From suncat0 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  1 01:07:22 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:07:22 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Business Enterprise Program article
	ann arbor news
Message-ID: <9A9157DFB94B47EF95E852C209B3E2E2@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'Joe Sontag'" <suncat0 at gmail.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing 
List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 14:53
Subject: RE: [nfbmi-talk] Business Enterprise Program article ann arbor news


>I have had first-hand contact and knowledge with Mark Rothenhauser with
> regard to his business at the capitol as a member of his Business 
> Enterprise
> Support Team, known as BEST, and if the truth be known, people would not 
> be
> casting stones and insults at Mark Rothenhauser.  If Mr, Essenberg, one of
> those casting insults at Mark, and a member of Mark's BEST, were to stand 
> up
> for blind operators and demand accountability from management, rather than
> doing unethical things to protect and get more favor for themselves, their
> friends, and sighted significant others, they wouldn't have to be throwing
> Mark Rothenhauserunder the rolling bus wheels, then, just perhaps, the BEP
> would not be facing exstinction as it is today.
>
> I can say as a fact that Mark's promotional agent never followed through 
> on
> ideas that could assist Mark's business, for example, getting the 
> authority
> and permits to establish a hot dog/sandwich cart outside the Capitol
> building during summer months.  This lack of support is confirmed by the
> newly released BEP audit report by the auditor general, an independent
> source.  I know Mark's promotional agent was diligently busy doing
> manadatory paperwork, which was never turned in, costing the BEP $7000. 
> when
> a vending machine was destroyed with the demolishment of the Holt rest 
> area
> facility, because the promotional agent did not follow through with his
> duties, as also noted by the auditor general.
>
> For five years I have been suggesting and begging the Elected Operators'
> Committee and BEP mmanagement to visit, evaluate, and take positive,
> affirmative action on the many mimimum sales facilities in the Business
> Enterprise Program.  What has been done other than attempt and actually
> revoke the license of struggling and outspoken operators?  Absolutely
> nothing, with the exception of a Flint facility.  And now, the likes of 
> Rob
> Essenberg, Constance Zanger, James Hull, and James Chaney are visiting
> facilities as a "meet and greet" agenda.  What is the purpose of such
> questionable visits, since no report or affirmative action has been 
> reported
> or taken to assist the struggling mimimal sales facilities?  Yeah, I too
> would like a public report and explaination.  And how about seeing any
> notes, summaries, or affirmative plans for those facilities.  In fact, it 
> is
> not those struggling minimal sales facilities that have been visited.
>
> The fact is that the favored are given the attention and rewarded, such as 
> a
> facility being remodeled that was remodeled eight years ago, while there 
> are
> facilities that have not been remodeled for 30 years!  This lack of
> attention to facilities was pointed out last year by Mr. Steve Arwood of
> LARA, with a response from BEP management that such issues will be 
> addressed
> in their (BEP management) time frames.  Then the blind question the "why" 
> of
> such action as the Executive Orders and House Bill 6006?
>
> Perhaps as Hazell Brooks once publicly suggested, Mr. Essenberg should 
> tell
> and show how to use the system to get that which one needs for their
> struggling facility and business, the way Mr. Essenberg has gotten from 
> the
> state system.  Is such information so personal that Mr. Essenberg cannot
> share such valuable beneficial information.  I strongly sense the newly
> released auditor general's findings and conclusions give us as citizens
> partial insight into why such information and methods cannot or will not 
> be
> divulged by the likes of Mr. Essenberg.  However, I do challenge the likes
> of Mr. Essenberg, James Chaney, and Mark's sister Marlene , to expend the
> energy they used inthrowing Mark under the bus wheels, by blaming the
> Capitol building facility problems solely on Mark and holding themselves 
> and
> the program blameless for the lack of sales and challenges there, and I
> suggest that they put there time, energy, and own money into personally
> operating that and other minimal sales facilities for a year, and strictly
> with the lack of support and follow-up given to Mark, and without the 
> secret
> tricks used by the favored, to demonstrate just how profitable the Capitol
> and other minimal sales facilities can actually be, as hhas been suggested
> by the outspoken.  The time has come to step up and demonstrate your 
> beliefs
> for the good and survival of these facilities and the BEP.
>
> In the meantime, we are stuck with the same BEP management, despite agency
> reorganization, a sad and poor performance report from the independent
> auditor general, continued poor training of BEP operators, sighted persons
> operating and destroying facility businesses mandated for qualified blind
> persons, and incompetent management and program promotional agents, who 
> are
> charged by law to support and assist blind persons in business.
>
> Those in management and alleged leadership can once again accuse me of
> shooting another "missile" or rock in their direction with this writing,
> however I write and speak with documented facts and actions presented by
> others than myself.  I am certain though, if the BS4BP management and
> allegedEOC leadership can find another way to discriminate and retaliate
> against me for continued speaking the truth, they indeed will further
> discriminate and retaliate.  Their latest is now to retaliate against my
> sister who desires to return to the BEP from a medical leave following 
> knee
> surgery, by not accepting her bids on BEP facilities.  She likely will be
> the next operator to be thrown under the bus wheels by the EOC, exclaiming
> and blaming my sister for taking a medical leave, and for some undisclosed
> reason finding my sister ineligible to bid on facilities.  Where are Mr.
> Essenberg and Mr. Chaney, who profess to be fighting for all BEP operators
> and blind persons.  Sorry sister, I guess you too fall under the EOC's 
> Terry
> Eagle exclusion clause, because you are my sister and share my last name.
> But have no fear sister, justice will be had in the end, and the evil will
> be overcome and replaced with goodness.  Truth and justice shall prevail.
> The same will become true for you Mark Rothenhauser.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Sontag
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Business Enterprise Program article ann arbor 
> news
>
> You'll never guess how some members of the Elected Operators' Committee 
> and
> other operators are reacting to this article.  They are heaping abuse on 
> Mr.
>
> Rothenhauser, even his  sister, saying he's a bad operator who should be
> removed from the program.  I know nothing about his abilities as an
> operator, but I know that his facility has been a troubled location for 
> many
>
> years, well before Mark took over.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
> To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 19:47
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Business Enterprise Program article ann arbor 
> news
>
>
>> Outragious. Simply outragious. My copy of this report was totally and
>> outragiously inaccessable.
>>
>> That is a fact Jackson!
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "trising" <trising at sbcglobal.net>
>> To: "nfbmi List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 6:36 PM
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Business Enterprise Program article ann arbor news
>>
>>
>>>    Mark Rothenhauser, 55, operates the snack bar at the state Capitol.
>>> He's been participating in the state's Business Enterprise Program for
>>> people who are blind and visually impaired for six years.Melissa Anders 
>>> |
>
>>> MLive
>>> LANSING, MI - The state did not properly manage a program that helps
>>> blind people run vending facilities in government buildings, according 
>>> to
>
>>> an audit report that estimates the program improperly spent about a
>>> quarter million dollars.
>>>
>>> A report released Tuesday by Michigan's Auditor General found that the
>>> Michigan Commission for the Blind did not effectively monitor the
>>> finances, contracting and inventory for its Business Enterprise Program.
>>> The program offers licenses to blind and visually impaired people to
>>> operate vending machines, cafeterias, snack bars, carts and other food
>>> services in state and federal buildings, highway rest stops and visitor
>>> centers.
>>>
>>> The audit generally covered Oct. 2008 through July 2011, when the 
>>> program
>
>>> was still managed by the Michigan Commission for the Blind.
>>>
>>> The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) realized there
>>> were several issues with the vending program and requested the audit.
>>>
>>> Gov. Rick Snyder responded to broader issues surrounding the Commission
>>> for the Blind with an executive order that replaced the commission with
>>> the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons in October.
>>>
>>> Ed Rodgers took over as director of the bureau last month with the
>>> mandate to make improvements.
>>>
>>> "While there's issues and problems we need to correct, the public needs
>>> to be reassured that this administration is not wasting taxpayers'
>>> dollars and that we are running an effective and efficient program,"
>>> Rodgers said. "We're doing what we're supposed to be doing."
>>>
>>> The Business Enterprise Program had eight staff members and more than 80
>>> licensees who operated about 400 sites throughout the state as of July
>>> 2011.
>>>
>>> Operators give 10 percent of their profits to the commission to pay for
>>> expenses such as new equipment and retirement funds.
>>>
>>> "The public needs to be reassured that this administration is not 
>>> wasting
>
>>> taxpayers' dollars." - Ed Rodgers
>>> The audit estimates that the commission improperly spent $254,000 in
>>> operator fees from Oct. 2008 through July 2011 on miscellaneous program
>>> expenses that were not in accordance with state code.
>>>
>>> The commission also did not effectively confirm operators' monthly sales
>>> reports, meaning the state couldn't make sure that it properly 
>>> calculated
>
>>> and paid retirement contributions, pension payments and operator fees,
>>> the audit found. Even though the vendors are independent contractors, 
>>> the
>
>>> program pays out such benefits.
>>>
>>> That finding didn't surprise Mark Rothenhauser, who operates the snack
>>> bar at the state Capitol. He sells pizza slices, popcorn, soda and other
>>> snacks from a small shop located on the ground level of the building.
>>>
>>> "An operator can basically pull a number out of the air and report that
>>> as sales," he said. "There's not a mechanism in place to authenticate
>>> what the operator reports as sales is actually their sales. So if you go
>>> with that, you don't know if they're paying the correct set-aside fee."
>>>
>>> Rodgers said he set aside $150,000 to create a new data program for the
>>> entire bureau that will keep better track of vending sales and net
>>> income. It should be in place early next year.
>>>
>>> Other audit findings dealt with deficiencies in monitoring equipment
>>> inventory, contracts and operator assistance.
>>>
>>> The bureau is completing an inventory of its equipment, such as coolers
>>> and microwaves, and is setting up performance measures for staff members
>>> who assist operators.
>>>
>>> "The auditor general's office should be applauded for the thorough job
>>> they did in this," Rodgers said.
>>>
>>> Email Melissa Anders at manders at mlive.com. Follow her on Twitter:
>>> @MelissaDAnders.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.n
> et
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbmi-talk mailing list
>> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nfbmi-talk:
>>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
> com
> 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 04:50:08 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:50:08 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
Message-ID: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>

Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering if the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending operator, the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking similarities.

Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the fact that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording equipment used for site security purposes.

The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage rooms often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for John McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for its thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not be located, including various vending machines and several security systems for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he would have completed his work on this project.

What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and should be held harmless.

Joe Sontag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121205/4d986244/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 13:19:08 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:19:08 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
In-Reply-To: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
References: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <B6838D9B7D9A4246B67A419D87657F53@TerryPC>

Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the symptom
is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
business, and food service and vending best practices.

As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to do
that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine from
a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
auditor.

And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results were
not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did not
the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark of
the Patrick Cannon administration?  

I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the selective
results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration to
save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for REINVENTING
HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move blind
vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.


-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Sontag
Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?

Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering if
the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending operator,
the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
similarities.
 
Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial
numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the fact
that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
equipment used for site security purposes.
 
The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in
checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage rooms
often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's
visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for John
McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for its
thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not
be located, including various vending machines and several security systems
for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
would have completed his work on this project.
 
What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
should be held harmless.
 
Joe Sontag




From drob1946 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 14:20:05 2012
From: drob1946 at gmail.com (David Robinson)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:20:05 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
In-Reply-To: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
References: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <D39C9492902E4D4C9AAA8A7311D98B0B@STATION04>

Dear Joe, 

 

  I am happy that you brought this issue to the forfront.  I know as well of
incidents in which equipment was overlooked.  Compressors and air
conditioners in the dropped ceilings, filtering units separate from the
equipment, unused equipment in unseen storage rooms and more.  Then we have
equipment that is not BEP being counted such as fountain dispensors.  What a
mess.  As you say however, it is because the inventory takers do not know
what to look for in the different locations,and the stupidity of the BEP
management to place such unknowledgeable people into such a position.  Well
all we know is that as long as the same management is there, the same and
more problems will keep occurring.  What do they say about the definition of
insanity?

 

Dave Robinson

  _____  

From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Sontag
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:50 PM
To: VENDORSMI List
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?

 

Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering if
the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending operator,
the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
similarities.

 

Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial
numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the fact
that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
equipment used for site security purposes.

 

The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in
checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage rooms
often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's
visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for John
McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for its
thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not
be located, including various vending machines and several security systems
for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
would have completed his work on this project.

 

What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
should be held harmless.

 

Joe Sontag

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121206/c594919b/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 15:40:57 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 10:40:57 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
In-Reply-To: <D39C9492902E4D4C9AAA8A7311D98B0B@STATION04>
References: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
	<D39C9492902E4D4C9AAA8A7311D98B0B@STATION04>
Message-ID: <0B6A77A82E4E4133A995C7A61B91B25E@TerryPC>

Indeed, it really is insanity, and no avenue to involuntarily commit and
confine the guilty wrong-doers.  Perhaps criminal confinement?  Oh yeah, the
officials are not interested in fraud and waste.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David
Robinson
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:20 AM
To: 'Joe Sontag'; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List'
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?

Dear Joe, 

 

  I am happy that you brought this issue to the forfront.  I know as well of
incidents in which equipment was overlooked.  Compressors and air
conditioners in the dropped ceilings, filtering units separate from the
equipment, unused equipment in unseen storage rooms and more.  Then we have
equipment that is not BEP being counted such as fountain dispensors.  What a
mess.  As you say however, it is because the inventory takers do not know
what to look for in the different locations,and the stupidity of the BEP
management to place such unknowledgeable people into such a position.  Well
all we know is that as long as the same management is there, the same and
more problems will keep occurring.  What do they say about the definition of
insanity?

 

Dave Robinson

________________________________

From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Sontag
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:50 PM
To: VENDORSMI List
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?

 

Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering if
the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending operator,
the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
similarities.

 

Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial
numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the fact
that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
equipment used for site security purposes.

 

The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in
checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage rooms
often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's
visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for John
McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for its
thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not
be located, including various vending machines and several security systems
for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
would have completed his work on this project.

 

What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
should be held harmless.

 

Joe Sontag





From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:38:43 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:38:43 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <3C24523F95FC473D837EEE14F2BA4DDD@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" 
<nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:14
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


