no credit for manditory training 
> completed during the previous twelve months.
>
> In fact, I attended all sessions of the 2011 BEP workshop, and went so far 
> as to verify with BEP staff that my attendance had been recorded; and I 
> ask now that my operator selection points be updated to reflect this 
> reality.
>
> I wish to say here once again that my baseline point total is inaccurate 
> and has never been explained and documented as to how approximately 16 
> points were removed, despite my having brought the matter to the attention 
> of yourself, Ms. Zanger, and the Commission Board on several occasions 
> since mid-May, 2011.
>
> Joe Sontag 




From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Apr  5 11:00:37 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2012 07:00:37 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Denial of credit for attending last year's
	BEPworkshop
References: <8191C72B04DB4F4086A60D1D7AB7F3D1@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <DE4E012405F84C8AABC0409426E82D98@YOUR7C60552B9E>

This is dusting Joe S. The only thing these clowns listen to is law suits 
and they don't listen well to those at that.

Anyway I'm certain his notes aren't worth the toilet paper they are 
perportedly written upon....



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "VENDORSMI List" <vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>
Cc: "Lydia Schuck" <laschuck at juno.com>; "Patrick Cannon" 
<CannonP at michigan.gov>; "John Scott" <jcscott at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 10:06 PM
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Denial of credit for attending last year's 
BEPworkshop


> This is the complete thread up to now on the matter.  I can say only that 
> we did discuss my baseline points at a meeting last June and that certain 
> things were alleged to be "true" by Mr. Hull, but I don't recall anything 
> happening that told me that Mr. Hull was taking notes of any kind, nor is 
> it likely that his reader/driver was doing the same.  She was too busy 
> reading information from printed documents that Lucy was providing at 
> various times. In other words, any "notes" that may be produced now are 
> suspect at the very least and probably do not reflect what actually 
> happened at the June meeting.  Further, if notes were produced, why is it 
> that only now are they being offered to me or anyone else?
>
> This is the problem that many of us have with the operator selection 
> system: An operator has as many points as the Program Manager says he/she 
> has, and there's no practical way for anyone to verify the accuracy of 
> anyone's point total or the way in which it was determined.
>
> I ran a complex location and followed the rules and obeyed applicable laws 
> regarding employer responsibilities and have been punished for doing so, 
> with the punishment being applied only after leaving the  facility.  The 
> previous operator of Constitution Hall and at least one of the operators 
> who followed me  cannot honestly make that claim.
>
> Joe Sontag
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
> To: "Hull, James (LARA)" <hullj at michigan.gov>
> Cc: "Zanger, Connie (LARA)" <zangerc at michigan.gov>; "Edmonds, Lucy (LARA)" 
> <edmondsl2 at michigan.gov>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:54
> Subject: Re: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP workshop
>
>
>> James, we did not reach consensus, and you can be sure that I would not 
>> have brought up this matter now and in the past if the record was clear. 
>> as no explanation was given for the manner in which the penalty was 
>> determined and at no time was any supporting documentation, let alone 
>> accessible documentation supplied.  At no time did you or anyone from the 
>> BEP inform me that my operation of the Constitution Hall facility was 
>> deficient in any significant way or explain why its sister facility at 
>> the Operations Center, which you alleged was expected to operate at 
>> twenty-five percent and which enjoys certain competitive advantages, is 
>> said to be performing adequately at a profit percentage minimum that is 
>> eight points under Con Hall's, or how it was that no action was taken 
>> against my license for failure to meet the higher standard for Con. Hall.
>>
>> I say now, as I have said in the weeks and months following the June 2011 
>> meeting, that at no time did I agree that my management of Con. Hall was 
>> substandard or that the fifteen+ point penalty was justified and 
>> adequately supported.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Hull, James (LARA)" <hullj at michigan.gov>
>> To: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Zanger, Connie (LARA)" <zangerc at michigan.gov>; "Edmonds, Lucy 
>> (LARA)" <edmondsl2 at michigan.gov>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 9:10
>> Subject: RE: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP workshop
>>
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Thank you for bringing your concern about last years workshop to my 
>> attention.  You may not be aware, however, all points for this year were 
>> calculated by hand as our system does not yet have the capability to run 
>> this report.  Consequently, mistakes may have been made and I thank you 
>> for bringing this to our attention.  I will review our documentation and 
>> make the appropriate changes.
>>
>> As for your baseline points, I recall that we met last summer to discuss 
>> this matter and we had, to my recollection, reached consensus on the 
>> matter. I will review my notes and try to provide you with a copy from 
>> that meeting. I am out of the office currently and will need some time to 
>> research this. If I have not gotten back in touch by 11 April, please do 
>> not hesitate to contact me again.  You may reach me directly at 
>> 517/373.2064 or at hullj at michigan.gov.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>>
>> James Hull
>> Assistant Business Enterprise Program Manager
>> Michigan Commission for the Blind
>> ph: 517/373.2064
>> fax: 517/335.5140
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Sontag [mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 7:23 AM
>> To: Hull, James (LARA)
>> Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Cannon, Patrick (LARA); Larry Posont; Lydia 
>> Schuck; John Scott; Edmonds, Lucy (LARA)
>> Subject: Denial of credit for attending last year's BEP workshop
>>
>> As you know, James, every registered attendee's workshop packet contained 
>> a statement of the operator's selection points and a detailed description 
>> of how the total value was determined.  Upon examining my statement 
>> carefully, I noticed that I was given no credit for manditory training 
>> completed during the previous twelve months.
>>
>> In fact, I attended all sessions of the 2011 BEP workshop, and went so 
>> far as to verify with BEP staff that my attendance had been recorded; and 
>> I ask now that my operator selection points be updated to reflect this 
>> reality.
>>
>> I wish to say here once again that my baseline point total is inaccurate 
>> and has never been explained and documented as to how approximately 16 
>> points were removed, despite my having brought the matter to the 
>> attention of yourself, Ms. Zanger, and the Commission Board on several 
>> occasions since mid-May, 2011.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vendorsmi mailing list
> Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> Vendorsmi:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net 




From f.wurtzel at att.net  Sat Apr  7 19:16:15 2012
From: f.wurtzel at att.net (Fred Wurtzel)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 15:16:15 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] FW: Project Update #2: "Headspace:" the long awaited
	2nd album from Kevin Reeves. by Kevin Reeves
In-Reply-To: <4f8000dde3233_659d4c3e89a16496ec@ip-10-245-162-210.mail>
References: <4f8000dde3233_659d4c3e89a16496ec@ip-10-245-162-210.mail>
Message-ID: <00c401cd14f2$e82f5670$b88e0350$@att.net>

Hello,

 

Kevin is running out of time.  Please go to his Kickstarter site and pledge some money to get his CD off the ground.  This is a way for Federationists to support one another.  Kevin is a very good musician and a fine member of our affilliate who is there when we need him.  As you know he is responsible for our web page and helped us raise a lot during our auction last fall.

 

Warmest Regards,

 

Fred

 

From: Kickstarter [mailto:no-reply at kickstarter.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 4:55 AM
To: f.wurtzel at att.net
Subject: Project Update #2: "Headspace:" the long awaited 2nd album from Kevin Reeves. by Kevin Reeves

 





 <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2073719078/headspace-the-long-awaited-2nd-album-from-kevin-re/posts/203558?ref=email&show_token=816e6bd8835b1d69> Project Update #2: An old demo of a new song. 




Posted by Kevin Reeves  <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2073719078/headspace-the-long-awaited-2nd-album-from-kevin-re/posts/203558?ref=email&show_token=816e6bd8835b1d69#modal_dialog:facebook-like-dialog> Description: Image removed by sender. Like



Just thought I'd take a minute to post an old demo of one of the new tunes that will be on this forthcoming album. I recorded this in the fall of 2009. This is just a skeletal idea of what I was thinking at the time, and everything, including this 1 take vocal will be replaced. I'll throw a couple more of these up throughout the week to wet your appetite for what's to come. Enjoy. http://soundcloud.com/reevesman/euphoria-old-demo



Care to comment?  <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2073719078/headspace-the-long-awaited-2nd-album-from-kevin-re/posts/203558?ref=email&show_token=816e6bd8835b1d69> View this update on Kickstarter ? 


 


 <http://www.kickstarter.com/unsubscribe/BAh7ByIIdWlkaQOtVSMiC2V4cGlyeSIYMjAxMi0wNS0wNyAwODo1NDo1Mw==--2f1162667dfe082827cac7ae57a349356d20dec5/2600389?ref=email> Unsubscribe from this project's updates with one click 

 <http://www.kickstarter.com/?ref=email> KICKSTARTER 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120407/27a0bc89/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD000.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120407/27a0bc89/attachment.jpg>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Apr 16 10:28:30 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:28:30 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] or this important resolution?
Message-ID: <D1130E5102324C89B4FE62A91F7AE0E2@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 6:26 AM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] or this important resolution?


What is the status of this resolution and the ongoing violations of civil 
rights and due process? Also the systemic violations here are underscored by 
all the secret activities around EO 2012-2 and we might note that Deputy 
Director Mike Zimmer heads up MAHS and is a key player to this date 
surrounding Executive Order 2012-2 and the exclusion of blind consumers, and 
activist from participation our even information related to this order.

Joe


RESOLUTION 2011-02
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


            WHEREAS, all entities of State and local government are required 
to follow the effective communications requirements of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990, including the obligation to affirmatively, let 
alone upon request, remit information sin alternate formats to people who 
are blind; and



            WHEREAS, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires 
that all recipients of federal funds provide auxiliary aids and services to 
those who are blind; and



            WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court found in Tennessee v 
Lane that state and local courts are not immune from these obligations and, 
indeed, have high responsibilities in these regards, for lack of access 
fundamentally denies ?due process and equal protection under the law?; and



            WHEREAS, the Michigan Administrative Hearing Systems (MAHS) is 
both a Title II entity, federal fund recipient and an administrative law 
program where blind Business Enterprise Program participants and advocates, 
as well as others, routinely appear to seek justice and receive due process 
and equal protection under laws, including Public Act 260 of 1978 as well as 
major aspects of the Rehabilitation Act; and



            WHEREAS, MAHS, in documented fashion and principals therein, 
have denied advocates and respondents who are blind repeatedly information 
in accessible formats and in a timely manner; and



            WHEREAS, these are systemic, chronic, pervasive and fundamental 
violations of the civil rights of all Michigan citizens who are blind, as a 
class, by failure to act affirmatively in these regards; and



            WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has also been 
complicit in not only ensuring that MAHS follows these laws, but rather, has 
repeatedly violated these very same provisions of the law in these 
administrative proceedings which are in and of themselves conscious and 
malicious acts of discrimination perpetuated repeatedly against numerous 
blind individuals;



            NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the 
Blind of Michigan in convention assembled on November 6, 2011 in the City of 
Kalamazoo, Michigan that forthwith, the National Federation of the Blind of 
Michigan will lodge a Complaint against the Michigan Department of Licensing 
and Regulatory Affairs (MAHS?s parent), MAHS, and The Michigan Commission 
for the Blind within the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights 
Division, Disability Rights Section, and the civil rights office of the 
United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan.



            AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NFB-MI will seek any legal 
support in these matters from other resources, including our National 
office.
_______________________________________________
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 




From dandrews at visi.com  Thu Apr 19 00:34:17 2012
From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:34:17 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fwd: Nonvisual Access to Peachtree Complete Accounting
Message-ID: <auto-000057624715@mailfront3.g2host.com>


>
>Greetings:
>
>For some time, many blind people have been searching for an 
>"accessible" accounting package that would work well with screen 
>access technology for the blind.  I cannot count the number of times 
>I have had to tell someone that for all practical purposes, there 
>was no really good way to use a business-oriented accounting package 
>(such as Quick books) with JAWS for Windows.  At best, I have had to 
>recommend nonvisually-accessible financial programs that were more 
>appropriate for the home user.
>
>I am pleased to tell you that a company called Virtual Vision 
>Technologies has developed JAWS scripts for the Peachtree Complete 
>Accounting system.  Although this is not a solution for people using 
>Quick Books, this can be a solution for that small business person 
>who needs a well-reputed and powerful commercial accounting program 
>and who needs to use that program with JAWS for Windows.  The 
>complete package--that is, JAWS scripts and the Peachtree Complete 
>Accounting program--is available from Scripts for JAWS.  Quoting 
>from the Scripts for JAWS home page:
>
>"With Jaws Scripts for Peachtree, the two best solutions available 
>for the visually impaired are united: Jaws and Peachtree! This means 
>that everything from simply maintaining your own personal checkbook 
>through running your own business (of virtually any sort or size) is 
>now open to you! Even becoming an accountant yourself is now accessible!"
>
>There is a lot of promise here and, I admit, no real-world 
>experience.  I myself have not had a chance to evaluate this 
>offering.  Nevertheless, given what I know about Virtual Vision 
>Technologies, I am optimistic that an extremely viable solution 
>exists here and for only $169 (i.e., $100 for Peachtree Complete 
>Accounting and $69 for the JAWS scripts--an introductory price) at that.
>
>One of the challenges that has made nonvisual access even more 
>difficult is that once extensive scripting has been done for a 
>specific version of an accounting program, the scripting falls apart 
>when the next version is released.  When I raised this issue with 
>the folks who developed the Peachtree Complete Accounting scripts 
>for JAWS, this is the response I received:
>
>"allow me to point out one great thing right off the top:  Peachtree 
>(unlike other applications such as QuickBooks) has no constant 
>requirement to upgrade.  Thousands upon thousands (actually, 
>literally millions) of Peachtree users never upgrade.  Peachtree 
>Complete Accounting is and will be available for purchase for years 
>to come.  For example, PCA 2006 is still widely available.  Real 
>users of accounting applications rarely upgrade unless there is a 
>business need to do so.  Compare to QuickBooks; which requires at 
>least one upgrade every other year.  This very stability issue to 
>which you point is perhaps the primary reason Peachtree was chosen 
>(to be scripted)."
>
>If you want to learn more about Peachtree Complete Accounting and 
>the JAWS scripts that have been developed for this software, point 
>your browser to http://www.scriptsforjaws.com/index.php.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Curtis Chong




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Sat Apr 21 04:12:56 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:12:56 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Can We Be Far Behind?
Message-ID: <5681F9B901E34993B5F7CB32E3FCED46@Reputercat>

We were warned last year that there would be trouble for our program if things didn't start getting cleaned up; and our response was to ignore the messenger.  Below is an article that suggests strongly what may be happening in Michigan shortly.  Doubt what I'm saying? Can you say "State Plate?"  I rest my case.

