From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 00:16:42 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:16:42 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] simple question inventory vendor
References: <231480B941684CFCA5CE52A0C21206CE@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<28E1E6EE2E8D40BAB18A1AA06CD2B53D@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <43F2E14C93BA4DAE947DB5123DCD9AAB@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Thanks. Now I wish to know the firm that Zanger referenced today in doing 
the equipment inventory and, of course I wish for that inventory.

I suggest others request the same.

Peace,

Joe
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Michigan Vendors List" <vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] simple question inventory vendor


This firm is often used to take the final inventory at BEP facilities when
an operator leaves.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 14:52
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] simple question inventory vendor



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "Patrick Cannon MCB Dir." <cannonp at MICHIGAN.GOV>
Cc: "James Hull BEP Temp Mgr" <hullj at michigan.gov>; "lydia Schuck MCB Comm."
<laschuck at juno.com>; "Constance Zanger MCB BEP" <zangerc at michigan.gov>;
"James Chaney EOC" <resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net>; <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>;
<Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>; "John Scott MCB Comm." <jcscot at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:50 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] simple question inventory vendor


January 31 2012 Inquiry



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

joeharcz at comcast.net



Patrick Cannon

Constance Zanger

James Hull

MCB







Simple question here?Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for
the BEP program referenced today?



?Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011



Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,215.00?





A simple ?yes? or ?no? will do for now.



Sincerely,



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.



Cc: MCB Board

Cc: EOC Chair

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: several
_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net 




From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 01:24:21 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:24:21 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] gotta have readers drivers for hull
Message-ID: <A8522071E04242A99F81808EF0F0F581@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to LARRY JEFFREY LAFERRIERE for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$933.16
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120131/300b49c2/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 01:42:14 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:42:14 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific
	objectives
Message-ID: <957E4D03D64A42B8BAC6FE578DD6A576@Reputercat>

Here it is, minus the first few minutes due to either operator error or minor equipment malfunction.

Sorry to say that we're still being forced to fight for every scrap of information that used to be available for the asking and that is required by federal law.  I say that certain people in high places are afraid of what might happen if the people they've been lying to, their bosses, their political contacts, their clients etc. should find out what has truly been going on at MCB and the BEP for many years.

You may download the recording at:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/MCB01312012.2.MP3

Joe Sontag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120131/48078701/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 02:35:31 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:35:31 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] relates in part to today's meeting
Message-ID: <A77AA3494DB7414EB15E88A9D2FEB2B9@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to WOLVERINE AMERICA, LLC for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$14,388.85
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120131/3ba68888/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 02:39:45 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:39:45 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] more relevent to equipment inventory issue
Message-ID: <203AA0884CA54F50BF13A1FF2DA31973@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to WOLVERINE AMERICA, LLC for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$653,313.41
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120131/36e2b8dd/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 02:41:11 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:41:11 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] changed name and didn't skip a payment
Message-ID: <708063FAEC014299A930C44333EF10A8@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to WOLVERINE AMERICAN INC for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$4,895.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120131/65ab01c3/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 19:42:26 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:42:26 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Fwd: Request for an Ethics Board
	Advisory Opinion
Message-ID: <2AB558FC04C24FFFBD30B426C572B1BB@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Posont" <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:09 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fwd: Request for an Ethics Board Advisory Opinion


> Dear Michigan Federationists:
>     Please read this very carefully.
>
>
>
> Subject: Fwd: Request for an Ethics Board Advisory Opinion
> To: president.nfb.mi at gmail.com, jcscot at sbcglobal.net, laschuck at juno.com
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Cannon, Patrick (LARA)" <cannonp at michigan.gov>
> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:18:05 -0500
> Subject: Request for an Ethics Board Advisory Opinion
> February 1, 2012
>
> Janet McClelland, Executive Secretary
>
> State Board of Ethics
>
> Michigan Department of Civil Service
>
> P.O. Box 30002
>
> Lansing, MI 48909
>
> Dear Ms. McCIelland:
>
> I am requesting an Advisory Opinion as to whether ethical concerns
> exist because a manager working for the Michigan Commission for the
> Blind (MCB) also serves as a member of the New Horizons board, a
> non-profit service organization.
>
> The Commission is a public rehabilitation agency, located within the
> Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA)
> providing an array of services to individuals who are blind or
> visually impaired, including vocational rehabilitation services,
> independent living services for the older blind, youth low vision
> services for visually impaired students in the K-12 system, as well as
> our Business Enterprise Program (BEP), serving as the State Licensing
> Agency (SLA) for blind entrepreneurs running food service facilities
> on State and Federal properties.  MCB also operates a residential
> Training Center in Kalamazoo, where students learn skills of blindness
> to aid them on their path toward independence.
>
> The Commission was created by Public Act 260 of 1978, and under the
> statute the Commission board is comprised of five members appointed by
> the Governor.  Each Commissioner serves for a 3 year term with at
> least 3 of the 5 appointees being legally blind and each serves as a
> voting member of the Board.
>
> New Horizons is a nationally recognized, private, not-for-profit
> rehabilitation agency providing vocational training and job placement
> in Michigan since 1964 with a primary goal focused on preparing people
> with disabilities for competitive employment and providing the
> necessary skills for consumers to assume responsibility for their own
> long-term success.  New Horizons works with referral and funding
> sources to help make employment services more readily available and
> accessible to persons with disabilities.
>
> The ethics question which has prompted this request for an Advisory
> Opinion centers on Ms. Gwen McNeal, the Manager of the Commission's
> Detroit Office, who also serves as a New Horizons board member.  A
> conflict of interest question has been raised by a commissioner, as
> well as by one of two blind consumer organizations in the state, the
> National Federation of the Blind (NFB) of Michigan in a resolution
> adopted at the organization's state convention last November.  All
> three commissioners are also NFB members, and the Commission's
> vice-chair is also the President of NFB of Michigan.
>
> Ms. McNeal was first appointed to the New Horizons Board in 2010 for a
> one year term and reappointed in 2011 to a two year term, with the
> verbal support and approval of her supervisor, Leamon Jones, MCB's
> Director of Consumer Services.  Ms. McNeal contends that her service
> on the board is not in conflict with her duties as MCB Southeast
> Region Manager, asserting that at no time did she, as a board member,
> vote on anything coming before the board related to financial
> interactions, contractual arrangements or programmatic services with
> the Commission.  She is strictly a volunteer, receiving no
> compensation, meets on her own time and does not directly supervise
> the 2 counselors who may choose with their consumers, to receive
> services from New Horizons.  She also rejects, as false, the
> contentions of the NFB resolution challenging her board service as a
> conflict of interest.
>
> In addition to the points raised in this letter you will also find
> several attachments that may be helpful in formulating an opinion.
> These attachments include the NFB Resolution 2011-08, excerpt from the
> draft minutes of the December 9 MCB Commission meeting where the issue
> was addressed, excerpt from the 2009 RSA Monitoring Report related to
> New Horizons, New Horizons policy on conflict, New Horizons position
> description for board members, several confidential sets of minutes
> from New Horizons board meetings which Ms. McNeal has participated in
> and finally, several threads of email correspondence regarding
> conflict charges raised by Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr., a concerned citizen
> and NFB member.
>
> Is it a conflict of interest under the State Ethics Act, MCL 15.342,
> for Gwen McNeal, a state employee and Manager of MCB's Southeast
> Region, to continue to serve on the Board of New Horizons?  Thank you
> for considering our request for an Advisory Opinion on these issues.
> If you would like any additional information please contact me
> directly at 335-4265.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> [cid:image002.jpg at 01CCE0D3.2ACC38D0]
>
> Patrick D. Cannon
>
> State Director
>


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


> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Harcz FOIA request of 12 29 11 who works for whom here.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Request for advisory opinion Re McNeal  New Horizons 01 12.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 49664 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NFB New Horizon RESOLUTION 2011.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 25600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excerpt December commission meeting minutes.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 22528 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0002.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RSA Monitoring Report Finding 6 Re New Horizons.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0003.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NEW BOT POLICY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16642 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NEW BOT Job Dis   Board Resp.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 19680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BOT Minutes 7 20 11 through 9 30 10 - Gwen McNeal (Read-Only).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 101629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BOT Minutes - 9 15 11  11 16 11 - Gwen McNeal (Read-Only).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 70437 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Harcz FOIA Response of 11-3-11.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 68608 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0004.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Harcz FOIA request arra information new horizons.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Harcz FOIA request 1 6 12 new horizons financial data fy 12.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0002.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Harcz request 1 7 12 who autorized mcneal to serve on new horizons.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0003.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Harcz FOIA Response of 1-10-12 10-Day Extension.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 51712 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0005.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: email chain Question of Conflict of Interest.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/9c378cea/attachment-0004.txt>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  1 20:33:01 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:33:01 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding
	BEP-specific objectives
Message-ID: <345C78F51F55473599E908F76DD9F897@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Joe Sontag 
To: joe harcz Comcast ; Larry Posont ; Lydia Schuck ; John Scott 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:51
Subject: Re: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


Agreed, and I think, although I am all for any legal tactics and procedures that may become necessary to keep the State Plate facility in our program, I have always had serious questions about the legality of "suspending the rules" tactic that the commission Board has used at least once before regarding the Business Enterprise Program.  It's high time that someone who is "somebody" asks for  a memorandum of advice from the AG's office on this matter.

I can't help saying that none of the current problems would be biting us in tender places if the BEP had only done its job in the first place.

Joe Sontag
----- Original Message ----- 
  From: joe harcz Comcast 
  To: Joe Sontag 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:49
  Subject: Re: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


  By tthe way Joe and all I can find nothing in PA 260, statute or regulations where the SLA, the EOC, or the MCB can abridge or otherwise alter the conditions of PA 260 period. End of story.

  Only the legislature can amend or repeal PA 260. Ironic eh given the location at issue?

  Oh and when Zanger talks about the legislators or legislature being unhappy she is blowing smoke and outright lying.

  For she is actually talking about building managers being unhappy.

  The last time I checked they were state employees and not elected officials ergo legislators.

  I don't see any State Rep. or State Senator designation on any bloody building manager in this state.

  Besides even if it were the case that would be a violation of various conflicts of interest laws...But I digress...

  If the Commission votes to rubber stamp Cannon and zanger's so-called "one time exception" then they are derelict in their duties and their sworn obligation to uphold PA 260 and other relevent laws as their primary obligation.

  Now, I'm not saying the Commissioners would do that mind you. It is a hyhypothetical situation.