>I agree. Garbage in and garbage out.
>
> The point is that these folks are raiding funds meant for the Older Blind 
> program, or at least attempting to do so with this so-called fix.
>
> Regardless I agree with all you and Joeand Dave are saying here.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
> To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
>
>> What good is any system, new or existing, if it is not used or utilized, 
>> and
>> competent professionals know how to utilize the data it produces for
>> accuracy and accountability?  Is that not a point the report of the state
>> auditors were making from their BEP audit?    The solution is not to dump
>> more money into a system that is capable of doing that which is needed 
>> from
>> it.  The solution is to have copetent users of the system, and require
>> optimal use of the established system, and demonstrate accountability 
>> from
>> the system users.  Isn't that what is needed with existing system 7 and 
>> the
>> BEP telephony systems?
>>
>> Even back in the dark age era of computer punch-cards, we learned 
>> "garbage
>> in, garbage out".  Hello administration management and decision-makers, 
>> this
>> is not a new and innovative idea!
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
>> harcz Comcast
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:30 AM
>> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
>> inventory
>>
>> From the November 2 2012 MI SILC Public Hearing on the State Plan for
>> Independent Living:
>> (Ed Rodgers:)
>> :  One of the things I discovered my first week on the job after meeting
>> with Jaye and Val and some other folks was that our present data 
>> collection
>> system really doesn't interact with RSA, with independent living, with 
>> MRS
>> and that we really need to bring our data tracking system and our
>> information from that system into at least the 20th century if not the 
>> 21st.
>>
>> So part of that money will be used to start that program.  I have just 
>> taken
>>
>> on a DEPI by the name of Mike Pemble, a veteran and he will be on board 
>> and
>> in charge of the budget process as well as our data collection system, 
>> our
>> HR function, and he is a genius at getting grants and finding money in
>> Washington.  I don't know how he does it, but hopefully we will be able 
>> to
>> pretty much fund most of this through a grant program.  But we need to
>> start.  So that is why that is in the plan.  There is also some monies I
>> recall, Val, for a second pilot program.  Do you want me to describe that
>> briefly?
>>
>>>> Valarie:  Yes, we did discuss it.  I did not include it in the 
>>>> amendments
>>
>>>> due to the fact that I ran out of time to get the information on a
>>>> comparable project that is being done by western Michigan University, 
>>>> so
>>>> I left it out.  I'm sorry.
>>
>>>> Ed:  That is okay, we will deal with it later.  Thank you.
>>
>>>> Va
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
>> To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'"
>> <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11 AM
>> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
>> inventory
>>
>>
>>> Terry,
>>>
>>>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
>>> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
>>> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could 
>>> any
>>> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people 
>>> to
>>> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be 
>>> reminded
>>> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much 
>>> more
>>> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can
>>> be
>>> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for 
>>> the
>>> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
>>> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>>>
>>> Dave Robinson
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>>> Terry
>>> Eagle
>>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
>>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
>>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>>>
>>> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the
>>> symptom
>>> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
>>> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
>>> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
>>> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>>>
>>> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel. 
>>> And
>>> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted 
>>> to
>>> do
>>> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
>>> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
>>> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it 
>>> is
>>> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in 
>>> paperwork
>>> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
>>> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
>>> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine
>>> from
>>> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
>>> auditor.
>>>
>>> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
>>> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results
>>> were
>>> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did
>>> not
>>> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to 
>>> oversee
>>> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark 
>>> of
>>> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>>>
>>> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the
>>> selective
>>> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
>>> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
>>> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
>>> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
>>> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
>>> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
>>> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration 
>>> to
>>> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of 
>>> the
>>> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
>>> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
>>> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for
>>> REINVENTING
>>> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
>>> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move
>>> blind
>>> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Sontag
>>> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>>>
>>> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering
>>> if
>>> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
>>> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending
>>> operator,
>>> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
>>> similarities.
>>>
>>> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
>>> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's 
>>> serial
>>> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the
>>> fact
>>> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of 
>>> a
>>> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital 
>>> recording
>>> equipment used for site security purposes.
>>>
>>> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest 
>>> in
>>> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage
>>> rooms
>>> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
>>> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that 
>>> their
>>> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory 
>>> taker's
>>> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment 
>>> identification
>>> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for
>>> John
>>> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
>>> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for
>>> its
>>> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for 
>>> his
>>> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could 
>>> *Not
>>> be located, including various vending machines and several security
>>> systems
>>> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before 
>>> he
>>> would have completed his work on this project.
>>>
>>> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under 
>>> current
>>> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program 
>>> and
>>> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
>>> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, 
>>> especially
>>> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
>>> should be held harmless.
>>>
>>> Joe Sontag
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.n
>> et
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
>> com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:38:29 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:38:29 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <9242B093020F41799470CE48E8DDCFA1@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:04
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> What good is any system, new or existing, if it is not used or utilized, 
> and
> competent professionals know how to utilize the data it produces for
> accuracy and accountability?  Is that not a point the report of the state
> auditors were making from their BEP audit?    The solution is not to dump
> more money into a system that is capable of doing that which is needed 
> from
> it.  The solution is to have copetent users of the system, and require
> optimal use of the established system, and demonstrate accountability from
> the system users.  Isn't that what is needed with existing system 7 and 
> the
> BEP telephony systems?
>
> Even back in the dark age era of computer punch-cards, we learned "garbage
> in, garbage out".  Hello administration management and decision-makers, 
> this
> is not a new and innovative idea!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
> harcz Comcast
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:30 AM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
> From the November 2 2012 MI SILC Public Hearing on the State Plan for
> Independent Living:
> (Ed Rodgers:)
> :  One of the things I discovered my first week on the job after meeting
> with Jaye and Val and some other folks was that our present data 
> collection
> system really doesn't interact with RSA, with independent living, with MRS
> and that we really need to bring our data tracking system and our
> information from that system into at least the 20th century if not the 
> 21st.
>
> So part of that money will be used to start that program.  I have just 
> taken
>
> on a DEPI by the name of Mike Pemble, a veteran and he will be on board 
> and
> in charge of the budget process as well as our data collection system, our
> HR function, and he is a genius at getting grants and finding money in
> Washington.  I don't know how he does it, but hopefully we will be able to
> pretty much fund most of this through a grant program.  But we need to
> start.  So that is why that is in the plan.  There is also some monies I
> recall, Val, for a second pilot program.  Do you want me to describe that
> briefly?
>
>>> Valarie:  Yes, we did discuss it.  I did not include it in the 
>>> amendments
>
>>> due to the fact that I ran out of time to get the information on a
>>> comparable project that is being done by western Michigan University, so
>>> I left it out.  I'm sorry.
>
>>> Ed:  That is okay, we will deal with it later.  Thank you.
>
>>> Va
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
> To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'"
> <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
>
>> Terry,
>>
>>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
>> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
>> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could 
>> any
>> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
>> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
>> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much 
>> more
>> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can
>> be
>> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for 
>> the
>> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
>> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>>
>> Dave Robinson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Terry
>> Eagle
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>>
>> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the
>> symptom
>> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
>> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
>> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
>> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>>
>> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
>> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to
>> do
>> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
>> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
>> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
>> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
>> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
>> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
>> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine
>> from
>> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
>> auditor.
>>
>> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
>> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results
>> were
>> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did
>> not
>> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
>> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark 
>> of
>> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>>
>> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the
>> selective
>> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
>> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
>> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
>> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
>> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
>> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
>> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration 
>> to
>> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
>> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
>> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
>> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for
>> REINVENTING
>> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
>> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move
>> blind
>> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Sontag
>> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>>
>> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering
>> if
>> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
>> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending
>> operator,
>> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
>> similarities.
>>
>> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
>> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's 
>> serial
>> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the
>> fact
>> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
>> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
>> equipment used for site security purposes.
>>
>> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest 
>> in
>> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage
>> rooms
>> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
>> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
>> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory 
>> taker's
>> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
>> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for
>> John
>> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
>> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for
>> its
>> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
>> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could 
>> *Not
>> be located, including various vending machines and several security
>> systems
>> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
>> would have completed his work on this project.
>>
>> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
>> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
>> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
>> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
>> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
>> should be held harmless.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
> com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:38:17 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:38:17 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <01A50ABE4ECB45BCB6CBD538F3238C84@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at att.net>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:38
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> Hi Terry,
>
> You and Joe are doing a great job of describing the situation.  I would 
> add
> that John McEntee was probably 1 of the most operator-oriented staff ever
> employed by BEP.  His efforts improved operator's abilities to keep their
> equipment up and running, thus improving profits, meanwhile saving more 
> than
> $100,000 his first year on the job.  Now, that is effectiveness.  Given 
> all
> that, I was never able to get him classified in a civil service position
> which compensated him fairly. Yet, people are being paid more than 100k 
> who
> have no blindness knowledge or experience.
>
> You have hit the nail on the head.  The simple time-honored idea of hiring
> qualified people to do a professional job is the very simple solution.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
> harcz Comcast
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:42 AM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
> On top of all this now Rogers in the public record wants to raid 
> Independent
> Living funds for some new data base system.
>
> Just another issue in a long line of misappropriation  of federal funds.
> Here's the schem:
>
> Too molify the Auditor General Rogers has talked about this new and
> undefined data system.
>
> Oh, but look at the MI SILC's recent public hearing on the IL state plan 
> and
> look at the revision to try to use IL funds for this same database and 
> thus
> to rob elderly blind of services.
>
> Oh, yes and Rodgers and Zimmer have been annointed to be Ex-Officio 
> members
> of the SILC though Zimmer stated in the public record he didn't even know
> what it was until July.
>
> I'm sure Rodgers didn't either.
>
> More on this later....
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
> To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'"
> <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
>
>> Terry,
>>
>>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
>> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
>> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could 
>> any
>> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
>> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
>> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much 
>> more
>> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can
>> be
>> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for 
>> the
>> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
>> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>>
>> Dave Robinson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Terry
>> Eagle
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>>
>> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the
>> symptom
>> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
>> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
>> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
>> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>>
>> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
>> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to
>> do
>> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
>> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
>> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
>> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
>> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
>> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
>> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine
>> from
>> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
>> auditor.
>>
>> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
>> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results
>> were
>> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did
>> not
>> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
>> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark 
>> of
>> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>>
>> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the
>> selective
>> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
>> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
>> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
>> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
>> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
>> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
>> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration 
>> to
>> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
>> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
>> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
>> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for
>> REINVENTING
>> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
>> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move
>> blind
>> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Sontag
>> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>>
>> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering
>> if
>> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
>> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending
>> operator,
>> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
>> similarities.
>>
>> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
>> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's 
>> serial
>> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the
>> fact
>> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
>> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
>> equipment used for site security purposes.
>>
>> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest 
>> in
>> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage
>> rooms
>> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
>> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
>> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory 
>> taker's
>> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
>> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for
>> John
>> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
>> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for
>> its
>> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
>> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could 
>> *Not
>> be located, including various vending machines and several security
>> systems
>> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
>> would have completed his work on this project.
>>
>> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
>> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
>> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
>> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
>> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
>> should be held harmless.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f.wurtzel%40att.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com
> 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:38:59 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:38:59 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <9DB95B644E7A4058B86D4F831B38C29C@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Wurtzel" <f.wurtzel at att.net>
To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" 
<nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:20
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> Hello Terry,
>
> You are 100 percent correct.  For Heaven's sake, the technology has been 
> in
> place for nearly 10 years, including barcode labeling for equipment,
> scanning of equipment and assigning locations, values and age to the 
> entire
> fleet of equipment.  Your point about competent business-oriented staff is
> on target.  If necessary, though it is not necessary, a simple
> Excel spreadsheet could do the job if properly managed.  It is management,
> not the tools.  It is management, not the budget.  It is management not 
> the
> operators.  It is management not the facilities.  It is management,
> management, management.
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Fred
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Terry
> Eagle
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:04 AM
> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
> What good is any system, new or existing, if it is not used or utilized, 
> and
> competent professionals know how to utilize the data it produces for
> accuracy and accountability?  Is that not a point the report of the state
> auditors were making from their BEP audit?    The solution is not to dump
> more money into a system that is capable of doing that which is needed 
> from
> it.  The solution is to have copetent users of the system, and require
> optimal use of the established system, and demonstrate accountability from
> the system users.  Isn't that what is needed with existing system 7 and 
> the
> BEP telephony systems?
>
> Even back in the dark age era of computer punch-cards, we learned "garbage
> in, garbage out".  Hello administration management and decision-makers, 
> this
> is not a new and innovative idea!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
> harcz Comcast
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:30 AM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
> From the November 2 2012 MI SILC Public Hearing on the State Plan for
> Independent Living:
> (Ed Rodgers:)
> :  One of the things I discovered my first week on the job after meeting
> with Jaye and Val and some other folks was that our present data 
> collection
> system really doesn't interact with RSA, with independent living, with MRS
> and that we really need to bring our data tracking system and our
> information from that system into at least the 20th century if not the 
> 21st.
>
> So part of that money will be used to start that program.  I have just 
> taken
>
> on a DEPI by the name of Mike Pemble, a veteran and he will be on board 
> and
> in charge of the budget process as well as our data collection system, our
> HR function, and he is a genius at getting grants and finding money in
> Washington.  I don't know how he does it, but hopefully we will be able to
> pretty much fund most of this through a grant program.  But we need to
> start.  So that is why that is in the plan.  There is also some monies I
> recall, Val, for a second pilot program.  Do you want me to describe that
> briefly?
>
>>> Valarie:  Yes, we did discuss it.  I did not include it in the
>>> amendments
>
>>> due to the fact that I ran out of time to get the information on a
>>> comparable project that is being done by western Michigan University,
>>> so I left it out.  I'm sorry.
>
>>> Ed:  That is okay, we will deal with it later.  Thank you.
>
>>> Va
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
> To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'"
> <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
>
>> Terry,
>>
>>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
>> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
>> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could 
>> any
>> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
>> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
>> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much 
>> more
>> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can
>> be
>> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for 
>> the
>> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
>> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>>
>> Dave Robinson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Terry
>> Eagle
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>>
>> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the
>> symptom
>> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
>> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
>> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
>> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>>
>> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
>> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to
>> do
>> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
>> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
>> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
>> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
>> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
>> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
>> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine
>> from
>> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
>> auditor.
>>
>> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
>> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results
>> were
>> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did
>> not
>> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
>> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark 
>> of
>> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>>
>> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the
>> selective
>> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
>> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
>> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
>> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
>> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
>> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
>> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration 
>> to
>> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
>> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
>> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
>> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for
>> REINVENTING
>> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
>> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move
>> blind
>> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Sontag
>> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>>
>> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering
>> if
>> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
>> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending
>> operator,
>> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
>> similarities.
>>
>> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
>> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's 
>> serial
>> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the
>> fact
>> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
>> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
>> equipment used for site security purposes.
>>
>> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest 
>> in
>> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage
>> rooms
>> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
>> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
>> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory 
>> taker's
>> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
>> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for
>> John
>> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
>> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for
>> its
>> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
>> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could 
>> *Not
>> be located, including various vending machines and several security
>> systems
>> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
>> would have completed his work on this project.
>>
>> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
>> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
>> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
>> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
>> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
>> should be held harmless.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
> com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f.wurtzel%40att.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:37:13 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:37:13 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <E774C1033E5846FF9392167288B2003D@Reputercat>

I agree completely with everything in this thread so far.  Wouldn't it be 
nice if we had an effective EOC to help keep some of this nonsense in check? 
I know, I'm one of those old, lazy operators after whom the current 
Committee is cleaning up.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" 
<nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> Terry,
>
>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could any
> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much more
> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can 
> be
> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for the
> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>
> Dave Robinson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Terry
> Eagle
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>
> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the 
> symptom
> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>
> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to 
> do
> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine 
> from
> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
> auditor.
>
> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results 
> were
> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did 
> not
> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark of
> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>
> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the 
> selective
> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration to
> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for 
> REINVENTING
> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move 
> blind
> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Sontag
> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>
> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering 
> if
> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending 
> operator,
> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
> similarities.
>
> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial
> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the 
> fact
> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
> equipment used for site security purposes.
>
> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in
> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage 
> rooms
> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's
> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for 
> John
> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for 
> its
> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not
> be located, including various vending machines and several security 
> systems
> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
> would have completed his work on this project.
>
> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
> should be held harmless.
>
> Joe Sontag
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:37:54 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:37:54 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <419E696BF5B642829614CF45B2B7BFCE@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:29
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> From the November 2 2012 MI SILC Public Hearing on the State Plan for 
> Independent Living:
> (Ed Rodgers:)
> :  One of the things I discovered my first week on the job after meeting 
> with Jaye and Val and some other folks was that our present data 
> collection system really doesn't interact with RSA, with independent 
> living, with MRS and that we really need to bring our data tracking system 
> and our information from that system into at least the 20th century if not 
> the 21st. So part of that money will be used to start that program.  I 
> have just taken on a DEPI by the name of Mike Pemble, a veteran and he 
> will be on board and in charge of the budget process as well as our data 
> collection system, our HR function, and he is a genius at getting grants 
> and finding money in Washington.  I don't know how he does it, but 
> hopefully we will be able to pretty much fund most of this through a grant 
> program.  But we need to start.  So that is why that is in the plan. 
> There is also some monies I recall, Val, for a second pilot program.  Do 
> you want me to describe that briefly?
>
>>> Valarie:  Yes, we did discuss it.  I did not include it in the 
>>> amendments due to the fact that I ran out of time to get the information 
>>> on a comparable project that is being done by western Michigan 
>>> University, so I left it out.  I'm sorry.
>
>>> Ed:  That is okay, we will deal with it later.  Thank you.
>
>>> Va
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
> To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" 
> <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
>
>> Terry,
>>
>>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
>> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
>> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could 
>> any
>> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
>> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
>> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much 
>> more
>> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can 
>> be
>> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for 
>> the
>> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
>> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>>
>> Dave Robinson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Terry
>> Eagle
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>>
>> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the 
>> symptom
>> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
>> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
>> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
>> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>>
>> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
>> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to 
>> do
>> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
>> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
>> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
>> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
>> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
>> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
>> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine 
>> from
>> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
>> auditor.
>>
>> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
>> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results 
>> were
>> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did 
>> not
>> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
>> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark 
>> of
>> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>>
>> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the 
>> selective
>> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
>> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
>> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
>> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
>> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
>> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
>> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration 
>> to
>> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
>> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
>> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
>> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for 
>> REINVENTING
>> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
>> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move 
>> blind
>> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Sontag
>> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>>
>> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering 
>> if
>> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
>> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending 
>> operator,
>> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
>> similarities.
>>
>> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
>> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's 
>> serial
>> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the 
>> fact
>> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
>> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
>> equipment used for site security purposes.
>>
>> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest 
>> in
>> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage 
>> rooms
>> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
>> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
>> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory 
>> taker's
>> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
>> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for 
>> John
>> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
>> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for 
>> its
>> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
>> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could 
>> *Not
>> be located, including various vending machines and several security 
>> systems
>> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
>> would have completed his work on this project.
>>
>> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
>> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
>> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
>> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
>> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
>> should be held harmless.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 16:37:38 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:37:38 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP
	equipment inventory
Message-ID: <BEEE34F27D1244D5A3279061CEDB6B86@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:42
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> On top of all this now Rogers in the public record wants to raid 
> Independent Living funds for some new data base system.
>
> Just another issue in a long line of misappropriation  of federal funds.
> Here's the schem:
>
> Too molify the Auditor General Rogers has talked about this new and 
> undefined data system.
>
> Oh, but look at the MI SILC's recent public hearing on the IL state plan 
> and look at the revision to try to use IL funds for this same database and 
> thus to rob elderly blind of services.
>
> Oh, yes and Rodgers and Zimmer have been annointed to be Ex-Officio 
> members of the SILC though Zimmer stated in the public record he didn't 
> even know what it was until July.
>
> I'm sure Rodgers didn't either.
>
> More on this later....
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
> To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" 
> <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment 
> inventory
>
>
>> Terry,
>>
>>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
>> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
>> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could 
>> any
>> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
>> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
>> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much 
>> more
>> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can 
>> be
>> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for 
>> the
>> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
>> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>>
>> Dave Robinson
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of 
>> Terry
>> Eagle
>> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
>> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
>> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>>
>> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the 
>> symptom
>> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
>> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
>> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
>> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>>
>> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
>> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to 
>> do
>> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
>> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
>> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
>> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
>> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
>> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
>> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine 
>> from
>> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
>> auditor.
>>
>> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
>> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results 
>> were
>> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did 
>> not
>> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
>> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark 
>> of
>> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>>
>> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the 
>> selective
>> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
>> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
>> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
>> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
>> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
>> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
>> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration 
>> to
>> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
>> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
>> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
>> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for 
>> REINVENTING
>> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
>> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move 
>> blind
>> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Sontag
>> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>>
>> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering 
>> if
>> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
>> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending 
>> operator,
>> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
>> similarities.
>>
>> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
>> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's 
>> serial
>> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the 
>> fact
>> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
>> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
>> equipment used for site security purposes.
>>
>> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest 
>> in
>> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage 
>> rooms
>> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
>> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
>> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory 
>> taker's
>> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
>> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for 
>> John
>> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
>> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for 
>> its
>> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
>> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could 
>> *Not
>> be located, including various vending machines and several security 
>> systems
>> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
>> would have completed his work on this project.
>>
>> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
>> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
>> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
>> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
>> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
>> should be held harmless.
>>
>> Joe Sontag
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 




From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 17:03:51 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:03:51 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
In-Reply-To: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
References: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <96D9169C634543A19E5445952ED1D568@TerryPC>

In Addition Fred and all, John McEntee also actually trained potential
operators to be effective business owners and equipment problem
trouble-shooter and self-diagnostic-and-repair operators, saving the
set-aside funds countless thousands of dollars.

 

And what do we have now?  Classes taught by sighted and blind individuals
that don't know the material needed to be taught.  Speaking of money waste
and savings;  Why are taxpayers paying for BEP trainees to be housed in a
hotel when classes are being conducted by phone?  Why cannot the trainees be
taught from home by telephone, and save the wasted money?  Of course, we are
told the answer to BEP's problem is to hire another promotional agent, and
move BEP operators from WORK-TO-WELFARE!  Aren't those great solution
strategies?

 

By the way, the EOC Ad Hoc Committee on BEP Issues formulated many great
ideas for solutions to training and other BEP problems.  Yet they were
dismissed because it was determined that the NFB had too much influence by
individual Ad Hoc Commmittee members, who were concerned and dedicated to
show up and actively participate at meetings.  And it is not that other
organizations and stakeholders weren't invited to attend and participate.
They were invited, and simply chose not to attend and participate.  Now here
it is the 9th month into an EOC term, and what has been discussed and
advanced by EOC subcommittees and The full committee, during the 9 months?
I suppose the doctrines of let's wait-and-see what will happen with the new
BS4BP, and the if it happened prior to October 1, 2012 it does not matter,
are the guiding doctrines for BEP challenges.  Meanwhile, BEP trainees are
taught by telephone and without meaningful vending equipment exposure and
hands-on experience, and an agenda of WORK-TO-WelFARE is being advanced.


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Wurtzel
Subject:  What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory

 

Hi Terry,

 

You and Joe are doing a great job of describing the situation.  I would add

that John McEntee was probably 1 of the most operator-oriented staff ever

employed by BEP.  His efforts improved operator's abilities to keep their

equipment up and running, thus improving profits, meanwhile saving more than

$100,000 his first year on the job.  Now, that is effectiveness.  Given all

that, I was never able to get him classified in a civil service position

which compensated him fairly. Yet, people are being paid more than 100k who

have no blindness knowledge or experience.

 

You have hit the nail on the head.  The simple time-honored idea of hiring

qualified people to do a professional job is the very simple solution.

 

Warmest Regards,

 

Fred

 

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

From:  joeharczt

Subject:  What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory

 

On top of all this now Rogers in the public record wants to raid Independent

Living funds for some new data base system.

 

Just another issue in a long line of misappropriation  of federal funds.

Here's the schem:

 

Too molify the Auditor General Rogers has talked about this new and

undefined data system.

 

Oh, but look at the MI SILC's recent public hearing on the IL state plan and

look at the revision to try to use IL funds for this same database and thus

to rob elderly blind of services.

 

Oh, yes and Rodgers and Zimmer have been annointed to be Ex-Officio members

of the SILC though Zimmer stated in the public record he didn't even know

what it was until July.

 

I'm sure Rodgers didn't either.

 

More on this later....

 

Joe

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

From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory

 

 

> Terry,

> 

>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even

> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.

> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could any

> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to

> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded

> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much more

> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can 

> be

> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for the

> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must

> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.

> 

> Dave Robinson

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From:  Terry Eagle

> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory

> 

> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the 

> symptom

> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student

> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are

> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about

> business, and food service and vending best practices.

> 

> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And

> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to 

> do

> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.

> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public

> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is

> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork

> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another

> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $

> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine 

> from

> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state

> auditor.

> 

> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP

> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results 

> were

> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did 

> not

> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee

> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark of

> the Patrick Cannon administration?

> 

> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the 

> selective

> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.

> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the

> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP

> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands

> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless

> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get

> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration to

> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the

> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:

> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent

> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for 

> REINVENTING

> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also

> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move 

> blind

> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Joe Sontag

> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?

> 

> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering 

> if

> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to

> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending 

> operator,

> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking

> similarities.

> 

> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending

> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial

> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the 

> fact

> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a

> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording

> equipment used for site security purposes.

> 

> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in

> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage 

> rooms

> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may

> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their

> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's

> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification

> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for 

> John

> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution

> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for 

> its

> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his

> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not

> be located, including various vending machines and several security 

> systems

> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he

> would have completed his work on this project.

> 

> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current

> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and

> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we

> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially

> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and

> should be held harmless.

> 

> Joe Sontag

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121206/10287d8a/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 17:24:41 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:24:41 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] EOC Meeting Agenda for Saturday December 15, 2012
In-Reply-To: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
References: <65FA98E6955E4AAD8D7AAE73C4D0EE20@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <A21E98117FD345319D4D5495EB8B61A2@TerryPC>

AGENDA

Elected Operator's Committee Meeting 

Saturday, December 15, 2012

9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M.