Oklahoma Senate defeats bill to end Capitol vending space
for vision impaired
Through the Department of Rehabilitation Services, vision-impaired entrepreneurs
run two snack bars at the Capitol, but a bill proposed making the space available
to private companies instead.
BY MEGAN ROLLAND and BARBARA HOBEROCK Tulsa World | Published: April 19, 2012
 2
The state Senate defeated a bill termed "mean spirited" by one lawmaker that would
have taken snack bar space in the state Capitol from a program intended for the vision
impaired and put it up instead for free-market competition.
"Our job is to protect the most vulnerable in society," said Sen. Earl Garrison,
D-Muskogee. "There is no reason in the world to do it."
House Bill 2119 passed the House with only one no vote, but was defeated in the Senate
15-27.
Author of the bill, House Pro Tem Jeff Hickman, R-Fairview, said the service provided
by the blind and vision-impaired vendors was not meeting the needs and demands of
the busy Capitol.
The bill would have exempted the Capitol from a state-adopted federal law that gives
preference to vision-impaired vendors in state and county buildings with few exceptions,
such as hospitals and golf courses.
It also stipulated, however, that proceeds from renting the spaces to private vendors
would go to the Department of Rehabilitation Services to help fund programs like
their Business Enterprise Program that trains vision-impaired clients to run their
own vending stands in state and federal buildings.
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120421/4ca90040/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sat Apr 21 12:08:10 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:08:10 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Can We Be Far Behind?
References: <5681F9B901E34993B5F7CB32E3FCED46@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <4331C9B59F934BC492C40D2B12EBDF85@YOUR7C60552B9E>

I think all thestate mandated facilities will be gone effectively if not outright.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2012 12:12 AM
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] Can We Be Far Behind?


  We were warned last year that there would be trouble for our program if things didn't start getting cleaned up; and our response was to ignore the messenger.  Below is an article that suggests strongly what may be happening in Michigan shortly.  Doubt what I'm saying? Can you say "State Plate?"  I rest my case.

  Oklahoma Senate defeats bill to end Capitol vending space
  for vision impaired
  Through the Department of Rehabilitation Services, vision-impaired entrepreneurs
  run two snack bars at the Capitol, but a bill proposed making the space available
  to private companies instead.
  BY MEGAN ROLLAND and BARBARA HOBEROCK Tulsa World | Published: April 19, 2012
   2
  The state Senate defeated a bill termed "mean spirited" by one lawmaker that would
  have taken snack bar space in the state Capitol from a program intended for the vision
  impaired and put it up instead for free-market competition.
  "Our job is to protect the most vulnerable in society," said Sen. Earl Garrison,
  D-Muskogee. "There is no reason in the world to do it."
  House Bill 2119 passed the House with only one no vote, but was defeated in the Senate
  15-27.
  Author of the bill, House Pro Tem Jeff Hickman, R-Fairview, said the service provided
  by the blind and vision-impaired vendors was not meeting the needs and demands of
  the busy Capitol.
  The bill would have exempted the Capitol from a state-adopted federal law that gives
  preference to vision-impaired vendors in state and county buildings with few exceptions,
  such as hospitals and golf courses.
  It also stipulated, however, that proceeds from renting the spaces to private vendors
  would go to the Department of Rehabilitation Services to help fund programs like
  their Business Enterprise Program that trains vision-impaired clients to run their
  own vending stands in state and federal buildings.
  _______________________________________________


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120421/0cd76e1b/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Mon Apr 23 15:44:31 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:44:31 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] 2011 BEP Financials
Message-ID: <97B454F88A914B57B6D4D38D01BD7702@Reputercat>

It isn't clear whether this is calendar 2011 or the current fiscal year, but here's a clue as to where the money is going in the  BEP.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120423/2464f7df/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2011 BEP financials.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 24576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120423/2464f7df/attachment.obj>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Apr 23 16:25:05 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:25:05 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] 2011 BEP Financials
References: <97B454F88A914B57B6D4D38D01BD7702@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <0EDBE9F668584F0AA971AF818EC92B25@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Looks by the ending that it is FY 2011. But the training numbers don't make any sense since we know McVeatty alone got paid way more than this even in FY 2012.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 11:44 AM
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] 2011 BEP Financials


  It isn't clear whether this is calendar 2011 or the current fiscal year, but here's a clue as to where the money is going in the  BEP.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120423/4cae63ce/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Apr 23 18:47:17 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:47:17 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] we'll see
Message-ID: <42F53EB624AF4E1296944BE3CF527046@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Governor  Rick Snyder to revise reorganization of services to blind

 

12:48 PM, April 23, 2012  |

Paul Egan

 

By

Paul Egan

 

Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau

 

 

LANSING ? Gov. Rick Snyder is soon expected to issue a revised executive order to reorganize services for Michigan?s blind residents after an earlier version

drew protests from advocates for the blind and a threatened lawsuit.

 

Snyder officials earlier said the executive order he issued Feb. 24 would be revised before it takes effect Tuesday, at the end of a 60-day notice period.

The new order could come today.

 

The original order, which abolished the Commission for the Blind and replaced it with an advisory committee, was criticized by advocates who said it was

developed and released without consulting blind people in Michigan.

 

There were also concerns that Snyder?s plan to move a small business program for the blind from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the

Department of Technology, Management and Budget would result in lost federal funding.

 

Richard Bernstein, a blind Farmington Hills attorney who specializes in disability cases, said in March he was researching a possible lawsuit against the

state over the executive order.

 

Snyder said the reorganization ? which would move most vocational rehabilitation services for the blind from Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department

of Human Services ? was intended to improve efficiencies and services.

 

The Commission for the Blind, established in 1978, served 2,750 residents during the 2010 fiscal year.

 

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or

pegan at freepress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120423/a0c1929a/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Apr 23 20:45:43 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:45:43 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] eo 2012-6
Message-ID: <ACC0F4E1ABFA4BBBB35066107AF5D7A7@YOUR7C60552B9E>

 

 

STATE OF MICllIGAN 

RICK SNYDER EXECUTIVE OFFICE BRIAN CALLEY 

GOVERNOR LANSING LT. GOVERNOR 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

No. 2012 -6

RESCISSION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 2012-2

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 vests the 

executive power in the Governor; and 

WHEREAS, Section 2 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 

empowers the Governor to make changes in the organization of the Executive Branch 

or in the assignment of functions among its units that the Governor considers necessary 

for efficient administration; and 

WHEREAS, Section 8 of Article V of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides 

that each principal department shall be under the supervision of the Governor, unless 

otherwise provided by the Constitution; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Richard D. Snyder, Governor of the state of Michigan, by 

virtue of the powers and authority vested in the Governor by the Michigan Constitution 

of 1963 and Michigan law, order that Executive Order 2012-2 is rescinded in its entirety. 

This Order is effective upon filing. 

Given under my hand and the Great 

Seal of the state of Michigan 

this ~day of April, in the Year of 

our Lord Two Thousand Twelve. 

GOVERNOR 

BY THE GOVERNOR: 

FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE 

ON~AT ;)',90 ~ 

GEORGE W. ROMNEY BUILDING ? 111 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE ? LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 

www.mlchigan.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120423/417ae9a0/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Apr 23 23:08:07 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:08:07 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] more detail
Message-ID: <34836BB318FF4B6293CFD59F75C51CDD@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Governor rescinds order that would abolish Commission for the Blind

 

Published: Monday, April 23, 2012, 5:15 PM     Updated: Monday, April 23, 2012, 6:50 PM

Sue Thoms | sthoms1 at mlive.com

By

Gov. Snyder.jpgAP PhotoGov. Rick Snyder said he is still working on a reorganization plan for state services to the blind.

 

Gov. Rick Snyder today rescinded an executive order that would have

 abolished the Commission for the Blind.

He is working with advocacy groups on a new plan to reorganize state services for the blind and visually impaired, officials said.

 

The order, which was set to take effect Tuesday, drew protests and rallies from advocates for the blind when it was issued two months ago

 

?I think it was the power of our advocacy that made him change his mind,? said Elizabeth Kazmierski, a 16-year-old from East Grand Rapids. ?I like how advocacy

can really make a difference.?

 

Elizabeth, went to Lansing with her mother, Marianne Dunn; her twin brother, Michael, and representatives of Michigan Parents of Children with Visual Impairment

and the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan. Michael and Elizabeth, who are blind, advocated for the job training and independent living services

provided by the commission.

 

The executive order would have replaced the Commission for the Blind with an advisory board while transferring its duties from the Department of Licensing

and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Human Services.

 

?We now have more time to work collaboratively with advocates and our federal counterparts to ensure that Michigan?s system is effective, efficient and

accountable,? Snyder said in a statement. ?We are committed to meeting the needs of Michigan residents with disabilities. I want to thank those who have

been willing to work in partnership to improve Michigan?s program structure.?

 

Under the new plan, the commission will be part of the Department of Human Services, but will remain an autonomous body and four of the seven members will

be blind, advocates said.

 

The commission will report to the governor and will have investigative powers, said Richard Bernstein, a blind Detroit-area attorney who advocates for the

disabled.

 

?If you don?t have the oversight of the commission and the advocacy component, those services (to the blind) will disappear,? Bernstein said.

 

Research has shown that when services to the blind are merged with general rehabilitation services, fewer blind people are employed and there is no cost

savings, Dunn said.

 

?The needs of the blind community are so unique,? she said. ?A lot of people are well-meaning and want to do the best they can in offering services to the

blind and, because they are sighted and not trained specifically in the needs of blind individuals, they often make decisions that are detrimental.?

 

Dunn and Bernstein said they were impressed by the willingness of state officials to work with advocacy groups.

 

?We?re thankful they opened up their office and spoke with us,? Dunn said.

 

?They were genuinely committed to find a way to make the situation better,? Bernstein said.

 

The lawyer, who was considering a lawsuit against the state, added the governor?s action ?avoids four years of federal litigation.?

 

Email Sue Thoms at

sthoms1 at mlive.com

and follow her on Twitter at

twitter.com/suethoms

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120423/a81e4572/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Apr 24 13:08:49 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:08:49 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] ithink the dtmb thing is live
Message-ID: <FF689B506CB7438E94A51127274F3A97@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Read Bernstein's quote here and the word "most". I think they arealready still trying to fundamentally dismantle PA 260...
Snyder rescinds order on services for blind people

 

April 24, 2012  |

list end

Gov. Rick Snyder's executive order was to take effect today.

 

Gov. Rick Snyder's executive order was to take effect today. / Andre J. Jackson/Detroit Free Press

Paul Egan

 

Paul Egan

Free Press Lansing Staff

 

Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau

 

list end

 

LANSING -- Gov. Rick Snyder rescinded a shake-up Monday that he had ordered in state services for blind people -- proposed changes that had provoked loud

protests and threats of a lawsuit from Michigan's blind community.

 

The executive order, issued Feb. 24, would have abolished the Michigan Commission for the Blind and replaced it with an advisory committee. It was due to

take effect today, when a 60-day notice period ended.

 

"We are committed to meeting the needs of Michigan residents with disabilities," Snyder said in a news release.

 

He said a replacement executive order will be delayed to allow more time for dialogue with federal officials and advocates for blind people in Michigan.

 

Critics said the original order lacked consultation. They said aspects of the plan, including the proposed move of a small business program for blind people

from the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, threatened federal funding.

 

Richard Bernstein, a blind Farmington Hills attorney who specializes in disability cases, told the Free Press in March he was researching a possible lawsuit.

On Monday, he said he has been in talks with the Snyder administration for several weeks about a revised executive order, and a basic agreement is in place.

 

The new order will maintain the commission as an autonomous body that will report to the governor and have investigative powers, Bernstein said. Four of

its members will be blind, he said. But the commission won't have all the powers it has today, he said.

 

Like the previous order, the new order will move most blind services to the Department of Human Services from Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, he said.

 

"I think both sides were committed to finding a really positive resolution," and this "is going to allow for a fresh start," Bernstein said.

 

The National Federation of the Blind and the Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired also have had input on the new order, officials said.

 

The Commission for the Blind, established in 1978, served 2,750 residents during the 2010 fiscal year.

 

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or

pegan at freepress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/303724a0/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Apr 24 15:11:39 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:11:39 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] they still want bep in dtmb
Message-ID: <0817861D7F2F4AA2BCF8B75F6273B7CE@YOUR7C60552B9E>

From: MCBVI blog. Another point is that MCB under PA 260 is not "advisory", but rather a policy making board with quasi-judicial powers.

Anyone who advocates for a simple seat at the table of an advisory board with no teeth and who thinks that state and federal laws and intent are still maintained is delusional.

Joe

MCBVI Position statement regarding executive order 2012-2

Governor Snyder's executive order 2012?2 signed on February 24, 2012 has been put on hold for necessary changes. MCBVI is working in cooperation with officials
to ensure that quality services for blind and visually impaired citizens remain available. Here is the position statement released by our board of directors
in response to the original executive order:

MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED

POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2012-2

Contact: Joe Sibley, president

616-724-1650

Joe.sibley at comcast.net

March 11, 2012

We are the Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired (MCBVI), the Michigan affiliate of the American Council of the Blind (ACB). After careful
review we wish to make the following statements in response to Governor Rick Snyder's executive order No. 2012-2 which was issued on Friday, February 24,
2012.

While historically it has been demonstrated that vision rehabilitation programs are most successful when operated as stand-alone agencies separate from
the general rehabilitation agency, we recognize that there are times when adjustments have to be made to the structure to make the department more efficient.
This is acceptable provided that there is no violation of any state and federal laws, PA 260 and the Randolph Shepard Act, and there is no reduction in
the scope and quality of services.

Michigan Rehabilitation Services is transferred to the Department of Human Services (DHS) with its mission essentially intact. On the other hand, the blindness
agency is not well defined in terms of roles, functions, and accountability. This could mean that services for blind people will be absorbed into either
the general rehabilitation agency or somewhere else in DHS. We are concerned that services to people who are blind will be adversely affected. The two
agencies differ significantly in the scope of support and sponsorship offered to clients. It has been proven that the training needs of people who are
blind are unique. In order to achieve success, people who are blind require intensive support during rehabilitation that general rehabilitation counselors
are not trained to provide.

While it appears to make sense to move the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) to the Department of Technology Management and Budget (DTMB), the order does
not clarify who will be the licensing agency as directed by the Randolph Shepard Act. It also must be clarified just how the Business Enterprise Program
will coordinate efforts with the agency serving the blind.

The executive order does not clarify the rights and responsibilities of the five- member Advisory Board as it does the Michigan Rehabilitation Council.
This Advisory Board must have MCBVI membership representation, and have a direct impact on the quality of services to blind and visually impaired consumers.

As Governor Snyder has always promoted open accountability and results oriented execution of programs, we trust that this will continue in reporting the
successes and shortfalls of this new restructured vision rehabilitation program, and any problems in the quality execution of these programs will be corrected.

While we are disappointed that we did not have any warning or involvement in the design of this reorganization, we do maintain that a successful program
must include direct involvement by consumers who are living daily with the challenges that the new vision rehabilitation program must help citizens to
overcome.

In summary, while we have many serious concerns as expressed above about executive order 2012-2, MCBVI stands ready to collaborate to insure that people
who are blind continue to receive quality services. We are taking Governor Snyder at his word and trust that quality services will continue, and trust
that he will be accountable for the results of this reorganization.