  But here is something clear the Director and Zanger have scheduled a special meeting for February 8, 2012 to try to have the MCB Commissioners rubber stamp illegal activity and to effectively rubber stamp violations of PA 260.

  For that alone Cannon and zanger should be summarily fired on the spot and for cause, documented cause at that!

  Joe

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Joe Sontag 
    To: VENDORSMI List 
    Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:42 PM
    Subject: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


    Here it is, minus the first few minutes due to either operator error or minor equipment malfunction.

    Sorry to say that we're still being forced to fight for every scrap of information that used to be available for the asking and that is required by federal law.  I say that certain people in high places are afraid of what might happen if the people they've been lying to, their bosses, their political contacts, their clients etc. should find out what has truly been going on at MCB and the BEP for many years.

    You may download the recording at:

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/MCB01312012.2.MP3

    Joe Sontag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/a697153a/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 20:50:56 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:50:56 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Recording of today's MCB meeting
	regardingBEP-specific objectives
References: <345C78F51F55473599E908F76DD9F897@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <2A4BD1D50BFA42DF94925707BCF3E43B@YOUR7C60552B9E>

While I agree in substance the allusion to referrring to the corrupted AG isn't the answer.

It is like going to the dog catcher who is violating dog rules for an opinion of going after the dog catcher for violating dog rules.

This administration and all before it are innately corrupt and there are no f]=safe guards or checks and balances withing this state. Thus we must go beyond the state apratchek.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:33 PM
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Recording of today's MCB meeting regardingBEP-specific objectives



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: joe harcz Comcast ; Larry Posont ; Lydia Schuck ; John Scott 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:51
  Subject: Re: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


  Agreed, and I think, although I am all for any legal tactics and procedures that may become necessary to keep the State Plate facility in our program, I have always had serious questions about the legality of "suspending the rules" tactic that the commission Board has used at least once before regarding the Business Enterprise Program.  It's high time that someone who is "somebody" asks for  a memorandum of advice from the AG's office on this matter.

  I can't help saying that none of the current problems would be biting us in tender places if the BEP had only done its job in the first place.

  Joe Sontag
  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: joe harcz Comcast 
    To: Joe Sontag 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:49
    Subject: Re: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


    By tthe way Joe and all I can find nothing in PA 260, statute or regulations where the SLA, the EOC, or the MCB can abridge or otherwise alter the conditions of PA 260 period. End of story.

    Only the legislature can amend or repeal PA 260. Ironic eh given the location at issue?

    Oh and when Zanger talks about the legislators or legislature being unhappy she is blowing smoke and outright lying.

    For she is actually talking about building managers being unhappy.

    The last time I checked they were state employees and not elected officials ergo legislators.

    I don't see any State Rep. or State Senator designation on any bloody building manager in this state.

    Besides even if it were the case that would be a violation of various conflicts of interest laws...But I digress...

    If the Commission votes to rubber stamp Cannon and zanger's so-called "one time exception" then they are derelict in their duties and their sworn obligation to uphold PA 260 and other relevent laws as their primary obligation.

    Now, I'm not saying the Commissioners would do that mind you. It is a hyhypothetical situation.

    But here is something clear the Director and Zanger have scheduled a special meeting for February 8, 2012 to try to have the MCB Commissioners rubber stamp illegal activity and to effectively rubber stamp violations of PA 260.

    For that alone Cannon and zanger should be summarily fired on the spot and for cause, documented cause at that!

    Joe

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Joe Sontag 
      To: VENDORSMI List 
      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:42 PM
      Subject: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


      Here it is, minus the first few minutes due to either operator error or minor equipment malfunction.

      Sorry to say that we're still being forced to fight for every scrap of information that used to be available for the asking and that is required by federal law.  I say that certain people in high places are afraid of what might happen if the people they've been lying to, their bosses, their political contacts, their clients etc. should find out what has truly been going on at MCB and the BEP for many years.

      You may download the recording at:

      http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/MCB01312012.2.MP3

      Joe Sontag


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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/30a436ee/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 21:15:17 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:15:17 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Recording of today's MCB
	meetingregardingBEP-specific objectives
References: <345C78F51F55473599E908F76DD9F897@Reputercat>
	<2A4BD1D50BFA42DF94925707BCF3E43B@YOUR7C60552B9E>
Message-ID: <A6992E0960044DF0A6271000DCC30690@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Follow the money and always follow the money sir and everyone!

Now, by Cannon's own admission McNeal was on New Horizons board whilst she and, indeed others steered contracts deemonstrated in RSA findins. and they aren't so good, but nonetheless. that were called "reversion to vendor".

Man this isn't so complicated and since I'm not cited personally in all of this let me again set the record straigth...

-McNeal was on the Board of New Horizons according to MCB's and Cann's own stupid records in 20008 while she and both New Horizons were sited for "reversion to venture" ...I.e. what I Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr. calls a sort of generically denoted "kick back" or money laundering scheme where as as far as I understand it the MCB took money for transition services "donated" by New horiszons for purposes of multiplying the money through a "third party cooperative" agreement the Malcolm ISD as intermediary and then reverted the contract to who? Whell New Horizons?

Oh yes again Ron Storing is a Trustee nowadays and then of Oakland ISD and MMcNeal was and is and is forever more so in conflict of all sorts of interest as is Cannon now by hhis own self admisssion and his own hand right here and in his own protest so much crap with the stupid State unethicakl board.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: joe harcz Comcast 
  To: Joe Sontag ; NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Recording of today's MCB meetingregardingBEP-specific objectives


  While I agree in substance the allusion to referrring to the corrupted AG isn't the answer.

  It is like going to the dog catcher who is violating dog rules for an opinion of going after the dog catcher for violating dog rules.

  This administration and all before it are innately corrupt and there are no f]=safe guards or checks and balances withing this state. Thus we must go beyond the state apratchek.


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Joe Sontag 
    To: VENDORSMI List 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 3:33 PM
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Recording of today's MCB meeting regardingBEP-specific objectives



    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Joe Sontag 
    To: joe harcz Comcast ; Larry Posont ; Lydia Schuck ; John Scott 
    Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:51
    Subject: Re: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


    Agreed, and I think, although I am all for any legal tactics and procedures that may become necessary to keep the State Plate facility in our program, I have always had serious questions about the legality of "suspending the rules" tactic that the commission Board has used at least once before regarding the Business Enterprise Program.  It's high time that someone who is "somebody" asks for  a memorandum of advice from the AG's office on this matter.

    I can't help saying that none of the current problems would be biting us in tender places if the BEP had only done its job in the first place.

    Joe Sontag
    ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: joe harcz Comcast 
      To: Joe Sontag 
      Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:49
      Subject: Re: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


      By tthe way Joe and all I can find nothing in PA 260, statute or regulations where the SLA, the EOC, or the MCB can abridge or otherwise alter the conditions of PA 260 period. End of story.

      Only the legislature can amend or repeal PA 260. Ironic eh given the location at issue?

      Oh and when Zanger talks about the legislators or legislature being unhappy she is blowing smoke and outright lying.

      For she is actually talking about building managers being unhappy.

      The last time I checked they were state employees and not elected officials ergo legislators.

      I don't see any State Rep. or State Senator designation on any bloody building manager in this state.

      Besides even if it were the case that would be a violation of various conflicts of interest laws...But I digress...

      If the Commission votes to rubber stamp Cannon and zanger's so-called "one time exception" then they are derelict in their duties and their sworn obligation to uphold PA 260 and other relevent laws as their primary obligation.

      Now, I'm not saying the Commissioners would do that mind you. It is a hyhypothetical situation.

      But here is something clear the Director and Zanger have scheduled a special meeting for February 8, 2012 to try to have the MCB Commissioners rubber stamp illegal activity and to effectively rubber stamp violations of PA 260.

      For that alone Cannon and zanger should be summarily fired on the spot and for cause, documented cause at that!

      Joe

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Joe Sontag 
        To: VENDORSMI List 
        Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:42 PM
        Subject: Recording of today's MCB meeting regarding BEP-specific objectives


        Here it is, minus the first few minutes due to either operator error or minor equipment malfunction.

        Sorry to say that we're still being forced to fight for every scrap of information that used to be available for the asking and that is required by federal law.  I say that certain people in high places are afraid of what might happen if the people they've been lying to, their bosses, their political contacts, their clients etc. should find out what has truly been going on at MCB and the BEP for many years.

        You may download the recording at:

        http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/MCB01312012.2.MP3

        Joe Sontag


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


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


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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120201/4d11a91b/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  1 22:56:52 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:56:52 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] is this a conflict of interests? hell
	yes by anymeasure...
Message-ID: <C7B9B3DE995A4F0CBBF6E06E7B677BB2@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 4:03 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] is this a conflict of interests? hell yes by 
anymeasure...


January 30, 2012



Janet McClelland, Executive Secretary

State Board of Ethics

Michigan Department of Civil Service

P.O. Box 30002

Lansing, MI 48909



Dear Ms. McCIelland:



I am requesting an Advisory Opinion as to whether ethical concerns exist 
because a manager working for the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) 
also serves as a member of the New Horizons board, a non-profit service 
organization.



The Commission is a public rehabilitation agency, located within the 
Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) providing an 
array of services to individuals who are blind or visually impaired, 
including vocational rehabilitation services, independent living services 
for the older blind, youth low vision services for visually impaired 
students in the K-12 system, as well as our Business Enterprise Program 
(BEP), serving as the State Licensing Agency (SLA) for blind entrepreneurs 
running food service facilities on State and Federal properties.  MCB also 
operates a residential Training Center in Kalamazoo, where students learn 
skills of blindness to aid them on their path toward independence.



The Commission was created by Public Act 260 of 1978, and under the statute 
the Commission board is comprised of five members appointed by the Governor. 
Each Commissioner serves for a 3 year term with at least 3 of the 5 
appointees being legally blind and each serves as a voting member of the 
Board.



New Horizons is a nationally recognized, private, not-for-profit 
rehabilitation agency providing quality vocational training and job 
placement in Michigan since 1964 with a primary goal focused on preparing 
people with disabilities for competitive employment and providing the 
necessary skills for consumers to assume responsibility for their own 
long-term success.  New Horizons works with referral and funding sources to 
help make employment services more readily available and accessible to 
persons with disabilities.