 

Meeting called by James Chaney, Chairperson

 


 

 

 


 

 

 


Time

Item

Owner


9:00-9:05

Welcome/Roll Call

James Chaney


 

 

 


9:05-9:10

 

9:10-9:30 

Approval of Meeting Minutes/Sept. 22, 2012

& October 22, 2012

 

Introducing the new Assistant BSBP Director

Mike Pemble

The  Committee

 

The Committee

 


9:30-10:45

Unfinished business/updates 

A.      Updates on State Plate 

B.        The new class

C.       Status of temporary operators 

D.      Remodeling updates on facilities

E.       EOC/BEP Meet n' Greet

 

New grievances filed/status

 

Bob Essenberg

James Chaney

James Hull

Constance Zanger


10:45 -11:00

Break

 


 

 

 


11:00-12 noon

House Bill 6006

Director Ed Rogers

Mike Pemble

James Hull

Constance Zanger

 


 

 

 


12noon-1:00

Lunch

 

 


1:00-1:30

Financial Report

A.       Annual Program Budget 

B.       Annual Set-aside Budget with the list of collections and
expenditures as a running total based upon where you are in the year

 

 

 

 

Constance Zanger


1:30-2:30

2012 Audit Report

Constance Zanger

James Hull

Mike Pemble

Ed Rogers

 

 


2:30-3:15

Promotional Agents Reports (1-4)

Chris Elliott

Josh Haskins

Joe Pelle

Patrick Duthie

 


3:15-3:40

Subcommittee Reports

Finance

Highway

Training

Ad Hoc Resolutions

Marketing & Development

Locations and Repairs

Promotions & Seniority

Workshop

Rules & Regs  

Insurance

Rob Essenberg

Risa Patrick-Langtry

Dale Layer

Shane Jackson

Nathan Prater

Hazell Brooks

Kevin Tomczak

Garnet Prentice

Greg Keathley

Lisa Weber

 


 

 

 

            

 

3:40-3:55               Public Comment

                                                                

 

 

3:55-4:00              Closing Remarks/Adjournment
James 

 
Chaney

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121206/caf0dcfa/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  6 18:21:44 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:21:44 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Agenda for 12/15/2012 EOC meeting
Message-ID: <9EC0B3EF3F40409F8FFC24997050C0DF@Reputercat>

AGENDA
Elected Operator's Committee Meeting
Saturday, December 15, 2012
9:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M.
Meeting called by James Chaney, Chairperson
Time
Item
Owner
9:00-9:05
Welcome/Roll Call
James Chaney
9:05-9:10
9:10-9:30
Approval of Meeting Minutes/Sept. 22, 2012
& October 22, 2012
Introducing the new Assistant BSBP Director
Mike Pemble
The
 Committee
The Committee
9:30-10:45
Unfinished business/updates
A.      Updates on State Plate
B.        The new class
C.
Status of temporary operators
D.      Remodeling updates on facilities
E.
EOC/BEP Meet n' Greet
New grievances filed/status
Bob Essenberg
James Chaney
James Hull
Constance Zanger
10:45 -11:00
Break
11:00-12 noon
House Bill 6006
Director Ed Rogers
Mike Pemble
James Hull
Constance Zanger
12noon-1:00
Lunch
1:00-1:30
Financial Report
A.       Annual Program Budget
B.
Annual Set-aside Budget with the list of collections and expenditures as a running
total based upon where you are in the year
Constance Zanger
1:30-2:30
2012 Audit Report
Constance Zanger
James Hull
Mike Pemble
Ed Rogers
2:30-3:15
Promotional Agents Reports (1-4)
Chris Elliott
Josh Haskins
Joe Pelle
Patrick Duthie
3:15-3:40
Subcommittee Reports
Finance
Highway
Training
Ad Hoc Resolutions
Marketing & Development
Locations and Repairs
Promotions & Seniority
Workshop
Rules & Regs
Insurance
Rob Essenberg
Risa Patrick-Langtry
Dale Layer
Shane Jackson
Nathan Prater
Hazell Brooks
Kevin Tomczak
Garnet Prentice
Greg Keathley
Lisa Weber
3:40-3:55               Public Comment
3:55-4:00
              Closing Remarks/Adjournment
James
Chaney
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121206/1f76363d/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Thu Dec  6 19:11:39 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:11:39 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the
	BEPequipment inventory
In-Reply-To: <E774C1033E5846FF9392167288B2003D@Reputercat>
References: <E774C1033E5846FF9392167288B2003D@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <19280FA0BAAA40F9B74B1DF57336EB09@TerryPC>

Joe, Well, you likely won't have to be concerned about getting a BEP
facility again, as BEP management likely considers you also  to be in the
embarrassing classification of weighing  too much, and are frowned upon as
lazy and unqualified to return to operate a facility.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Sontag
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:37 AM
To: VENDORSMI List
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the
BEPequipment inventory

I agree completely with everything in this thread so far.  Wouldn't it be 
nice if we had an effective EOC to help keep some of this nonsense in check?

I know, I'm one of those old, lazy operators after whom the current 
Committee is cleaning up.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Robinson" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
To: <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" 
<nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 9:11
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory


> Terry,
>
>   Your comments are exactly on target.  What you say is all so true even
> though BEP management makes excuses for everything they do or don't do.
> Sometimes we just shake our heads and shutter in disbelief.  How could any
> State administration allow such bias, incompident and dishonest people to
> continue to hold positions in state government.  We also must be reminded
> that your comments just highlight the tip of the iceberg.  Much, much more
> has been part of the destruction of the BEP and no one is sure if it can 
> be
> saved.  It is despicable that such a valuable source of employment for the
> blind is being destroyed, but we know of the cause and we know we must
> continue to stand for the operators and their chance at success.
>
> Dave Robinson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Terry
> Eagle
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 8:48 AM
> To: 'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] What is really up with the BEP equipment inventory
>
> Is this any surprise to anyone?  It can be summarized easily as the 
> symptom
> is fraud and cover-up, and the cause is total incompetence.  The student
> inventory-takers, promotional agents, and BEP and BS4BP management are
> incompetent, as they obviously and clearly know little or nothing about
> business, and food service and vending best practices.
>
> As pointed out John McEntee was driven out, along with Fred Wurtzel.  And
> let us not forget the firing of David Robinson, who actually attempted to 
> do
> that which the state auditors report is lacking:  support to operators.
> What is the real truth about Dave Robinson's firing?  We see from public
> documents that it was for being behind six months in paperwork, yet it is
> now documented that at least one promotional agent is behind in paperwork
> processing for more than a year and still employed by BEP.  And another
> Promotional agent is still employed with BEP after costing the program $
> 7000 dollars after failing to do paperwork to remove a vending machine 
> from
> a closed and demolished rest area.  This also was noted by the state
> auditor.
>
> And what was up when James Hull's relative was hired to do the BEP
> inventory, as reported in MCB Board minutes, and the inventory results 
> were
> not to the liking of BEP management, as also reported to the Board.  Did 
> not
> the former BEP manager come under attack for hiring a relative to oversee
> the BEP wharehouse?  Do you see a double standard in ethics, a hallmark of
> the Patrick Cannon administration?
>
> I guess it is all about management-by-selective-paperwork, and the 
> selective
> results desired by management of LARA down to the promotional agents.
> Consider the most recent costly paperwork knee-jerk reaction to the
> auditor's finding about accountability for poor money management by BEP
> management.  Now LARA management is happy to cost operators thousands
> annually in sales and profits, also costing the set-aside fund countless
> dollars annually, because of new paperwork requirements just to get
> equipment repaired.  Here is a novel idea for the Snyder administration to
> save money and save jobs for blind persons:  How about taking care of the
> cause of the problem, rather than just continuing to treat the symptoms:
> Move the incompetent management out of BEP, and hire competent
> business-oriented and knowledgable management.  How is that for 
> REINVENTING
> HOW MICHIGAN DOES BUSINESS, Mr. Governor?  Perhaps that idea can also
> address and eliminate the administration's legislative agenda to move 
> blind
> vendors from WORK-TO-WELFARE.  Just maybe.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Sontag
> Subject: What's Really Up With the Equipment Inventory?
>
> Two reports received here within the past 72 hours have got me wondering 
> if
> the new BEP equipment inventory has any chance of being satisfactory to
> anyone who really cares.  One report comes from a highway vending 
> operator,
> the other from a snack bar operator, but both have some striking
> similarities.
>
> Both operators say that they were never asked to open any vending
> machinesfor the inventory takers, a problem  because manufacturer's serial
> numbers are often accessible only from inside the units, as well as the 
> fact
> that additional items for the inventory may be housed in the cabinet of a
> vending machine, including but not limited to video and digital recording
> equipment used for site security purposes.
>
> The other common detail is that the inventory takers showed no interest in
> checking storage areas at the vending facilities, even though storage 
> rooms
> often contain refrigeration, soft drink service and other items that may
> belong on the final inventory.  The roadside operator was told that their
> presence was not required at the designated time for the inventory taker's
> visit.  I well remember being asked by my PA for equipment identification
> details and opening all store rooms and all Agency-owned equipment for 
> John
> McEntee, as he methodically documented the equipment at the Comstitution
> Hall facility while I ran it.  In fact John's inventory was notable for 
> its
> thoroughness in documenting what was present in the locations and for his
> documentation of  equipment that the BEP had purchased but that could *Not
> be located, including various vending machines and several security 
> systems
> for highway facilities.  John was driven out of the BEP shortly before he
> would have completed his work on this project.
>
> What kind of accuracy and completeness are we likely to get under current
> conditions from two student interns with no experience in the Program and
> who are being paid at bargain rates?  My guess is that we'll get what we
> paid for; and that's not likely to work very well for anybody, especially
> those who insist that BS for Blind Persons is doing everything right and
> should be held harmless.
>
> Joe Sontag
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/drob1946%40gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com 


_______________________________________________
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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.c
om




From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Fri Dec  7 22:31:06 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:31:06 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Great Legislative Idea
In-Reply-To: <19280FA0BAAA40F9B74B1DF57336EB09@TerryPC>
References: <E774C1033E5846FF9392167288B2003D@Reputercat>
	<19280FA0BAAA40F9B74B1DF57336EB09@TerryPC>
Message-ID: <6C69B3F228774B08855F28E030965136@TerryPC>

Perhaps this can be incorporated into HB 6006.  It would restore some jobs
to truly sightless blind persons, to replace those job opportunities lost in
certain facilities.  And it certainly would get certain blind persons doing
something to oppose and defeat HB 6006.  It likely would also get BS4BP
staff to oppose the legislation, as the legislation would replace seemingly
sighted operators with embarrassing blind persons, based on their attitude
and belief about totally blind persons.

Here is the great idea:

Illinois excludes anyone who holds a valid driver's license from the vending
program, even if they otherwise meet legal blindness requirements. It's
actually possible fore some to maintain eligibility by foregoing the
license.

Cordially,
Bill

On 12/7/2012 2:06 PM, Tim Jones wrote:
> CAN blind vendors qualify for state driver's license?
>
_______________________________________________
vendtalk mailing list  




From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 02:00:42 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:00:42 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] A Great Idea for Action
In-Reply-To: <BD25789B7BD9470D8C8B38F457EB3B38@Reputercat>
References: <BD25789B7BD9470D8C8B38F457EB3B38@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <1D500883698245E188442692C3711D97@TerryPC>

            

Perhaps this can be incorporated into HB 6006.  It would restore some jobs

to truly sightless blind persons, to replace those job opportunities lost in

certain facilities.  And it certainly would get certain blind persons doing

something to oppose and defeat HB 6006.  It likely would also get BS4BP

staff to oppose the legislation, as the legislation would replace seemingly

sighted operators with embarrassing blind persons, based on their attitude

and belief about totally blind persons.

 

Here is the great idea:

 

Illinois excludes anyone who holds a valid driver's license from the vending

program, even if they otherwise meet legal blindness requirements. It's

actually possible fore some to maintain eligibility by foregoing the

license.

 

Cordially,

Bill

 

On 12/7/2012 2:06 PM, Tim Jones wrote:

> CAN blind vendors qualify for state driver's license?

> 

_______________________________________________

vendtalk mailing list  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121207/8e49147f/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Sat Dec  8 02:16:51 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:16:51 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] A Great Idea for Action
In-Reply-To: <1D500883698245E188442692C3711D97@TerryPC>
References: <BD25789B7BD9470D8C8B38F457EB3B38@Reputercat>
	<1D500883698245E188442692C3711D97@TerryPC>
Message-ID: <B4C94364409C4FD5BEE0AD7EB8BBD24A@TerryPC>

Like the Right-to-Work movement surge, this idea is catching on and getting
traction across the country.

From:  Loren Wakefield

In Iowa, we passed a rule saying that in order to participate in the
program, you had to surrender your license.  It's an extremely sad statement
to say it had to come to that.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Terry
Eagle
Subject: [Vendorsmi] A Great Idea for Action
         
Perhaps this can be incorporated into HB 6006.  It would restore some jobs

to truly sightless blind persons, to replace those job opportunities lost in

certain facilities.  And it certainly would get certain blind persons doing

something to oppose and defeat HB 6006.  It likely would also get BS4BP

staff to oppose the legislation, as the legislation would replace seemingly

sighted operators with embarrassing blind persons, based on their attitude

and belief about totally blind persons.

 

Here is the great idea:

 

Illinois excludes anyone who holds a valid driver's license from the vending

program, even if they otherwise meet legal blindness requirements. It's

actually possible fore some to maintain eligibility by foregoing the

license.

 

Cordially,

Bill

 

On 12/7/2012 2:06 PM, Tim Jones wrote:

> CAN blind vendors qualify for state driver's license?

> 

_______________________________________________

vendtalk mailing list  

 





From dandrews at visi.com  Sat Dec  8 23:26:42 2012
From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews)
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 17:26:42 -0600
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fwd: Self-employment Survey
Message-ID: <auto-000088666388@mailfront4.g2host.com>


>Chuck Young from Hadley School has asked us to distribute their survey:




>If you are blind or visually impaired and are self-employed or 
>thinking about starting your own business, we invite you to take 
>this short survey. As you may know, in September 2011, The Hadley 
>School for the Blind launched the Forsythe Center for 
>Entrepreneurship (FCE), the goal of which is to provide individuals 
>who are blind or visually impaired with the knowledge, resources and 
>networking opportunities to enable them to advance in their careers 
>or to successfully launch and grow their own businesses. The goal of 
>this survey is to gain more information about current or potential 
>students that can benefit from the FCE and use that information to 
>better our curriculum.
>
>You can find the survey at:
>
><http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=&msgid=0&act=11111&c=225701&destination=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fs%2Ffce-self-emp>http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/fce-self-emp
>
>Thank you for your participation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121208/8c3cd0c5/attachment.html>

From president.nfb.mi at gmail.com  Sun Dec  9 21:19:56 2012
From: president.nfb.mi at gmail.com (Larry Posont)
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 16:19:56 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] BEP
Message-ID: <CAC9aUgU2UwyDm5r-BQE1B_ty9OmvX25PPXGcmpEySTtuyf532A@mail.gmail.com>

National Federation of the Blind of Michigan
20812 Ann Arbor Trail
Dearborn Heights, MI 48127

December 9, 2012

Dear Michigan Federationists:

	This has been a very good, honest and open discussion. It shows that
the Federation is not afraid to have frank discussions about our
concerns in order to try and solve them. Only with these discussions
will we find solutions to the challenges that are facing blind
citizens in Michigan. Please keep the discussions coming.

Sincerely


Larry Posont, President
National Federation of the Blind of Michigan
(313) 271-3058
Email:
president.nfb.mi at gmail.com
Web page
www.nfbmi.org



From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Thu Dec 13 13:14:30 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:14:30 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Good News for Some Blind Vendors
Message-ID: <5D5D7945A8E74C33B0EF7AB826CEC072@TerryPC>

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 
Note:  While some blind vendors face facility loss because of Snyder
administration proposed WORK-TO-WELFARE for the blind legislation, a glimmer
of hope or luck face some other blind vendors.

More employees headed to state-owned sites Pace of moves set to accelerate
in January 

State government efforts to reduce the amount of office space it leases by
consolidating employees in buildings it already owns are to accelerate in
January. That's when a series of moves and renovations begins at two
state-owned buildings in Lansing. State employees in Constitution Hall and
the Mason Building, both on West Allegan Street, recently were notified
about plans that will at least temporarily relocate them. Work that's
expected to start next month is one of the early steps in a plan under which
the state hopes to save millions of dollars a year by trimming the 5 million
square feet of office space it leases by up to 1.5 million square feet. The
state has 7.1 million square feet of office space in buildings it owns. But
after losing 20 percent of its workforce in the last 12 years, mostly to
attrition, those buildings are as much as 30 percent underutilized. Phil
Jeffery, chief deputy director of the Department of Technology, Management
and Budget, said it hasn't been determined what major commercial leases will
be terminated to fill the extra capacity in the state-owned Constitution
Hall and Mason Building. But, he said, changes will be made in such a way to
minimize the impact on downtown Lansing. I'm not in favor of leaving a
blighted spot in the middle of the city of Lansing," Jeffery said. Lansing
Mayor Virg Bernero said he has been briefed several times on the state's
plans and believes one beneficial effect will be more state employees moving
into state-owned buildings in Lansing from leased space outside the city. We
appreciate Gov. (Rick) Snyder's interest in and commitment to a vibrant
capital city by moving more state employees into the city, and we will
continue to cooperate and collaborate with state government to ensure value
for state taxpayers and a healthy and vibrant downtown," Bernero said. While
there may be some tax revenue implications associated with the moves, we
expect that gains in city income tax revenues will help offset any losses in
commercial property taxes. State employee unions have been cautiously
supportive of the plans, reasoning that if state officials can save money on
real estate, they may not have to make further cuts to wages and benefits,
said Phil Thompson, executive vice president of Michigan Public Employees
Service Employees International Union Local 517M. Jeffery said that just
under 1,000 state employees now work in Constitution Hall. Once renovations
are completed, it will be able to hold up to 1,900, he said. About 560
people work in the Mason Building today, officials said. After renovations,
it will accommodate at least 850. 




From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 15 09:04:47 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:04:47 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] The Passing of Our Dear Friend Scott Young
Message-ID: <D415544CFAEE41D294360EB5B0DAB210@TerryPC>

From: Kevan Worley 

Subject: The Passing of Our Dear Friend Scott Young

 

Hello,

 

It is with a heavy heart that I write to tell all of you about the passing
of 

our dear friend and colleague, Scott Young of Tennessee. In recent days,
Scott 

checked into the hospital. As most of you know, Scott was a brittle
diabetic. As 

I understand it, Scott went into the hospital a few days ago. At first it
seemed 

like a bad cold, bronchitis, pneumonia, etc. However, it was quickly
determined 

that a number of other complications to his diabetes were intensifying. His 

family was at his bedside during the last couple of days. NABM First Vice 

President Kim Williams, NFBEI Director Terry Smith and our member Melissa
Smith 

were with Scott yesterday. 

 

This is a very difficult note for me to write as Scott has been much more
than 

one of our leaders. He was much more than a very effective businessman.
Scott 

was always ready to carry more than his share of the load. He was one of our


heroes, but often his humility meant that he was one of our unsung heroes.
He 

simply got the work done. He exemplified what we all should be doing. He
always 

had the greatest relationships with his legislators. He was often the one
that 

led the charge in the face of legislative challenges to opportunities for
the 

blind. But, for me personally, more than all of those things, he had been a 

supporter, a dear friend and an example of class, honor, integrity and
dignity. 

Scott had battled monumental health issues for many years, and yet it can
truly 

be said that his indomitable spirit and love, which in his case came from
his 

Christian faith, made him one of our quiet leaders and contributors. It
occurs 

to me that one way to understand Scott would be this phrase: He was always
there 

to help. Many of us talk, Scott did. 

 

We understand that arrangements for services in Tennessee on Monday are
being 

made, and funeral services in Illinois, where Scott was raised, are likely
to 

occur on Tuesday.

 

At Your Service,

 

 

Office: 1-866-543-6808

Cell: (303)929-2369

Fax: (719)527-0129

www.worleyenterprises.com

_______________________________________________

vendtalk mailing list

vendtalk at nfbnet.org

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121215/fbfe1d36/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Mon Dec 17 15:14:15 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:14:15 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Open Meeting Act Revisited
Message-ID: <2C6F95BCE9D04A09974FD90B59183A18@Reputercat0>

An attempt was made to prevent me from speaking during the afternoon public comment period on the 12/15/2012 Elected Operators' Committee meeting agenda.  It seems acting Chairperson Essenberg took it upon himself to require anyone who is not a member of the EOC and who wished to speak during any portion of this EOC meeting to identify her/himself to him at a certain point in the first hour or so of the meeting or be forbidden to speak under any circumstances during the rest of the meeting.  While the Open Meetings Act allows a public body to establish rules to be followed by those who wish to address it, the rules must be established and recorded; and the on-the-fly "rule" was not a posted matter of Committee business, was not recorded or published prior to the meeting and is no different from requiring people attending an EOC meeting to register, a practice forbidden by the Open Meetings Act of 1976, by which the Committee is bound.  Thanks to James Chaney, I was permitted to say a few words about HB6006 and some of my experiences gained while talking to various Representatives and their Staff.

This is the second time in the past two months that the OMA has been violated by BSBP and the EOC in an apparent effort to intimidate or harass me and to keep the truth from getting out, a strategy guaranteed to fail ultimately.  BSBP is responsible for the administration of the Business Enterprise Program by promulgated rule.