MCBVI Executive Committee
Joe Sibley, President
John Jarzyna, First Vice President
Pamela Berryman, Second Vice President
Deb Wild, Secretary
Charis Austin, Treasurer
Michael Geno, Immediate Past President
Mary Sibley, Assistant Secretary
Wayne Lepiors, Assistant Treasurer


MCBVI Position statement regarding executive order 2012-2

Governor Snyder's executive order 2012?2 signed on February 24, 2012 has been put on hold for necessary changes. MCBVI is working in cooperation with officials
to ensure that quality services for blind and visually impaired citizens remain available. Here is the position statement released by our board of directors
in response to the original executive order:

MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED

POSITION STATEMENT REGARDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2012-2

Contact: Joe Sibley, president

616-724-1650

Joe.sibley at comcast.net

March 11, 2012

We are the Michigan Council of the Blind and Visually Impaired (MCBVI), the Michigan affiliate of the American Council of the Blind (ACB). After careful
review we wish to make the following statements in response to Governor Rick Snyder's executive order No. 2012-2 which was issued on Friday, February 24,
2012.

While historically it has been demonstrated that vision rehabilitation programs are most successful when operated as stand-alone agencies separate from
the general rehabilitation agency, we recognize that there are times when adjustments have to be made to the structure to make the department more efficient.
This is acceptable provided that there is no violation of any state and federal laws, PA 260 and the Randolph Shepard Act, and there is no reduction in
the scope and quality of services.

Michigan Rehabilitation Services is transferred to the Department of Human Services (DHS) with its mission essentially intact. On the other hand, the blindness
agency is not well defined in terms of roles, functions, and accountability. This could mean that services for blind people will be absorbed into either
the general rehabilitation agency or somewhere else in DHS. We are concerned that services to people who are blind will be adversely affected. The two
agencies differ significantly in the scope of support and sponsorship offered to clients. It has been proven that the training needs of people who are
blind are unique. In order to achieve success, people who are blind require intensive support during rehabilitation that general rehabilitation counselors
are not trained to provide.

While it appears to make sense to move the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) to the Department of Technology Management and Budget (DTMB), the order does
not clarify who will be the licensing agency as directed by the Randolph Shepard Act. It also must be clarified just how the Business Enterprise Program
will coordinate efforts with the agency serving the blind.

The executive order does not clarify the rights and responsibilities of the five- member Advisory Board as it does the Michigan Rehabilitation Council.
This Advisory Board must have MCBVI membership representation, and have a direct impact on the quality of services to blind and visually impaired consumers.

As Governor Snyder has always promoted open accountability and results oriented execution of programs, we trust that this will continue in reporting the
successes and shortfalls of this new restructured vision rehabilitation program, and any problems in the quality execution of these programs will be corrected.

While we are disappointed that we did not have any warning or involvement in the design of this reorganization, we do maintain that a successful program
must include direct involvement by consumers who are living daily with the challenges that the new vision rehabilitation program must help citizens to
overcome.

In summary, while we have many serious concerns as expressed above about executive order 2012-2, MCBVI stands ready to collaborate to insure that people
who are blind continue to receive quality services. We are taking Governor Snyder at his word and trust that quality services will continue, and trust
that he will be accountable for the results of this reorganization.

MCBVI Executive Committee
Joe Sibley, President
John Jarzyna, First Vice President
Pamela Berryman, Second Vice President
Deb Wild, Secretary
Charis Austin, Treasurer
Michael Geno, Immediate Past President
Mary Sibley, Assistant Secretary
Wayne Lepiors, Assistant Treasurer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/f3b900ee/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Tue Apr 24 17:40:16 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:40:16 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer
Message-ID: <1A98E9CFF93343939CDF2074CCBE2064@Reputercat>

Just a few questions from yours truly:
Why is this meeting not more widely known, given the importance of the subject to all operators?  Why are many of the same people who dropped the ball at the 2011 meeting with Steve Arwood being allowed to represent us again at this most crucial meeting with Mr. Arwood's boss?  Who's going to be doing the talking for the BEP at this meeting and exactly what will they talk about?

Other questions could be raised, but you get the picture.

Here is what I received as I received it.  Read em and act.

----- Original Message -----
From:
Rob Essenberg
To:
Andrea Nelson
 ;
Dale Layer
 ;
Garnet Prentice
 ;
Greg Keathley
 ;
Hazell Brooks
 ;
Kevin Tomczak
 ;
Nathan Prater
 ;
Risa Patrick-Langtry
 ;
Shane Jackson
 ;
James Chaney
Cc:
Rob Essenberg
 ;
James Hull
 ;
Constance Zanger
 ;
Larry Posont
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:37 PM
Subject: meeting with Mike Zimmer
To my fellow Elected Operators,
I'm writing to inform you of our latest contact with the Snyder Administration. Last
week Thursday, after a phone call from Hazell Brooks asking me if I thought it was
time to approach the governors administration regarding the executive order concerning
the Commission for the Blind., I told her I thought it probably was time and I would
check with James Chaney to see how he wanted to proceed. After speaking with Mr.
Chaney, we decided to write a letter to Mike Zimmer asking for a meeting between
himself and Representatives from the Elected Operators Committee.
Mr. Chaney directed me to draft the letter. After several revisions, James Chaney,
Hazell Brooks and Constance Zanger approved the content of the letter, which is attached
for your reference. The letter was sent out on Friday afternoon, April 20, 2012 and
within a couple of hours we had a response back from Mr. Zimmer. The response was
as follows:
Mr. Essenberg:
Thank you very much for reaching out on behalf of the Elected Operators Committee.
I think it is an excellent idea that we meet, by teleconference or in person, to
discuss where we are heading, possible approaches, and implementation issues.
With this email, I am asking my assistant, Rita Jenks, to set something up at a time
that is convenient for you and whoever you would like to participate.
Mike Zimmer
Hello Mr. Zimmer
Please find attached a document with some concerns of the Elected Operators Committee.
Sincerely,
Robert Essenberg
Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee
We have set a meeting date with Mr. Zimmer. It will be Tuesday, May 1
st
. James Chaney, Hazell Brooks, Greg Keithley, James Hull, Constance Zanger and myself
will be attending the meeting.
Further updates on this meeting and the executive order should be forth coming.
Sincerely,
Robert Essenberg
Vice Chair. Elected Operated Committee

April 20, 2012

Good Afternoon Mr. Zimmer,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Chair of the Elected Operators Committee James Chaney, and the other ten members of the committee, including myself. Our body has stayed relatively silent on the subject of the Governor's order, because we were told when the initial order came out not to contact the Governor's office regarding that topic. 


We believe that given the current circumstances, we as the leadership of the Elected Operators should be allowed to voice our opinion. This executive order the Governor has created to facilitate a more streamlined Commission and Business Enterprise Program is going to effect all 79 operators substantially. We think that our input as the elected representatives of these 79 folks who are running food service operations in state and federal buildings should be allowed, so that we may voice our concerns and our wishes before the executive order is executed. 


We understand the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, as well as President Larry Posont, has had meetings on this topic with the Governor's staff, as well as different legislators here in Lansing. Their viewpoints may not be representative of all of our 79 vendors. We recognize the excellent work the NFB does on behalf of blind consumers, although the EOC would like the opportunity to express their views as the elected representatives of the blind vendors of Michigan. The NFB plays an advisory role to the EOC and the BEP through it's presence on the Ad Hoc Committee. Our committee, like the operators as a whole, is also responsible for working with the agency in developing the training programs necessary to create good food service operations in the state and federal buildings, which we believe is a concern of the Governor's office.


We believe it is necessary that we are involved in the conversations to design the new model going forward between now and October 1st. We respectfully request a phone conference between your office and the Elected Operators Committee be established so our viewpoints and concerns can be raised before the Executive Order is enacted and/or the final design of the structure of the organization is completed.


Please feel free to contact me at rob.essenberg at yahoo.com or 231-638-2036, or James Chaney at resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net or 313-213-7795.




Sincerely,


Robert Essenberg

Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee




RLE/gmj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/8dba03da/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Apr 24 17:56:18 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:56:18 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer
References: <1A98E9CFF93343939CDF2074CCBE2064@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <9D5A4768047B47C98A631699FAD0F49C@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Since when are Connie zanger and James Hull representatives of the EOC?

And just who told operators either individually or collectively that they couldn't contact the Governor? 
That's a fundamental violation of the First Amendment rights of all citizens including those who happen to be blind.

Not that some folks including some who are blind give a rip!

Oh yes and we still have a MCB Board in place including Mr. Posont, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Shuck.

What are they chopped liver here?



Joe Harcz
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:40 PM
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer


  Just a few questions from yours truly:
  Why is this meeting not more widely known, given the importance of the subject to all operators?  Why are many of the same people who dropped the ball at the 2011 meeting with Steve Arwood being allowed to represent us again at this most crucial meeting with Mr. Arwood's boss?  Who's going to be doing the talking for the BEP at this meeting and exactly what will they talk about?

  Other questions could be raised, but you get the picture.

  Here is what I received as I received it.  Read em and act.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From:
  Rob Essenberg
  To:
  Andrea Nelson
   ;
  Dale Layer
   ;
  Garnet Prentice
   ;
  Greg Keathley
   ;
  Hazell Brooks
   ;
  Kevin Tomczak
   ;
  Nathan Prater
   ;
  Risa Patrick-Langtry
   ;
  Shane Jackson
   ;
  James Chaney
  Cc:
  Rob Essenberg
   ;
  James Hull
   ;
  Constance Zanger
   ;
  Larry Posont
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:37 PM
  Subject: meeting with Mike Zimmer
  To my fellow Elected Operators,
  I'm writing to inform you of our latest contact with the Snyder Administration. Last
  week Thursday, after a phone call from Hazell Brooks asking me if I thought it was
  time to approach the governors administration regarding the executive order concerning
  the Commission for the Blind., I told her I thought it probably was time and I would
  check with James Chaney to see how he wanted to proceed. After speaking with Mr.
  Chaney, we decided to write a letter to Mike Zimmer asking for a meeting between
  himself and Representatives from the Elected Operators Committee.
  Mr. Chaney directed me to draft the letter. After several revisions, James Chaney,
  Hazell Brooks and Constance Zanger approved the content of the letter, which is attached
  for your reference. The letter was sent out on Friday afternoon, April 20, 2012 and
  within a couple of hours we had a response back from Mr. Zimmer. The response was
  as follows:
  Mr. Essenberg:
  Thank you very much for reaching out on behalf of the Elected Operators Committee.
  I think it is an excellent idea that we meet, by teleconference or in person, to
  discuss where we are heading, possible approaches, and implementation issues.
  With this email, I am asking my assistant, Rita Jenks, to set something up at a time
  that is convenient for you and whoever you would like to participate.
  Mike Zimmer
  Hello Mr. Zimmer
  Please find attached a document with some concerns of the Elected Operators Committee.
  Sincerely,
  Robert Essenberg
  Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee
  We have set a meeting date with Mr. Zimmer. It will be Tuesday, May 1
  st
  . James Chaney, Hazell Brooks, Greg Keithley, James Hull, Constance Zanger and myself
  will be attending the meeting.
  Further updates on this meeting and the executive order should be forth coming.
  Sincerely,
  Robert Essenberg
  Vice Chair. Elected Operated Committee

  April 20, 2012

  Good Afternoon Mr. Zimmer,

  I am writing to you on behalf of the Chair of the Elected Operators Committee James Chaney, and the other ten members of the committee, including myself. Our body has stayed relatively silent on the subject of the Governor's order, because we were told when the initial order came out not to contact the Governor's office regarding that topic. 


  We believe that given the current circumstances, we as the leadership of the Elected Operators should be allowed to voice our opinion. This executive order the Governor has created to facilitate a more streamlined Commission and Business Enterprise Program is going to effect all 79 operators substantially. We think that our input as the elected representatives of these 79 folks who are running food service operations in state and federal buildings should be allowed, so that we may voice our concerns and our wishes before the executive order is executed. 


  We understand the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, as well as President Larry Posont, has had meetings on this topic with the Governor's staff, as well as different legislators here in Lansing. Their viewpoints may not be representative of all of our 79 vendors. We recognize the excellent work the NFB does on behalf of blind consumers, although the EOC would like the opportunity to express their views as the elected representatives of the blind vendors of Michigan. The NFB plays an advisory role to the EOC and the BEP through it's presence on the Ad Hoc Committee. Our committee, like the operators as a whole, is also responsible for working with the agency in developing the training programs necessary to create good food service operations in the state and federal buildings, which we believe is a concern of the Governor's office.


  We believe it is necessary that we are involved in the conversations to design the new model going forward between now and October 1st. We respectfully request a phone conference between your office and the Elected Operators Committee be established so our viewpoints and concerns can be raised before the Executive Order is enacted and/or the final design of the structure of the organization is completed.


  Please feel free to contact me at rob.essenberg at yahoo.com or 231-638-2036, or James Chaney at resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net or 313-213-7795.




  Sincerely,


  Robert Essenberg

  Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee




  RLE/gmj



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/f7fc563c/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Apr 24 19:30:24 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:30:24 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: FOIA Response to Request Received 4-18-12
Message-ID: <17676355615F459F95DCACB5014E876D@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Lautner, Christopher J (LARA) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:24 PM
Subject: FOIA Response to Request Received 4-18-12


April 25, 2012

 

Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458

 

Re:  Email Recalled/Resent

 

Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

 

This email is in response to your April 17, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on April 18, 2012, in this office.  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 as described in your email which is below and starts "the mass E-mail attachment referenced in the following public domain submission to several public officials posted by Mr. Posont to the NFB of Michigan list serve".

 

Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request.  Below and attached to this email is the message recalled and the second email message.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

Attachments and Documents Below: 

1.           Email of 4-17-12

2.           Emails of 4-17-12 (Two)

 

cc:     Patrick Cannon

          Mel Farmer

          Susan Turney

          Elsie Duell

 

 



From: joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz at comcast.net>

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 11:17 AM

To:   Cannon, Patrick (LARA)

Cc:   Haynes, Carla (LARA); Farmer, Mel (LARA); nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; 

lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; Larry Posont MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB 

Comm.; Joe Sibley MCBVI Pres.; Geri Taeckens; Elmer Cerano MPAS; 

MARK CODY; Richard Bernstein Esq; Richard Clay Advocates f/t Blind; 

James Chaney EOC; Hazell Brooks; OCR Cleveland Office; Sally Conway 

USDOJ; Robin Jones

Subject:    foia ada 504 and oma request

 

April 17 2012 FOIA

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458

810-516-5262

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

 

Re: FOIA/ADA/504 Request for Timely Information

 

To:

 

Carla Haynes, Michigan Commission for the Blind FOIA

Cc: Melvin Farmer, LARA FOIA

Cc: Patrick D. Cannon

Michigan Commission for the Blind Director

 

(Via E-mail)

 

Dear All,

 

I'm requesting under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act the mass E-mail attachment referenced in the following public domain submission to several public officials posted by Mr. Posont to the NFB of Michigan list serve as follows:

 

"----- Original Message -----

From: "Cannon, Patrick (LARA)" <

cannonp at michigan.gov>

 

To: "MCB Staff" <

MCBStaff at michigan.gov>

 

Cc: "Zimmer, Mike (LARA)" <

zimmerm at michigan.gov>

; "'John Scott'" <

jcscot at sbcglobal.net>

; "'Larry Posont'"

< 

president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>

; "'Lydia Schuck'" <

laschuck at juno.com>

; "Posont, Larry (LARA)" <

PosontL at michigan.gov>

; "Schuck, Lydia

(LARA)" <

SchuckL1 at michigan.gov>

; "Scott, John (LARA)" <

ScottJ11 at michigan.gov>

 

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:34 AM

Subject: Recall: Governor Snyder to Issue New Executive Order Next Week

 

Cannon, Patrick (LARA) would like to recall the message, "Governor Snyder to Issue New 

Executive Order Next Week". =

 

_______________________________________________

nfbmi-talk mailing list

nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org

http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org"

 

Precisely what is the "message" Mr. Cannon wished and apparently re-called somehow?