The ethics question which has prompted this request for an Advisory Opinion 
centers on Ms. Gwen McNeal, the Manager of the Commission?s Detroit Office, 
who also serves as a New Horizons board member.  A conflict of interest 
question has been raised by a commissioner, as well as by one of two blind 
consumer organizations in the state, the National Federation of the Blind 
(NFB) of Michigan in a resolution adopted at the organization?s state 
convention last November.  All three commissioners are also NFB members, and 
the Commission?s vice-chair is also the President of NFB of Michigan.



Ms. McNeal was first appointed to the New Horizons Board in 2008, with the 
verbal support and approval of her supervisor, Leamon Jones, MCB?s Director 
of Consumer Services.  Ms. McNeal contends that her service on the board is 
not in conflict with her duties as MCB Southeast Region Manager, asserting 
that at no time did she, as a board member, vote on anything coming before 
the board related to financial interactions, contractual arrangements or 
programmatic services with the Commission.  She also rejects as false the 
contentions of the NFB resolution challenging her board service as a 
conflict of interest.



In addition to the points raised in this letter you will also find several 
attachments that may be helpful in formulating an opinion.  These 
attachments include several pieces of correspondence and excerpts from 
minutes.



Is it a conflict of interest under the State Ethics Act, MCL 15.342, for 
Gwen McNeal, a state employee and Manager of MCB?s Southeast Region, to 
continue to serve on the Board of New Horizons?  Thank you for considering 
our request for an Advisory Opinion on these issues.  If you would like any 
additional information please contact me directly at 335-4265.



Sincerely,







Patrick D. Cannon

State Director



Cc:    Steve Arwood

          Gwen McNeal

          New Horizons?

          Marie Lisle

          Melanie Brown

          Leamon Jones

          Larry Posont


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




From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 14:41:57 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:41:57 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <949BCCE9DB0F423BA2AAA7B0A9158243@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor


Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB meeting?

Joe
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 
  Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM
  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor


  Mr. Harcz:

   

  Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
  To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
  Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  Subject: simple question inventory vendor

   

  January 31 2012 Inquiry

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

  joeharcz at comcast.net

   

  Patrick Cannon

  Constance Zanger

  James Hull

  MCB

   

   

   

  Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP program referenced today?

   

  "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $6,215.00"

   

   

  A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

   

  Sincerely,

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

   

  Cc: MCB Board

  Cc: EOC Chair

  Cc: NFB MI

  Cc: several
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/9e1c3ecc/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 15:02:19 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:02:19 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <4355D1E2A9A64159B82E636952E87451@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor


Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM
To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB meeting?

 

Joe

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

  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

  Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) 

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Mr. Harcz:

   

  Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
  To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
  Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  Subject: simple question inventory vendor

   

  January 31 2012 Inquiry

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

  joeharcz at comcast.net

   

  Patrick Cannon

  Constance Zanger

  James Hull

  MCB

   

   

   

  Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP program referenced today?

   

  "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $6,215.00"

   

   

  A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

   

  Sincerely,

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

   

  Cc: MCB Board

  Cc: EOC Chair

  Cc: NFB MI

  Cc: several
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/a55c6d8c/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 15:19:51 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:19:51 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <6C9667E11A5B407E8C43A6757D1FCB94@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor


Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?

Here's a little more:
Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$17,501.96

 

 

Source:

 

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

 

 

And then these:

 

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,805.00

 

 

 

Source:

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 
  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM
  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor


  Hello, Joe;

   

  Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those she provided to B E P.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM
  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?

   

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM
    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB meeting?

     

    Joe

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

      From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

      To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

      Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) 

      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

      Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

       

      Mr. Harcz:

       

      Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.

       

      Constance Zanger

      Business Enterprise Program Manager

      Michigan Commission for the Blind

      517/335.3639

      517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

      From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
      To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
      Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
      Subject: simple question inventory vendor

       

      January 31 2012 Inquiry

       

      Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

      joeharcz at comcast.net

       

      Patrick Cannon

      Constance Zanger

      James Hull

      MCB

       

       

       

      Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP program referenced today?

       

      "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

       

      Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

      Payment Totals

      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

      $6,215.00"

       

       

      A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

       

      Cc: MCB Board

      Cc: EOC Chair

      Cc: NFB MI

      Cc: several
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/b0d24644/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 15:33:11 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:33:11 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <52D320F0C86C48A3A6899B4D7B17FF6C@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor


Thank you for the prompt response!


Sincerely,

Joe
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 
  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM
  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor


  B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year 2011.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM
  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?

   

  Here's a little more:

  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $17,501.96

   

   

  Source:

   

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

   

   

  And then these:

   

  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $6,805.00

   

   

   

  Source:

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Hello, Joe;

     

    Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those she provided to B E P.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM
    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?

     

    http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

      From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

      To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

      Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

      Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

       

      Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

       

      Constance Zanger

      Business Enterprise Program Manager

      Michigan Commission for the Blind

      517/335.3639

      517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

      From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM
      To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
      Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

       

      Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB meeting?

       

      Joe

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

        From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

        To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

        Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) 

        Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

        Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

         

        Mr. Harcz:

         

        Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.

         

        Constance Zanger

        Business Enterprise Program Manager

        Michigan Commission for the Blind

        517/335.3639

        517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

        From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
        Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
        To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
        Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
        Subject: simple question inventory vendor

         

        January 31 2012 Inquiry

         

        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

        joeharcz at comcast.net

         

        Patrick Cannon

        Constance Zanger

        James Hull

        MCB

         

         

         

        Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP program referenced today?

         

        "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

         

        Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

        Payment Totals

        LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

        $6,215.00"

         

         

        A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

         

        Sincerely,

         

        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

         

        Cc: MCB Board

        Cc: EOC Chair

        Cc: NFB MI

        Cc: several
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/be7fc3b0/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 15:39:31 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:39:31 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <E15E9BCA928E4E2B8EE7208A0365D99D@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor


B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year 2011.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?

 

Here's a little more:

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$17,501.96

 

 

Source:

 

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

 

 

And then these:

 

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,805.00

 

 

 

Source:

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Hello, Joe;

   

  Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those she provided to B E P.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM
  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?

   

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM
    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB meeting?

     

    Joe

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

      From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

      To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

      Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) 

      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

      Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

       

      Mr. Harcz:

       

      Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.

       

      Constance Zanger

      Business Enterprise Program Manager

      Michigan Commission for the Blind

      517/335.3639

      517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

      From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
      Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
      To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
      Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
      Subject: simple question inventory vendor

       

      January 31 2012 Inquiry

       

      Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

      joeharcz at comcast.net

       

      Patrick Cannon

      Constance Zanger

      James Hull

      MCB

       

       

       

      Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP program referenced today?

       

      "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

       

      Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

      Payment Totals

      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

      $6,215.00"

       

       

      A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

       

      Sincerely,

       

      Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

       

      Cc: MCB Board

      Cc: EOC Chair

      Cc: NFB MI

      Cc: several
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/1b91a984/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 17:56:45 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:56:45 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
Message-ID: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$948.36
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/52655d36/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 22:24:43 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:24:43 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <D776A4AF33FB4EF2A810A6B65EBD9F49@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor


Dear Ms. Zanger,

Do you actually have the entire equipment inventory report that you referenced in the last MCB meeting and its "findings". If so I and others would sure like to see it in accessible format of course.

Thank you.

Joe


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 
  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 
  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM
  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor


  B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year 2011.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM
  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?

   

  Here's a little more:

  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $17,501.96

   

   

  Source:

   

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

   

   

  And then these:

   

  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $6,805.00

   

   

   

  Source:

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Hello, Joe;

     

    Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those she provided to B E P.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM
    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?

     

    http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

      From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

      To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

      Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

      Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

       

      Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

       

      Constance Zanger

      Business Enterprise Program Manager

      Michigan Commission for the Blind

      517/335.3639

      517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

      From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM
      To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
      Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

       

      Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB meeting?

       

      Joe

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

        From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

        To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

        Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) 

        Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

        Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

         

        Mr. Harcz:

         

        Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.

         

        Constance Zanger

        Business Enterprise Program Manager

        Michigan Commission for the Blind

        517/335.3639

        517/335.5140 (facsimile)


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

        From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
        Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
        To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
        Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
        Subject: simple question inventory vendor

         

        January 31 2012 Inquiry

         

        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

        joeharcz at comcast.net

         

        Patrick Cannon

        Constance Zanger

        James Hull

        MCB

         

         

         

        Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP program referenced today?

         

        "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

         

        Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

        Payment Totals

        LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

        $6,215.00"

         

         

        A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

         

        Sincerely,

         

        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

         

        Cc: MCB Board

        Cc: EOC Chair

        Cc: NFB MI

        Cc: several
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120203/d2587bda/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb  3 22:52:08 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:52:08 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: simple question inventory vendor
Message-ID: <6E7FCB6C5BDC467B87B121AC34739081@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: "Larry Posont MCB Comm." <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
Cc: "lydia Schuck MCB Comm." <laschuck at juno.com>; <Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>; 
"John Scott MCB Comm." <jcscot at sbcglobal.net>; <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 5:24 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: simple question inventory vendor