Here is the OMA in all its glory.  I have placed a double asterisk by those sections of the Act that seem to be misunderstood, however deliberately, by BSBP Staff and those on the Committee who choose to serve the Agency instead of serving the operators who voted them into their positions of trust.  Hint: it is much easier to conduct a truly open meeting when you decide in advance to not worry about who will attend it, what anyone might say publicly about anything relevant to the public body or business that properly comes before it and that your conduct during the meeting will not be controlled by your feelings about certain individuals, their politics, your personal agenda etc.

Joe Sontag

OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Act 267 of 1976
AN ACT to require certain meetings of certain public bodies to be open to the public;
to require notice and the keeping of minutes of meetings; to provide for enforcement;
to provide for invalidation of governmental decisions under certain circumstances;
to provide penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
15.261 Short title; effect of act on certain charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions.
Sec. 1.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Open meetings act".
(2) This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, ordinances, or resolutions
which relate to requirements for meetings of local public bodies to be open to the
public.
(3) After the effective date of this act, nothing in this act shall prohibit a public
body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision which would
require a greater degree of openness relative to meetings of public bodies than the
standards provided for in this act.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.262 Definitions.
Sec. 2.
As used in this act:
(a) "Public body" means any state or local legislative or governing body, including
a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, that is empowered
by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule to exercise
governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or proprietary function;
a lessee of such a body performing an essential public purpose and function pursuant
to the lease agreement; or the board of a nonprofit corporation formed by a city
under section 4o of the home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.4o.
(b) "Meeting" means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is present for
the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public policy, or
any meeting of the board of a nonprofit corporation formed by a city under section
4o of the home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.4o.
(c) "Closed session" means a meeting or part of a meeting of a public body that is
closed to the public.
(d) "Decision" means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a motion,
proposal, recommendation, resolution, order, ordinance, bill, or measure on which
a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body effectuates
or formulates public policy.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 38, Imd. Eff. July 11,
2001
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.263 Meetings, decisions, and deliberations of public body; requirements; attending
or addressing meeting of public body; tape-recording, videotaping, broadcasting,
and telecasting proceedings; rules and regulations; exclusion from meeting; exemptions.
**Sec. 3.
(1) All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in
a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend
any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. The right of a person to attend
a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape, to broadcast
live on radio, and to telecast live on television the proceedings of a public body
at a public meeting. The exercise of this right shall not be dependent upon the prior
approval of the public body. However, a public body may establish reasonable rules
and regulations in order to minimize the possibility of disrupting the meeting.
(2) All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the public.
(3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members shall
take place at a meeting open to the public except as provided in this section and
sections 7 and 8.
**(4) A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a meeting of a
public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other information
or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance.
**(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules
established and recorded by the public body. The legislature or a house of the legislature
may provide by rule that the right to address may be limited to prescribed times
at hearings and committee meetings only.
(6) A person shall not be excluded from a meeting otherwise open to the public except
for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting.
(7) This act does not apply to the following public bodies only when deliberating
the merits of a case:
(a) The worker's compensation appeal board created under the worker's disability
compensation act of 1969, Act No. 317 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, being
sections 418.101 to 418.941 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(b) The employment security board of review created under the Michigan employment
security act, Act No. 1 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1936, as amended,
being sections 421.1 to 421.73 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(c) The state tenure commission created under Act No. 4 of the Public Acts of the
Extra Session of 1937, as amended, being sections 38.71 to 38.191 of the Michigan
Compiled Laws, when acting as a board of review from the decision of a controlling
board.
(d) An arbitrator or arbitration panel appointed by the employment relations commission
under the authority given the commission by Act No. 176 of the Public Acts of 1939,
as amended, being sections 423.1 to 423.30 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(e) An arbitration panel selected under chapter 50A of the revised judicature act
of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being sections 600.5040 to 600.5065
of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(f) The Michigan public service commission created under Act No. 3 of the Public
Acts of 1939, being sections 460.1 to 460.8 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(8) This act does not apply to an association of insurers created under the insurance
code of 1956, Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956, being sections 500.100 to 500.8302
of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or other association or facility formed under Act
No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956 as a nonprofit organization of insurer members.
(9) This act does not apply to a committee of a public body which adopts a nonpolicymaking
resolution of tribute or memorial which resolution is not adopted at a meeting.
**(10) This act does not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance gathering or
conference not designed to avoid this act.
(11) This act shall not apply to the Michigan veterans' trust fund board of trustees
or a county or district committee created under Act No. 9 of the Public Acts of the
first extra session of 1946, being sections 35.601 to 35.610 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws, when the board of trustees or county or district committee is deliberating
the merits of an emergent need. A decision of the board of trustees or county or
district committee made under this subsection shall be reconsidered by the board
or committee at its next regular or special meeting consistent with the requirements
of this act. "Emergent need" means a situation which the board of trustees, by rules
promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of the Public
Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.328 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws, determines requires immediate action.
History:
 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 161, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30, 1981
;-- Am. 1986, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1986 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 158, Imd. Eff. June
14, 1988 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1988
Admin Rule: R 35.621 of the Michigan Administrative Code.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.264 Public notice of meetings generally; contents; places of posting.
**Sec. 4.
The following provisions shall apply with respect to public notice of meetings:
(a) A public notice shall always contain the name of the public body to which the
notice applies, its telephone number if one exists, and its address.
(b) A public notice for a public body shall always be posted at its principal office
and any other locations considered appropriate by the public body. Cable television
may also be utilized for purposes of posting public notice.
(c) If a public body is a part of a state department, part of the legislative or
judicial branch of state government, part of an institution of higher education,
or part of a political subdivision or school district, a public notice shall also
be posted in the respective principal office of the state department, the institution
of higher education, clerk of the house of representatives, secretary of the state
senate, clerk of the supreme court, or political subdivision or school district.
(d) If a public body does not have a principal office, the required public notice
for a local public body shall be posted in the office of the county clerk in which
the public body serves and the required public notice for a state public body shall
be posted in the office of the secretary of state.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 87, Imd. Eff. Apr. 19,
1984
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.265 Public notice of regular meetings, change in schedule of regular meetings,
rescheduled regular meetings, or special meetings; time for posting; statement of
date, time, and place; applicability of subsection (4); recess or adjournment; emergency
sessions; meeting in residential dwelling; notice.
**Sec. 5.
(1) A meeting of a public body shall not be held unless public notice is given as
provided in this section by a person designated by the public body.
(2) For regular meetings of a public body, there shall be posted within 10 days after
the first meeting of the public body in each calendar or fiscal year a public notice
stating the dates, times, and places of its regular meetings.
(3) If there is a change in the schedule of regular meetings of a public body, there
shall be posted within 3 days after the meeting at which the change is made, a public
notice stating the new dates, times, and places of its regular meetings.
(4) Except as provided in this subsection or in subsection (6), for a rescheduled
regular or a special meeting of a public body, a public notice stating the date,
time, and place of the meeting shall be posted at least 18 hours before the meeting.
The requirement of 18-hour notice shall not apply to special meetings of subcommittees
of a public body or conference committees of the state legislature. A conference
committee shall give a 6-hour notice. A second conference committee shall give a
1-hour notice. Notice of a conference committee meeting shall include written notice
to each member of the conference committee and the majority and minority leader of
each house indicating time and place of the meeting. This subsection does not apply
to a public meeting held pursuant to section 4(2) to (5) of Act No. 239 of the Public
Acts of 1955, as amended, being section 200.304 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(5) A meeting of a public body which is recessed for more than 36 hours shall be
reconvened only after public notice, which is equivalent to that required under subsection
(4), has been posted. If either house of the state legislature is adjourned or recessed
for less than 18 hours, the notice provisions of subsection (4) are not applicable.
Nothing in this section shall bar a public body from meeting in emergency session
in the event of a severe and imminent threat to the health, safety, or welfare of
the public when 2/3 of the members serving on the body decide that delay would be
detrimental to efforts to lessen or respond to the threat.
(6) A meeting of a public body may only take place in a residential dwelling if a
nonresidential building within the boundary of the local governmental unit or school
system is not available without cost to the public body. For a meeting of a public
body which is held in a residential dwelling, notice of the meeting shall be published
as a display advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or township
in which the meeting is to be held. The notice shall be published not less than 2
days before the day on which the meeting is held, and shall state the date, time,
and place of the meeting. The notice, which shall be at the bottom of the display
advertisement and which shall be set off in a conspicuous manner, shall include the
following language: "This meeting is open to all members of the public under Michigan's
open meetings act".
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 256, Imd. Eff. June
21, 1978 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 134, Imd. Eff. Apr. 22, 1982 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 167, Imd.
Eff. June 29, 1984
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.266 Providing copies of public notice on written request; fee.
Sec. 6.
(1) Upon the written request of an individual, organization, firm, or corporation,
and upon the requesting party's payment of a yearly fee of not more than the reasonable
estimated cost for printing and postage of such notices, a public body shall send
to the requesting party by first class mail a copy of any notice required to be posted
pursuant to section 5(2) to (5).
(2) Upon written request, a public body, at the same time a public notice of a meeting
is posted pursuant to section 5, shall provide a copy of the public notice of that
meeting to any newspaper published in the state and to any radio and television station
located in the state, free of charge.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.267 Closed sessions; roll call vote; separate set of minutes.
**Sec. 7.
(1) A 2/3 roll call vote of members elected or appointed and serving is required
to call a closed session, except for the closed sessions permitted under section
8(a), (b), (c), (g), (i), and (j). The roll call vote and the purpose or purposes
for calling the closed session shall be entered into the minutes of the meeting at
which the vote is taken.
(2) A separate set of minutes shall be taken by the clerk or the designated secretary
of the public body at the closed session. These minutes shall be retained by the
clerk of the public body, are not available to the public, and shall only be disclosed
if required by a civil action filed under section 10, 11, or 13. These minutes may
be destroyed 1 year and 1 day after approval of the minutes of the regular meeting
at which the closed session was approved.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994
;-- Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.
**Sec. 8.
A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:
(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear complaints
or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation of, a
public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named person
requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind the request
at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the rescission
only in open sessions.
(b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student if the public
body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or institution
of higher education that the student is attending, and if the student or the student's
parent or guardian requests a closed hearing.
(c) For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of a collective
bargaining agreement if either negotiating party requests a closed hearing.
(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an option to
purchase or lease that real property is obtained.
(e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in connection
with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a detrimental
financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public body.
(f) To review and consider the contents of an application for employment or appointment
to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain confidential.
However, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, all interviews by a public
body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an open meeting
pursuant to this act. This subdivision does not apply to a public office described
in subdivision (j).
(g) Partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature.
(h) To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal
statute.
(i) For a compliance conference conducted by the department of commerce under section
16231 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978, being section
333.16231 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, before a complaint is issued.
(j) In the process of searching for and selecting a president of an institution of
higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state
constitution of 1963, to review the specific contents of an application, to conduct
an interview with a candidate, or to discuss the specific qualifications of a candidate
if the particular process of searching for and selecting a president of an institution
of higher education meets all of the following requirements:
(i) The search committee in the process, appointed by the governing board, consists
of at least 1 student of the institution, 1 faculty member of the institution, 1
administrator of the institution, 1 alumnus of the institution, and 1 representative
of the general public. The search committee also may include 1 or more members of
the governing board of the institution, but the number shall not constitute a quorum
of the governing board. However, the search committee shall not be constituted in
such a way that any 1 of the groups described in this subparagraph constitutes a
majority of the search committee.
(ii) After the search committee recommends the 5 final candidates, the governing
board does not take a vote on a final selection for the president until at least
30 days after the 5 final candidates have been publicly identified by the search
committee.
(iii) The deliberations and vote of the governing board of the institution on selecting
the president take place in an open session of the governing board.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 202, Imd. Eff. July
3, 1984 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff.
Dec. 26, 1996
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.269 Minutes.
**Sec. 9.
(1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date, time, place,
members present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting open to the public,
and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes shall
include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. The public body shall make any
corrections in the minutes at the next meeting after the meeting to which the minutes
refer. The public body shall make corrected minutes available at or before the next
subsequent meeting after correction. The corrected minutes shall show both the original
entry and the correction.
(2) Minutes are public records open to public inspection, and a public body shall
make the minutes available at the address designated on posted public notices pursuant
to section 4. The public body shall make copies of the minutes available to the public
at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying.
(3) A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public inspection within
8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public body shall
make approved minutes available for public inspection within 5 business days after
the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body.
(4) A public body shall not include in or with its minutes any personally identifiable
information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying with
section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act, 20 USC
1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 130, Imd. Eff. Apr.
20, 1982 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 305, Imd. Eff. Aug. 11, 2004
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.270 Decisions of public body; presumption; civil action to invalidate; jurisdiction;
venue; reenactment of disputed decision.
**Sec. 10.
(1) Decisions of a public body shall be presumed to have been adopted in compliance
with the requirements of this act. The attorney general, the prosecuting attorney
of the county in which the public body serves, or any person may commence a civil
action in the circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision of a public body
made in violation of this act.
(2) A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body has not
complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the decision
or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered with substantial
compliance with section 3(1), (2), and (3) and the court finds that the noncompliance
or failure has impaired the rights of the public under this act.
(3) The circuit court shall not have jurisdiction to invalidate a decision of a public
body for a violation of this act unless an action is commenced pursuant to this section
within the following specified period of time:
(a) Within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available to the public by
the public body except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b).
(b) If the decision involves the approval of contracts, the receipt or acceptance
of bids, the making of assessments, the procedures pertaining to the issuance of
bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, or the submission of a borrowing proposal
to the electors, within 30 days after the approved minutes are made available to
the public pursuant to that decision.
(4) Venue for an action under this section shall be any county in which a local public
body serves or, if the decision of a state public body is at issue, in Ingham county.
(5) In any case where an action has been initiated to invalidate a decision of a
public body on the ground that it was not taken in conformity with the requirements
of this act, the public body may, without being deemed to make any admission contrary
to its interest, reenact the disputed decision in conformity with this act. A decision
reenacted in this manner shall be effective from the date of reenactment and shall
not be declared invalid by reason of a deficiency in the procedure used for its initial
enactment.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.271 Civil action to compel compliance or enjoin noncompliance; commencement; venue;
security not required; commencement of action for mandamus; court costs and attorney
fees.
**Sec. 11.
(1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general, prosecuting
attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or a person may commence
a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with this
act.
(2) An action for injunctive relief against a local public body shall be commenced
in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the public body
serves. An action for an injunction against a state public body shall be commenced
in the circuit court and venue is proper in any county in which the public body has
its principal office, or in Ingham county. If a person commences an action for injunctive
relief, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition for obtaining
a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.
(3) An action for mandamus against a public body under this act shall be commenced
in the court of appeals.
(4) If a public body is not complying with this act, and a person commences a civil
action against the public body for injunctive relief to compel compliance or to enjoin
further noncompliance with the act and succeeds in obtaining relief in the action,
the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the action.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.272 Violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 12.
(1) A public official who intentionally violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00.
(2) A public official who is convicted of intentionally violating a provision of
this act for a second time within the same term shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and shall be fined not more than $2,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year,
or both.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.273 Violation; liability.
**Sec. 13.
(1) A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be personally liable
in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00 total,
plus court costs and actual attorney fees to a person or group of persons bringing
the action.
(2) Not more than 1 action under this section shall be brought against a public official
for a single meeting. An action under this section shall be commenced within 180
days after the date of the violation which gives rise to the cause of action.
(3) An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action for injunctive
or exemplary relief under section 11.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.273a Selection of president by governing board of higher education institution;
violation; civil fine.
Sec. 13a.
If the governing board of an institution of higher education established under section
4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963 violates this act with
respect to the process of selecting a president of the institution at any time after
the recommendation of final candidates to the governing board, as described in section
8(j), the institution is responsible for the payment of a civil fine of not more
than $500,000.00. This civil fine is in addition to any other remedy or penalty under
this act. To the extent possible, any payment of fines imposed under this section
shall be paid from funds allocated by the institution of higher education to pay
for the travel and expenses of the members of the governing board.
History: Add. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.274 Repeal of MCL 15.251 to 15.253.
Sec. 14.
Act No. 261 of the Public Acts of 1968, being sections 15.251 to 15.253 of the Compiled
Laws of 1970, is repealed.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.275 Effective date.
Sec. 15.
This act shall take effect January 1, 1977.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Rendered 12/15/2012 20:30:45
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121217/f29db5a0/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Tue Dec 18 00:45:11 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:45:11 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Open Meeting Act Revisited
In-Reply-To: <2C6F95BCE9D04A09974FD90B59183A18@Reputercat0>
References: <2C6F95BCE9D04A09974FD90B59183A18@Reputercat0>
Message-ID: <58A286A2561B45AFB3240F4FD5CF78FC@TerryPC>

Great job and good points Joe.  This nothing new for Rob Essenberh and his
significant other Constance Zanger.  Violation of the OMA is already in
litigation from the secret actions of these two with regard to the EOC AD
Hoc Subcommittee on the Anderson building cafeteria bid meetings, in which
they excluded Andrea Nelson, a subcommittee member, as well as the public
including me.

 

In addition,  they have been holding  secret meetings between  BEP
management, Rob Essenberg, and Steve Zoot, to draft the new BS4BP BEP
administrative rules, which  is another example of a recent OMA violation
that will be litigated.

 

We all know Rob Essenberg represents BEP management, not the BEP vendors who
elected him.  Bep vendors get and deserve that which they vote to represent
them-sell-out and a lost BEP for blind persons.  Say Hello to Peckham and
the private sector where they believe profitability is possible.  

 

  _____  

From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Sontag
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:14 AM
To: VENDORSMI List
Cc: Lucy Edmonds; garsvend at comcast.net; James Chaney; Mike Zimmer; steven
langtry; Greg Keathley; Robert Essenberg; Connie Zanger; Shane Jackson;
Garnet Prentice; Jennifer Doroh; Hazell Brooks; James Hull;
dlayer8954 at yahoo.com; gregkeathley at yahoo.com; Lisa L. Weber; Dale Layer;
Rodgers,Edward (LARA)
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Open Meeting Act Revisited

 

An attempt was made to prevent me from speaking during the afternoon public
comment period on the 12/15/2012 Elected Operators' Committee meeting
agenda.  It seems acting Chairperson Essenberg took it upon himself to
require anyone who is not a member of the EOC and who wished to speak during
any portion of this EOC meeting to identify her/himself to him at a certain
point in the first hour or so of the meeting or be forbidden to speak under
any circumstances during the rest of the meeting.  While the Open Meetings
Act allows a public body to establish rules to be followed by those who wish
to address it, the rules must be established and recorded; and the
on-the-fly "rule" was not a posted matter of Committee business, was not
recorded or published prior to the meeting and is no different from
requiring people attending an EOC meeting to register, a practice forbidden
by the Open Meetings Act of 1976, by which the Committee is bound.  Thanks
to James Chaney, I was permitted to say a few words about HB6006 and some of
my experiences gained while talking to various Representatives and their
Staff.

 

This is the second time in the past two months that the OMA has been
violated by BSBP and the EOC in an apparent effort to intimidate or harass
me and to keep the truth from getting out, a strategy guaranteed to fail
ultimately.  BSBP is responsible for the administration of the Business
Enterprise Program by promulgated rule.

 

Here is the OMA in all its glory.  I have placed a double asterisk by those
sections of the Act that seem to be misunderstood, however deliberately, by
BSBP Staff and those on the Committee who choose to serve the Agency instead
of serving the operators who voted them into their positions of trust.
Hint: it is much easier to conduct a truly open meeting when you decide in
advance to not worry about who will attend it, what anyone might say
publicly about anything relevant to the public body or business that
properly comes before it and that your conduct during the meeting will not
be controlled by your feelings about certain individuals, their politics,
your personal agenda etc.