 

This was a most public correspondence about most public actions and we the public have the right to know including we who are blind in a timely manner and effective format. Since this was 

sent out on Cannon's own state owned computer it is subject to FOIA and since it was digital in the first instance (my most effective format) I am requesting this now. Not yesterday and not with stalling, and not with an abuse of the ADA's or 504's "undue hardship" provisions for there are clearly no hardships of this multi-million, federally funded agency at play here folks!

 

In addition as it is clear that there will be and are changes to the Executive Order 2012-2 involved here I wish to know precisely what the contents of the new Executive Order will be so that I, a citizen of this state and this Republic can decide for himself if they are in accordance with applicable state and federal laws..

 

Oh if you want to stall around this issue then think of the damages re: Detroit Free Press v. City of Detroit amongst others.

 

In other words as an editorial comment I am sick to death personally of all the government secrecy going on in this state and it doesn't go just to this issue, but regardless is germane to it nonetheless.

 

In this case we have substantial violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, the Michigan Open Meetings Act, the Michigan Freedom of Information Act and Public Act 260 going on like they are violations on steroids.

 

This must end. It must end now.

 

I am willing, able and will sue if need be for it all to end too!

 

So give this information up!

 

It is time for secret government in Michigan and secrecy relative to federally funded programs for the blind and others with other disabilities to end as well.

 

 

It is as simple as that!

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Inc.

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: MCBVI

Cc:several media outlets

Cc: several MRC members

Cc: RSA

Cc: several list serves and blogs

Cc: Governor Richard Snyder

Cc: several Attorneys at Law

Cc: United States Department of Justice, Civil rights Division

Cc: United States Department of education, Office of Civil rights

 

 

Email Message Recalled:
From: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:09 AM

To:   MCB Staff

Cc:   Zimmer, Mike (LARA); John Scott; Larry Posont; Lydia Schuck; 

Posont, Larry  (LARA); Schuck, Lydia  (LARA); Scott, John  (LARA)

Subject:    Governor Snyder to Issue New Executive Order Next Week

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Mike Zimmer, LARA's Chief Deputy Director has advised us that the Governor intends to rescind Executive Order 2012-2 and issue a new EO next week which will preserve specialized services for the blind and retain the blind services as a separate bureau.

 

The new draft Order which is under final review is expected to be issued early next week, with an anticipated effective date of October 1 of this year.  Following are some key components of the draft currently under consideration in which you will be interested:

 

*     The functions and services currently provided by the Michigan Commission for the Blind will be now provided by a distinct bureau in the DHS organizational structure.  

 

*     The effective date of the transfers resulting from the new Executive Order will be October 1, 2012.  This will mean that both MRS and MCB will submit a separate State Plan to RSA with each organization conducting a series of public meetings on its State Plan Amendments.

    

*     Under the draft which is currently being reviewed by RSA, BEP locations in Federal facilities will still be operated under the Randolph Sheppard Act with state facilities operations to be part of DTMB

 

*     The State Rehabilitation Council will be reconstituted as the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services to cover both MRS and MCB.  The new Council will consist of 17 members with the Directors of MCB and MRS serving as ex-officio members.

 

*     The MCB Board as we have known it will be abolished and replaced by a Commission for Blind Persons.  The new advisory commission will be comprised of 7 individuals appointed by the Governor.

 

I want to emphasize that the new draft of the EO is still a work in progress and under review by RSA and others and, as such, still subject to revisions.  We will keep you posted on further developments and, as always, I welcome any questions or comments you may have.  

 

The Administration's willingness to listen carefully has served the best interests of our consumers.  As I've stated often, I remain most appreciative of your patience through the past several weeks and your continued dedication to excellence.  Thank you very much!

 

Best always,

 

Pat

 

 

 

Patrick D. Cannon, State Director

Michigan Commission for the Blind

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

cannonp at michigan.gov

517-335-4265

Toll Free:  800-292-4200

Fax:  517-335-5140

michigan.gov/mcb

 

 

Email Message Then Sent:
From: Luzenski, Sue (LARA) on behalf of Cannon, Patrick (LARA)

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:09 AM

To:   MCB Staff

Subject:    Status of Governor's Executive Order

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Mike Zimmer, LARA's Chief Deputy Director has advised us that the Governor intends to rescind Executive Order 2012-2 and issue a new EO next week which will preserve specialized services for the blind and retain the blind services as a separate bureau.

 

The new draft Order which is under final review is expected to be issued early next week, with an anticipated effective date of October 1 of this year.  Following are some key components of the draft currently under consideration in which you will be interested:

 

*     The functions and services currently provided by the Michigan Commission for the Blind will be now provided by a distinct bureau in the DHS organizational structure.  

 

*     The effective date of the transfers resulting from the new Executive Order will be October 1, 2012.  This will mean that both MRS and MCB will submit a separate State Plan to RSA with each organization conducting a series of public meetings on its State 

Plan Amendments.

    

*     Under the draft which is currently being reviewed by RSA, BEP locations in Federal facilities will still be operated under the Randolph Sheppard Act with state facilities operations to be part of DTMB.

 

*     The State Rehabilitation Council will be reconstituted as the Michigan Council for Rehabilitation Services to cover both MRS and MCB.  The new Council will consist of 17 members with the Directors of MCB and MRS serving as ex-officio members.

 

*     The MCB Board as we have known it will be abolished and replaced by a Commission for Blind Persons.  The new advisory commission will be comprised of 7 individuals appointed by the Governor.

 

I want to emphasize that the new draft of the EO is still a work in progress and under review by RSA and others and, as such, still subject to revisions.  We will keep you posted on further developments and, as always, I welcome any questions or comments you may have.  

 

The Administration's willingness to listen carefully has served the best interests of our consumers.  As I've stated often, I remain most appreciative of your patience through the past several weeks and your continued dedication to excellence.  Thank you very much!

 

Best always,

 

Pat

 

 

 

Patrick D. Cannon, State Director

Michigan Commission for the Blind

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

cannonp at michigan.gov

517-335-4265

Toll Free:  800-292-4200

Fax:  517-335-5140

michigan.gov/mcb

 

 

 

 

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a7a167d3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response to FOIA Received 4-18-12.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 62464 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a7a167d3/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Email Message Recalled.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a7a167d3/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Email Message Sent.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a7a167d3/attachment-0001.txt>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Apr 24 20:11:04 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:11:04 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Categories.htm
Message-ID: <A0BD4FCE9F8B497ABB8A62CC1BE9B99A@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Mi Transparency - Vendor Payments to a Vendor by Category
 Michigan.gov Transparency & Accountability Home | Contact Us | FAQs State Expenditures and Accountability Information
Welcome to the State of Michigan's accountability Web site, where the citizens of Michigan can find information on state expenditures. Government transparency and fiscal accountability are defining principles of Michigan state government. We continue to explore new opportunities for expanding information through the award-winning Michigan.gov Web site. The data and information presented within this site will be updated on a monthly basis and new features will be added as they become available. If you have comments or suggestions regarding this Web site, please contact us at DMB-Contact-OFM at michigan.gov.

  a.. State Expenditures by Category
   a.. State Expenditures by Appropriation Unit
   a.. Vendor Payments
   a.. By Vendor
     a.. By Category
     a.. By Agency
     a.. Tax Expenditure Reports
   Vendor Payments to a Vendor by Category
Vendor payments to ROBERT L ESSENBERG made by TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET for fiscal year 2012

Click on a category description to view vendor payments made to this vendor for this category.

      Agency Name Category Description Vendor Payment Totals 
      TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Information Technology $217.50 

Showing 1 - 1 of 1 


Related Links
  a.. Michigan Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (ARRA) 
  b.. Active Employees by Department 
  c.. Definitions of Expenditure Categories 
  d.. DTMB Purchasing Operations Contract List  
  e.. Executive Budget 
  f.. State Budget Office Financial Reports 
  g.. State Budget Office Frequently Asked Questions 
  h.. Annual Workforce Reports 
  i.. Civil Service Job Specifications and Wage Rates 
  j.. Economic Development Projects 
Michigan.gov Home | Help & Contacts | State Web Sites | Awards 
Privacy Policy | Link Policy | Accessibility Policy | Security Policy | Michigan News | Michigan.gov Survey

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/3e330bf3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/3e330bf3/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/3e330bf3/attachment.gif>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Apr 24 20:12:35 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:12:35 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Warrants.htm
Message-ID: <7A074077E6B74AD182154E59545835A6@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Mi Transparency - Payments to a Vendor by Agency and Category
 Michigan.gov Transparency & Accountability Home | Contact Us | FAQs State Expenditures and Accountability Information
Welcome to the State of Michigan's accountability Web site, where the citizens of Michigan can find information on state expenditures. Government transparency and fiscal accountability are defining principles of Michigan state government. We continue to explore new opportunities for expanding information through the award-winning Michigan.gov Web site. The data and information presented within this site will be updated on a monthly basis and new features will be added as they become available. If you have comments or suggestions regarding this Web site, please contact us at DMB-Contact-OFM at michigan.gov.

  a.. State Expenditures by Category
   a.. State Expenditures by Appropriation Unit
   a.. Vendor Payments
   a.. By Vendor
     a.. By Category
     a.. By Agency
     a.. Tax Expenditure Reports
   Payments to a Vendor by Agency and Category
Payments to ROBERT L ESSENBERG by LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS for fiscal year 2012

      Agency Name Category Description Warrant Date Payments Total 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 2/7/2012 $600.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 1/13/2012 $600.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 10/20/2011 $300.00 

Showing 1 - 3 of 3 


Related Links
  a.. Michigan Recovery and Reinvestment Plan (ARRA) 
  b.. Active Employees by Department 
  c.. Definitions of Expenditure Categories 
  d.. DTMB Purchasing Operations Contract List  
  e.. Executive Budget 
  f.. State Budget Office Financial Reports 
  g.. State Budget Office Frequently Asked Questions 
  h.. Annual Workforce Reports 
  i.. Civil Service Job Specifications and Wage Rates 
  j.. Economic Development Projects 
Michigan.gov Home | Help & Contacts | State Web Sites | Awards 
Privacy Policy | Link Policy | Accessibility Policy | Security Policy | Michigan News | Michigan.gov Survey

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a6e6c910/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a6e6c910/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/a6e6c910/attachment.gif>

From brightsmile1953 at comcast.net  Wed Apr 25 02:08:02 2012
From: brightsmile1953 at comcast.net (Mary Ann Robinson)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:08:02 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer
References: <1A98E9CFF93343939CDF2074CCBE2064@Reputercat>
	<9D5A4768047B47C98A631699FAD0F49C@YOUR7C60552B9E>
Message-ID: <1578BE0EA5954C2191FA1179F06D8ABD@maryannslptp>

I also want to voice my concerns about the upcoming meeting on May first. The letter says quote:
"We respectfully request a phone conference between your office and the Elected Operators Committee be established so our viewpoints and concerns can be raised before the Executive Order is enacted and/or the final design of the structure of the organization is completed."
I think that requesting a meeting with Mr. Zimmer and the EOC is a great idea. However, the letter  says nothing about including agency staff.  So, why are staff being included?  Under normal circumstances, staff should be invited to participate.

However, the circumstances are by no means normal. 



Given the fact that management is a huge part of the problem as evidenced by the long history and ongoing list of issues involving  the current administration that is growing daily, flagrant and repeated violations of promulgated rules, lack of transparency, intimidation/retaliation against operators, lack of accountability for unacceptable staff behavior, failure to admit wrong doing, disrespect for operators and absence of trust by operators,I believe that Mr. Zimmer will not get an accurate picture of what the real problems are and how serious they are if staff is on the call.



Also, I question whether EOC members will be able to speak freely without fear of repercussions or staff members' minimizing, twisting  or discounting their comments.  There are many competent members on the EOC. They have a right to voice their concerns without staff being present and, based on all of the reasons mentioned above, isn't it time for them to begin exercising that right?



Mary Ann Robinson

----- Original Message ----- 

  From: joe harcz Comcast 
  To: Joe Sontag ; NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:56 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer


  Since when are Connie zanger and James Hull representatives of the EOC?

  And just who told operators either individually or collectively that they couldn't contact the Governor? 
  That's a fundamental violation of the First Amendment rights of all citizens including those who happen to be blind.

  Not that some folks including some who are blind give a rip!

  Oh yes and we still have a MCB Board in place including Mr. Posont, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Shuck.

  What are they chopped liver here?



  Joe Harcz
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Joe Sontag 
    To: VENDORSMI List 
    Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:40 PM
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer


    Just a few questions from yours truly:
    Why is this meeting not more widely known, given the importance of the subject to all operators?  Why are many of the same people who dropped the ball at the 2011 meeting with Steve Arwood being allowed to represent us again at this most crucial meeting with Mr. Arwood's boss?  Who's going to be doing the talking for the BEP at this meeting and exactly what will they talk about?

    Other questions could be raised, but you get the picture.