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: joe harcz Comcast
> To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 5:24 PM
> Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
> Dear Ms. Zanger,
>
> Do you actually have the entire equipment inventory report that you 
> referenced in the last MCB meeting and its "findings". If so I and others 
> would sure like to see it in accessible format of course.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joe
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>  To: 'joe harcz Comcast'
>  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA)
>  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM
>  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>  B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal 
> year 2011.
>
>
>
>  Constance Zanger
>
>  Business Enterprise Program Manager
>
>  Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>  517/335.3639
>
>  517/335.5140 (facsimile)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
>  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM
>  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>  Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?
>
>
>
>  Here's a little more:
>
>  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011
>
>
>
>  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.
>
>
>
>  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows
>
>  Agency Name
>
>  Payment Totals
>
>  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
>
>  $17,501.96
>
>
>
>
>
>  Source:
>
>
>
> 
> http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending
>
>
>
>
>
>  And then these:
>
>
>
>  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012
>
>
>
>  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.
>
>
>
>  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows
>
>  Agency Name
>
>  Payment Totals
>
>  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
>
>  $6,805.00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Source:
>
> 
> http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending
>
>    ----- Original Message ----- 
>
>    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>
>    To: 'joe harcz Comcast'
>
>    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA)
>
>    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM
>
>    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>    Hello, Joe;
>
>
>
>    Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory 
> Affairs paid to Ms. Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services 
> to the Department than those she provided to B E P.
>
>
>
>    Constance Zanger
>
>    Business Enterprise Program Manager
>
>    Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>    517/335.3639
>
>    517/335.5140 (facsimile)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
>    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM
>    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>    So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?
>
>
>
> 
> http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending
>
>      ----- Original Message ----- 
>
>      From: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>
>      To: 'joe harcz Comcast'
>
>      Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James 
> (LARA)
>
>      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM
>
>      Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>      Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry 
> LaFerriere.
>
>
>
>      Constance Zanger
>
>      Business Enterprise Program Manager
>
>      Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>      517/335.3639
>
>      517/335.5140 (facsimile)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
>      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM
>      To: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>      Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>      Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced 
> at the most recent MCB meeting?
>
>
>
>      Joe
>
>        ----- Original Message ----- 
>
>        From: Zanger, Connie (LARA)
>
>        To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
>
>        Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB 
> Comm. ; John Scott MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, 
> Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
>
>        Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM
>
>        Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>        Mr. Harcz:
>
>
>
>        Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the 
> equipment inventory for the Business Enterprise Program.
>
>
>
>        Constance Zanger
>
>        Business Enterprise Program Manager
>
>        Michigan Commission for the Blind
>
>        517/335.3639
>
>        517/335.5140 (facsimile)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>        From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
>        Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM
>        To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
>        Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB 
> Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; 
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
>        Subject: simple question inventory vendor
>
>
>
>        January 31 2012 Inquiry
>
>
>
>        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>
>        joeharcz at comcast.net
>
>
>
>        Patrick Cannon
>
>        Constance Zanger
>
>        James Hull
>
>        MCB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the 
> inventory for the BEP program referenced today?
>
>
>
>        "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011
>
>
>
>        Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this 
> agency.
>
>        Payment Totals
>
>        LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
>
>        $6,215.00"
>
>
>
>
>
>        A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.
>
>
>
>        Sincerely,
>
>
>
>        Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.
>
>
>
>        Cc: MCB Board
>
>        Cc: EOC Chair
>
>        Cc: NFB MI
>
>        Cc: several
> _______________________________________________
> nfbmi-talk mailing list
> nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbmi-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net 




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  4 23:58:23 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 18:58:23 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
References: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E>
Message-ID: <A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat>

This is the temporary operator who filed no monthly reports and made no payments whatever to the BEP during her one-year or more term at the Westside YMCA facility and as a temp at the Operations Center after the death of Jim Cudney.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: joe harcz Comcast 
  To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting


  Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $948.36



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/suncat0%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120204/1d67819a/attachment.html>

From f.wurtzel at att.net  Sun Feb  5 04:58:06 2012
From: f.wurtzel at att.net (Fred Wurtzel)
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:58:06 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
In-Reply-To: <A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat>
References: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <007d01cce3c2$c033e9d0$409bbd70$@att.net>

Hi Joe,

 

man, will it ever stop?

 

Warmest Regards,

 

Fred

 

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:58 PM
To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

 

This is the temporary operator who filed no monthly reports and made no
payments whatever to the BEP during her one-year or more term at the
Westside YMCA facility and as a temp at the Operations Center after the
death of Jim Cudney.

 

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

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

To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56

Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

 

Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$948.36


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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/suncat0%40gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120204/fa6e1066/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sun Feb  5 15:07:38 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:07:38 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
References: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E><A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat>
	<007d01cce3c2$c033e9d0$409bbd70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <EBA379B911CF42CE8609C451EA451E95@YOUR7C60552B9E>

It ain't over 'til its over.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in ongoing misappropriations of funds to sighted and blithly contemptuous individuals and the management that keeps feeding these beasts.

Joe H
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Wurtzel 
  To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 11:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting


  Hi Joe,

   

  man, will it ever stop?

   

  Warmest Regards,

   

  Fred

   

  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
  Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:58 PM
  To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

   

  This is the temporary operator who filed no monthly reports and made no payments whatever to the BEP during her one-year or more term at the Westside YMCA facility and as a temp at the Operations Center after the death of Jim Cudney.

   

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

    From: joe harcz Comcast 

    To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56

    Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

     

    Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

     

    Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

     

    Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

    Agency Name

    Payment Totals

    LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

    $948.36


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

    _______________________________________________
    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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120205/6a4c642e/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sun Feb  5 22:38:19 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:38:19 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] an attempt to repeal ad hoc pa 260
Message-ID: <CA34F06C61BF4359838D9A8A459E818D@YOUR7C60552B9E>

MCB Special Commission Board Meeting via conference call, February 8, 2012

Michigan Commission for the Blind Logo The Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) will hold a special commission board meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday,
February 8, via teleconference. To call in to this meeting dial 1-877-873-8017 and enter passcode 7502991# (pound).

The agenda will be posted here as soon as it is available.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120205/40dee442/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sun Feb  5 22:45:27 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:45:27 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] must have been put on mcb cite this weekend
Message-ID: <CC1D4051C72D460CBE8A1B12A63EAB45@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Did all you commissioners get this?

Just got it from the MCB web site. Copyied and pasted for your convenience below. Vendor also might be interested...

Joe

1

MCB FY12 VR Status Report

October 1, 2011, through January 31, 2012

(Note: Two tables follow with reformatted versions below second table.)

Table 1, Monthly VR Case Status

Table with 8 columns and 8 rows

Month

VR Case Status
 


Referral

(00)

Application

(02)

Placement

(22)

Successful Closure (26)

Unsuccessful Closure (28)
    


Number

Cost

Number

Cost

October 2011

1

2

9

3

$65,053.60

11

$95.00

November 2011

6

5

15

4

$157,555.81

14

$365.00

December 2011

6

16

11

5

$22,733.99

4

$500.00

January 2012

25

21

6

6

$261,984.45

17

$33,121.77

 Year-to-date Totals

38

44

41

18

$507,327.85

46

$34,081.77
table end

Table 2, FY 12 Allocations, FYTD Spent, and Percent Spent by MCB Program

Table with 4 columns and 5 rows

MCB Program Allocations

FY12 Allocations

FYTD Spent

FYTD % Spent

Client Services (IL, VR and SE)

 $10,784,336.60

$3,677,909.08

34%

BEP

 $4,582,997.87

$924,082.51

20%

MCBTC

 $4,309,600.70

$2,467,448.36

57%

BTBL

 $1,185,598.53

$442,588.12

37%
table end

Table 1, Monthly VR Case Status

October 2011 VR Case Status Referral (00) 1, Application (02) 2, Placement (22) 9, Successful Closure (26) Number 3, Successful Closure (26) Cost $65,053.60,
Unsuccessful Closure (28) Number 11, Unsuccessful Closure (28) Cost $95.00

November 2011 VR Case Status Referral (00) 6, Application (02) 5, Placement (22) 15, Successful Closure (26) Number 4, Successful Closure (26) Cost $157,555.81,
Unsuccessful Closure (28) Number 14, Unsuccessful Closure (28) Cost $365.00

December 2011 VR Case Status Referral (00) 6, Application (02) 16, Placement (22) 11, Successful Closure (26) Number 5, Successful Closure (26) Cost $22,733.99,
Unsuccessful Closure (28) Number 4, Unsuccessful Closure (28) Cost $500.00

January 2012 VR Case Status Referral (00) 25, Application (02) 21, Placement (22) 6, Successful Closure (26) Number 6, Successful Closure (26) Cost $261,984.45,
Unsuccessful Closure (28) Number 17, Unsuccessful Closure (28) Cost $33,121.77

Year-to-Date Totals VR Case Status Referral (00) 38, Application (02) 44, Placement (22) 41, Successful Closure (26) Number 18, Successful Closure (26)
Cost $507,327.85, Unsuccessful Closure (28) Number 46, Unsuccessful Closure (28) Cost $34, 081.77

Table 2, FY 12 Allocations, FYTD Spent, and Percent Spent by MCB Program

Client Services (IL, VR and SE), FY 12 Allocations $10,784,336.60, FYTD Spent $3,677,909.08, FYTD Percent Spent 34%

B E P, FY 12 Allocations $4,582,997.87, FYTD Spent $924,082.51, FYTD Percent Spent 20%

MCBTC, FY 12 Allocations $4,309,600.70, FYTD Spent $2,467,448.36, FYTD Percent Spent 57%

BTBL, FY 12 Allocations $1,185,598.53, FYTD Spent $442,588.12, FYTD Percent Spent 37%
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120205/7398a2d3/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 13:10:15 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:10:15 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
References: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <979307D62CC64008A1E7593AFB28ADEB@YOUR7C60552B9E>

But our master, LARA says we can't have a "trainer" because set asides are down....

Hmm...Now just who is responsable for ensuring that set asides are collected?

Oh but then who is responsible for ensuring quality, highly trained blind people have priority to these sites and run them as models of blind entreneurship in action?






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
  Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting


  This is the temporary operator who filed no monthly reports and made no payments whatever to the BEP during her one-year or more term at the Westside YMCA facility and as a temp at the Operations Center after the death of Jim Cudney.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: joe harcz Comcast 
    To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 
    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting


    Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

     

    Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

     

    Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

    Agency Name

    Payment Totals

    LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

    $948.36



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


    _______________________________________________
    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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120206/ee39be6b/attachment.html>

From f.wurtzel at att.net  Mon Feb  6 13:21:36 2012
From: f.wurtzel at att.net (Fred Wurtzel)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:21:36 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
In-Reply-To: <979307D62CC64008A1E7593AFB28ADEB@YOUR7C60552B9E>
References: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E>	<A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat>
	<979307D62CC64008A1E7593AFB28ADEB@YOUR7C60552B9E>
Message-ID: <020f01cce4d2$41223e10$c366ba30$@att.net>

Hi,

 

I missed the point that MCB  was being denied a position based on
set-asides.  Who said it and in what context.  If they said it, it is the
height of hypocrisy.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Fred

 

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:10 AM
To: Joe Sontag; NFB of Michigan Vendors List
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

 

But our master, LARA says we can't have a "trainer" because set asides are
down....

 

Hmm...Now just who is responsable for ensuring that set asides are
collected?

 

Oh but then who is responsible for ensuring quality, highly trained blind
people have priority to these sites and run them as models of blind
entreneurship in action?

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

From: Joe Sontag <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  

To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List <mailto:vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>  

Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

 

This is the temporary operator who filed no monthly reports and made no
payments whatever to the BEP during her one-year or more term at the
Westside YMCA facility and as a temp at the Operations Center after the
death of Jim Cudney.