 

Joe Sontag

 

OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Act 267 of 1976
AN ACT to require certain meetings of certain public bodies to be open to
the public;
to require notice and the keeping of minutes of meetings; to provide for
enforcement;
to provide for invalidation of governmental decisions under certain
circumstances;
to provide penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
15.261 Short title; effect of act on certain charter provisions, ordinances,
or resolutions.
Sec. 1.
(1) This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Open meetings act".
(2) This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, ordinances, or
resolutions
which relate to requirements for meetings of local public bodies to be open
to the
public.
(3) After the effective date of this act, nothing in this act shall prohibit
a public
body from adopting an ordinance, resolution, rule, or charter provision
which would
require a greater degree of openness relative to meetings of public bodies
than the
standards provided for in this act.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.262 Definitions.
Sec. 2.
As used in this act:
(a) "Public body" means any state or local legislative or governing body,
including
a board, commission, committee, subcommittee, authority, or council, that is
empowered
by state constitution, statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule to
exercise
governmental or proprietary authority or perform a governmental or
proprietary function;
a lessee of such a body performing an essential public purpose and function
pursuant
to the lease agreement; or the board of a nonprofit corporation formed by a
city
under section 4o of the home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.4o.
(b) "Meeting" means the convening of a public body at which a quorum is
present for
the purpose of deliberating toward or rendering a decision on a public
policy, or
any meeting of the board of a nonprofit corporation formed by a city under
section
4o of the home rule city act, 1909 PA 279, MCL 117.4o.
(c) "Closed session" means a meeting or part of a meeting of a public body
that is
closed to the public.
(d) "Decision" means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a
motion,
proposal, recommendation, resolution, order, ordinance, bill, or measure on
which
a vote by members of a public body is required and by which a public body
effectuates
or formulates public policy.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 38, Imd. Eff.
July 11,
2001
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.263 Meetings, decisions, and deliberations of public body; requirements;
attending
or addressing meeting of public body; tape-recording, videotaping,
broadcasting,
and telecasting proceedings; rules and regulations; exclusion from meeting;
exemptions.
**Sec. 3.
(1) All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be
held in
a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to
attend
any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. The right of a person
to attend
a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape,
to broadcast
live on radio, and to telecast live on television the proceedings of a
public body
at a public meeting. The exercise of this right shall not be dependent upon
the prior
approval of the public body. However, a public body may establish reasonable
rules
and regulations in order to minimize the possibility of disrupting the
meeting.
(2) All decisions of a public body shall be made at a meeting open to the
public.
(3) All deliberations of a public body constituting a quorum of its members
shall
take place at a meeting open to the public except as provided in this
section and
sections 7 and 8.
**(4) A person shall not be required as a condition of attendance at a
meeting of a
public body to register or otherwise provide his or her name or other
information
or otherwise to fulfill a condition precedent to attendance.
**(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body
under rules
established and recorded by the public body. The legislature or a house of
the legislature
may provide by rule that the right to address may be limited to prescribed
times
at hearings and committee meetings only.
(6) A person shall not be excluded from a meeting otherwise open to the
public except
for a breach of the peace actually committed at the meeting.
(7) This act does not apply to the following public bodies only when
deliberating
the merits of a case:
(a) The worker's compensation appeal board created under the worker's
disability
compensation act of 1969, Act No. 317 of the Public Acts of 1969, as
amended, being
sections 418.101 to 418.941 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(b) The employment security board of review created under the Michigan
employment
security act, Act No. 1 of the Public Acts of the Extra Session of 1936, as
amended,
being sections 421.1 to 421.73 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(c) The state tenure commission created under Act No. 4 of the Public Acts
of the
Extra Session of 1937, as amended, being sections 38.71 to 38.191 of the
Michigan
Compiled Laws, when acting as a board of review from the decision of a
controlling
board.
(d) An arbitrator or arbitration panel appointed by the employment relations
commission
under the authority given the commission by Act No. 176 of the Public Acts
of 1939,
as amended, being sections 423.1 to 423.30 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(e) An arbitration panel selected under chapter 50A of the revised
judicature act
of 1961, Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being sections 600.5040 to
600.5065
of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(f) The Michigan public service commission created under Act No. 3 of the
Public
Acts of 1939, being sections 460.1 to 460.8 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
(8) This act does not apply to an association of insurers created under the
insurance
code of 1956, Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956, being sections 500.100
to 500.8302
of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or other association or facility formed under
Act
No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956 as a nonprofit organization of insurer
members.
(9) This act does not apply to a committee of a public body which adopts a
nonpolicymaking
resolution of tribute or memorial which resolution is not adopted at a
meeting.
**(10) This act does not apply to a meeting which is a social or chance
gathering or
conference not designed to avoid this act.
(11) This act shall not apply to the Michigan veterans' trust fund board of
trustees
or a county or district committee created under Act No. 9 of the Public Acts
of the
first extra session of 1946, being sections 35.601 to 35.610 of the Michigan
Compiled
Laws, when the board of trustees or county or district committee is
deliberating
the merits of an emergent need. A decision of the board of trustees or
county or
district committee made under this subsection shall be reconsidered by the
board
or committee at its next regular or special meeting consistent with the
requirements
of this act. "Emergent need" means a situation which the board of trustees,
by rules
promulgated under the administrative procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of
the Public
Acts of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.328 of the Michigan
Compiled
Laws, determines requires immediate action.
History:
 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1981, Act 161, Imd. Eff. Nov. 30,
1981
;-- Am. 1986, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 19, 1986 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 158, Imd.
Eff. June
14, 1988 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 278, Imd. Eff. July 27, 1988
Admin Rule: R 35.621 of the Michigan Administrative Code.
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.264 Public notice of meetings generally; contents; places of posting.
**Sec. 4.
The following provisions shall apply with respect to public notice of
meetings:
(a) A public notice shall always contain the name of the public body to
which the
notice applies, its telephone number if one exists, and its address.
(b) A public notice for a public body shall always be posted at its
principal office
and any other locations considered appropriate by the public body. Cable
television
may also be utilized for purposes of posting public notice.
(c) If a public body is a part of a state department, part of the
legislative or
judicial branch of state government, part of an institution of higher
education,
or part of a political subdivision or school district, a public notice shall
also
be posted in the respective principal office of the state department, the
institution
of higher education, clerk of the house of representatives, secretary of the
state
senate, clerk of the supreme court, or political subdivision or school
district.
(d) If a public body does not have a principal office, the required public
notice
for a local public body shall be posted in the office of the county clerk in
which
the public body serves and the required public notice for a state public
body shall
be posted in the office of the secretary of state.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 87, Imd. Eff.
Apr. 19,
1984
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.265 Public notice of regular meetings, change in schedule of regular
meetings,
rescheduled regular meetings, or special meetings; time for posting;
statement of
date, time, and place; applicability of subsection (4); recess or
adjournment; emergency
sessions; meeting in residential dwelling; notice.
**Sec. 5.
(1) A meeting of a public body shall not be held unless public notice is
given as
provided in this section by a person designated by the public body.
(2) For regular meetings of a public body, there shall be posted within 10
days after
the first meeting of the public body in each calendar or fiscal year a
public notice
stating the dates, times, and places of its regular meetings.
(3) If there is a change in the schedule of regular meetings of a public
body, there
shall be posted within 3 days after the meeting at which the change is made,
a public
notice stating the new dates, times, and places of its regular meetings.
(4) Except as provided in this subsection or in subsection (6), for a
rescheduled
regular or a special meeting of a public body, a public notice stating the
date,
time, and place of the meeting shall be posted at least 18 hours before the
meeting.
The requirement of 18-hour notice shall not apply to special meetings of
subcommittees
of a public body or conference committees of the state legislature. A
conference
committee shall give a 6-hour notice. A second conference committee shall
give a
1-hour notice. Notice of a conference committee meeting shall include
written notice
to each member of the conference committee and the majority and minority
leader of
each house indicating time and place of the meeting. This subsection does
not apply
to a public meeting held pursuant to section 4(2) to (5) of Act No. 239 of
the Public
Acts of 1955, as amended, being section 200.304 of the Michigan Compiled
Laws.
(5) A meeting of a public body which is recessed for more than 36 hours
shall be
reconvened only after public notice, which is equivalent to that required
under subsection
(4), has been posted. If either house of the state legislature is adjourned
or recessed
for less than 18 hours, the notice provisions of subsection (4) are not
applicable.
Nothing in this section shall bar a public body from meeting in emergency
session
in the event of a severe and imminent threat to the health, safety, or
welfare of
the public when 2/3 of the members serving on the body decide that delay
would be
detrimental to efforts to lessen or respond to the threat.
(6) A meeting of a public body may only take place in a residential dwelling
if a
nonresidential building within the boundary of the local governmental unit
or school
system is not available without cost to the public body. For a meeting of a
public
body which is held in a residential dwelling, notice of the meeting shall be
published
as a display advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the city
or township
in which the meeting is to be held. The notice shall be published not less
than 2
days before the day on which the meeting is held, and shall state the date,
time,
and place of the meeting. The notice, which shall be at the bottom of the
display
advertisement and which shall be set off in a conspicuous manner, shall
include the
following language: "This meeting is open to all members of the public under
Michigan's
open meetings act".
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 256, Imd. Eff.
June
21, 1978 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 134, Imd. Eff. Apr. 22, 1982 ;-- Am. 1984, Act
167, Imd.
Eff. June 29, 1984
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.266 Providing copies of public notice on written request; fee.
Sec. 6.
(1) Upon the written request of an individual, organization, firm, or
corporation,
and upon the requesting party's payment of a yearly fee of not more than the
reasonable
estimated cost for printing and postage of such notices, a public body shall
send
to the requesting party by first class mail a copy of any notice required to
be posted
pursuant to section 5(2) to (5).
(2) Upon written request, a public body, at the same time a public notice of
a meeting
is posted pursuant to section 5, shall provide a copy of the public notice
of that
meeting to any newspaper published in the state and to any radio and
television station
located in the state, free of charge.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.267 Closed sessions; roll call vote; separate set of minutes.
**Sec. 7.
(1) A 2/3 roll call vote of members elected or appointed and serving is
required
to call a closed session, except for the closed sessions permitted under
section
8(a), (b), (c), (g), (i), and (j). The roll call vote and the purpose or
purposes
for calling the closed session shall be entered into the minutes of the
meeting at
which the vote is taken.
(2) A separate set of minutes shall be taken by the clerk or the designated
secretary
of the public body at the closed session. These minutes shall be retained by
the
clerk of the public body, are not available to the public, and shall only be
disclosed
if required by a civil action filed under section 10, 11, or 13. These
minutes may
be destroyed 1 year and 1 day after approval of the minutes of the regular
meeting
at which the closed session was approved.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr.
1, 1994
;-- Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.268 Closed sessions; permissible purposes.
**Sec. 8.
A public body may meet in a closed session only for the following purposes:
(a) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of, or to hear
complaints
or charges brought against, or to consider a periodic personnel evaluation
of, a
public officer, employee, staff member, or individual agent, if the named
person
requests a closed hearing. A person requesting a closed hearing may rescind
the request
at any time, in which case the matter at issue shall be considered after the
rescission
only in open sessions.
(b) To consider the dismissal, suspension, or disciplining of a student if
the public
body is part of the school district, intermediate school district, or
institution
of higher education that the student is attending, and if the student or the
student's
parent or guardian requests a closed hearing.
(c) For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of
a collective
bargaining agreement if either negotiating party requests a closed hearing.
(d) To consider the purchase or lease of real property up to the time an
option to
purchase or lease that real property is obtained.
(e) To consult with its attorney regarding trial or settlement strategy in
connection
with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would have a
detrimental
financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the public
body.
(f) To review and consider the contents of an application for employment or
appointment
to a public office if the candidate requests that the application remain
confidential.
However, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, all interviews by
a public
body for employment or appointment to a public office shall be held in an
open meeting
pursuant to this act. This subdivision does not apply to a public office
described
in subdivision (j).
(g) Partisan caucuses of members of the state legislature.
(h) To consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or
federal
statute.
(i) For a compliance conference conducted by the department of commerce
under section
16231 of the public health code, Act No. 368 of the Public Acts of 1978,
being section
333.16231 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, before a complaint is issued.
(j) In the process of searching for and selecting a president of an
institution of
higher education established under section 4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the
state
constitution of 1963, to review the specific contents of an application, to
conduct
an interview with a candidate, or to discuss the specific qualifications of
a candidate
if the particular process of searching for and selecting a president of an
institution
of higher education meets all of the following requirements:
(i) The search committee in the process, appointed by the governing board,
consists
of at least 1 student of the institution, 1 faculty member of the
institution, 1
administrator of the institution, 1 alumnus of the institution, and 1
representative
of the general public. The search committee also may include 1 or more
members of
the governing board of the institution, but the number shall not constitute
a quorum
of the governing board. However, the search committee shall not be
constituted in
such a way that any 1 of the groups described in this subparagraph
constitutes a
majority of the search committee.
(ii) After the search committee recommends the 5 final candidates, the
governing
board does not take a vote on a final selection for the president until at
least
30 days after the 5 final candidates have been publicly identified by the
search
committee.
(iii) The deliberations and vote of the governing board of the institution
on selecting
the president take place in an open session of the governing board.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 202, Imd. Eff.
July
3, 1984 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 81, Eff. Apr. 1, 1994 ;-- Am. 1996, Act 464, Imd.
Eff.
Dec. 26, 1996
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.269 Minutes.
**Sec. 9.
(1) Each public body shall keep minutes of each meeting showing the date,
time, place,
members present, members absent, any decisions made at a meeting open to the
public,
and the purpose or purposes for which a closed session is held. The minutes
shall
include all roll call votes taken at the meeting. The public body shall make
any
corrections in the minutes at the next meeting after the meeting to which
the minutes
refer. The public body shall make corrected minutes available at or before
the next
subsequent meeting after correction. The corrected minutes shall show both
the original
entry and the correction.
(2) Minutes are public records open to public inspection, and a public body
shall
make the minutes available at the address designated on posted public
notices pursuant
to section 4. The public body shall make copies of the minutes available to
the public
at the reasonable estimated cost for printing and copying.
(3) A public body shall make proposed minutes available for public
inspection within
8 business days after the meeting to which the minutes refer. The public
body shall
make approved minutes available for public inspection within 5 business days
after
the meeting at which the minutes are approved by the public body.
(4) A public body shall not include in or with its minutes any personally
identifiable
information that, if released, would prevent the public body from complying
with
section 444 of subpart 4 of part C of the general education provisions act,
20 USC
1232g, commonly referred to as the family educational rights and privacy act
of 1974.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 130, Imd. Eff.
Apr.
20, 1982 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 305, Imd. Eff. Aug. 11, 2004
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.270 Decisions of public body; presumption; civil action to invalidate;
jurisdiction;
venue; reenactment of disputed decision.
**Sec. 10.
(1) Decisions of a public body shall be presumed to have been adopted in
compliance
with the requirements of this act. The attorney general, the prosecuting
attorney
of the county in which the public body serves, or any person may commence a
civil
action in the circuit court to challenge the validity of a decision of a
public body
made in violation of this act.
(2) A decision made by a public body may be invalidated if the public body
has not
complied with the requirements of section 3(1), (2), and (3) in making the
decision
or if failure to give notice in accordance with section 5 has interfered
with substantial
compliance with section 3(1), (2), and (3) and the court finds that the
noncompliance
or failure has impaired the rights of the public under this act.
(3) The circuit court shall not have jurisdiction to invalidate a decision
of a public
body for a violation of this act unless an action is commenced pursuant to
this section
within the following specified period of time:
(a) Within 60 days after the approved minutes are made available to the
public by
the public body except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b).
(b) If the decision involves the approval of contracts, the receipt or
acceptance
of bids, the making of assessments, the procedures pertaining to the
issuance of
bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, or the submission of a borrowing
proposal
to the electors, within 30 days after the approved minutes are made
available to
the public pursuant to that decision.
(4) Venue for an action under this section shall be any county in which a
local public
body serves or, if the decision of a state public body is at issue, in
Ingham county.
(5) In any case where an action has been initiated to invalidate a decision
of a
public body on the ground that it was not taken in conformity with the
requirements
of this act, the public body may, without being deemed to make any admission
contrary
to its interest, reenact the disputed decision in conformity with this act.
A decision
reenacted in this manner shall be effective from the date of reenactment and
shall
not be declared invalid by reason of a deficiency in the procedure used for
its initial
enactment.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.271 Civil action to compel compliance or enjoin noncompliance;
commencement; venue;
security not required; commencement of action for mandamus; court costs and
attorney
fees.
**Sec. 11.
(1) If a public body is not complying with this act, the attorney general,
prosecuting
attorney of the county in which the public body serves, or a person may
commence
a civil action to compel compliance or to enjoin further noncompliance with
this
act.
(2) An action for injunctive relief against a local public body shall be
commenced
in the circuit court, and venue is proper in any county in which the public
body
serves. An action for an injunction against a state public body shall be
commenced
in the circuit court and venue is proper in any county in which the public
body has
its principal office, or in Ingham county. If a person commences an action
for injunctive
relief, that person shall not be required to post security as a condition
for obtaining
a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.
(3) An action for mandamus against a public body under this act shall be
commenced
in the court of appeals.
(4) If a public body is not complying with this act, and a person commences
a civil
action against the public body for injunctive relief to compel compliance or
to enjoin
further noncompliance with the act and succeeds in obtaining relief in the
action,
the person shall recover court costs and actual attorney fees for the
action.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.272 Violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 12.
(1) A public official who intentionally violates this act is guilty of a
misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000.00.
(2) A public official who is convicted of intentionally violating a
provision of
this act for a second time within the same term shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor
and shall be fined not more than $2,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than
1 year,
or both.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.273 Violation; liability.
**Sec. 13.
(1) A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be
personally liable
in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00
total,
plus court costs and actual attorney fees to a person or group of persons
bringing
the action.
(2) Not more than 1 action under this section shall be brought against a
public official
for a single meeting. An action under this section shall be commenced within
180
days after the date of the violation which gives rise to the cause of
action.
(3) An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action
for injunctive
or exemplary relief under section 11.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.273a Selection of president by governing board of higher education
institution;
violation; civil fine.
Sec. 13a.
If the governing board of an institution of higher education established
under section
4, 5, or 6 of article VIII of the state constitution of 1963 violates this
act with
respect to the process of selecting a president of the institution at any
time after
the recommendation of final candidates to the governing board, as described
in section
8(j), the institution is responsible for the payment of a civil fine of not
more
than $500,000.00. This civil fine is in addition to any other remedy or
penalty under
this act. To the extent possible, any payment of fines imposed under this
section
shall be paid from funds allocated by the institution of higher education to
pay
for the travel and expenses of the members of the governing board.
History: Add. 1996, Act 464, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1996
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.274 Repeal of MCL 15.251 to 15.253.
Sec. 14.
Act No. 261 of the Public Acts of 1968, being sections 15.251 to 15.253 of
the Compiled
Laws of 1970, is repealed.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
15.275 Effective date.
Sec. 15.
This act shall take effect January 1, 1977.
History: 1976, Act 267, Eff. Mar. 31, 1977
C 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan
Rendered 12/15/2012 20:30:45

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121217/3f3d9a8f/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Dec 19 00:04:10 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:04:10 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
Message-ID: <AF4F101C926B4A08B6EA54934ACD3745@Reputercat0>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mark Eagle 
To: Joe Sontag ; NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:53
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"


      Wow, you would think that the increase in staff should correlate into better services for the blind. Instead, clients phone calls /emails aren't even returned from the director down to the VR counselors. If the director wanted to show true leadership, he wouldn't hire more leaders or central office staff, but he should hire more VR counselors and promotional agents. We don't have a servics for the blind. We have services for bureaucrats.

      --- On Tue, 12/18/12, Joe Sontag <suncat0 at gmail.com> wrote:


        From: Joe Sontag <suncat0 at gmail.com>
        Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
        To: "NFBMI List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
        Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 1:54 AM


        I heard that Assistant Director Mike Pemble is to obtain the services of a secretary/administrative assistant, who is to begin work for BSBP on December 23, 2012.  Funny thing is that the person isn't expected in the Lansing office until an unnamed day early next year.  So BSBP has no money for Newsline or a proper Holiday Open House event at the Training Center, but it can pay for a new hire's vacation?

        Please straighten me out if I'm wrong about any of this, please!

        By the way, December 23 is this  Sunday.

        Joe Sontag
        _______________________________________________
        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/markaeagle%40yahoo.com
     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121218/6c37baa2/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Dec 19 00:03:32 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:03:32 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
Message-ID: <E5E63A49804F41C4A3AE74B17B60342F@Reputercat0>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Joe Sontag 
To: NFBMI List 
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 1:54
Subject: Yet Another from "I Only Heard"


I heard that Assistant Director Mike Pemble is to obtain the services of a secretary/administrative assistant, who is to begin work for BSBP on December 23, 2012.  Funny thing is that the person isn't expected in the Lansing office until an unnamed day early next year.  So BSBP has no money for Newsline or a proper Holiday Open House event at the Training Center, but it can pay for a new hire's vacation?

Please straighten me out if I'm wrong about any of this, please!

By the way, December 23 is this  Sunday.