    Here is what I received as I received it.  Read em and act.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From:
    Rob Essenberg
    To:
    Andrea Nelson
     ;
    Dale Layer
     ;
    Garnet Prentice
     ;
    Greg Keathley
     ;
    Hazell Brooks
     ;
    Kevin Tomczak
     ;
    Nathan Prater
     ;
    Risa Patrick-Langtry
     ;
    Shane Jackson
     ;
    James Chaney
    Cc:
    Rob Essenberg
     ;
    James Hull
     ;
    Constance Zanger
     ;
    Larry Posont
    Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:37 PM
    Subject: meeting with Mike Zimmer
    To my fellow Elected Operators,
    I'm writing to inform you of our latest contact with the Snyder Administration. Last
    week Thursday, after a phone call from Hazell Brooks asking me if I thought it was
    time to approach the governors administration regarding the executive order concerning
    the Commission for the Blind., I told her I thought it probably was time and I would
    check with James Chaney to see how he wanted to proceed. After speaking with Mr.
    Chaney, we decided to write a letter to Mike Zimmer asking for a meeting between
    himself and Representatives from the Elected Operators Committee.
    Mr. Chaney directed me to draft the letter. After several revisions, James Chaney,
    Hazell Brooks and Constance Zanger approved the content of the letter, which is attached
    for your reference. The letter was sent out on Friday afternoon, April 20, 2012 and
    within a couple of hours we had a response back from Mr. Zimmer. The response was
    as follows:
    Mr. Essenberg:
    Thank you very much for reaching out on behalf of the Elected Operators Committee.
    I think it is an excellent idea that we meet, by teleconference or in person, to
    discuss where we are heading, possible approaches, and implementation issues.
    With this email, I am asking my assistant, Rita Jenks, to set something up at a time
    that is convenient for you and whoever you would like to participate.
    Mike Zimmer
    Hello Mr. Zimmer
    Please find attached a document with some concerns of the Elected Operators Committee.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Essenberg
    Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee
    We have set a meeting date with Mr. Zimmer. It will be Tuesday, May 1
    st
    . James Chaney, Hazell Brooks, Greg Keithley, James Hull, Constance Zanger and myself
    will be attending the meeting.
    Further updates on this meeting and the executive order should be forth coming.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Essenberg
    Vice Chair. Elected Operated Committee

    April 20, 2012

    Good Afternoon Mr. Zimmer,

    I am writing to you on behalf of the Chair of the Elected Operators Committee James Chaney, and the other ten members of the committee, including myself. Our body has stayed relatively silent on the subject of the Governor's order, because we were told when the initial order came out not to contact the Governor's office regarding that topic. 


    We believe that given the current circumstances, we as the leadership of the Elected Operators should be allowed to voice our opinion. This executive order the Governor has created to facilitate a more streamlined Commission and Business Enterprise Program is going to effect all 79 operators substantially. We think that our input as the elected representatives of these 79 folks who are running food service operations in state and federal buildings should be allowed, so that we may voice our concerns and our wishes before the executive order is executed. 


    We understand the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, as well as President Larry Posont, has had meetings on this topic with the Governor's staff, as well as different legislators here in Lansing. Their viewpoints may not be representative of all of our 79 vendors. We recognize the excellent work the NFB does on behalf of blind consumers, although the EOC would like the opportunity to express their views as the elected representatives of the blind vendors of Michigan. The NFB plays an advisory role to the EOC and the BEP through it's presence on the Ad Hoc Committee. Our committee, like the operators as a whole, is also responsible for working with the agency in developing the training programs necessary to create good food service operations in the state and federal buildings, which we believe is a concern of the Governor's office.


    We believe it is necessary that we are involved in the conversations to design the new model going forward between now and October 1st. We respectfully request a phone conference between your office and the Elected Operators Committee be established so our viewpoints and concerns can be raised before the Executive Order is enacted and/or the final design of the structure of the organization is completed.


    Please feel free to contact me at rob.essenberg at yahoo.com or 231-638-2036, or James Chaney at resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net or 313-213-7795.




    Sincerely,


    Robert Essenberg

    Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee




    RLE/gmj



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Vendorsmi mailing list
    Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
    http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
    To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
    http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/brightsmile1953%40comcast.net


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4956 - Release Date: 04/24/12
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120424/b159870c/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Apr 25 11:03:36 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 07:03:36 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer
References: <1A98E9CFF93343939CDF2074CCBE2064@Reputercat><9D5A4768047B47C98A631699FAD0F49C@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<1578BE0EA5954C2191FA1179F06D8ABD@maryannslptp>
Message-ID: <0C1EA3B5AD034EB3925057A926DD226D@YOUR7C60552B9E>

I can't say how much I agree and that goes double ditto to this staff. Besides while Essenberg seems to dig at NFB because it had some meetings it should be noted that staff including Zanger has had some meetings with Zimmer, et al about EO 2012-2 in the past and they've sure been more privy to things than anyone in either consumer org, the EOC, or even MCB Commissioners. Besides, the bottom line is staff are not the EOC, or aren't supposed to be. Either we people who are blind are our own masters of our own fate or we are not. I wonder which is it here?

Peace with Justice,

Joe
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mary Ann Robinson 
  To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer


  I also want to voice my concerns about the upcoming meeting on May first. The letter says quote:
  "We respectfully request a phone conference between your office and the Elected Operators Committee be established so our viewpoints and concerns can be raised before the Executive Order is enacted and/or the final design of the structure of the organization is completed." 
  I think that requesting a meeting with Mr. Zimmer and the EOC is a great idea. However, the letter  says nothing about including agency staff.  So, why are staff being included?  Under normal circumstances, staff should be invited to participate.

  However, the circumstances are by no means normal. 



  Given the fact that management is a huge part of the problem as evidenced by the long history and ongoing list of issues involving  the current administration that is growing daily, flagrant and repeated violations of promulgated rules, lack of transparency, intimidation/retaliation against operators, lack of accountability for unacceptable staff behavior, failure to admit wrong doing, disrespect for operators and absence of trust by operators,I believe that Mr. Zimmer will not get an accurate picture of what the real problems are and how serious they are if staff is on the call.



  Also, I question whether EOC members will be able to speak freely without fear of repercussions or staff members' minimizing, twisting  or discounting their comments.  There are many competent members on the EOC. They have a right to voice their concerns without staff being present and, based on all of the reasons mentioned above, isn't it time for them to begin exercising that right?



  Mary Ann Robinson

  ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: joe harcz Comcast 
    To: Joe Sontag ; NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
    Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:56 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer


    Since when are Connie zanger and James Hull representatives of the EOC?

    And just who told operators either individually or collectively that they couldn't contact the Governor? 
    That's a fundamental violation of the First Amendment rights of all citizens including those who happen to be blind.

    Not that some folks including some who are blind give a rip!

    Oh yes and we still have a MCB Board in place including Mr. Posont, Mr. Scott, and Ms. Shuck.

    What are they chopped liver here?



    Joe Harcz
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Joe Sontag 
      To: VENDORSMI List 
      Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:40 PM
      Subject: [Vendorsmi] Meeting with Mike Zimmer


      Just a few questions from yours truly:
      Why is this meeting not more widely known, given the importance of the subject to all operators?  Why are many of the same people who dropped the ball at the 2011 meeting with Steve Arwood being allowed to represent us again at this most crucial meeting with Mr. Arwood's boss?  Who's going to be doing the talking for the BEP at this meeting and exactly what will they talk about?

      Other questions could be raised, but you get the picture.

      Here is what I received as I received it.  Read em and act.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From:
      Rob Essenberg
      To:
      Andrea Nelson
       ;
      Dale Layer
       ;
      Garnet Prentice
       ;
      Greg Keathley
       ;
      Hazell Brooks
       ;
      Kevin Tomczak
       ;
      Nathan Prater
       ;
      Risa Patrick-Langtry
       ;
      Shane Jackson
       ;
      James Chaney
      Cc:
      Rob Essenberg
       ;
      James Hull
       ;
      Constance Zanger
       ;
      Larry Posont
      Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 12:37 PM
      Subject: meeting with Mike Zimmer
      To my fellow Elected Operators,
      I'm writing to inform you of our latest contact with the Snyder Administration. Last
      week Thursday, after a phone call from Hazell Brooks asking me if I thought it was
      time to approach the governors administration regarding the executive order concerning
      the Commission for the Blind., I told her I thought it probably was time and I would
      check with James Chaney to see how he wanted to proceed. After speaking with Mr.
      Chaney, we decided to write a letter to Mike Zimmer asking for a meeting between
      himself and Representatives from the Elected Operators Committee.
      Mr. Chaney directed me to draft the letter. After several revisions, James Chaney,
      Hazell Brooks and Constance Zanger approved the content of the letter, which is attached
      for your reference. The letter was sent out on Friday afternoon, April 20, 2012 and
      within a couple of hours we had a response back from Mr. Zimmer. The response was
      as follows:
      Mr. Essenberg:
      Thank you very much for reaching out on behalf of the Elected Operators Committee.
      I think it is an excellent idea that we meet, by teleconference or in person, to
      discuss where we are heading, possible approaches, and implementation issues.
      With this email, I am asking my assistant, Rita Jenks, to set something up at a time
      that is convenient for you and whoever you would like to participate.
      Mike Zimmer
      Hello Mr. Zimmer
      Please find attached a document with some concerns of the Elected Operators Committee.
      Sincerely,
      Robert Essenberg
      Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee
      We have set a meeting date with Mr. Zimmer. It will be Tuesday, May 1
      st
      . James Chaney, Hazell Brooks, Greg Keithley, James Hull, Constance Zanger and myself
      will be attending the meeting.
      Further updates on this meeting and the executive order should be forth coming.
      Sincerely,
      Robert Essenberg
      Vice Chair. Elected Operated Committee

      April 20, 2012

      Good Afternoon Mr. Zimmer,

      I am writing to you on behalf of the Chair of the Elected Operators Committee James Chaney, and the other ten members of the committee, including myself. Our body has stayed relatively silent on the subject of the Governor's order, because we were told when the initial order came out not to contact the Governor's office regarding that topic. 


      We believe that given the current circumstances, we as the leadership of the Elected Operators should be allowed to voice our opinion. This executive order the Governor has created to facilitate a more streamlined Commission and Business Enterprise Program is going to effect all 79 operators substantially. We think that our input as the elected representatives of these 79 folks who are running food service operations in state and federal buildings should be allowed, so that we may voice our concerns and our wishes before the executive order is executed. 


      We understand the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, as well as President Larry Posont, has had meetings on this topic with the Governor's staff, as well as different legislators here in Lansing. Their viewpoints may not be representative of all of our 79 vendors. We recognize the excellent work the NFB does on behalf of blind consumers, although the EOC would like the opportunity to express their views as the elected representatives of the blind vendors of Michigan. The NFB plays an advisory role to the EOC and the BEP through it's presence on the Ad Hoc Committee. Our committee, like the operators as a whole, is also responsible for working with the agency in developing the training programs necessary to create good food service operations in the state and federal buildings, which we believe is a concern of the Governor's office.


      We believe it is necessary that we are involved in the conversations to design the new model going forward between now and October 1st. We respectfully request a phone conference between your office and the Elected Operators Committee be established so our viewpoints and concerns can be raised before the Executive Order is enacted and/or the final design of the structure of the organization is completed.


      Please feel free to contact me at rob.essenberg at yahoo.com or 231-638-2036, or James Chaney at resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net or 313-213-7795.




      Sincerely,


      Robert Essenberg

      Vice Chair, Elected Operators Committee




      RLE/gmj



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


      _______________________________________________
      Vendorsmi mailing list
      Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
      http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
      To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
      http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Vendorsmi mailing list
    Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
    http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
    To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
    http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/brightsmile1953%40comcast.net 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    No virus found in this message.
    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
    Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4956 - Release Date: 04/24/12



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120425/ff8ee8b8/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sat Apr 28 19:34:32 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:34:32 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] isn't this on steroids here in michigan?
Message-ID: <B72348012F24448F84D01C47BE41F9E6@YOUR7C60552B9E>

A Wake-up Call for the Oregon Commission for the Blind

Braille Monitor                                                 January 2012

 

(

back)

(

contents)

(

next)

 

A Wake-up Call for the Oregon Commission for the Blind

 

by Gary Wunder

 

In most organizations that handle money, the words ?audit? and ?auditors? are enough to start the adrenaline flowing. The purpose of an audit is minimally

to ensure that money received is being handled in a way that can be tracked, is spent with appropriate authorization, and is consistent with the purposes

and goals of the organization receiving it. The need for this oversight, its value to the organization, and the assurance it brings to contributors, taxpayers,

and investors is clear; but the emotional reaction to an audit can be quite different.

 

In the fall of 2011 an audit of the Oregon Commission for the Blind (OCB) was released. Its findings were noteworthy, not because it revealed a significant

slight of hand or abuse of public funds, but because the issues it highlights have been central in audits going back to 1995. The failure to address longstanding

issues has drawn criticism from the press, the Oregon general assembly, and the governor of the state.

 

In an article appearing in the Portland Tribune for October 13, 2011, this is how the audit and the conflict between the Oregon Commission for the Blind

and the state's blind citizens were characterized:

 

Vendors Say State Commission's Failures Hurt Their Businesses

 

by Steve Law

 

Art StevensonBesieged Oregon Commission for the Blind leaders vow to improve their management practices after another blistering state audit--the fifth

since 1995--accused the Portland-based agency of sloppy money management and misleading state lawmakers. In a four-hour meeting Friday, the Commission's

seven-member board, packed with four newcomers chosen by Governor John Kitzhaber, said it would take the audit seriously and try to turn it into a model

agency. But several board members also downplayed the audit findings, raising questions about their resolve to change the culture of an agency charged

with aiding Oregon's nineteen-thousand blind people.

 

Commission Administrator Linda Mock and board Chairwoman Jodi Roth issued separate written responses to the October 5 audit that were largely defensive.

Meanwhile, activists with the agency's Business Enterprise Program, who have been at odds with the Commission for years, are calling for heads to roll.

The new board should have held an executive session to review Mock's performance, given the history of negative audits, said Art Stevenson, president of

the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon and a manager in the Business Enterprise Program. "I do not feel that she should be the administrator of

the Oregon Commission for the Blind," Stevenson said.

 

In an interview Monday Mock said she intends to remain at the helm of the agency. She stressed that her primary concern remains job training, rehabilitation

services, and counseling to some fifteen hundred blind people who are clients of the agency. However, she added, "We realize that the business practices

of the agency need to support that."

 

Many of the controversies revolve around the Business Enterprise Program, which stems from a federal law giving blind people a monopoly on vending machines

and other food service in public buildings. The program employs seventeen blind people.

 

Not Tracking the Money

 

The new audit, similar to others in 1995, 2000, 2001, and 2009, found a pattern of poor accounting and inept recordkeeping at the agency Mock has run for

more than a decade. The Commission for the Blind, which spends $7.8 million in federal and state money each year, didn't have copies of contracts, didn't

track income of the blind vending machine businesses, and had weak controls on spending and discrepancies in financial records. These were among a host

of problems uncovered by six state auditors. Agency leaders have failed to perform tasks that are "fundamental expectations of any manager" in the state,

said Gary Blackmer, Audits Division director under Secretary of State Kate Brown.

 

After a scathing 2009 audit the agency was required to report how it rectified the problems to a legislative committee in January 2010. Auditors concluded

that the agency falsely claimed to have resolved many of its problems. "We found something different from what they told the legislature," Blackmer says.

In the follow-up audit the agency was asked to produce signed contracts with outside food and beverage companies that service state buildings. Some of

those contracts were only signed that morning and not by both parties.

 

Walt Reyes, manager of the agency's Business Enterprise Program, was placed on paid administrative leave in August due to irregularities uncovered during

the audit. He is still on leave.

 

Tracking money from vending machines operated by blind businessmen was hard to do because accounting records were incomplete and inconsistent, said Jamie

Ralls, principal auditor for the state. That's especially important because those machines operate on a cash basis, she said. Auditors also couldn't track

the eleven percent cut that blind business managers are supposed to give to the agency, Ralls said. "If they were doing their job, they could track all

this information," she said. "They could spot when something doesn't seem right."

 

Weak Board?