 

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

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

To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56

Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

 

Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$948.36


  _____  


_______________________________________________
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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.ne
t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120206/4d150cce/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 13:37:55 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:37:55 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting
References: <89BE6195D8C040B29094347F77F36720@YOUR7C60552B9E>	<A5A9EA9A39F7470B8CBADCB7E45E4AD9@Reputercat><979307D62CC64008A1E7593AFB28ADEB@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<020f01cce4d2$41223e10$c366ba30$@att.net>
Message-ID: <BC23E0EC09B043A0AC6937382902E968@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Actually that is what Al Pohl supposedly told Zanger in denying the PA position....

Of course, no one has seen Pohl's memo in those regards, but I don't doubt he said it. Because he has said openly the MCB board is only advisory and we, and MRS for that matter are only the play toys of LARA and the state apparatchuk and the likes of the CRPs anyways....

That is the way we've always been veiwed by those petty tyrants.

Joe
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Fred Wurtzel 
  To: 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:21 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting


  Hi,

   

  I missed the point that MCB  was being denied a position based on set-asides.  Who said it and in what context.  If they said it, it is the height of hypocrisy.

   

  Warm Regards,

   

  Fred

   

  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe harcz Comcast
  Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:10 AM
  To: Joe Sontag; NFB of Michigan Vendors List
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

   

  But our master, LARA says we can't have a "trainer" because set asides are down....

   

  Hmm...Now just who is responsable for ensuring that set asides are collected?

   

  Oh but then who is responsible for ensuring quality, highly trained blind people have priority to these sites and run them as models of blind entreneurship in action?

   

   

   

   

   

   

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

    From: Joe Sontag 

    To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List 

    Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 6:58 PM

    Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

     

    This is the temporary operator who filed no monthly reports and made no payments whatever to the BEP during her one-year or more term at the Westside YMCA facility and as a temp at the Operations Center after the death of Jim Cudney.

     

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

      From: joe harcz Comcast 

      To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

      Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:56

      Subject: [Vendorsmi] this is interesting

       

      Payments to MARJORIE STINE for fiscal year 2010

       

      Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

       

      Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

      Agency Name

      Payment Totals

      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

      $948.36


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

      _______________________________________________
      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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net



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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120206/66812c54/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 13:38:14 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:38:14 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] the palace coup
Message-ID: <CAA5346EE40B48EAA20C1AE28A5A440C@YOUR7C60552B9E>

February 6 2012 The Palace Coup

 

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

 

Re: Open Letter Tomorrow?s Emergency Meeting MCB

 

 

Colleagues,

 

 

Tomorrow there will be a so-called ?emergency meeting? of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. It has been called by Pat Cannon and effectively Constance Zanger the nominal head of our Business Enterprise Program. What this meeting is meant to do is to effectively on a ?one time basis? allow other State of Michigan personnel to decide just what operator will operate the ?State Plate? which is the mandated location in our Legislative Office building.

 

Now, this is effectively an insidious assault upon the very act, Public Act 260 that creates a separate commission in the first place. One of the things that having a separate commission does is to mandate facilities on state properties. That includes the very location used by our legislators, ironic as that is for they passed Public Act 260 in the first place and they, the legislature is the only body with constitutional authority to nullify it.

 

Make no mistake about it I?ve lived in a state with no separate commission. The mandate on state properties is critical for without them our opportunities would be limited to Federal locations only.

 

But, more importantly wouldn?t each and every blind person be up in arms if our House and Senate sought to repeal PA 260 outright?

 

Yet, again this agency is effectively trying to have the Elected Operators Committee and then the MCB Board to illegally nullify PA 2690. Make no mistake about it neither the agency, nor the EOC, nor the MCB Board have authority to do this in an ad hoc manner. I see no, and I repeat no Senator or Representative next to anyone?s name here.

 

 

For that matter neither the building manager?s who think they can run this program and who Zanger and MCB management always defer to being the lap dogs they are to have those appellations either. They are not legislators! They are petty dictators and simple bureaucrats who constantly exceed constitutional authorities.

 

 

This is tantamount to an act of collective suicide for it goes right at the very core of MCB?s existence.  It goes right to the heart of the matter ? our very reason to exist as a separate commission.

 

Now if we wish to abide this act of mass suicide so be it. But recognize it for what it is.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Joe Harcz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120206/cbcc0d10/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Feb  6 19:55:24 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:55:24 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] still no agenda
Message-ID: <C424751F954F465CA8B250F12534A82F@YOUR7C60552B9E>

I wonder if commissioners have gotten any more details except verbally about tomorrow's meeting pasted from MCB's web site just now here:
MCB Special Commission Board Meeting via conference call, February 8, 2012

Michigan Commission for the Blind Logo The Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) will hold a special commission board meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday,
February 8, via teleconference. To call in to this meeting dial 1-877-873-8017 and enter passcode 7502991# (pound).

The agenda will be posted here as soon as it is available.

People with disabilities requiring additional services (such as materials in alternative format) in order to participate in the meeting should call Sue
Luzenski at (517) 335-4265.



Am I to understand that we have to have this emergency meeting to have them vote on stuff that won't be made available to them until the last minute?

How does that jive with the Open Meetings Act eh?

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120206/5854312e/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 15:47:56 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:47:56 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] venders should have this info too
Message-ID: <252AC6A081D6434196CCDDE7C0DC10D2@YOUR7C60552B9E>

February 7 2012 Request for Draft Minutes and Packets

 

 

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

To: Patrick D. Cannon

Director Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

Commissioners MCB

 

 

All,

 

I am writing today to receive the draft minutes and all documents (commissioner?s packets) for the past two meetings of the MCB Board. Those have past the 8 working day deadline under the Open Meetings Act and moreover since they are commission meetings these documents were required to be made readily available to blind advocates pro forma, in a timely manner and in the most effective format of the individual under the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and in several citations too numerous to denote here. Note all documents related to meetings of the MCB board must be made readily available again affirmatively let alone upon request and thus this is not a FOIA issue.

 

In addition I?m requesting all documents related to tomorrow?s so-called ?emergency meeting? of the MCB in accessible format.

 

To wit send them to my e-mail address listed above as either/or plain text enclosures or as Word documents.

 

Yours Truly,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: MCBVI

Cc: MPAS

Cc: S. Arwood, LARA

Cc: RSA

Cc: Great Lakes ADA TAC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/415cf1c7/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 15:56:04 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:56:04 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] still no details
Message-ID: <3606267D60C642B8B432883AE84F1CC1@YOUR7C60552B9E>

First it is the Commission that should be setting the agenda for its meetings. Secondly, the board doesn't have ttimely delivery of information related to tomorrow's meeting. Nor does the public for here again is what is on MCB's web site just minutes ago pasted for your convenience and in quotes:

"MCB Special Commission Board Meeting via conference call, February 8, 2012

Michigan Commission for the Blind Logo The Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) will hold a special commission board meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday,
February 8, via teleconference. To call in to this meeting dial 1-877-873-8017 and enter passcode 7502991# (pound).

The agenda will be posted here as soon as it is available.

People with disabilities requiring additional services (such as materials in alternative format) in order to participate in the meeting should call Sue
Luzenski at (517) 335-4265."


Oh by the way the information I asked for in prior posts goes to the reasonable accommodations and access to meetings including documents.  Note the last few sentences.


Sincerely,

Joe Harcz

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/63a03f30/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 18:36:38 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:36:38 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] year to date
Message-ID: <29F947C332704EF3BBF1A935327E05CD@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Source:

 

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Categories?y=2012&v=JERRY%20A%20MCVETY&a=641&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

 

 

 

 

 

 

Payments to JERRY A MCVETY by LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a category description to view payments to this vendor by this category.

 

Table with 3 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Category Description

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

Contractual Services Supplies and Materials

$14,318.06
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/d4741791/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 20:47:43 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:47:43 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: MCB Special Meeting Agenda and Attachment
Message-ID: <CE415558D98E489C872F17053D1578A0@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:05 PM
Subject: MCB Special Meeting Agenda and Attachment


 

 

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING

 

201 N. Washington Square

Victor Center Building

2nd Floor Conference Room

Lansing, MI

February 8, 2012

9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.

VIA Conference Call

 

To call in to this meeting:

Dial:  1-877-873-8017

Passcode:  7502991#

 

 

I.             CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND 

DETERMINATION OF QUORUM                                  9:00

          

II.           DISCUSSION OF STATE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES CAFETERIA PROPOSAL        9:05

 

III.          PUBLIC COMMENT                                                        9:25

 

IV.         ADJOURN                                                                        9:30

 

 

 

 

 

The meeting site is accessible.  Individuals attending the meeting are requested to refrain from using heavily scented personal care products in order to enhance accessibility for everyone.  People with disabilities requiring additional accommodations (such as materials in alternative format) in order to participate in the meeting should call Sue Luzenski at 517/335-4265 by February 7, 2012.

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/4b66a22e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Special Commission meeting agenda February 8.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 50688 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/4b66a22e/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Bid announcement i e solicitation 2012 Jan 30.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/4b66a22e/attachment-0001.doc>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb  7 20:59:24 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:59:24 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] the attachmentfor tomorrow
Message-ID: <F9B3694AC9B544FF9E8EF345082AA18B@YOUR7C60552B9E>

First draft:  January 30, 2012

EOC Motions incorporated on February 6, 2012 

 

The Commission for the Blind is seeking a food service provider to operate the House of Representatives cafeteria located at 124 N. Capitol Ave in Lansing, MI.  Interested bidders are required to submit five (5) copies of a proposal in both print and electronic formats in a sealed envelope to the Commission?s Offices on the 2nd floor at the Victor Office Center at 201 N. Washington Sq, Lansing, MI, 48909  no later than 5 p.m. on February __.  Proposals should be hand delivered or sent U.S mail; this is a sealed bid solicitation and the Commission will not accept faxed or e-mailed proposals for consideration.  The Commission may use fax or e-mail communications with a successful bidder once an award has been made.  The Commission is not responsible for late submissions due to irregularities in mail delivery.  No late proposals will be considered for award.  No bids will be opened or evaluated until the business day following the final acceptance date.  Additionally, prospective bidders are required to attend a pre-award walk-through of the facility at 10 a.m. on February __.  At this walk through complete equipment inventory will be provided for use in the development of proposals by interested bidders.  Questions will need to be submitted in writing to the Commission within seven (7) days of this walk through so that all interested parties can be given the additional information.  E-mail submission of any questions will be accepted and should be sent to hullj at michigan.gov.  Failure to attend the walk through will disqualify potential bidders from award.   Incomplete proposals will also disqualify a potential bidder for award.  