Joe Sontag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121218/99128ec6/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Dec 19 00:04:27 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:04:27 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
Message-ID: <4C29AD553AB64070B2E0CE495976B061@Reputercat0>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List'" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 18:31
Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"


> Thank you guys for that clarification of my misunderstanding of that which
> BS4BP means and stands.  I understood that it was a bureau to serve the
> training and employment needs of blind persons, and now, WOW, I learn at a
> time of the year that is suppose to be joyful that the Executive Orders 
> were
> actually designed as BS4BP--Bureaucratic Services for Bureaucrat Persons?
> Can that really be true?  Are you guys that have only heard sure?
>
> WOW, it is no wonder I did not stand a chance to become director of the 
> new
> same old bureau.
>
> In my interview I spoke about my experience of serving persons with
> disabilities; focusing on the individual, the assessment and written plan
> centered around the abilities, interests, dreams, and rehabilitation 
> needs,
> to achieve those abilities  in meaningful employment through appropriate
> training, appropriate job placement, and follow-up support.  I spoke about
> my ten years of experience of training blind and other persons with
> disabilities in the art and service of quality food service to the guests 
> we
> were there to serve, giving added value beyond that which was expected by
> those we served--that which I call the WOW element and ingredient that
> spices up excellence in guest service, but I digress here, and I spoke of
> how I inspired and supportively nudged blind individuals toward and into 
> BEP
> training and successful businesses, and several into better paying private
> sector employment.
>
> I spoke about the need for more supportive person-centered service
> positions, like job placement specialist; trained in blindness and 
> confident
> in the abilities and dreams of blind persons.  I spoke of fewer management
> positions, like regional management and central office, in exchange for
> client-centered positions, like a qualified, competent B E P trainer and 
> job
> placement and follow-up supportive employment in the regions.  The 
> recently
> released B E P state audit spells out and supports my belief of more 
> support
> for clients and blind persons placed in employment.  I also spoke to the
> harm to blind vendors' sales and incomes that have resulted from newly
> established LARA procedures for equipment repairs at B E P facilities,
> procedures that add steps and paperwork and value time to getting 
> essential
> income producing needed repairs, and admittedly a result of lack of
> accountability by program management, discovered and reported by state
> auditors.  Why? Why, I ask must blind vendors suffer and lose business and
> income because of the incompetence of program management?  And at last
> Saturday's E O C meeting it is proclaimed by management and E O C alike,
> that there is no money missing or fraud.  Who the heck are they trying to
> convince or fool with such a big lie?  I guess through their proclaimation
> they either soothe their guilty conscience, or by telling the big lie
> repeatedly, they are the persons convinced there is no money missing.  But
> the truth and reality is that there is a fraud upon blind vendors and
> taxpayers, by the lost sales and incomes to blind vendors through
> incompetent anagement accountability, but also the repeated use of
> vocational rehabilitation funds for the training and employment for the
> blind, being fraudlently used for the placement of sighted persons in
> employment with facilities, equipment and supplies, product inventory and
> working capital, with the use of federal rehabilitation Funds.  Who are 
> they
> kidding?  Do they really think we the blind have STUPID imprinted on our
> forehead for all to see?
>
> Then there is the rehabilitation side lie and fraud upon the blind and
> taxpayers.  Counselor and management types brag about an experienced B E P
> vendor making $17,000 per year, less than minimum wage, $5.94 per hour 
> based
> on a required minimum 55 hour work week, no paid holidays or medical,
> long-term disability or worker's compensation,  or unemployment insurance
> coverage and benefits, and far less than the $7.40 Michigan mimum wage 
> that
> is paid to any employee, not to mention the required Workers' compensation
> and unemployment insurance coverage for that employee.
>
> And then there is the lie and fraud upon the blind and taxpayer when a 
> BS4BP
> counselor placed a printed sheet of paper in front of a blind vendor,
> seeking that blind vendors signature, declaring the blind vendor was 
> earning
> $17 per hour, so the blind vendor's rehabilitation case employment outcome
> had been successfully achieved, and the case could be closed as a 
> successful
> employment placement.  At best the blind vendor is earning $7.00 per hour,
> 40 cents per hour less than the Michigan mimimum wage.  Convince me it was
> just a sighted person's clerical mistake, rather than a counselor seeking 
> an
> easy closure, by believing the blind vendor was stupid enough to
> unquestionly sign the print document.  Either the B E P superior training
> received by the blind vendor, or that person's keenBS4BP  instinct 
> kicked-in
> and overrode the insistence of the counselor to just sign the paper. 
> Decide
> for yourself which is more the likely scenario.  I've made my choice.  I 
> am
> certain there are more overlooked clerical errors by sighted clerical and
> counselor staff then I wish to even consider.
>
> During my interview I also spoke of my philosophy of client-centered
> leadership and management style, which was espoused and was actively 
> pursued
> and demonstrated by always asking a simple question, used by the E O C 
> back
> when Larry Posont was E O C Chair and I Vice-Chair, when decisions and
> policy faced the Committee and management.  That question always present 
> and
> center on the table and in our deliberations was, "How does this proposed
> action, policy or procedure benefit blind vendors and the future best
> interest of the Business Enterprise Program?".  Were we all in agreement 
> on
> what to do and how to get to that goal and result?  No way.  But that
> question as our focus and guide brought us together to the answer that
> achieved our unified desired action and result to that question each time.
>
>
> I can only assume now that I, as an applicant and interviewee for the 
> bureau
> director position, was seen as a token blind puppet person, just as 
> Patrick
> Cannon viewed my son, Mark Eagle, when he hand selected mark for position
> appointment as an  M C B Commissioner, as one  who could be molded and
> directed as needed by the administration to achieve the political agenda
> with the lives and futures of blind persons,  by those in positions of
> power, whom know absolutely nothing about blindness, and frankly don't 
> want
> to know, including those who pretend to be blind, when it is conveniently
> advantageous for their personal agenda and gain.  Someone with vision tell
> me, were Mark and I born with "USE ME" on our foreheads?  I guess that
> question should be asked of my sister, cheri Eagle, too, based on the
> treatment Constance Zanger, James Hull, and Rob Essenberg have given her
> lately.
>
> In the writing above the pronoun I is used often, and its  use is not 
> about
> me per se.  It is more about a philosophy I believe in and live, as the
> greater number of words express and give deeper meaning.  My experiences 
> of
> which I write are about my personal values and vision, desire, an action 
> for
> the independence and prosperous future of each and every blind person and
> other persons with disabilities, with the recognition and greatest
> fulfillment of the unique abilities, talents, interests, and dreams of 
> each
> individual.
>
> With all that said, I see a true lack of leadership in the proper 
> direction.
> It surely appears the focus, direction, and resources are going toward a
> further bloated management structure and systems, that in my opinion, only
> insulate and protect decision-makers from real-world realities, and 
> instead
> of accountability based on person-centered results, like meaningful 
> training
> for competitive employment and economic advancement of blind persons, 
> which
> can be easily measured, I predict, will see performance measured by such
> things as the number of B E P purchase orders being processed with 
> accuracy
> to obtain repairs and favored vendor equipment, withoutregard to its
> accessibility to and utility and sales and profit generation to blind
> vendors' increased personal and average vendor income, which are simple
> measurements of accountable person-centered goals and outcomes.  Where are
> the management meaningful goals for increased vendor sales and incomes.
> They simply do not and have not existed for a number of years.
>
> In fact, just last Saturday in a scripted and dialogue-controlled E O C
> meeting, it was hailed that the brightest blind BEP training class in a 
> long
> time just graduated,, according to James Hull, and he should absolutely
> know, as he trained the trainees via telephone,  and after completion of
> eight weeks of on-the-job experience, Rob Essenberg, the acting E O C 
> Chair,
> (an appropriate leadership title), announced and predicts fierce 
> competition
> among the six potential licensees, for the four available sum-mimimum
> facilities, with ANNUAL SALES of $33,000, $56,000, $88,000, and $102,000
> respectively, and mandated income of $8,000, $14,000, $17,400, and $22,000
> respectively, before deducting ten percent for set-aside fees, with a
> minimum 55 hour work week, which translates to an hourly wage ranging from
> $2.88 to $7.69, if the figures in the bid solicitation are accurate and
> believable.  If the graduating class is as bright as James Hull hails them
> to be, and he should absolutely know, as he trained them via telephone, 
> they
> should be bright enough to do what the trainees of the previous class did;
> pass on such great sure failure opportunities.    And yet, Constance 
> Zanger,
> James Hull, James Chaney, and Rob Essenberg hail these as great income
> producing opportunities, while each of them, along with Ed Rodgers, are
> willing to close and foreclose an income producing employment opportunity
> for a willing blind person at the Anderson Building Cafeteria, based on 
> the
> same exact circumstances as that exist at those four available  B E P
> facilities, according to Constance Zanger.  Yet it is claimed by the same
> that they are not playing politics with the lives and future of blind
> persons.
>
> Just as the airlines use the phrase, "In the unlikely event"; had I 
> actually
> gotten the position, I had decided my understanding of BS4BP would have 
> been
> expressed in word and leadership action as B for Better S for suitable
> superior services for Blind Persons Potential, and you know what we as the
> blind really got--BS4Bp!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
> harcz Comcast
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:10 AM
> To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
>
> You got that right.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mark Eagle" <markaeagle at yahoo.com>
> To: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>; "NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing
> List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
>
>
> Wow, you would think that the increase in staff should correlate into 
> better
>
> services for the blind. Instead, clients phone calls /emails aren't even
> returned from the director down to the VR counselors. If the director 
> wanted
>
> to show true leadership, he wouldn't hire more leaders or central office
> staff, but he should hire more VR counselors and promotional agents. We
> don't have a servics for the blind. We have services for bureaucrats.
>
> --- On Tue, 12/18/12, Joe Sontag <suncat0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Joe Sontag <suncat0 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Yet Another from "I Only Heard"
> To: "NFBMI List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2012, 1:54 AM
>
>
> I heard that Assistant Director Mike Pemble is to obtain the services of a
> secretary/administrative assistant, who is to begin work for BSBP on
> December 23, 2012. Funny thing is that the person isn't expected in the
> Lansing office until an unnamed day early next year. So BSBP has no money
> for Newsline or a proper Holiday Open House event at the Training Center,
> but it can pay for a new hire's vacation?
>
> Please straighten me out if I'm wrong about any of this, please!
>
> By the way, December 23 is this Sunday.
>
> Joe Sontag
> _______________________________________________
> 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/markaeagle%40yahoo.c
> om
> _______________________________________________
> 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.n
> et
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
> com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/suncat0%40gmail.com
> 




From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Wed Dec 19 06:39:53 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:39:53 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] The Fiscal Cliff and Services to the Blind
Message-ID: <892CD4F4AE4B4EF19B3B589079F30635@TerryPC>

Dear Federationists,

 

There has been a lot of discussion about the upcoming fiscal cliff, a term
describing tax increases and spending cuts set to go into effect on January
1, 2013.  Both Republicans and Democrats are expressing grave concerns about
the effects going over that cliff will have on our economy and have spent
the last few weeks trying to reach a debt reduction agreement.  As they work
on coming to a compromise regarding spending cuts, it is important for the
blind to understand the gravity of the proposed cuts and the consequences
those cuts will have on programs fundamental to disabled Americans.  

 

If we go over the fiscal cliff, approximately $200 billion in federal
spending cuts will go into effect.  Included in these cuts are substantial
reductions to education, vocational rehabilitation, and other disability
service programs.  The effects these cuts will have on disabled Americans
will be dramatic.  These programs provide special education, job training
assistance, and support services to a population with an unemployment rate
over 70 percent.  Blind people want to be independent, productive members of
society and these programs are most critical when the financial stability of
the country is dependent on Americans getting back to work.  Underfunding
education and vocational rehabilitation will have the unintended consequence
of forcing more and more disabled Americans onto the rolls of Social
Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, prohibiting
them from reaching their full potential and putting the burden of their
security on taxpayers.  

 

Politicians have warned some budget cuts are expected and necessary, and
that entitlement programs are the center of the debate.  One side of this
debate is pushing for a complete overhaul or elimination of these programs
and the other side is refusing to touch the programs at all.  The NFB needs
to be the voice of reason in the debate and advocate for a thorough,
comprehensive reform that will allow these programs to better produce the
desired outcome of blind Americans living in the community and paying taxes,
rather than receiving long-term assistance. This reform might require cuts,
but we are confident that widespread, default cuts without any targeted
solutions will weaken the already-struggling programs and further underserve
a disadvantaged population.  

 

Members of Congress must compromise fast and reach a debt reduction
agreement so we do not go over the fiscal cliff and face these impending
cuts.  Tell them how important education and vocational rehabilitation are
to your independence and financial security.  Democrats and Republicans will
understand how essential it is that blind people reach their full employment
potential and may be open to a dialogue about more comprehensive reform
solutions if we urge them.  Federationists should ensure the voice of the
nation's blind is heard during this critical time.  To find your
representative's contact information, go to www.house.gov , www.senate.gov
<http://www.senate.gov/> , or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202)
225.3121.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121219/1fc0cbcc/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Dec 19 14:41:49 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:41:49 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Things Are about To Become A Lot More Interesting At
	BSBP
Message-ID: <1DE761C0DD114FA9B4D84CAD8325F261@Reputercat0>

Look who's directing LARA now.  We really do live in interesting times.

LARA Executive Team
Steve Arwood, Acting Director
Steve Arwood, Acting Director
Steve Arwood is the Acting Director for the Michigan Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs (LARA). He is also the Unemployment Insurance Agency Director
and a LARA Deputy Director overseeing Employment Security and Workplace Safety, which
includes MIOSHA, Employment Relations, and Worker's Compensation. Arwood joined LARA
from Windlab Developments, USA, LTD, where he served as U.S. Regional Director. He
has worked in wind energy development, conservation, and business development since
1999. He previously served as deputy director and other executive management positions
at the Michigan Jobs Commission under Governor John Engler. He has also served as
director for the House of Representatives Programs and Policy, and the National Federation
for Independent Business-Michigan. Arwood is a graduate of the James Madison College
at Michigan State University.
LARA's Organization Chart
Mike Zimmer, Chief Deputy Director
Mike Zimmer, Chief Deputy Director
Mike Zimmer is Chief Deputy Director for LARA and Executive Director of the Michigan
Administrative Hearing System, a Type 1 agency housed in LARA with an operating budget
over $30 million, which provides administrative law hearings for 13 departments in
state government. Adjudicative areas include professional licensing, public benefits,
unemployment and workers compensation, property tax appeals, insurance and finance
regulation, public utilities, environmental enforcement, education, Medicaid, state
retirement, and employment relations. Zimmer previously served as deputy director
of the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules. He also served as director
of the Bureau of Hearings in the former Department of Consumer and Industry Services;
as an attorney in the Office of Regulatory Reform under former Governor John Engler;
and worked for the Senate majority floor leader. Zimmer earned a bachelor's degree
from Michigan State University and a law degree from George Washington University.
Shelly Edgerton, Deputy Director
Shelly Edgerton, Deputy Director
Shelly Edgerton is a LARA Deputy Director with oversight of Licensing and Regulation.
She is charged with oversight of Liquor Control Commission, Public Service Commission,
Office of Financial & Insurance Regulation, Fire Services and occupational and health
facility licensing. Prior to joining LARA, Shelly dedicated 27 years of service to
the state Legislature where she served most recently in the capacity of Deputy Senate
Majority of Counsel in the Senate Majority Policy Office for 12 years. She also previously
held titles of Assistant Senate Majority Counsel, Chief of Staff for 15th District
Senator Dave Honigman, and as Senate Majority Counsel Law Clerk. She is a graduate
of Western Michigan University with Bachelor of Political Science and Master of Public
Administration degrees. She went on to receive her Juris Doctorate at Thomas M. Cooley
Law School.
Rob Nederhood, Deputy Director
Rob Nederhood, Deputy Director
Rob Nederhood is a LARA Deputy Director with oversight of the Office of Regulatory
Reinvention (ORR). The ORR was created by Governor Snyder to increase the efficiency
and effectiveness of Michigan's government. The primary goal of the ORR is to work
with the various departments of state government to amend duplicative, obsolete,
unnecessary or unduly restrictive rules. This will lead to a regulatory environment
that is simple, fair, efficient, transparent and conducive to business growth and
job creation.
Previously, Nederhood was an associate in the Detroit office of Foley & Lardner LLP,
where he was a member of the firm's Transactional & Securities and Private Equity
and Venture Capital Practices. He was also a member of the Health Care and Automotive
Industry Teams.
Prior to joining Foley, Nederhood was a legislative assistant in the Michigan House
of Representatives.
Nederhood is a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law, where he was a
member of the editorial board of the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. He received
his bachelor's degree from Calvin College.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121219/ea9b276d/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Dec 19 23:34:49 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:34:49 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Hilfinger Leaves LARA and Joins MEDC
Message-ID: <4DD02E2ED94D46E193B015FFE8DC9642@Reputercat0>

The article posted below was published late last November or earlier this month.

Hilfinger joins Michigan Economic Development Corporation as chief operating officer
Steve Arwood named LARA acting director
LANSING, Mich. - Gov. Rick Snyder today announced chief regulatory officer and director
of the state Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) Steve Hilfinger
is leaving his post to become chief operating officer at the Michigan Economic Development
Corporation (MEDC) effective Dec. 10, 2012.
Hilfinger will oversee several internal administrative functions and help drive best
practices and operational effectiveness to support business growth and the creation
of more and better jobs throughout Michigan. He will continue to play a key role
in the state's Economic Growth Executive Group.
"Steve is a highly talented and experienced professional whose strong leadership
has been instrumental in our efforts to reinvent Michigan," said Snyder. "His extensive
knowledge of the business and regulatory environment will be great additions to the
MEDC team as we continue to transform our state into an innovative, customer-friendly
business environment that works better for everyone."
As chief regulatory officer at LARA, Hilfinger had principal oversight of licensing
and regulatory functions of the state of Michigan, including: Licensing and Regulatory,
Office of Regulatory Reinvention, Michigan Administrative Hearing System, and Employment
Security and Workplace Safety.
Previously, he focused a 23-year legal career on corporate and securities law matters,
including mergers and acquisitions, corporate restructurings, private equity and
venture capital transactions, debt and equity finance transactions, business formation
and corporate governance, and general corporate and contract counseling. A partner
at Foley and Lardner LLP in Detroit, his practice included representation of automotive
suppliers and other manufacturers, medical device makers, private equity and venture
capital funds, financial institutions, and other publicly and privately held businesses.
Hilfinger obtained his B.B.A. degree (concentration in accounting) with high distinction
from the University of Michigan in 1984, where he received Phi Beta Kappa honors.
Following graduation, he was awarded the William A. Paton Award for achieving the
highest score on the Michigan CPA examination. He graduated magna cum laude with
a law degree from Northwestern University in 1987, where he served as editor-in-chief
of the Northwestern University Law Review from 1986 to 1987. He is admitted to practice
law in Michigan and Illinois and is a member of the Business, Health Care and Administrative
Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan.
LARA Deputy Director Steve Arwood will assume the duties of acting director until
a permanent director has been appointed. He also will continue to serve as director
of the Unemployment Insurance Agency.
Lake Superior Community Partnership
501 S. Front Street
Marquette, MI 49855
(906) 226-6591
AEDO_white
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121219/6b048f66/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 13:15:23 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:15:23 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] What is there to hide by this response?
Message-ID: <F9E75AC25DF149C7B15172D3AB76A298@TerryPC>

Below Is a another clear example of the Snyder administration going back on
his word on government transparency to the public.  Hmmmmm, I wonder what
the BS4BP BEP has to hide?  Hmmmmm, perhaps a broader plan for
WORK-TO-WELFARE for blind vendors?

 

If in fact the draft has been disclosed to Rob Essenberg and Steve Zoot,
then why not me?  Others need to hold BS4BP management's feet to the
transparency accountability fire, by requesting these draft BEP rules.
Newly appointed LARA acting-director Steve Arwood surely will appreciate
such transparency request and  monitoring action by members of the public.  

 

Response to response of FOIA denial:

 

Good morning,

 

            The FOIA request response of denial below is incomplete under
the law, as it fails to give a rationalshowing why the document should not
be disclosed.  The section you cited states in relevant part, "This
exemption does not apply unless the public body shows that in the particular
instance the public

interest in encouraging frank communication between officials and employees
of public

bodies clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure". 

 

            Secondly, I seek disclosure of the draft document acknowledged
as existing, and not exchanged internal notes or related communications.

 

Best regards,

 

Terry Eagle

 

December 20, 2012

Mr. Terry Eagle

Email:

terrydeagle at yahoo.com

2000 Boston Blvd., Apt. C19

Lansing, MI  48910-2448

Dear Mr. Eagle:

This letter is in response to your December 14, 2012, email request for
information

under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq

, received by this office on December 17, 2012.  You have requested
information that

you describe, as:

"Copy of the draft copy of the new BS4BP-DEP Business Enterprise Program
Administrative

rules - These are the draft rules that have submitted to the Department of
Attorney

General."