 

Randy Hauth stands outside the Oregon Commission for the Blind building with a picket sign reading ?Abuse of Power? in hand.Some observers say past boards

overseeing the agency have been rather passive. Members relied on Mock and her predecessor--who resigned under pressure after a negative audit in 1999--to

produce board agendas and spoon-feed them financial reports. "The board has in the past liked it that way," said Kae Seth, a past board member and current

president of the American Council of the Blind of Oregon. Board meetings are only conducted every two months for two hours, giving members twelve hours

a year to monitor the agency.

 

"Basically, the board meetings are like a dog and pony show," said Randy Hauth, a representative of the seventeen blind business managers.

 

At Friday's board meeting, when Mock and her fiscal officer, Leslie Jones, presented a proposal for meeting a potential 10.5 percent budget cut that may

be required by the legislature, board member Richard Phay asked why the board didn't get individual department budgets in the agency. "Honestly, we've

just provided a summary because it's much easier to grasp," Jones said. The full agency budget would have been too long to submit to the board, she said--ten

pages.

 

At the meeting some members defended the agency's management and were publicly dismissive of the audit findings. "This audit looks like a witch hunt to

me," said Dr. John Wilkins, an ophthalmologist. "I think this is an incredible waste of taxpayers' money." Later he said, "We're not accountants. That's

not the primary goal of our mission."

 

Carla McQuillanMock complained that the agency had requested a quality assurance staffer to resolve the financial problems highlighted in past audits but

said state budget writers denied the extra position. Roth, the board chairwoman, reiterated that complaint in her written response to the audit. However,

Ralls said there was a half-time person hired with federal stimulus funds to serve as a quality assurance officer during the 2009-11 budget cycle, which

ended in June. Roth said she wasn't aware of that position.

 

New board member Carla McQuillan said agency leaders should stop arguing that the state is "picking on us" and improve their business management. "Things

have just been very sloppy," McQuillan said.

 

Roth appears to have softened her stance after speaking with state auditors and Secretary of State Brown. In an interview Tuesday the board chairwoman said

she would like to see "global changes" in how the agency is managed and how the board functions. "I think that our role is going to be vastly different

in the next months to come," she said.

 

Clashes with Blind Managers

 

The board and Mock also face an ongoing state of rebellion by the blind business managers, who make a living running vending machines, coffee carts, and

other food services in state, county, and city buildings. The blind managers argue the Commission for the Blind doesn't aggressively enforce the federal

Randolph-Sheppard Act, enacted in 1936, and the companion state law, resulting in lost opportunities for blind people to gain business in public buildings.

Nationally those programs provide twenty-five hundred jobs to blind people, Stevenson said. But in Oregon the agency has neglected the program, not even

offering training for the managers, he said. "There has been a mindset in the Oregon Commission for the Blind not to expand the program," or to use it

as a "dumping ground" to place clients when they can't find any other jobs for them, Stevenson said.

 

Auditors found the agency has paid $416,000 in legal bills since 2007 just to respond to claims filed by the blind managers. In most cases those were claims,

authorized by federal law, to prod the state to court more contracts for the program. The managers fought to get control of food concessions in state prisons,

in the U.S. Post Office in Northwest Portland, and in the SAIF headquarters in Salem, among other public facilities. Seth said Stevenson has a conflict

of interest as a blind businessman and president of the other major advocacy group, the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon. However, she said there

had been poor communication between the blind business managers and the agency for years. "It's like two children fighting each other; you just want to

knock them in the head," Seth said.

 

Mock often notes that the Business Enterprise Program involves about one percent of the clients served by her agency. She said that program, created in

1936, relies on an "outmoded model" of rehabilitation for blind people that is very "paternalistic" and leads to ongoing friction in the state agency.

The blind business owners have a more expansive view of their legal rights to state and local government buildings than state attorneys do, Mock said.

In one sign of the dysfunction within the agency and that program, Stevenson is one of the business owners who is not operating with a signed contract.

Stevenson refused to sign one, he said, because he didn't think it granted him due process rights if he was terminated.

 

There you have the article in the Portland Tribune describing the way state taxpayers learned about problems in the agency they support. The Monitor has

interviewed many of the people quoted above, including agency consumers, state auditors, several members of the seven-member Commission (including its

chairwoman, Jodi Roth), and the agency's administrator, Linda Mock. While the newspaper article was thorough in outlining major areas of concern, Monitor

readers will benefit from having more detail as well as information about the events since its publication.

 

In an interview with the Monitor, state auditors expressed surprise at the state agency's defense of longstanding problems and the reaction that Commission

officials are rehabilitation professionals and not accountants. They say the OCB's response differs significantly from other agencies they audit. They

describe their work with most state agencies as a collaborative process designed, not only to ensure financial accountability, but to help improve and

streamline services. They claim that nothing revealed in an audit should come as a surprise to the agency since findings are shared at every stage, both

to ensure that the auditors are drawing appropriate conclusions from what they review and to develop with the agency a plan to fix problems that are identified.

They further argue that none of the social service agencies they monitor are comprised of accountants and that nothing they are expecting to see requires

accounting expertise. They expect to see receipts for money spent, contracts when significant amounts of money are frequently exchanged, and records that

are clear and easy to follow.

 

An audit begins by determining whether an agency demonstrates financial accountability. When expenditures can be adequately tracked, auditors then conduct

what they call a performance review. In this phase of an audit agencies are evaluated against similar agencies and by how well they are carrying out their

duties as mandated by the state and federal laws under which they operate. In the case of the Oregon Commission for the Blind, auditors had wanted to look

at the timeliness of service, the expenditures per client, and the success of the programs in helping blind people find gainful employment. They had intended

to examine the Business Enterprise Program thoroughly to determine whether it was actively pursuing new locations and training blind people to fill them.

 

In auditing the Commission, however, auditors complain that problems observed in basic accounting procedures never allowed them to do a performance audit

in the time allotted for the OCB. So concerned were the auditors by the lack of progress on what they view as longstanding issues that their report was

sent to the Commission board for action, though traditionally audits are sent only to the agency for study and resolution.

 

In response to many of the auditor's concerns, Administrator Mock says the agency has traditionally had a flat management structure, by which she means

it has had relatively few management positions and has focused on putting direct-service people in the field. She says the agency has now concluded that

it has no choice but to reduce some direct-service positions and focus more on centralizing accounting functions and ensuring that all appropriate staff

know and follow procedures. She says one thing the agency has learned is that implementing a policy not only means drafting it but seeing that it is known

to staff and rigorously followed.

 

Findings of concern to the auditors included the lack of a reliable employee leave-tracking system, automobiles belonging to the state being kept at the

homes of employees, cell phones with monthly plans but no use, cell phones which were routinely used in excess of their minute plans and which incurred

the steep charges companies levy for overages, and employees receiving out-of-class pay. Some of these findings require explanation.

 

Tracking employee leave is almost as crucial as tracking employee pay. It is compensation, and a system must be in place to ensure the employee receives

the time off he or she is due and that the agency pays only what it is obligated to pay. The audit found that no system was in place to ensure that leave

taken was reported and, when reported, that it actually appeared on employee timesheets so that it was recorded in the system. Given that no complaints

were received from employees, one has to consider the likelihood that Oregon has paid for time off which it was not obligated to cover.

 

The auditors found automobiles being kept at employee homes in violation of state policy. Administrator Mock says that in certain cases state law does allow

employees to take state vehicles to their homes and that the agency failed to ensure that the circumstances that caused those vehicles to be assigned still

warranted their use. She says that after review this practice has been discontinued except for home-based employees who need state vehicles for the transportation

of clients. Another point cited by the auditors was state vehicles that evidenced little use each month. Mock says these are used by mobility instructors

who take their students to nearby locations to work, that the distances traveled are necessarily small, and that expecting employees to transport students

in the employees? vehicles causes problems with liability and insurance.

 

Mock says that cell phone bills can be hard to read, so in the past they were simply received and paid without appropriate review. She says they are now

being examined by each department, that some telephones have been eliminated, and that plans have been adjusted to avoid extra charges stemming from greater

than anticipated use.

 

Out-of-class pay is a procedure followed in Oregon when the job duties of employees are changed and they are no longer being compensated adequately for

their new job responsibilities. All positions within an agency must be approved by the legislature, so in those cases where a study has determined a worker

should receive more compensation, state law allows for out-of-class pay until a legislative adjustment can be made and the reclassification of the position

approved. The expectation is that these adjustments will be submitted promptly to the legislature and that it will act in a timely manner to approve them.

State rules allow for out-of-class pay to occur for no more than two years. The auditors say that failure to receive legislative approval for the reclassification

of positions means agencies are required to find the money from other parts of their personnel budget or reduce employees? responsibilities with a corresponding

reduction in their pay.

 

Mock says the Commission was placed in a difficult situation when it was told by the Department of Administrative Services that it was underpaying employees,

increased their salaries under this temporary spending authority, and then could not get the legislature to approve their reclassification. The agency

has now reduced the hours of one of its management staff to pay for the pay increases, a move that does not require legislative approval.

 

The audit expressed concern about the agency's spending of charitably contributed funds held by the secretary of state. Their concerns were how the funds

have been spent and that expenditures for several years have exceeded income. Tandem bicycling and boat races are two examples in which the agency's use

of this money has been called into question. Mock's response is that the agency has not interpreted the limitations on spending charitably contributed

funds to be the same as for taxpayer funds. In fact the agency has tried to use them to cover needs that can't be handled through the federal-state program.

Whether this difference in interpretation is a matter of law or a matter of policy that the agency can change by setting up procedures for the use of the

charitably contributed funds is unclear and is being explored.

 

Mock makes the point that one of the major reasons why fund expenditures exceed income is that the legislature has decided to appropriate this money to

replace funding normally provided by state general revenue. While the agency has no control over this legislative prerogative and sees the value in using

this money to get a four-to-one federal match, many donors are reluctant to have their money go for services they believe should be covered by funding

from the state. They intend their donations to stimulate greater opportunity, not to shift the financial burden from taxpayers for things state revenue

has traditionally covered. Some are still giving money, but they are restricting it to programs they consider beneficial in the hope it will not be used

to replace general revenue from the state treasury.

 

While the Commission audit was the impetus for the Braille Monitor to investigate and inform readers about an important state resource for blind Oregonians,

it soon became obvious that the audit is but one area of concern there. Blind merchants who participate in the Business Enterprise Program are adamant

in their belief that, when it comes to participatory policy-making and management of their program, the agency just doesn't get it. In their view the agency

does not understand or attempt to develop a participatory relationship as envisioned in the amended Randolph-Sheppard Act, in which, working together,

consumer organizations, the elected committee of blind vendors, and the agency arrive at policies to encourage a strong and vital program to recruit, train,

and advance blind managers.

 

Illustrative of the way the agency regards its relationship with the Business Enterprise Consumer Committee and the consumer organizations of the state,

consumers and managers cite the following example: Administrator Mock offered a proposal she calls "Modernizing the Business Enterprise Program" without

first consulting any of the managers who derive income from the current program or the National Federation of the Blind, which worked for and has always

supported the concept of blind managers operating facilities, including those in state and federal buildings. Instead the concept was advanced to the governor

and only afterward did blind people learn about it. The reaction was predictable--surprise, outrage, and fear. Mock says her intent was not to do away

with the Business Enterprise Program but to modernize it. She is still surprised that the move didn't get more traction and believes it never was given

a fair hearing. Consumers and managers say they were never a part of framing the proposal or even discussing the need for modernization. They heard of

the plan two days before it was taken to the Oregon Commission board, and, though the Business Enterprise Consumer Committee opposed it, the proposal was

still advanced. The Commission board said there was not enough time to act on it, effectively halting its progress, while endorsing the concept of exploring

modernization.

 

In the opinion of blind consumers and vendors, the proposal would have eliminated the state statute giving blind managers priority. In Mock?s opinion the

proposal would have updated the Oregon law by allowing managers to hold contracts for the facilities they operated, freeing them from agency control and

strengthening the law by giving the blind a priority and the right of first refusal instead of the right to bid, which is what Mock and the attorney general

of the state now interpret the law to mean.

 

For five years now vendors have been pressing the Commission to be more aggressive in seeking and keeping facilities. Randy Hauth, who has been the chairman

of the Business Enterprise Consumer Committee for eight years and a blind vendor for twenty-six, notes with alarm that, when he received his first facility,

thirty-three managers were operating businesses in the program. Today there are seventeen. Consumers and managers say the agency passes up facilities by

not bidding in a timely manner, by agreeing to award them to outside interests with the option of revisiting the decision at a later date, and by letting

building administrators terminate their relationships with the Business Enterprise Program without reason.

 

Managers have been pressing the Oregon Commission for the Blind and its board to join with them in testing the statute and letting a judge determine whether

it grants blind people the right to bid or something more expansive such as a priority in operating state facilities and the right to first refusal. Managers

assert and Mock confirms that the agency agreed to bring a test case involving a community college, but she says that the Commission's council (the attorney

general of Oregon) scuttled that idea, saying there is no right of first refusal in the law, only a requirement to let blind people bid on the facility

and then, if it is not awarded to them, to explain to them in writing why their bid was not accepted.

 

Consumers and business enterprise managers contend that the law says the state will give priority to services provided by the blind, that the agency has

the right to survey any property where the state plans to offer vending services, and that the refusal by building management to award a facility to the

blind is not permitted if the agency proposal offers the same quality, quantity, and price.

 

NFB of Oregon President Art Stevenson says that, if the agency won't join in getting a judge to decide the issue, the affiliate and the national body will

join forces in bringing a suit. Scott LaBarre, president of the National Federation of the Blind of Colorado and a leading attorney coordinating many of

the Federation's cases, says that the NFB is considering a variety of legal remedies and has already filed administrative complaints and requests for fair

hearings pursuant to the corresponding Randolph-Sheppard regulations. He says, ?The OCB has now reached out to us to discuss these matters, thanks in large

part to the work Carla McQuillan has done as a new OCB Commission member. Any business or person has the right to bid on these state contracts. The vendors

need no special law to give them that right. Our reading of the applicable statute is that it gives OCB the right of first refusal for these contracts

and much more than just the right to bid on them. We are hopeful that the recently opened dialogue will lead somewhere productive. If it does not, we plan

to take legal action to enforce the Oregon statutes and protect the rights of the licensed managers there.?

 

As further evidence of the Commission?s failure to work cooperatively with blind managers, Hauth and Stevenson say that the hiring of Walt Reyes as the

head of the Business Enterprise Program happened in violation of an agreement they had with Administrator Mock. The elected committee expressed reservations

about elevating Reyes from his position as a local vendor representative because of performance problems. They agreed to Mock?s desire to hire him with

the understanding that the Committee and Mock would be involved in evaluating him prior to expiration of the six-month probation all employees must serve

prior to having their jobs considered permanent. During Reyes?s probationary period managers expressed concern about his performance as the acting head

of the program and said he should not be hired. Mock disagreed and offered him a permanent position. As noted in the newspaper article above, Reyes has

been on administrative leave since August, and Mock says she is unable to discuss anything about the case?the dispute over his hiring, his reason for being

placed on administrative leave, and the state?s ongoing investigation by the Department of Administration and the state Department of Justice. Managers

are anxious for the Commission to find a permanent replacement for Reyes and are uncomfortable because the acting director, in Reyes?s absence, is a man

he hired to assist him who is both a personal friend and the godfather of Reyes?s son.