 

The technical proposal must include necessary information to enable evaluators to form a concrete conclusion of the bidder?s ability to perform complete project management of Food Service Operations.  Any successful bidder will be required to comply with all Commission for the Blind rules and regulations regarding the Business Enterprise Program.  A complete copy of the Promulgated Rules will be provided at the facility walk through.  A non-licensed bidder who is awarded the facility that fails to maintain required standards at the facility will be notified in writing of the deficiency and will have thirty(30) days to correct the problem or will be removed from the facility.  A licensed bidder awarded the facility will be subject to the removal procedures outlined in the BEP Promulgated Rules for non-compliance.  Either party may terminate this agreement at any time with ninety (90) days written notice to the other party, excepting that the Commission cannot remove a licensee without cause as outlined in the promulgated rules.  The Commission reserves the right to request additional information as needed to clarify any proposal submitted.    Proposals for consideration must include all of the following:

 

?        Resume and supporting educational transcripts of the proposed manager;

?        Proof of current National Restaurant Association Serve Safe Certification for the proposed manager;

?        A complete business plan to include:

o       Organizational structure including management flow chart;

o       Standard Operating Procedures and associated Operational Standards;

o       Financial Prospectus;

o       daily and weekly menus including a catering menu;

o       employee position descriptions;

o       Employee training in sanitation, service, food preparation, and marketing;

o       Marketing and Promotions plan;

o       Cleaning and maintenance schedule;

?        Quality Assurance Plan to identify the steps taken to maintain a high level of service, identify deficiencies and steps to be taken to eliminate deficiencies;

?        A picture and/or description of employee uniforms;

?        Current and relevant references for past performance, including current or recent food service experience with detailed explanations of the scope of work, employee responsibilities, and customer satisfaction.  References must include contact information that is up to date.

 

As this is a facility within the Commission for the Blind?s Business Enterprise Program (BEP), preference will be given to proposals from qualified, or cafeteria certified, licensees or other licensees who engage a qualified teaming partnership.  All proposals submitted either by licensees or outside bidders must include a mechanism to provide a blind employee presence within the facility throughout the entire operational period.  Proposals not clearly identifying this presence will not be considered for placement.

 

At the conclusion of the bid period, all qualified complete proposals will be reviewed by an interview panel consisting of Commission for the Blind staff, Elected Operator?s Committee representatives, and building management.  Interviews will be offered to the responsible person(s) submitting a qualified and complete proposal and will be conducted in Lansing by the same panel who reviewed the proposals.  The facility will be offered to the successful bidder based on the results of the face-to-face interviews and associated business plan.

 

Should you have any questions regarding this request for bids, please feel free to contact the Commission.  You may speak to the Assistant Program Manager, Mr. James Hull, or facility Promotional Agent, Mr. Josh Hoskins.  Mr. Hull may be reached at 517/373.2064 and Mr. Hoskins at 517/335.4263.

 

**Amendment 1 effective 2/6/12 by EOC motion:  That should a non-licensed bidder be awarded the facility that they be willing to engage in negotiations to develop a teaming partnership with an interested BEP licensee;

 

**Amendment 2 effective 2/6/12 by EOC motion:  That should the award be to a non-licensee that they be willing and able to provide training to an interested licensee in cafeteria service and management in either a paid or unpaid position as determined by the two parties.

 

The following information is provided to assist prospective bidders in developing the required business plan:

?        The Commission for the Blind will provide all equipment for the facility and will maintain all equipment provided minus the associated labor deductible associated with all BEP facilities.  Alterations to the equipment may not be done, including additions and removal, without the prior written consent of the Commission. All equipment provided at the start of operations as well as throughout must be returned in like condition to the Commission at the completion of the operational period.  

?        An initial product inventory of $7000 will be provided for the facility by the Commission in accordance with policy.  The initial inventory will be determined by cooperation between the Commission and the selected vendor.  The value of the initial inventory provided by the Commission must be returned at the end of the operational period.  

?        Reports on the profit and loss of the facility must be provided to the Commission on a monthly basis, due by the 15th day of the month following the reporting period, and a 10% Set Aside Fee as calculated against business net proceeds must be paid to the Commission postmarked by the 25th day of the month following the report period.

?        Building Population:  The House of Representatives cafeteria is located in the Anderson House Office Building.  As this houses the state legislature and they are not always in session at the building, the population may vary as follows:

o       2011 legislative session days:  103

o       during session days the building population can be 800 - 1000 people

o       General daily population:  500

o        2012 legislative session days currently scheduled:  90  

?        Facility annual sales for the past three years are as follows:

o       2011-$244,025

o       2010-$300,851

o       2009-$253,712

Additional financial data, including a complete profit and loss statement for the past three years is available upon request.

?        Any alterations to the menu, other than seasonal adjustments, including pricing (other than commodities), service level, operational standards, cleaning and maintenance schedule, or other operational considerations provided in the initial business plan must be relayed in writing to the Commission, Elected Operator?s Committee, and Building Management and be posted in the facility at least two weeks prior to the effective date of the change.  The facility manager must meet with the Commission, Elected Operator?s Committee and Building Management once per month for the first six (6) months of operations and quarterly from that point on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120207/b4b1de63/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  8 16:34:52 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:34:52 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] end of story from pa 260
Message-ID: <A214DB34A3194C58B0E1D57304F03131@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Goes to today's rummied meeting only in part. But the building manager has no business in the granting of the license to operate any concession including the State Plate...

393.359 Concessions in state buildings or on state property; operation by blind persons; plans; location of concessions.

 

Sec. 9. A concession in a building or on property owned or occupied by this state shall be operated by a blind person, regardless of race, creed, color,

sex, marital status, or religious preference, except in cases provided for in section 10. The building division of the department of management and budget

shall submit plans relative to concessions in state buildings or on state property to the commission, which shall have the final authority relative to

the location of concessions.

 

History: 1978, Act 260. Eff. Oct. 1, 1978.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120208/f19f3ae9/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  8 17:07:46 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:07:46 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] building manager is not the sla
Message-ID: <6980CB32D7E64B9FA4FA039C987C5BE2@YOUR7C60552B9E>

February 8 2012 Comments on Todays?s Commission Meeting

 

 

Colleagues,

 

 

 

Time is short, but I would like anyone including the commissioners to show me any place in the promulgated rules, P

A 260 itself, the Randolph Shepard Program, the Rehab Act or in any manner where a building manager has any role in granting a license to operate any BEP facility.

 

I cite the following section from what was ?approved today? to cite the fundamental violation of these laws in this regard:

 

?At the conclusion of the bid period, all qualified complete proposals will be reviewed by an interview panel consisting of Commission for the Blind staff, Elected Operator?s Committee representatives, and building management.  Interviews will be offered to the responsible person(s) submitting a qualified and complete proposal and will be conducted in Lansing by the same panel who reviewed the proposals.  The facility will be offered to the successful bidder based on the results of the face-to-face interviews and associated business plan.

?

 

None of the statutes or rules grant such an authority in the first place. MCB is the State Licensing Agency and not some building manager. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Joe Harcz

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120208/fb084e88/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  8 17:19:52 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:19:52 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] request information ada 504 oma foia all of the above
Message-ID: <6524CD7B5F054C4BB029B43265EA5163@YOUR7C60552B9E>

February 8 2012 Request for Minutes Recordings

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

 

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

To: Patrick D. Cannon

Director Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

And: MCB Commissioners

 

 

All,

 

I?m writing today to request the meeting minutes in accessible form as soon as they are produced which under the Michigan Open Meetings Act must be done within 8 working days.

 

That format is well known by all by now.

 

In addition I?m requesting recording of today?s meeting on a thumb drive and mailed to my physical address ASAP!

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: Luzenski

Cc: Arwood, LARA

Cc: RSA

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: BEP Vendors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120208/93e8e9ce/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb  8 17:59:51 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:59:51 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] more ada rehab act requests information
Message-ID: <B81BD6A657B84A67ADA2BF40521D6483@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Feb.  8 2012 Request for EOC Minutes Recording

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

To: Patrick Cannon, James Hull constance Zanger

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

And: James Chaney Elected Operators Committee Chair

 

And: Michigan Commission for the Blind Commissioners

 

 

All,

 

I?m writing today to request in accessible format the EOC meeting minutes of it?s ?emergency meeting? on Monday night. They may be sent to me as simple e-mail attachments and/or enclosures to my e-mail address listed above.

 

I?m also requesting that a thumb drive in mp3 format of the recording of that meeting is sent to me at my mailing address listed above.

 

I make these requests pursuant to obligations well known under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, and numerous provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: Several Vendors

Cc: RSA

Cc: Elmer Cerano MPAS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120208/2e139eda/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 01:36:39 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:36:39 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Illegal EOC Motion
Message-ID: <1B866C0FDC01473EB36FD826D214CA5B@Reputercat>

Here is more fuel for the fire regarding the State Plate issue.  I am not 
clear as to whether today's Commission Board action is legal, given that two 
of the Commissioners were concerned about this during most of the meeting. 
The thing that changed course of the meeting appears to be an amendment to 
the original proposal that seems to ensure the priority of blind licensees, 
but might slam the door on otherwise qualified blind people who are not 
currently in the BEP.  I don't mind telling you that I get nervous about any 
proposal, good as it may be, that is acted on before it is thoroughly 
documented and presented or that is modified on the floor, leaving it 
subject to tampering and other accidental or deliberate errors of 
application after the Board has said @yes@ to the thing officially.

>From the "just asking department," Why was the agenda for today's meeting 
withheld until the last possible minute before publication?  And, why was 
the Office of the Attorney General not present either in person or consulted 
for advice on this matter?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'Joe Sontag'" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:38
Subject: Illegal EOC Motion


NOTES:

Six violations of law which makes the EOC
motion illegal

1. Promotion  procedures are to be "uniformly" applied  Rule 47(1)(e).

2.  Rule 48.  (1)  The commission shall
announce available locations on a   bid
line, which shall be routinely updated.  The
EOC motion violates this rule, eliminating a "priority" opportunity to a
qualified blind person.

3.  The administrator awards the vending
facility to the  licensee   under
the criteria established in these rules.
Rule 47(4).

4.  The State Plate/Anderson Building is a
"mandated" BEP facility building, as the building is "state owned".

5. BEP Rule 51(4) permits an "interview" for assignment to "unmandated"
building facilities.  The EOC motion violates this provision, and the
provision the promotional procedures be "uniformly" applied, per Rule
47(1)(e).