The Bureau acknowledges that this document exists.  However, your request is
denied

under the FOIA, MCL 15.243 Sec. 13 (1) (m).  The rules referenced are
preliminary

to a final agency determination of policy or action.

Under MCL 15.240 of the FOIA you may (1) submit a written appeal regarding
the denial

of any portion of your FOIA request to Mr. Steve Arwood, Acting Director,
Michigan

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs: Attention, Mike Zimmer,
Chief Deputy

Director, Ottawa Building, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 30004, Lansing, MI 48909.
Your appeal

notice must include the word "appeal" and state the reason(s) for reversal
of the

denial(s); or (2) you may seek judicial review in circuit court within 180
days of

the Department's final determination. If you prevail in such action, the
court shall

award reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements. If the court finds
the

Department's actions to be arbitrary and capricious, the court, in addition
to any

actual or compensatory damages, award punitive damages in the amount of
$500.00.

Sincerely,

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Bureau of Services for the Blind

cc:       Edward F. Rodgers II

            Mike Pemble

            Constance Zanger

            James Hull

            Elsie Duell

            Christopher Lautner

Original Request:

No.  1212-1

December 14, 2012

Dear Ms. Haynes,

This is a request for information, and this  request is made under
provisions of

Title

II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA), and the Michigan Freedom of Information Act.

Requested information:

1. Copy of the draft copy of the new BS4BP-DEP Business Enterprise Program
Administrative

rules  These are the draft rules that have been submitted to the Department
of Attorney

General.

I am unemployed and on disability income for purpose of reduced costs to
provide

such information.

My email address is

terrydeagle at yahoo.com

, and mailing address is 2000 Boston Blvd.,

Apt. C19, Lansing  MI  48910-2448.

Best regards,

Terry D. Eagle.

 

Carla Miller Haynes

LARA Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP)

201 N. Washington Square, 2nd Floor

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

Telephone:  517-373-2063 or Toll-Free 1-800-292-4200

Fax:  517-335-5140

www.michigan.gov/bsbp

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121221/03b8a63a/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 14:19:22 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:19:22 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] The Fiscal Cliff for Blind Vendors
Message-ID: <2FAFFEA8F0F34AD8A2EE26CD34094324@TerryPC>

Below is a thoughtful and informative blog posting and call-to-action from
our national division president Nicky Gacos

 

The national association website is http://www.blindmerchants.org/

 

 

Facing the Fiscal Cliff - How it affects the blind and the Randolph-Sheppard
program

12/18/12 at 04:30 PMby Nicky Gacos

We've all heard the back and forth. We've heard the partisanship. But, many
in the

National Association of Blind Merchants (NABM) have to wonder what does all
of this

talk of tax reform and spending cuts mean to us? For one thing, we are
business owners.

We will face the challenge that all mom-and-pop business operators will
face. For

the most part at this time, that means uncertainty. We also work with a
number of

corporations. We are fortunate to have some wonderful suppliers, equipment
manufacturers,

consultants and sponsors. Of course they will be affected one way or
another. Again,

uncertainty. Beyond Randolph-Sheppard, we are blind folks. Collectively we
know thousands

of blind individuals who are not entrepreneurs or vendors licensed under
Randolph-Sheppard.

Federal spending cutbacks might dramatically impact special education,
vocational

rehabilitation and employment programs. Without high quality education and
rehabilitation,

we will not lower the rate of unemployment. Moreover, from where will blind
vendors

come without the benefit of quality training in the skills and positive
philosophy

necessary to be a success in Randolph-Sheppard? There's nothing wrong with
enlightened

self-interest. That has been one of the guiding principles of my presidency.
Enlightened

self-interest. To me, that means "when I do good, I will do well." When we
advocate

for ourselves, others benefit. I urge my colleagues to be attentive,
educated and

advocate. Below, please read an announcement that came from our national
office in

Baltimore. It is food for thought and it is a call for action.

"There has been a lot of discussion about the upcoming fiscal cliff, a term
describing

tax increases and spending cuts set to go into effect on January 1, 2013.
Both Republicans

and Democrats are expressing grave concerns about the effects going over
that cliff

will have on our economy and have spent the last few weeks trying to reach a
debt

reduction agreement.  As they work on coming to a compromise regarding
spending cuts,

it is important for the blind to understand the gravity of the proposed cuts
and

the consequences those cuts will have on programs fundamental to disabled
Americans.

If we go over the fiscal cliff, approximately $200 billion in federal
spending cuts

will go into effect.  Included in these cuts are substantial reductions to
education,

vocational rehabilitation, and other disability service programs.  The
effects these

cuts will have on disabled Americans will be dramatic.  These programs
provide special

education, job training assistance, and support services to a population
with an

unemployment rate over 70 percent.  Blind people want to be independent,
productive

members of society and these programs are most critical when the financial
stability

of the country is dependent on Americans getting back to work.  Underfunding
education

and vocational rehabilitation will have the unintended consequence of
forcing more

and more disabled Americans onto the rolls of Social Security Disability
Insurance

and Supplemental Security Income, prohibiting them from reaching their full
potential

and putting the burden of their security on taxpayers.

Politicians have warned some budget cuts are expected and necessary, and
that entitlement

programs are the center of the debate.  One side of this debate is pushing
for a

complete overhaul or elimination of these programs and the other side is
refusing

to touch the programs at all.  The NFB needs to be the voice of reason in
the debate

and advocate for a thorough, comprehensive reform that will allow these
programs

to better produce the desired outcome of blind Americans living in the
community

and paying taxes, rather than receiving long-term assistance. This reform
might require

cuts, but we are confident that widespread, default cuts without any
targeted solutions

will weaken the already-struggling programs and further under serve a
disadvantaged

population.

Members of Congress must compromise fast and reach a debt reduction
agreement so

we do not go over the fiscal cliff and face these impending cuts.  Tell them
how

important education and vocational rehabilitation are to your independence
and financial

security.  Democrats and Republicans will understand how essential it is
that blind

people reach their full employment potential and may be open to a dialogue
about

more comprehensive reform solutions if we urge them.  Federationists should
ensure

the voice of the nation's blind is heard during this critical time.  To find
your

representative's contact information, go to

www.house.gov

,

www.senate.gov

, or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 225-3121.  For more information,
contact

Lauren McLarney at the National Federation of the Blind, (410) 659-9314
extension

2207."

About the Author

Nicky Gacos

Nicky Gacos is the President of the National Association of Blind Merchants.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121221/07290ab1/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 21 20:41:52 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:41:52 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] WHAT a BLAST Conference!
Message-ID: <6D0C3BD858784F95835B8725AC72DC07@TerryPC>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

CONTACT:

Renee Nevius

Manager of Special Projects

National Association of Blind Merchants

(866) 543-6808, extension 10

renee.nevius at worleyenterprises.com<mailto:renee.nevius at worleyenterprises.com
>

 

Social media guru to bring expertise to Indy Super BLAST 2013

 

Colorado Springs, Colorado (December 21, 2012) - National Seminars Training
today announced that they have entered into an agreement with the National
Association of Blind Merchants, which will bring noted social media expert
and teacher Ted Janusz to Indianapolis on May 22, 2013, for an afternoon of
in-depth learning.

 

Nicky Gacos, President, National Association of Blind Merchants, said, "We
always listen to the blind vendors and state agency staff when developing
the agenda for Business Leadership and Superior Training BLAST. We heard
from the Indiana vendors and we heard from a number of vendors following
BLAST 2011 that they wanted to learn more about how they could use social
media tools to enhance their businesses. I believe we have found the perfect
trainer in Ted Janusz."

 

Ted Janusz earned his M.B.A. in marketing from the University of Pittsburg.
He is a former volunteer for the Central Ohio Radio Reading Service. Janusz
is also the author of the "Social Media Marketing Guide" and 10 different
hour-long CDs on various social media topics. Because of his insights, Ted
was invited to appear on Geraldo at Large on the Fox News Network.

 

Janusz has conducted over 500 full-day seminars in 49 of the 50 United
States. He is also a runner who has covered over 35,000 miles (that's nearly
1.5 times around the earth). Through a nationwide American Idol-like search,
Janusz was also selected to conduct "eBay University" for eBay at sites
across the country.

 

"I'll be reaching out to a few blind entrepreneurs prior to the Conference
in order gain their perspective and assess their needs. I am confident that
the techniques we will use at the Conference will empower blind
entrepreneurs to promote their businesses through social media and enjoy
doing it," said Janusz.

 

The Business Leadership and Superior Training Conference has become the
principal conference for blind vendors and state licensing agency management
and staff over the past decade. Each year we have expanded curriculum,
sought out the most dynamic speakers, added networking opportunities, team
building exercises and top notch tours and entertainment.

 

Register now for Indy Super BLAST 2013, May 20-23, at
www.blindmerchants.org. Conference registration fee is $200.00, or save
$50.00 with early bird registration by registering before April 15, 2013.
Reserve your room at the Indianapolis Marriott Downtown by calling
317-822-3500. Rooms are available at the low rate of $124.00 per night plus
applicable taxes. Room rates are effective from Friday, May 17th through
Thursday, May 23rd. For assistance with registration and for further
information, call 866-543-6808.

 

###

 

About National and Michigan Association of Blind Merchants

The National Association of Blind Merchants (NABM), and Michigan Association
of Blind Merchant (MABM), a division the National Federation of the Blind
(NFB), is a membership organization of blind persons employed in either
self-employment work or the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program. We provide
information regarding rehabilitation, social security, tax, and other issues
which directly affect blind merchants. NABM serves as an advocacy and
support group.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121221/d791a39d/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 24 16:04:16 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:04:16 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] A Significant Food Service ADA Settlement Agreement
Message-ID: <3BC5D9F50F2A41B6B692028DC54968E8@TerryPC>

Below is information that could have ramifications for BEP snack bars and
cafeterias engaged in on-site food preparation.  To be forewarned is to be
forearmed and proactive.

 
A new settlement agreement with Lesley University, in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, has been added to www.ADA.gov. The agreement concerns
reasonable modifications to Lesley's food services for students with celiac
disease and food allergies. Among other things, the agreement requires
modification to Lesley's policies and practices to enable easy access to
gluten and allergen free food options in its cafeteria, maintenance of a
dedicated space for students with food allergies to store and prepare foods,
training, and, where necessary, a process to permit on-campus students to be
excepted from the meal plan, and the payment of compensatory damages.

 

The agreement, to the degree it is regarded as precedent outside college
food service operations, can certainly complicate cafeteria operations. I
would have thought that the right to have your meal delivered to you by food
service staff anywhere on campus, and to have the cafeteria devote specific
space to preparing it for you constitute a fundamental alteration of the
service. It seems to me that if good sanitation practices are followed and
cookware & cutting boards are swapped out, dedicated spaces to prevent
allergen cross contamination would not be necessary. The fact this is
applied to a private college may not bode well for those of us in government
settings where such things are enforced more stringently. 
 
If you are interested in learning more about the Americans with Disabilities
Act, or the Department's settlement agreements, you may access the ADA
website at www.ADA.gov or call the toll-free ADA Information Line at (800)
514-0301 or (800) 514-0383 (TTY). 
 
Here is the text of the agreement:
 