 

One other observation begs to be made here. Some are critical of and put off by what they see as the petty squabbles between the National Federation of

the Blind and the American Council of the Blind, but take a moment to consider the reaction of Kae Seth, the Council's president in Oregon, as captured

in the Portland Tribune article. Participants in a discussion as important as agency accountability and their own livelihoods she characterizes as children

who should have their heads knocked together. From what state child welfare manual is this prescription for better behavior taken?

 

When it comes to the Commission board?s meeting only twelve hours a year to oversee the work of the agency, get consumer input, address appeals from agency

clients, and help the Commission plan for its future, the response of Seth is that the board has liked it that way. One has to wonder whether past boards

have actually considered their critical function in running a citizen-directed agency or whether they have seen their role as ceremonial, a chance for

a bit of public recognition and a way to build a r?sum?.

 

And what can be said about the comment that Art Stevenson's participation represents a conflict of interest because he is a manager in the Business Enterprise

Program and the president of the National Federation of the Blind? Wouldn't his stake in preserving his livelihood and his obligation to protect the interest

of blind Oregonians he has been elected to serve create, not a conflict of interest, but a vested interest arguing for and even mandating his active participation

and involvement? It is difficult to see in what way Seth's comments could bring about better service, support accountability, or bring unity in work with

the blind at a time when all of our programs face the possibility of devastating cuts and a threat to their very existence.

 

Since the publication of the audit and the appointment of four new members to the Commission board, the time allotted for meetings has doubled, meetings

beyond those scheduled every two months have occurred, and board members are demanding more information to use in decision-making. Commission Chairwoman

Roth expresses optimism that the board and staff will respond affirmatively in addressing the findings of the audit and in addressing the concerns of blind

managers. She says that, while the first reaction of the board and the commission was defensive and protective, a little time and reflection make it clear

that the agency will best be served by doing what it must to implement the recommendations of the auditors and by welcoming a good, hard look in six months

both by the auditors and by the Braille Monitor. She says the presence of four new members on the board is helpful because they will bring a fresh perspective

to the body, they will not feel the need to defend previous practices, and they will bring time and energy to the task of becoming more involved in Commission

decisions.

 

Some Commission members have been told by state officials that either they will address the Commission?s problems, or others will step in to do it, with

the likelihood that the Commission will no longer be a consumer-managed entity. Mock believes this would be unfortunate, noting that Oregon has what she

considers to be the best structure for providing services to blind people. Roth says that, in her meetings with the secretary of state or staff in the

office of the governor, she has never been issued an ultimatum to act, but she has no doubt that a failure to address identified problems would have consequences

no one will like.

 

Stevenson, Hauth, and others agree that the consumer-dominated Commission is unquestionably the best structure but contend that for too long the structure

has been subverted by a cozy relationship between the administrator and the governor's office, with the result that boards hand-picked by the director

simply went along with whatever he or she decreed. They are hopeful that the addition of four new members will result in positive change but still believe

that pressure from outside the agency to test the scope of the law and demand accountability will be required. They, and many other blind citizens in Oregon,

also believe that the Oregon Commission will embrace real change only when someone new heads the Commission. One commissioner reports having been told

that either the Commission will make the changes necessary to right itself and remove it from public controversy, or elected officials in the state will

actively consider changing the form of the Commission so that it is under their control.

 

Administrator Mock, for her part, says she plans to remain as the Commission?s administrator and says the controversy over the audit and the complaint by

managers in the Business Enterprise Program obscure the good work done by the Commission. One cannot detect Mock?s extending an olive branch to forge an

alliance at a time when state funding cuts are inevitable and federal cuts likely. Whether business as usual between the Commission and blind entrepreneurs

represents a false sense of security or a determination that nothing she can do will make a difference is anyone?s guess, but the potential problems for

the blind of Oregon are undeniable, and the need for positive action is beyond debate. Let us hope that the administrator, like former President Lyndon

Johnson, makes a heart-felt plea, ?Come, let us reason together,? or, as he eventually did, steps aside knowing he could not weather the storms of a public

upset with his policies and demanding change.

 

(

back)

(

contents)

(

next)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120428/8326e387/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Mon Apr 30 16:55:56 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:55:56 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Letter from NFB Merchants to EOC
Message-ID: <728F0B0BD98C479995E48C7C279D2300@Reputercat>

I am pleased to share with you the following letter from Terry Eagle, President of the National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan to the Elected Operators' Committee.  EOC leadership has been going to some trouble lately to imply that our organization does not represent the best interests of the Business Enterprise Program and its operators.  What's wrong with the ideas below?  Your comments are welcome.

Dear Elected Operators' Committee Members
I am writing on behalf of our association membership.  This communication is in response
to a planned meeting with Mr. Zimmer with select members of the EOC, with absolutely
no discussion on the matter by the entire body, which appears strange at best to
have a meeting that claims to be representative of the elected body.  Additionally,
we are responding because of reference by Mr. Essenberg, that the views of the organized
blind of the NFB, and NFBMM somehow do not reflect the views of blind licensees.
We do not reasonably understand how such a conclusion could be reached, absent any
discussion or consensus on the topic of the executive order by the entire EOC representative
body.
Below you will be introduced to what we refer to as the baker's dozen of core values,
principles, and best business and program practices, which summarize our views for
the administration of the Michigan Business Enterprise Program.
As a collective organization of blind business persons, we envision a Business Enterprise
Pro gram that provides meaningful and financially rewarding business opportunities
for the blind, including the following:
1.  Program management that are qualified, and competent in business planning and
management, financial and other resource management that is responsible, transparent,
and accountable, knowledge and appreciation of the skills and abilities associated
with blindness, the ability to inspire and build teamwork and personal achievement,
and the ability to administer in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner, with
uniform application and compliance with state and federal program laws, rules and
regulations, policies and procedures;
2.  Routinely and timely provide training materials, policy and procedure manuals,
memorandum and letters, documents and records, plans and proposals, announcements,
meeting agendas and minutes, and other printed and electronic materials in a useable
format for the blind, including Braille and large print, according to identified
individual preference, in compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations,
policies and procedures;
3.  Business locations that offer a blind licensee a profitable business return and
independent living income, and contributing to society with many talents and skills,
and financially contributing to federal, state, and municipal treasuries, through
payments of self-employment, income, sales and employer taxes, rather than being
tax takers on public social welfare programs;
4.  Innovative up-to-date facilities that reflect current trends in the industry
and are appealing and inviting to guests and potential guests;
5.  Ongoing evaluation and development of new and existing business locations, for
the expansion of the program, and profitable business opportunities and independent
living income generation for the blind;
6.  Equipment for business efficiency and profitability, that reflect excellence
in selection of appropriateness, functionality, and adequate for the business type
and plan, with routine and ongoing maintenance, repair, and replacement, to achieve
maximum profitability through emerging business innovation, industry trends, and
use of technology in the business, that is accessible by blind licensees, employees,
and guests;
7.  Adequate level of inventory and profitable product mix and selection;
8.  appropriate, adequate, and meaningful initial and ongoing in-service training,
including a program position dedicated for the sole purpose of training of blind
persons as potential licensees, and the ongoing in-service training of licensees;
9.  The utilization of the Business Enterprise Support Team (BEST), for newly placed
licensees, and existing licensees experiencing identifiable business or personal
challenges and training needs;
10.  Supportive promotional staff that are qualified in business, and are appropriately,
and adequately trained, including knowledge of skills and abilities associated with
blindness, to support and timely respond to licensee and business location needs;
11.  Establishment and operation of a transparent, easily accessible and verifiable,
fair, and uniformly applied system for performance evaluation, promotion and seniority
point award and record-keeping system, and program facility placement promotion and
transfer policies and procedures;
12.  A fair, unbiased, ethical, timely and responsive due process administrative
review and hearing system to address, attempt to resolve, and adjudicate complaints
and grievances of licensees and potential blind licensees, in the administration
of the Business enterprise Program, including providing records, documents, exhibits,
transcripts, notices and administrative law judge recommended and final agency decisions,
and other printed and electronic materials in a useable format for the blind, including
Braille and large print, according to identified individual preference, in compliance
with applicable laws, rules and regulations, policies and procedures, to achieve
meaningful accessibility and substantive and procedural due process;
13.      Fairly and uniformly applied program laws, rules and regulations, policies
and procedures, to all program licensees, trainees, potential licensees, and program
staff, without regard to affiliation, viewpoint, advocacy, disability, religion,
creed, national origin, age, race, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Over the past five years, Failure to fairly and uniformly operate the Business Enterprise
Program under these core values, principles, and best business and public service
standards and practices, without of favoritism and contempt for a person's affiliation
or a person expressing his or her views, and speaking out against wrongdoing, has
lead to and created an environment resulting in distrust of the Commission administration,
program management, and Elected Operators' Committee to act in the best interest
of the Business enterprise Program, potential and existing blind licensees, and blind
persons in general, including those blind individuals on a list of available, qualified,
and eager to work as temporary licensees, and disregarded in favor of sighted persons
being employed, using and loss of resources intended for blind persons to be gainfully
employed.  A distrust by and between licensees, staff, management , and members of
the Elected Operators; Committee, resulting in poor or non-existent communication,
breakdown in cooperation and lack of teamwork, and obvious apathy, non-involvement,
and a management created sense of fear of intimidation, retaliation, and threat of
and actual unfair removal of licenses from the blind only. This environment is compounded
by the use of untrained, unmonitored, unaccountable sighted persons running program
facilities, whom ran down the business and inventory, and making away with inventory
funds , set-aside funds, and other financial , legal, and treasury obligation funds,
while blind licensees were ripped from their facilities, businesses, and livelihood,
while absolutely no compliance, removal, or financial accountability and recovery
action has been taken against sighted licensees as of this date.
The Commission administration and Business Enterprise Program management do not stand
alone with regard to the creation and advancement of the current environment that
surrounds the low morale, apathy, and distrust within the program.  The Elected Operators'
Committee bears equal responsibility for the environment that exists.  Here are a
few examples of Elected Operators' Committee actions that have contributed to the
current environment.  The most recent and ongoing is the inclusion of some EOC members
in discussions, meeting, and decisions, while other members are excluded on important
issues and decisions facing the program and operators future livelihood.  This situation
includes the involvement of program management in the drafting and "approval" of
official EOC communications, and not informing all EOC members of the intended action,
and not permitting an opportunity for input by all EOC members.  Next, Mr. ESSenberg
stated that, "Our body [the EOC] has stayed relatively silent on the subject of the
Governor's order, because we were told when the initial order came out not to contact
the Governor's office regarding that topic."  First, it is abundantly true the EOC
has remained silent, had no discussions, or formulated and adopted a position on
the governor's executive order, and any statement on the impact it will bring upon
the program and the livelihood of blind licensees, or any recommendations for most
positive steps, if any, in the implementation of the intended action.  Further, Mr.
Essenberg wrote, "I am writing to you on behalf of the Chair of the Elected Operators
Committee James Chaney, and the other ten members of the committee, including myself."
Since Mr. Essenberg's statement above is true, then how is it possible for a few
to write on behalf of the other ten members?  Moreover, how is it possible to meet
with Mr. Zimmer on a topic, claiming to represent the consensus of the entire EOC,
and present a viewpoint and possible solutions, when, in reality, the entire body
has remained silent on the topic of the executive order?  Additionally, how can the
best interest of blind licensees be openly discussed and represented with the program
manager and assistant manager in attendance?  Given these facts and questions, at
best, only the personal views and opinions of a select few EOC members and program
management can be represented.  And are these not the same individuals scheduled
to meet with Mr. Zimmer that met with MR. Arwood over a year ago, and were supposed
to have additional meetings that never took place?   and during that one meeting
being informed by Mr. Arwood, in clear unambiguous language, what actions were required
and expected for improvement of the Business Enterprise Program.  Was not the ball
fumbled and lost by these individuals regarding this serious matter?  And now, these
same select program management and EOC leaders of blind licensees claim to represent
the best interests of the entire EOC and blind licensees, and expect the blind to
entrust their future careers and livelihood to the views, judgment, and actions of
these select individuals?
Where have these representative individuals been during the past sixty plus days?
Are they elected advocates for and of the best interests of blind licensees?  That
is what the program enabling legislation and implementing regulations and administrative
rules envisioned and mandated by creation of the committee of blind licensees, and
guaranteeing "active participation" in decision-making that affect blind licensees,
in the administration of the program.   Nowhere is remaining silent mentioned, encouraged,
suggested or demanded in the creation and role of the committee of blind licensees.
This especially is true with regard to a topic with a life-altering and potentially
devastating impact upon the program and future careers and livelihoods of blind licensees.
Mr. Essenberg wrote, ". . . we were told when the initial order came out not to contact
the Governor's office regarding that topic.".  DO you as the EOC leadership, care
to disclose who the "we" are in "we were told . . ." statement, and by whom were
"we told . . ."?  This type of incomprehensible and nonsensical explanation and advocacy
inaction on this unprecedented serious topic further erodes the confidence of blind
licensees to trust the judgment and motives of their elected representative body,
and only reinforces the common belief among blind licensees that their elected representatives
act at the beckon call of unidentified individuals, and doing whatever those unidentified
individuals say to do, in return for personal favoritism of a select few, while ignoring
the duty to advocate for the best interests of all blind licensees.  We believe such
blind licensee distrust and apathy is best and most recently demonstrated by the
poor licensee attendance at the annual workshop, and moreover, the poor participation
in voting in the election of EOC members.  The truth is that blind licensees believe
they do not have a voice or representation in the active participation in their futures
and the administration of their program. Blind licensees believe their program and
futures have been hijacked, and the program is on a course of crash and burn to incineration
where nothing remains of the Business enterprise Program.
The National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan, and the National Federation
of the Blind collectively do not share that belief and assessment of the future of
the Business Enterprise Program.  That is why over the past sixty plus days we have
undertaken a passionate campaign to meet and have an ongoing conversation with elected
and administration officials, to share with them our stories, desires and dreams,
ideas and suggestions, on the importance and continued future of the Commission and
Business Enterprise Program.  We will continue this campaign until the best interests
of blind citizens and blind licensees are served.  We believe, at this point our
collective, visible, in-person contacts have had a substantial impact on the decision
to rescind the executive order to date.  We are under no illusion that this matter
has disappeared, and we continue to be diligent in our efforts to bring about the
best result for the blind of
Michigan
.  As the nation's oldest and largest organization of blind citizens and blind merchants,
we are highly recognized for our expertise in matters of blindness and the administration
of the Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program, and vocational rehabilitation
programs for the blind.
Mr. Essenberg wrote that, "Their [the NFB's] viewpoints may not be representative
of all of our 79 vendors."  .  Admittedly, while we the organized blind do not pretend
to represent each and every blind licensee as members of the National Association
of Blind Merchants of Michigan, our views and expertise on matters of concern to
blind licensees do in fact represent the views and positions of a vast majority of
blind licensees, and include our views in the above baker's dozen of core values,
principles, and best business and program practices, With regard to the administration
of the Michigan Business Enterprise Program for the blind.
Several members and supporters remember at time in the past when the BEP in Michigan
was guided and governed by core values, principles, and best business and program
practices very similar to, and a reflection of the baker's dozen above, and as a
result Michigan ranked in the top five Business Enterprise Programs in the nation,
demonstrating excellence in virtually all measurable program indicators.  This was
achieved by always asking the following question in all matters of the BEP and EOC:
"How will this be beneficial for blind vendors and the program?".  Today, sadly and
unfortunately,
Michigan
 ranks near the bottom, and is the butt of many jokes throughout the country.  Is
there any wonder or doubt about why the Business Enterprise Program in
Michigan
 is under a microscope, and the survival of the program hangs in the balance?
In Closing, we the organized blind of the National Association of Blind merchants
of
Michigan
, strongly urge you to not repeat the previous performance that resulted from the
2011 meeting with Mr. Arwood.  We urge you , before meeting with Mr. Zimmer, to reevaluate
a meeting with any number fewer than the entire EOC being present, and only EOC members
attend any meetings with MR. Zimmer.  Also, since the EOC has remained silent and
inactive on the matter of Executive Order 2012-2, we strongly suggest a full, open,
and transparent discussion of the issues involved, and the formulation of a consensus
position, about the desired future program.  Finally, we offer our baker's dozen
outlined above, as an effective framework for the desired future Business Enterprise
Program in
Michigan.
Respectfully,
Terry D. Eagle, President
National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120430/d5467c4a/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Apr 30 18:08:56 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:08:56 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Letter from NFB Merchants to EOC
References: <728F0B0BD98C479995E48C7C279D2300@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <264EC39E50B646BE82D0B4ED4C4E1889@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Mer. Essenberg is nothing short of bing a class traitor.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 12:55 PM
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] Letter from NFB Merchants to EOC