6.  If an interview selection process were
legal for this building facility, which it is not at law lawful, the EOC
motion violates Rule 51(4), in that thee commission shall not be involved in
the final decision of who the selected licensee shall be assigned to the
facility.  The EOC motion gives two positionsto BEP staff  on the interview
and final selection panel decision, which is unlawful in itself.



BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.359 Concessions in state buildings or on
state property; operation by blind persons;
plans; location of concessions.
Sec. 9.
A concession in a building or on property
owned or occupied by this state shall be
operated by a blind person, regardless of
race, creed, color, sex, marital status,
or religious preference, except in cases
provided for in section 10. The building
division of the department of management and
budget shall submit plans relative to
concessions in state buildings or on state
property to the commission, which shall
have the final authority relative to the
location of concessions.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.

BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.360 Act inapplicable to certain
concessions; sighted person operating concession
under contract or lease, or operating
concession not applied for by blind person.
Sec. 10.
(1) This act shall not apply to a concession
operated in connection with the state
fair, with the use of state fairgrounds,
with a state educational institution, state
penal institution, military establishment,
armory, or state park.
(2) A sighted person operating a concession
under contract or lease at the time this
act becomes effective shall not be required
to surrender the rights before the contract
or lease expires.
(3) A sighted person operating a concession
which has not been applied for by a blind
person may be permitted to continue in
charge until the concession is applied for
and a qualified blind person is chosen to
operate the concession.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of
Michigan

BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.361 Concessions; qualifications of
applicant; limitation on number.
Sec. 11.
The qualifications of an applicant to
operate a concession shall be determined according
to qualifications established by the
commission. A blind person shall not operate
more than 1 concession.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of
Michigan


BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.363 Implementation of Randolph-Sheppard
vending stand act.
Sec. 13.
The commission shall be the state agency for
implementing the Randolph-Sheppard vending
stand act, 20 U.S.C. 107 to 107f.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of
Michigan


ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
VENDING FACILITY PROGRAM
(By authority conferred on the  director  of
the  department  of  labor  and
economic growth by sections 1, 5, and 16 of
1978 PA 260 and  Executive  Order
Nos. 1996-2 and 2003-18, being  ?393.351,
393.355,  393.366,  445.2001,  and
445.2011 of the Michigan Compiled Laws)

R 393.1   Definitions.

Rule 1.  (1)  As used in these rules:

(b)  "Act" means 1978 PA 260, as amended,
being MCL 393.351.

(e)  "Bid" means the process whereby a
licensee or  a  potential   licensee
records on the business enterprise program
telephone system his or her desire
to transfer to, or begin operation of, an
available location.

(f)  "Bid line" means a telephone line that
contains a recorded message  of
all locations which are available during an
identified time frame.

(u)  "Mandated" facility means a  facility
in  which  blind  persons   are
granted priority to operate concessions
under the  Randolph?Sheppard  act  of
1936, as amended, 20 U.S.C. ?107 et seq. and
the act.

(hh)  "State property" means a business
enterprise program facility  in   a
building or on a property owned or  occupied
by  the  state,  except  for  a
concession operated in connection with any
of the following:
(i)  The state fair.
(ii)  The use of state fair grounds.
(iii)  Any state educational institution.
(iv)  A state penal institution.
(v)  Military establishments and armories.
(vi)  A state park.

(jj)  "Vending facility" means an automatic
vending  machine,   cafeteria,
snack bar, cart service, catering, coffee
service, shelter,  counter  or  any
other appropriate auxiliary  service  or
equipment  as  the  commission  may
prescribe by rule as being necessary for the
sale  of  articles  or  services
described in 1978 PA 260, as amended, being
?393.351 et seq of  the  Michigan
Compiled Laws and which may be operated by a
blind licensee.

(2)  A term defined in the act has the same
meaning  when  used  in   these
rules.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.2   Program administration.
Rule 2.  The commission, with the active
participation of  the   committee,
shall administer a vending facility program
for the blind on federal,  state,
and other properties.
History: 2004 AACS.

R 393.47   Licensee promotions and
demotions.
Rule 47.  (1)  The bid process is governed
by this rule.  A  licensee   may
be promoted to another, or a more
profitable, vending facility when a vending
facility becomes available.  To be promoted,
a  licensee  shall  bid  on  the
facility, be willing to relocate, and be
qualified.   All  of  the  following
shall be included as licensee qualification
factors:
(a)  Certification to operate the specific
type of facility.
(b)  Evaluation of past performance.
(c)  Participation in the in-service
training programs.
(d)  Seniority.
(e)  Compliance with all program rules and
regulations.  When all   factors
are equal, seniority shall prevail.
Promotion procedures shall be  uniformly
applied and developed with the active
participation of the committee.
(2)  A licensee shall participate in
mandatory  in-service  training   and
shall not be eligible for promotion until
training is completed.  A  licensee
may  be  excused  from  mandatory
in-service  training  only  with   written
supervisory approval.
(3)  When a licensee has demonstrated an
inability to operate the   present
vending facility under uniformly applied
program  standards,  developed  with
the active participation of the committee,
the licensee  may  be  demoted  or
transferred to another vending  facility
that  the  licensee  is  considered
qualified to operate, if a facility is
available.   If  a  facility  is  not
available, then the licensee shall be
removed from the present  facility  and
the licensee's name shall be placed on the
potential licensee's list until  a
facility is available.  Demotion and
transfer or removal of a licensee  shall
conform to the procedures outlined in R
393.13, R 393.14,  R  393.15,  and  R
393.16.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.48   Bid process generally.
Rule 48.  (1)  The commission shall announce
available locations on a   bid
line, which shall be routinely updated.
(2)  A licensee shall learn of available
locations by calling the bid line.
(3)  A licensee may place a bid by calling
the established line to   record
his or her bid on a vending facility.
(4)  The administrator awards the vending
facility to the  licensee   under
the criteria established in these rules.
(5)  A licensee shall accept the vending
facility  both  verbally  and   in
writing.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.49   Bid line.
Rule 49.  (1)  A message of available
locations shall be placed on the  bid
line on the same day each week unless
extenuating circumstances  exist.   The
message announcement shall include all of
the following information:
(a)  The vending facility number.  A
potential  licensee  shall  use   the
number when bidding on the facility.
(b)  The geographic location of the facility
(building/city).
(c)  The facility type.
(d)  The estimated gross sales.
(e)  The name of contact person.
(f)  The estimated date of availability.
(2)  If the bid announcement day is a state
holiday, then  bids  for   that
bid cycle shall be updated on the next state
working day of that week.
(3)   The  deadline  for  submitting  a  bid
is  the   following    week's
announcement day at noon.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.50   Bidding procedure.
Rule 50.  (1)  The bid line shall contain
instructions for placing a bid.
Program staff shall record the bid with the
date and time it was placed.
(2)  A bid may be placed from 5 p.m. on the
bid  day  until  noon  on   the
following bid update day.
(3)  Program administrative staff shall
offer the open vending facility  to
the successful bidder.  The candidate shall
either  commit  to  the  vending
facility or decline the offer in writing
within 72 hours after the  close  of
bids.  If the first candidate declines, then
program staff shall continue the
same award procedure, moving down the list
of eligible licensees or potential
licensees until the facility is awarded.
(4)  Failure to  make  a  commitment  by
the  noon  deadline   constitutes
declining the offer and the opportunity
shall be offered to the next licensee
on the list.
(5)  A licensee who is awarded a vending
facility shall  be  announced   in
the week after the award.
(6)  A licensee is considered installed in
a  vending  facility  when   an
agreement has been signed.
(7)  If a potential licensee does not bid
and accept a facility  within   3
years, then he or she shall take a
commission-designated retraining course as
approved by the commission  board,  with
the  active  participation  of  the
committee.  Failure to retake training
results in deletion of  the  potential
licensee's name from the potential list and
the  potential  licensee  is  not
eligible to bid or accept a facility within
the program.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.51   Bid award for vending facility.
Rule 51.  (1)  For the award of a vending
facility, seniority is based   on
the number of days in which a licensee is
licensed in the  program.   Bidders
are ranked by their seniority and on the
basis of all of the following:
(a)  The most recent  evaluation  score.   A
satisfactory  score  is   the
minimum requirement.
(b)  The date of transfer into the current
facility.  Six  months  in   the
current facility is the minimum requirement.
(c)  The status of set-aside payments or
reports.  A licensee who   submits
late reports or accompanying set-aside
payments is ineligible  for  promotion
until 30 days after the time and date stamp
of the delinquent report and  the
postmark receipt date of appropriate monies.
(d)  Training appropriate to the facility
for which the bid was placed.
(e)  The profit percentage of the high
bidder's vending facility  for   the
most recent 3 report months shall meet the
standard set forth in R 393.1.
(f)  Documentation on file with the
commission that  the  licensee  is   in
compliance with  workers'  compensation
laws,  unemployment  tax  laws,  and
liability insurance requirements.
(2)  From acceptance of a bid until the
projected  operation  date  of   a
vending facility,  a  successful  bidder
may  not  bid  on  another  vending
facility. If the vending facility doesn't
open on time, then a  licensee  may
bid on a second vending facility.  If the
licensee  is  awarded  the  second
vending facility, his or her name is
withdrawn  from  consideration  for  the
first vending facility.  The vending
facility location shall  be  offered  to
the next qualified bidder.
(3)  Locations that are not awarded to a
current licensee shall be  offered
in order of seniority to persons on the
potential licensee list who have bid.
Certification as a potential licensee and
seniority on the list of potential
licensees are the criteria for award to a
potential licensee, as set forth in
the program operations manual.
(4)   For  nonmandated  facilities,  the
building  grantor  may  hold   an
interview and choose a candidate from a list
of qualified bidders provided by
the program.  The commission shall not be
involved in the final decision.  If
a bidder is offered a nonmandated vending
facility and does  not  accept  it,
then the rejection of the offer shall be
confirmed in writing by the bidder.
(5)  Bid acceptance shall be addressed to
the program administrator at  the
commission.
(6)  All rejections of offers shall be
directed to the  commission   within
72 hours after the offer is made.  A future
bid shall not be considered until
a letter declining a previous offer is
received.
History: 2004 AACS.


Eagle
(517) 372-7552





From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 02:45:47 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 21:45:47 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Today's Special MCB Meeting
Message-ID: <2AA4C2E66389406D9ABD2755F2DDAF3C@Reputercat>

Here is the recording of today's special meeting regarding the Anderson Building Cafeteria, aka State Plate.  Your thoughts are appreciated.