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND LESLEY UNIVERSITY
DJ 202-36-231
Press Release
horizontal divider
Background
In or around October 2009, the United States Department of Justice ("United
States")
received a complaint alleging that Lesley University ("Lesley" or the
"University")
violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
?? 12181-12189
("ADA") by failing to make necessary reasonable modifications in policies,
practices,
and procedures to permit students with celiac disease and/or food allergies
(collectively
"food allergies") to fully and equally enjoy the privileges, advantages, and
accommodations
of its food service and meal plan system.  The United States initiated an
investigation
of these claims and the University has cooperated.  The United States
alleges that
the University's policies and practices concerning students with food
allergies did
not comply with Title III of the ADA.  The University maintains that it has
taken
and will continue to take positive, good faith steps to make reasonable
modifications
to its food service policies, practices, and procedures and to work with
students
on a case-by-case basis to address the needs of individual students with
food allergies.
In consideration of the terms set out in this document, the University and
the United
States (the "Parties") agree to enter voluntarily into this Settlement
Agreement
(the "Agreement").  Nothing herein shall be deemed to be an admission or
acknowledgment
by the University that it has violated the ADA, its accompanying
regulations, or
any other federal or state law.
Lesley University is a private nonprofit university with approximately 8,000
students,
located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is a public accommodation within
the meaning
of 42 U.S.C. ? 12181(7)(J) and 28 C.F.R. ? 36.104.  As a public
accommodation, Lesley
is subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of Title III of the ADA, 42
U.S.C.
? 12182, and its implementing regulation.  Title III prohibits a private
university
from discriminating against any individual on the basis of disability in the
full
and equal enjoyment of the university's goods, services, facilities,
privileges,
advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. ? 12182 and 28 C.F.R. ?? 36.201,
36.202.
As a public accommodation, Lesley acknowledges that it must also make
reasonable
modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when the modifications
are necessary
to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations
to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that
making such
modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services,
facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 42 U.S.C. ? 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii);
28 C.F.R.
? 36.302
Food allergies may constitute a disability under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. ? 12102.
Individuals
with food allergies may have an autoimmune response to certain foods, the
symptoms
of which may include difficulty swallowing and breathing, asthma, and
anaphylaxis.
For example, celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder that affects the major
life
activity of eating and the major bodily functions of the immune, digestive,
bowel,
and neurological systems.  Celiac disease is triggered by consumption of the
protein
gluten (found in foods containing wheat, barley, or rye), which can cause
permanent
damage to the surface of the small intestines and an inability to absorb
certain
nutrients, leading to vitamin deficiencies that deprive the brain,
peripheral nervous
system, bones, liver and other organs of vital nourishment.
See, e.g., Celiac Disease Definition
, U.S. Nat'l Library of Medicine, Nat'l Inst. of Health, A.D.A.M. Medical
Encyclopedia
(Jan. 20, 2010),
available at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001280/.  The Parties agree
that it
is in the Parties' best interests, and the United States believes that it is
in the
public interest, to resolve this dispute amicably and without litigation.
The Parties
have therefore voluntarily entered into this Agreement, agreeing as follows:
Resolution Terms
1.  Compliance with the ADA
The University, its officers, employees, successors, and assigns, agree to
comply
with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ??
12181-12189,
and 42 U.S.C. ? 12203, and the implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36,
including,
but not limited to, the following:
(a)     The University acknowledges that it has a continuing obligation, and
it is the
University's policy, to make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, and
procedures when the modifications are necessary to afford the University's
goods
or services to students and prospective students (collectively "students")
with disabilities,
42 U.S.C. ? 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 28 C.F.R. ? 36.302; and
(b)     The University acknowledges that is has a continuing obligation, and
it is the
University's policy, to refrain from engaging in retaliation, coercion,
interference,
intimidation, or any other action prohibited by 42 U.S.C. ? 12203 and 28
C.F.R. ?
36.206.
2.  Disability Services for Students Policy
As of the effective date of this Agreement, the University agrees to amend
its Disability
Services for Students Policy (the "Amended Policy").  A copy of the Amended
Policy
is attached as Exhibit A.  In addition,
(a)     Within thirty (30) business days
1
of the effective date of this Agreement, the University agrees to provide a
link
on the first page of its internal website service to the Disability Services
Main
Page and will post the Amended Policy on the  Disability Services Main Page
at www.lesley.edu/services/disability.
(b)     The University also agrees to separately distribute copies of the
Amended Policy
to employees and contractors in the Admissions, Residence Life, and
Disability Services
Offices who have contact with students and their families.  Thereafter, the
University
agrees to provide a copy of the Amended Policy to all newly hired employees
in the
Admissions, Residence Life, and Disability Services Offices who have contact
with
students and their families, within seven (7) business days of their hire
date.
(c)     Within thirty (30) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the
University will physically post the Amended Policy on a bulletin board in
the Disability
Services office and distribute the Amended Policy to all undergraduate and
graduate
students via e-mail.  Beginning in academic year 2013-2014, the University
will insert
a summary of the Amended Policy, with a web address link to the full Amended
Policy,
in the University's undergraduate and graduate Student Handbooks.
(d)     Within forty-five (45) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement,
the University agrees to provide the United States with proof of the
adoption of
the Amended Policy and the posting of the Amended Policy on its website(s),
and will
provide the United States with a photograph of the posting of the Amended
Policy
in the Disability Services office.
(e)     Within sixty (60) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the
University will amend its contract with the University's food service
provider (the
"Food Service Provider") to formalize its current practice of requiring the
Food
Service Provider to comply with the University's policies and procedures on
reasonable
modifications.  In addition, the University agrees to amend its contract
with the
Food Service Provider to formally include a requirement that each of the
Food Service
Provider's staff be provided with the educational training program described
in Paragraph
6 of this Agreement.  The University agrees to enforce the Food Service
Provider's
compliance with the contractual provisions referenced in this Paragraph.
3.  Disability Services
(a)     The University will obtain and retain a record of identifying
information from
persons who seek information about food-related disability services at the
University
throughout the term of this Agreement.  Identifying information includes,
but is
not limited to, the following: name; address; telephone numbers (home, work,
mobile);
best number and best time to call; and email address.
(b)     The University will advise students with food allergies (or others
acting on
a student's behalf) who request reasonable modifications to contact
Disability Services.
As set forth in the University's Procedures for Requesting Modifications
(which is
referenced in the Amended Policy), upon receiving a request or inquiry
concerning
reasonable modifications, Disability Services will meet with the student
individually
and work with the student cooperatively to fashion an individualized plan
for the
student.  This is intended to be an interactive process in which the student
and
the University work together to formulate the best modification plan
available for
the student.  Depending upon the individual circumstances, the University
may allow
students to be exempt from the mandatory meal plan as a possible form of a
reasonable
modification.  The University will ensure that any modification plan is
provided
in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual
with the
disability.  42 U.S.C. ? 12182(b)(1)(B) and 28 C.F.R. ? 36.203.  After
engaging in
this interactive process, the University will provide students with food
allergies
with written disability modification letters detailing the specific
modification
plan tailored to that student.  The University recognizes that the
modification process
may be an ongoing one that requires additional changes throughout the
student's enrollment
at the University and will work with students to update their food allergy
modification
plans, as necessary.
(c)     Notwithstanding the process set forth in Paragraph 3(b), the
University agrees
to provide reasonable modifications to students with food allergies during
the interactive
process described above.  After the student and the University engage in the
interactive
process, even if a student has not executed a written disability
modification letter,
the University agrees to provide modifications if the modification is
reasonable
and does not fundamentally alter the nature of the University's goods,
services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.
4. Dining Services
(a)     Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the University agrees to
post prominent
notices concerning food allergies at each of its five student dining halls
or food
eatery facilities; the notices will be printed in a bold font no smaller
than 40
points and will state the following, or something substantially similar to
the following:
"Food-Allergic Individuals: Be aware that we handle and prepare egg, milk,
wheat,
shellfish, fish, soy, peanut, tree nut products, and other potential
allergens in
our cafes and kitchens.  Before placing your order, please inform your
server if
you or a person in your party has a food allergy.  Please direct questions
to the
manager."
(b)     The University agrees to display the notice located at
http://www.foodallergy.org/files/FoodAllergiesEnglish
2009 HR.pdf in a prominent location in the cooking areas and/or food
preparation
areas in each dining hall or food eatery.
(c)     The University agrees that its Food Service Provider will continue
to provide
meals made without specific allergens to students with food allergies who
have food
allergy modification plans under the process described in Paragraph 3.  The
Food
Service Provider will take reasonable steps to prevent the food from
containing the
specific allergens at issue for the student, to the extent possible.  The
food will
also be nutritionally comparable to the food choices offered to other
students, to
the extent reasonably possible.  The University's dining hall food lines
will continue
to offer and identify a variety of food options made without certain
allergens (e.g.,
wheat, dairy, nuts), and the Food Service Staff will take reasonable steps
to avoid
cross-contamination.  To further minimize the risk of cross-contamination
from meals
obtained in the general dining hall food lines, the University may also
offer students
with food allergies the option to pre-order their meals, consistent with the
procedures
outlined in Paragraph 4(d).  All students with food allergies who have
registered
with Disability Services and engaged in the interactive process will have
the choice
to pre-order their meals or obtain their meals from the food lines.
(d)Pre-Order Option
: The University agrees to continue to offer a Pre-Order Option for students
with
food allergies to pre-order their daily lunch and dinner in accordance with
the process
defined in this paragraph.
(i)     As of the date of this Agreement, the Pre-Order Option will allow
students to
review the online daily dining hall and food eatery menus and to e-mail
their requested
meal choices to the University's Food Service Manager, the Food Service
Executive
Chef, or the Dining Hall Manager.
(ii)    The Pre-Order Option will allow students to pre-order their meals if
they give
at least twenty-four (24) hours advanced notice before the meal, to ensure
that the
Food Service Provider has or can obtain the necessary ingredients to prepare
the
specific meal request without the allergen(s) at issue.  The Food Service
Provider
will make reasonable efforts to fulfill all reasonable meal requests, even
if the
requests are not made in a timely manner, but cannot guarantee that it will
have
the necessary ingredients on hand to prepare the specific meal request to be
made
without specific allergens if it does not have at least twenty-four (24)
hours advanced
notice.
(iii)   If the Food Service Provider is unable to fulfill a student's
particular meal
request because the request is not made in a timely manner, the Food Service
Provider
will make reasonable efforts to provide alternative meal options made
without specific
allergens for the student.
(iv)    The Food Service Provider will prepare all meals made without
specific allergens,
including pre-ordered meals, in a designated area within the University's
cooking
and food preparation areas in order to avoid cross-contamination.
(v)     The Food Service Provider will provide these meals in a dedicated
space at the
White Hall Dining Hall, referenced in Paragraph 4(f), or transport the meals
to the
University's other dining halls or food eateries, as referenced in Paragraph
4(e).
Subject to review and concurrence by counsel for the United States, the
University
agrees to continually review and revise this process, as necessary, for the
term
of this Agreement.
(e)     The University understands that students may be at or near different
parts of
campus during lunch and dinner and might prefer to have their meals
delivered to
these locations.  Accordingly, when students order meals via the Pre-Order
Option
described in Paragraph 4(d), students may request that the University
deliver their
meals to the University's other dining hall and food eatery facilities.
Students
should provide the Food Service Provider with reasonable twenty-four (24)
hours advanced
notice to allow the Food Service Provider to prepare and deliver the meal to
the
designated location.  The University will make reasonable efforts to deliver
the
meals to the designated location after receiving 24 hours advanced notice,
but in
certain circumstances may be unable to deliver meals in a timely manner due
to inclement
weather or other transportation impediments.   Due to the limited size and
capacity
of the University's dining hall kitchens, the University will prepare such
meals
at the White Hall kitchen facility.  These meals will then be delivered to
the other
University kitchens, where they are kept separate to avoid
cross-contamination.
(f)     The University agrees to continue to provide students with food
allergies a separate
area to store and prepare food (the "dedicated area") in the manner set
forth below.
As of the date of this Agreement, the University will continue to dedicate a
restricted
room adjacent to the White Hall dining room and accessible to the
University's Student
Center.  The University will provide identified students with food
allergies, who
have engaged in the interactive process as set forth in Paragraph 3(b), with
card
access to the dedicated area.  The University will restrict access to the
dedicated
area to the identified students with food allergies and ensure that these
students
can access the dedicated area at any time during the months in which the
University
is in session.  While neither the University nor the Food Service Provider
can fully
ensure that students with access to the dedicated area do not
cross-contaminate the
dedicated area, the University will take reasonable steps to avoid
cross-contamination
in the dedicated area and will develop and maintain a process for educating
students
with food allergies who have access to the dedicated area on how to avoid
cross-contaminating
the dedicated area.  The University will maintain the dedicated area and
ensure that
it contains the following:
(i)     A sink and counter area, dish rack, and other kitchen supplies,
(i.e., paper
towels, dish soap, sponges, etc.), refreshed as necessary;
(ii)    A refrigerator and freezer for perishable items;
(iii)   Cabinet space for non-perishable items;
(iv)    Separate appliances, including a microwave and toaster; and
(v)     A food warmer to keep pre-ordered meals warm.
(g)     The University agrees to continue to allow students with access to
the dedicated
area to submit their individualized and specific "shopping lists" of
requested food
made without allergens to the Food Service Provider.  The University will
ensure
that the Food Service Provider purchases the requested items in a timely
manner (approximately
once or twice per week).  The University also agrees to ensure that the Food
Service
Provider independently monitors the food supply in the dedicated area and
replenishes
the food supply as necessary.
(h)     The University recognizes that students with food allergies may wish
to purchase
food outside of the University (at local restaurants, grocery stores, and
other establishments),
through the use of their student CashLynx account.  The University agrees to
make
reasonable efforts to retain and obtain vendors that offer food made without
allergens
to participate in the CashLynx card program.  As of the date of this
Agreement, there
are multiple vendors that provide allergen-free food options and accept
CashLynx
card payments.
(i)     Within thirty (30) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the
University will provide a separate link on the first page of its internal
website
to the Dining Service Main Page (the "DS Main Page").  The DS Main Page will
advise
students that the University will provide food options for students with
food allergies
in all Lesley University campus dining halls and food eateries.  The DS Main
Page
will also provide a link to the Food Service Providers' online menus of the
dining
halls and food eateries and include updated weekly meal options for students
with
food allergies.  The DS Main Page will also provide a link to "Information
Regarding
Food Allergies" (or its equivalent).  The link regarding food allergies will
provide:
(i)     Contact information for the dining services staff person(s)
designated as the
contact person(s) pursuant to Paragraph 4(d) above;
(ii)    A description of and link to the Amended Policy; and
(iii)   A description of and link to the Complaint Resolution Procedure
described in
Paragraph 5 below.
5. Modification Appeal Process
The University recognizes that despite its good faith and reasonable efforts
to make
reasonable modifications of its policies, practices, and procedures for
students
with food allergies, students may ultimately disagree with the University's
proposed
modifications.  If a student with food allergies disagrees with the
determinations
made by Disability Services after the student has engaged in the interactive
process,
the student may request a review by the Executive Director of Academic
Support Services
(Lesley's ADA/Section 504 Coordinator), consistent with the Amended Policy
referenced
in Paragraph 2.  Appeals of this review are heard by the Dean of Student
Life and
Academic Achievement.
6. Complaint Resolution Procedure
In general, students may also file complaints of discrimination pursuant to
the University's
Office of Equal Opportunity and Inclusion Complaint Resolution Procedure
(the "Complaint
Resolution Procedure"), referenced in the Amended Policy.
7. Educational Program
(a)     Food Service Managers
(i)     Within thirty (30) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the
University will require that the Food Service Provider train its managers
and employees
on how to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
(ii)    Within sixty (60) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the
Food Service Managers will attend a "ServSafe" food handling and food
service management
class offered by the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation.
The
University will provide the United States with proof of completion of the
course
within ten (10) business days of training.
(iii)   Within sixty (60) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, and
at least annually thereafter, the University will ensure that the Food
Service Provider's
regional nutritionist will, as it has done in the past, visit the University
to discuss
the nutritional needs of students with food allergies and to reevaluate the
Food
Service Provider's policies and procedures.  In addition, the University
will ensure
that the Food Service Managers receive annual training concerning the
nutritional
needs of students with food allergies.
(b)     Food Service Staff
(i)     Within thirty (30) business days of the effective date of this
Agreement, the
University will require that the Food Service staff is trained regarding the
terms
of this Agreement.
(ii)    For the duration of this Agreement, to ensure that the Food Service
Provider's
staff complies with the terms of this Agreement, the University will require
the
Food Service Provider to continue to provide educational training to all
food service
staff a minimum of twice per year, including at least once before the fall
and spring
semesters begin.  This mandatory training will include the following:
(1)     Instruction on celiac disease and food allergies, including food
products that
contain allergens, cross-contamination, and proper food storage and
preparation;
(2)     Instruction on how to handle inquiries regarding food allergies,
including questions
regarding ingredients and sub-ingredients in the meals;
(3)     Instruction that the on-site Food Service Manager should promptly
notify Disability
Services when a student seeks modifications to, or an exemption from, the
University's
mandatory meal plan; and
(4)     A question and answer session to review each of the foregoing areas.
(iii)   In addition to the Food Service Provider's formal, twice yearly
mandatory allergy
awareness training, the University will require the Food Service Managers to
conduct
monthly staff meetings that address allergy awareness and food safety
practices.
(c)     Lesley University Employees and Contractors
(i)     Within ninety (90) business days after the effective date of this
Agreement and
thereafter at least once per year, the University agrees to provide an
educational
training program regarding its obligations under Title III of the ADA to all
employees
and contractors in Residence Life and Disability Services who have contact
with students
and their families.  This training can be conducted by the University via a
commercially
available program.
(ii)    Within seven (7) business days of the completion of the training
referenced
in Paragraph 6(c), the University will provide the United States with proof
that
this training has occurred, including a dated copy of the agenda and a dated
sign-in
sheet with the names and titles of the employees and contract employees who
received
the training.
8. Reporting and Document Retention
(a)     For the duration of this Agreement, the University agrees to
preserve all records
related to this Agreement.  The University also agrees that upon ten (10)
business
days' written notice, representatives of the United States are permitted to
inspect
and copy any of the University's records related to this matter or inspect
any premises
under the University's control bearing on compliance with this Agreement at
any and
all reasonable times, provided, however, that the United States will
endeavor to
minimize any inconvenience to the University from such inspections.
(b)     Within sixty (60) business days after the effective date of this
Agreement and
thereafter forty-five (45) days prior to each anniversary of the effective
date of
this Agreement, the University agrees to submit a written report to the
United States
describing all actions taken relating to its compliance with this Agreement.
The
University's report will include appropriate documentation, including any
relating
to the Policies referenced in this Agreement and summaries of all Office of
Equal
Opportunity and Inclusion complaints and investigatory reports relating to
food allergies.
9. Monetary Payment
(a)     Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ? 12188(b)(2), the University agrees to pay
the sum of
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to the individuals previously identified by
the
United States.  The University agrees to make such payments to the
previously identified
individuals in an amount and manner agreed to by the Parties.  The United
States
will deliver such payments when the identified individual has signed a
Waiver and
Release of Claims and upon receipt of the signed Waiver and Release of
Claims by
counsel for the United States.
10. Miscellaneous Provisions
(a)     Failure by the United States to enforce this Agreement with respect
to any of
its provisions or deadlines shall not be construed as a waiver of the right
of the
United States to enforce other deadlines and provisions of this Agreement.
(b) All materials sent to the United States pursuant to this Agreement shall
be sent
either by .pdf attachment or by overnight, prepaid delivery, to Alyse Bass,
Senior
Trial Attorney, and/or William Lynch, Trial Attorney, Disability Rights
Section,
Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20005,
Attn:
DJ #202-36-231.
(c)     The effective date of this Agreement is the date of the last
signature to this
Agreement.
(d) This Agreement, including Exhibit A, constitutes the entire Agreement
between
the Parties on the matters raised herein, and no other statement, promise,
or agreement,
either written or oral, made by either party or agents of either party, that
is not
contained in this written Agreement will be enforceable under its
provisions.
(e) This Agreement is limited to resolving claims under the ADA related to
the University's
obligations to make reasonable modifications to its meal plan and services
for students
with food allergies, and does not purport to remedy any other existing or
potential
violations of the ADA or any other federal, state, or local law.  The
University
acknowledges that this Agreement does not limit the University's continuing
responsibility
to comply with all aspects of the ADA and all other federal laws.
(f)The Parties agree that, as of the effective date of this Agreement,
litigation
is not "reasonably foreseeable" concerning the matters described in the
introductory
paragraph.  To the extent that either party previously implemented a
litigation hold
to preserve documents, electronically stored information (ESI), or things
related
to the matters described in the introductory paragraph, the party is no
longer required
to maintain such a litigation hold.  Nothing in this Paragraph relieves
either party
of any other obligations imposed by this Agreement.
(g)     A copy of this Agreement and any information contained in it,
including the Amended
Policy, will be made available to any person by the University or the United
States,
upon request.
(h) This Agreement shall be binding on the University and its successors in
interest,
assigns, agents, employees, and contractors.  The University has a duty to
notify
any and all successors in interest of this Agreement and the duties and
responsibilities
it imposes on the University.  In the event the University seeks to transfer
or assign
all or part of its obligations under its meal program, and the successor or
assignee
intends to carry on some or all of the University's responsibilities, the
University
shall, as a condition of the transfer or assignment, obtain the written
accession
of the successor or assignee to any obligations remaining under this
Agreement for
the remaining term of this Agreement.
(i) The University and the United States recognize that the process and
procedures
necessary to reasonably modify the University's meal plan and services for
students
with food allergies are not static, and that these issues in particular are
constantly
evolving.  Accordingly, the University agrees to continue to evaluate the
policies
and procedures set forth herein, and to modify and revise such policies as
necessary
to remain in compliance with Title III of the ADA.  Pursuant to Paragraph 7
above,
the University will notify the United States of any substantive changes to
the policies
and procedures set forth in this Agreement.
11. Duration of Agreement
(a) This Agreement will remain in effect for three (3) years from its
effective date.
(b)     The United States may review compliance with this Agreement at any
time. If the
United States believes that the University has failed to comply in a timely
manner
with any requirement of this Agreement, the United States will so notify the
University
in writing and attempt to resolve the issue in good faith.  If the United
States
is unable to reach a satisfactory resolution of the issue within sixty (60)
days,
after providing notice to the University and allowing the University an
opportunity
to cure, the United States may institute a civil action in federal district
court
to enforce the terms of this Agreement, or take other action to enforce
Title III
of the ADA.
12. Time for Performance
Any time limits for performance imposed by this Agreement may be extended by
the
mutual written consent of the United States and the University.
Executed this 20th day of December, 2012.
[1]
Business days refers to days in which the  University is in session.
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Carmen M. Ortiz
United States Attorney
Eve A. Piemonte Stacey
Assistant United States  Attorney
United States Attorney?s  Office
One Courthouse Way, Suite  9200
Boston, MA 02210
FOR LESLEY UNIVERSITY
____________________________
Shirin  Philipp, Esq.
General  Counsel
Lesley  University
29  Everett Street
Cambridge,  MA 02138
Thomas E. Perez
Assistant Attorney General
Eve Hill
Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Gregory B. Friel, Acting Chief
Kathleen P. Wolfe, Special Litigation Counsel
Jana L. Erikson, Deputy Chief
/s/ Alyse S. Bass
Alyse S. Bass, Senior Trial  Attorney
William F. Lynch, Trial Attorney
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. -  NYA
Washington, D.C. 20530
Exhibit A
Reasonable Modifications of Policies, Practices, and Procedures for Students
with
Disabilities
Specific Information for Lesley Students with Disabilities
Lesley University is committed to the full participation of its students in
all of
its programs.  In addition to this long-standing Lesley philosophy, students
with
disabilities have specific legal rights guaranteed by the Americans with
Disabilities
Act (ADA), a civil rights law enacted to protect individuals from
discrimination
on the basis of disability.  Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination
on the
basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services,
facilities,
privileges, advantages, and accommodations of public accommodations, such as
universities.
1
The following is a summary of Lesley University's policies and procedures
for students
with disabilities seeking reasonable modifications under the ADA (sometimes
colloquially
termed and referred to by Lesley as "reasonable accommodations").
An essential component of Title III of the ADA is the right of an individual
with
a disability to a reasonable modification of policies where necessary to
afford such
individual an equal benefit.  The process for obtaining a reasonable
modification
is an interactive one that typically begins with the student's request for a
change
in the usual manner in which things are done.  In the context of reasonable
modifications,
Disability Services may ask for documentation concerning an individual's
disability
and/or the need for modifications, if such documentation is necessary (e.g.,
manifestation
of an individual's disability is not readily apparent), is reasonable, and
limited
to the need for the modification requested.  While not always necessary,
documentation
may come from a physician, clinician, or other provider and may set forth
recommended
modifications.
Further, in accordance with Title III of the ADA, Lesley University will
make reasonable
modifications to our rules, policies, practices, and procedures, when such
modifications
are necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
or accommodations
to individuals with disabilities.  Lesley University does not charge
individuals
with disabilities for reasonable modifications or other actions required by
the ADA.
Example
: Lesley University makes reasonable modifications to its rules, policies,
practices,
and procedures in a variety of ways.  For example, Lesley provides testing
modifications
for students with learning disabilities, which may include, but are not
limited to,
allowing students extended time to take tests, allowing for untimed tests,
or providing
students with a distraction-free test taking environment.  Other students
residing
on campus may have a food-related disability that limits their ability to
fully and
equally participate in our meal program, such as an autoimmune disease like
celiac
disease or allergies to products like wheat, milk, peanuts, eggs, etc.
These individuals
may need a modification or exception to our rule requiring that students
residing
on campus participate in the University's mandatory meal plan.  One
possibility is
to provide food made without allergens, and a specific allergen-free food
preparation
and heating area for students.  Another possible reasonable modification,
depending
on the specific circumstances, may be to exempt the student from the
mandatory meal
program.  Lesley University offers its students both of these options.
Note
: The obligation to make reasonable modifications extends broadly to all
programs
and services offered by the University.  It includes the right to classroom
modifications,
use of service animals and a host of other issues.  Furthermore, rights
afforded
by Title III of the ADA extend well beyond reasonable modifications alone,
such as
ensuring effective communication through the use of auxiliary aids and
services,
the provision of testing accommodations, and the obligation to remove
architectural
barriers when readily achievable, among others.
Who is eligible to receive disability support services?
All qualified students with disabilities are eligible for modifications and
support
services.  It is the student's responsibility to initiate the modification
process
with Disability Services.
What are the responsibilities of students for obtaining disability support
services
and reasonable modifications?
1. To initiate the process with Disability Services.
2. To provide documentation of the disability or disabilities if necessary,
and to provide
other relevant information, e.g., as to food allergies or dietary needs, or
as to
specific classroom modifications.
3. To deliver modification letters, or arrange for their delivery through
Disability
Services, to course instructors, if relevant and necessary for the
modification.
4. To notify Disability Services of any changes each semester.
5. To work cooperatively with the University.
It is not necessary to say the words "reasonable modification" when making a
reasonable
modification request.  Any request for an exception, modification, or
adjustment
to a rule, policy, practice, or procedure because of a disability will be
treated
as a reasonable modification request.  Reasonable modification requests can
be submitted
orally or in writing and can be made by a student with a disability or by
someone
acting on the student's behalf if the student also wants the requested
modification
and works cooperatively with the University.
What type of services can students with disabilities expect to receive?
While some modifications to policies are made generally, support services
and reasonable
modifications are determined in most circumstances on an individual basis by
the
Disability Services administrators in consultation with you and, when
necessary,
medical professionals or others with helpful information.
Policies
Confidentiality
Denial & Grievance
Pets, Service Animals, and Assistance Animals for Resident Students
Publications
Confidentiality
Lesley University is committed to ensuring that all student disability
information
is maintained confidentially.  Disability related information should be
treated as
medical information and handled under strict rules of confidentiality.  A
student's
documentation is filed securely with Disability Services.  It is not kept
with any
other student records on campus.  As such, the information can only be
shared on
a limited "need to know" basis within the institutional community.
Modification letters contain only the modification information, and not
specifics
of the disability.
Denial and Grievance
Based on individual circumstances, Disability Services may not approve a
request
for modification(s) or may discontinue an existing modification.  See
Procedures
for Requesting Accommodations [pdf].
Grievance
If you disagree with the determination made by Disability Services to deny
or discontinue
a modification, you can have the decision reviewed by the Executive Director
of Academic
Support Services (Lesley's ADA/Section 504 Coordinator).  Appeals of this
review
are heard by the Dean of Student Life and Academic Achievement.  For
details, please
see the Accommodation Appeal Review Form [pdf].
In general, students may also file complaints of discrimination with the
University's
Office of Equal Opportunity and Inclusion.
2
For details regarding the formal grievance policy, please see the Lesley
University
Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Sexual Violence Policy
for details.
http://www.lesley.edu/policies/university/discrimination-harassment.html.
Pets, Service Animals, and Assistance Animals for Resident Students
Students with disabilities who use Service or Assistance Animals may bring
such animals
on campus in compliance with the laws concerning Service and Assistance
Animals.
For information on definitions, requests, approval, provisions, and
responsibilities,
see the Lesley University Policy on Pets, Service Animals, and Assistance
Animals
for Resident Students [pdf].
Publications
All publications generated at the University should include a statement in
the front
of the publication that informs the reader that the publication is available
in alternate
format.  The statement should read as follows:
Information included in this publication is available in alternate format
upon request.
[1]
Postsecondary institutions, whether public or private, that receive Federal
financial
assistance are also subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, which
prohibits discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals with
disabilities.
[2]
Of course, nothing in this policy precludes an individual from pursuing
State or
Federal remedies for violation of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act or any other
applicable
law.
 
last updated December 20, 2012
 

Thisinformation, except the actual agreement text,  was posted by Bill Reif
on national Vendtalk, and by Ross Doerr on Blindlaw talk, NFB lists. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121224/6d28a481/attachment.html>