  I am pleased to share with you the following letter from Terry Eagle, President of the National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan to the Elected Operators' Committee.  EOC leadership has been going to some trouble lately to imply that our organization does not represent the best interests of the Business Enterprise Program and its operators.  What's wrong with the ideas below?  Your comments are welcome.

  Dear Elected Operators' Committee Members
  I am writing on behalf of our association membership.  This communication is in response
  to a planned meeting with Mr. Zimmer with select members of the EOC, with absolutely
  no discussion on the matter by the entire body, which appears strange at best to
  have a meeting that claims to be representative of the elected body.  Additionally,
  we are responding because of reference by Mr. Essenberg, that the views of the organized
  blind of the NFB, and NFBMM somehow do not reflect the views of blind licensees.
  We do not reasonably understand how such a conclusion could be reached, absent any
  discussion or consensus on the topic of the executive order by the entire EOC representative
  body.
  Below you will be introduced to what we refer to as the baker's dozen of core values,
  principles, and best business and program practices, which summarize our views for
  the administration of the Michigan Business Enterprise Program.
  As a collective organization of blind business persons, we envision a Business Enterprise
  Pro gram that provides meaningful and financially rewarding business opportunities
  for the blind, including the following:
  1.  Program management that are qualified, and competent in business planning and
  management, financial and other resource management that is responsible, transparent,
  and accountable, knowledge and appreciation of the skills and abilities associated
  with blindness, the ability to inspire and build teamwork and personal achievement,
  and the ability to administer in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner, with
  uniform application and compliance with state and federal program laws, rules and
  regulations, policies and procedures;
  2.  Routinely and timely provide training materials, policy and procedure manuals,
  memorandum and letters, documents and records, plans and proposals, announcements,
  meeting agendas and minutes, and other printed and electronic materials in a useable
  format for the blind, including Braille and large print, according to identified
  individual preference, in compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations,
  policies and procedures;
  3.  Business locations that offer a blind licensee a profitable business return and
  independent living income, and contributing to society with many talents and skills,
  and financially contributing to federal, state, and municipal treasuries, through
  payments of self-employment, income, sales and employer taxes, rather than being
  tax takers on public social welfare programs;
  4.  Innovative up-to-date facilities that reflect current trends in the industry
  and are appealing and inviting to guests and potential guests;
  5.  Ongoing evaluation and development of new and existing business locations, for
  the expansion of the program, and profitable business opportunities and independent
  living income generation for the blind;
  6.  Equipment for business efficiency and profitability, that reflect excellence
  in selection of appropriateness, functionality, and adequate for the business type
  and plan, with routine and ongoing maintenance, repair, and replacement, to achieve
  maximum profitability through emerging business innovation, industry trends, and
  use of technology in the business, that is accessible by blind licensees, employees,
  and guests;
  7.  Adequate level of inventory and profitable product mix and selection;
  8.  appropriate, adequate, and meaningful initial and ongoing in-service training,
  including a program position dedicated for the sole purpose of training of blind
  persons as potential licensees, and the ongoing in-service training of licensees;
  9.  The utilization of the Business Enterprise Support Team (BEST), for newly placed
  licensees, and existing licensees experiencing identifiable business or personal
  challenges and training needs;
  10.  Supportive promotional staff that are qualified in business, and are appropriately,
  and adequately trained, including knowledge of skills and abilities associated with
  blindness, to support and timely respond to licensee and business location needs;
  11.  Establishment and operation of a transparent, easily accessible and verifiable,
  fair, and uniformly applied system for performance evaluation, promotion and seniority
  point award and record-keeping system, and program facility placement promotion and
  transfer policies and procedures;
  12.  A fair, unbiased, ethical, timely and responsive due process administrative
  review and hearing system to address, attempt to resolve, and adjudicate complaints
  and grievances of licensees and potential blind licensees, in the administration
  of the Business enterprise Program, including providing records, documents, exhibits,
  transcripts, notices and administrative law judge recommended and final agency decisions,
  and other printed and electronic materials in a useable format for the blind, including
  Braille and large print, according to identified individual preference, in compliance
  with applicable laws, rules and regulations, policies and procedures, to achieve
  meaningful accessibility and substantive and procedural due process;
  13.      Fairly and uniformly applied program laws, rules and regulations, policies
  and procedures, to all program licensees, trainees, potential licensees, and program
  staff, without regard to affiliation, viewpoint, advocacy, disability, religion,
  creed, national origin, age, race, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation.
  Over the past five years, Failure to fairly and uniformly operate the Business Enterprise
  Program under these core values, principles, and best business and public service
  standards and practices, without of favoritism and contempt for a person's affiliation
  or a person expressing his or her views, and speaking out against wrongdoing, has
  lead to and created an environment resulting in distrust of the Commission administration,
  program management, and Elected Operators' Committee to act in the best interest
  of the Business enterprise Program, potential and existing blind licensees, and blind
  persons in general, including those blind individuals on a list of available, qualified,
  and eager to work as temporary licensees, and disregarded in favor of sighted persons
  being employed, using and loss of resources intended for blind persons to be gainfully
  employed.  A distrust by and between licensees, staff, management , and members of
  the Elected Operators; Committee, resulting in poor or non-existent communication,
  breakdown in cooperation and lack of teamwork, and obvious apathy, non-involvement,
  and a management created sense of fear of intimidation, retaliation, and threat of
  and actual unfair removal of licenses from the blind only. This environment is compounded
  by the use of untrained, unmonitored, unaccountable sighted persons running program
  facilities, whom ran down the business and inventory, and making away with inventory
  funds , set-aside funds, and other financial , legal, and treasury obligation funds,
  while blind licensees were ripped from their facilities, businesses, and livelihood,
  while absolutely no compliance, removal, or financial accountability and recovery
  action has been taken against sighted licensees as of this date.
  The Commission administration and Business Enterprise Program management do not stand
  alone with regard to the creation and advancement of the current environment that
  surrounds the low morale, apathy, and distrust within the program.  The Elected Operators'
  Committee bears equal responsibility for the environment that exists.  Here are a
  few examples of Elected Operators' Committee actions that have contributed to the
  current environment.  The most recent and ongoing is the inclusion of some EOC members
  in discussions, meeting, and decisions, while other members are excluded on important
  issues and decisions facing the program and operators future livelihood.  This situation
  includes the involvement of program management in the drafting and "approval" of
  official EOC communications, and not informing all EOC members of the intended action,
  and not permitting an opportunity for input by all EOC members.  Next, Mr. ESSenberg
  stated that, "Our body [the EOC] has stayed relatively silent on the subject of the
  Governor's order, because we were told when the initial order came out not to contact
  the Governor's office regarding that topic."  First, it is abundantly true the EOC
  has remained silent, had no discussions, or formulated and adopted a position on
  the governor's executive order, and any statement on the impact it will bring upon
  the program and the livelihood of blind licensees, or any recommendations for most
  positive steps, if any, in the implementation of the intended action.  Further, Mr.
  Essenberg wrote, "I am writing to you on behalf of the Chair of the Elected Operators
  Committee James Chaney, and the other ten members of the committee, including myself."
  Since Mr. Essenberg's statement above is true, then how is it possible for a few
  to write on behalf of the other ten members?  Moreover, how is it possible to meet
  with Mr. Zimmer on a topic, claiming to represent the consensus of the entire EOC,
  and present a viewpoint and possible solutions, when, in reality, the entire body
  has remained silent on the topic of the executive order?  Additionally, how can the
  best interest of blind licensees be openly discussed and represented with the program
  manager and assistant manager in attendance?  Given these facts and questions, at
  best, only the personal views and opinions of a select few EOC members and program
  management can be represented.  And are these not the same individuals scheduled
  to meet with Mr. Zimmer that met with MR. Arwood over a year ago, and were supposed
  to have additional meetings that never took place?   and during that one meeting
  being informed by Mr. Arwood, in clear unambiguous language, what actions were required
  and expected for improvement of the Business Enterprise Program.  Was not the ball
  fumbled and lost by these individuals regarding this serious matter?  And now, these
  same select program management and EOC leaders of blind licensees claim to represent
  the best interests of the entire EOC and blind licensees, and expect the blind to
  entrust their future careers and livelihood to the views, judgment, and actions of
  these select individuals?
  Where have these representative individuals been during the past sixty plus days?
  Are they elected advocates for and of the best interests of blind licensees?  That
  is what the program enabling legislation and implementing regulations and administrative
  rules envisioned and mandated by creation of the committee of blind licensees, and
  guaranteeing "active participation" in decision-making that affect blind licensees,
  in the administration of the program.   Nowhere is remaining silent mentioned, encouraged,
  suggested or demanded in the creation and role of the committee of blind licensees.
  This especially is true with regard to a topic with a life-altering and potentially
  devastating impact upon the program and future careers and livelihoods of blind licensees.
  Mr. Essenberg wrote, ". . . we were told when the initial order came out not to contact
  the Governor's office regarding that topic.".  DO you as the EOC leadership, care
  to disclose who the "we" are in "we were told . . ." statement, and by whom were
  "we told . . ."?  This type of incomprehensible and nonsensical explanation and advocacy
  inaction on this unprecedented serious topic further erodes the confidence of blind
  licensees to trust the judgment and motives of their elected representative body,
  and only reinforces the common belief among blind licensees that their elected representatives
  act at the beckon call of unidentified individuals, and doing whatever those unidentified
  individuals say to do, in return for personal favoritism of a select few, while ignoring
  the duty to advocate for the best interests of all blind licensees.  We believe such
  blind licensee distrust and apathy is best and most recently demonstrated by the
  poor licensee attendance at the annual workshop, and moreover, the poor participation
  in voting in the election of EOC members.  The truth is that blind licensees believe
  they do not have a voice or representation in the active participation in their futures
  and the administration of their program. Blind licensees believe their program and
  futures have been hijacked, and the program is on a course of crash and burn to incineration
  where nothing remains of the Business enterprise Program.
  The National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan, and the National Federation
  of the Blind collectively do not share that belief and assessment of the future of
  the Business Enterprise Program.  That is why over the past sixty plus days we have
  undertaken a passionate campaign to meet and have an ongoing conversation with elected
  and administration officials, to share with them our stories, desires and dreams,
  ideas and suggestions, on the importance and continued future of the Commission and
  Business Enterprise Program.  We will continue this campaign until the best interests
  of blind citizens and blind licensees are served.  We believe, at this point our
  collective, visible, in-person contacts have had a substantial impact on the decision
  to rescind the executive order to date.  We are under no illusion that this matter
  has disappeared, and we continue to be diligent in our efforts to bring about the
  best result for the blind of
  Michigan
  .  As the nation's oldest and largest organization of blind citizens and blind merchants,
  we are highly recognized for our expertise in matters of blindness and the administration
  of the Randolph-Sheppard vending facility program, and vocational rehabilitation
  programs for the blind.
  Mr. Essenberg wrote that, "Their [the NFB's] viewpoints may not be representative
  of all of our 79 vendors."  .  Admittedly, while we the organized blind do not pretend
  to represent each and every blind licensee as members of the National Association
  of Blind Merchants of Michigan, our views and expertise on matters of concern to
  blind licensees do in fact represent the views and positions of a vast majority of
  blind licensees, and include our views in the above baker's dozen of core values,
  principles, and best business and program practices, With regard to the administration
  of the Michigan Business Enterprise Program for the blind.
  Several members and supporters remember at time in the past when the BEP in Michigan
  was guided and governed by core values, principles, and best business and program
  practices very similar to, and a reflection of the baker's dozen above, and as a
  result Michigan ranked in the top five Business Enterprise Programs in the nation,
  demonstrating excellence in virtually all measurable program indicators.  This was
  achieved by always asking the following question in all matters of the BEP and EOC:
  "How will this be beneficial for blind vendors and the program?".  Today, sadly and
  unfortunately,
  Michigan
   ranks near the bottom, and is the butt of many jokes throughout the country.  Is
  there any wonder or doubt about why the Business Enterprise Program in
  Michigan
   is under a microscope, and the survival of the program hangs in the balance?
  In Closing, we the organized blind of the National Association of Blind merchants
  of
  Michigan
  , strongly urge you to not repeat the previous performance that resulted from the
  2011 meeting with Mr. Arwood.  We urge you , before meeting with Mr. Zimmer, to reevaluate
  a meeting with any number fewer than the entire EOC being present, and only EOC members
  attend any meetings with MR. Zimmer.  Also, since the EOC has remained silent and
  inactive on the matter of Executive Order 2012-2, we strongly suggest a full, open,
  and transparent discussion of the issues involved, and the formulation of a consensus
  position, about the desired future program.  Finally, we offer our baker's dozen
  outlined above, as an effective framework for the desired future Business Enterprise
  Program in
  Michigan.
  Respectfully,
  Terry D. Eagle, President
  National Association of Blind Merchants of Michigan



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120430/9e253f89/attachment.html>