Meeting audio can be downloaded at:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/MCB%20Special%20Meeting%2002082012.MP3

Joe Sontag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120208/26c1f7db/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 12:29:37 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:29:37 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Illegal EOC Motion
References: <1B866C0FDC01473EB36FD826D214CA5B@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <66B02B44C6064638B9815AF4A4246603@YOUR7C60552B9E>

And what about again allowing a building manager on the final selection 
process? That in my mind is the most illegal, most absurd item in here.

In plain language it defers licensing authority in part to another state 
agency in fact and deed.

And that is plain illegal as all get out from the get go.

Shoot it isn't any different than granting licensing authority to Peckham, 
or just giving it up to DTMB, as a better example.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "VENDORSMI List" <vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:36 PM
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Illegal EOC Motion


Here is more fuel for the fire regarding the State Plate issue.  I am not
clear as to whether today's Commission Board action is legal, given that two
of the Commissioners were concerned about this during most of the meeting.
The thing that changed course of the meeting appears to be an amendment to
the original proposal that seems to ensure the priority of blind licensees,
but might slam the door on otherwise qualified blind people who are not
currently in the BEP.  I don't mind telling you that I get nervous about any
proposal, good as it may be, that is acted on before it is thoroughly
documented and presented or that is modified on the floor, leaving it
subject to tampering and other accidental or deliberate errors of
application after the Board has said @yes@ to the thing officially.

>From the "just asking department," Why was the agenda for today's meeting
withheld until the last possible minute before publication?  And, why was
the Office of the Attorney General not present either in person or consulted
for advice on this matter?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
To: "'Joe Sontag'" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:38
Subject: Illegal EOC Motion


NOTES:

Six violations of law which makes the EOC
motion illegal

1. Promotion  procedures are to be "uniformly" applied  Rule 47(1)(e).

2.  Rule 48.  (1)  The commission shall
announce available locations on a   bid
line, which shall be routinely updated.  The
EOC motion violates this rule, eliminating a "priority" opportunity to a
qualified blind person.

3.  The administrator awards the vending
facility to the  licensee   under
the criteria established in these rules.
Rule 47(4).

4.  The State Plate/Anderson Building is a
"mandated" BEP facility building, as the building is "state owned".

5. BEP Rule 51(4) permits an "interview" for assignment to "unmandated"
building facilities.  The EOC motion violates this provision, and the
provision the promotional procedures be "uniformly" applied, per Rule
47(1)(e).

6.  If an interview selection process were
legal for this building facility, which it is not at law lawful, the EOC
motion violates Rule 51(4), in that thee commission shall not be involved in
the final decision of who the selected licensee shall be assigned to the
facility.  The EOC motion gives two positionsto BEP staff  on the interview
and final selection panel decision, which is unlawful in itself.



BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.359 Concessions in state buildings or on
state property; operation by blind persons;
plans; location of concessions.
Sec. 9.
A concession in a building or on property
owned or occupied by this state shall be
operated by a blind person, regardless of
race, creed, color, sex, marital status,
or religious preference, except in cases
provided for in section 10. The building
division of the department of management and
budget shall submit plans relative to
concessions in state buildings or on state
property to the commission, which shall
have the final authority relative to the
location of concessions.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.

BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.360 Act inapplicable to certain
concessions; sighted person operating concession
under contract or lease, or operating
concession not applied for by blind person.
Sec. 10.
(1) This act shall not apply to a concession
operated in connection with the state
fair, with the use of state fairgrounds,
with a state educational institution, state
penal institution, military establishment,
armory, or state park.
(2) A sighted person operating a concession
under contract or lease at the time this
act becomes effective shall not be required
to surrender the rights before the contract
or lease expires.
(3) A sighted person operating a concession
which has not been applied for by a blind
person may be permitted to continue in
charge until the concession is applied for
and a qualified blind person is chosen to
operate the concession.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of
Michigan

BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.361 Concessions; qualifications of
applicant; limitation on number.
Sec. 11.
The qualifications of an applicant to
operate a concession shall be determined according
to qualifications established by the
commission. A blind person shall not operate
more than 1 concession.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of
Michigan


BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS
(EXCERPT)
Act 260 of 1978
393.363 Implementation of Randolph-Sheppard
vending stand act.
Sec. 13.
The commission shall be the state agency for
implementing the Randolph-Sheppard vending
stand act, 20 U.S.C. 107 to 107f.
History: 1978, Act 260, Eff. Oct. 1, 1978
Compiler's Notes:
For transfer of powers and duties of the
commission for the blind from the family
independence agency, or its director, to the
department of labor and economic growth,
or its director, by Type II transfer, see
E.R.O. No. 2003-1, compiled at MCL 445.2011.
? 2009 Legislative Council, State of
Michigan


ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND
VENDING FACILITY PROGRAM
(By authority conferred on the  director  of
the  department  of  labor  and
economic growth by sections 1, 5, and 16 of
1978 PA 260 and  Executive  Order
Nos. 1996-2 and 2003-18, being  ?393.351,
393.355,  393.366,  445.2001,  and
445.2011 of the Michigan Compiled Laws)

R 393.1   Definitions.

Rule 1.  (1)  As used in these rules:

(b)  "Act" means 1978 PA 260, as amended,
being MCL 393.351.

(e)  "Bid" means the process whereby a
licensee or  a  potential   licensee
records on the business enterprise program
telephone system his or her desire
to transfer to, or begin operation of, an
available location.

(f)  "Bid line" means a telephone line that
contains a recorded message  of
all locations which are available during an
identified time frame.

(u)  "Mandated" facility means a  facility
in  which  blind  persons   are
granted priority to operate concessions
under the  Randolph?Sheppard  act  of
1936, as amended, 20 U.S.C. ?107 et seq. and
the act.

(hh)  "State property" means a business
enterprise program facility  in   a
building or on a property owned or  occupied
by  the  state,  except  for  a
concession operated in connection with any
of the following:
(i)  The state fair.
(ii)  The use of state fair grounds.
(iii)  Any state educational institution.
(iv)  A state penal institution.
(v)  Military establishments and armories.
(vi)  A state park.

(jj)  "Vending facility" means an automatic
vending  machine,   cafeteria,
snack bar, cart service, catering, coffee
service, shelter,  counter  or  any
other appropriate auxiliary  service  or
equipment  as  the  commission  may
prescribe by rule as being necessary for the
sale  of  articles  or  services
described in 1978 PA 260, as amended, being
?393.351 et seq of  the  Michigan
Compiled Laws and which may be operated by a
blind licensee.

(2)  A term defined in the act has the same
meaning  when  used  in   these
rules.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.2   Program administration.
Rule 2.  The commission, with the active
participation of  the   committee,
shall administer a vending facility program
for the blind on federal,  state,
and other properties.
History: 2004 AACS.

R 393.47   Licensee promotions and
demotions.
Rule 47.  (1)  The bid process is governed
by this rule.  A  licensee   may
be promoted to another, or a more
profitable, vending facility when a vending
facility becomes available.  To be promoted,
a  licensee  shall  bid  on  the
facility, be willing to relocate, and be
qualified.   All  of  the  following
shall be included as licensee qualification
factors:
(a)  Certification to operate the specific
type of facility.
(b)  Evaluation of past performance.
(c)  Participation in the in-service
training programs.
(d)  Seniority.
(e)  Compliance with all program rules and
regulations.  When all   factors
are equal, seniority shall prevail.
Promotion procedures shall be  uniformly
applied and developed with the active
participation of the committee.
(2)  A licensee shall participate in
mandatory  in-service  training   and
shall not be eligible for promotion until
training is completed.  A  licensee
may  be  excused  from  mandatory
in-service  training  only  with   written
supervisory approval.
(3)  When a licensee has demonstrated an
inability to operate the   present
vending facility under uniformly applied
program  standards,  developed  with
the active participation of the committee,
the licensee  may  be  demoted  or
transferred to another vending  facility
that  the  licensee  is  considered
qualified to operate, if a facility is
available.   If  a  facility  is  not
available, then the licensee shall be
removed from the present  facility  and
the licensee's name shall be placed on the
potential licensee's list until  a
facility is available.  Demotion and
transfer or removal of a licensee  shall
conform to the procedures outlined in R
393.13, R 393.14,  R  393.15,  and  R
393.16.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.48   Bid process generally.
Rule 48.  (1)  The commission shall announce
available locations on a   bid
line, which shall be routinely updated.
(2)  A licensee shall learn of available
locations by calling the bid line.
(3)  A licensee may place a bid by calling
the established line to   record
his or her bid on a vending facility.
(4)  The administrator awards the vending
facility to the  licensee   under
the criteria established in these rules.
(5)  A licensee shall accept the vending
facility  both  verbally  and   in
writing.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.49   Bid line.
Rule 49.  (1)  A message of available
locations shall be placed on the  bid
line on the same day each week unless
extenuating circumstances  exist.   The
message announcement shall include all of
the following information:
(a)  The vending facility number.  A
potential  licensee  shall  use   the
number when bidding on the facility.
(b)  The geographic location of the facility
(building/city).
(c)  The facility type.
(d)  The estimated gross sales.
(e)  The name of contact person.
(f)  The estimated date of availability.
(2)  If the bid announcement day is a state
holiday, then  bids  for   that
bid cycle shall be updated on the next state
working day of that week.
(3)   The  deadline  for  submitting  a  bid
is  the   following    week's
announcement day at noon.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.50   Bidding procedure.
Rule 50.  (1)  The bid line shall contain
instructions for placing a bid.
Program staff shall record the bid with the
date and time it was placed.
(2)  A bid may be placed from 5 p.m. on the
bid  day  until  noon  on   the
following bid update day.
(3)  Program administrative staff shall
offer the open vending facility  to
the successful bidder.  The candidate shall
either  commit  to  the  vending
facility or decline the offer in writing
within 72 hours after the  close  of
bids.  If the first candidate declines, then
program staff shall continue the
same award procedure, moving down the list
of eligible licensees or potential
licensees until the facility is awarded.
(4)  Failure to  make  a  commitment  by
the  noon  deadline   constitutes
declining the offer and the opportunity
shall be offered to the next licensee
on the list.
(5)  A licensee who is awarded a vending
facility shall  be  announced   in
the week after the award.
(6)  A licensee is considered installed in
a  vending  facility  when   an
agreement has been signed.
(7)  If a potential licensee does not bid
and accept a facility  within   3
years, then he or she shall take a
commission-designated retraining course as
approved by the commission  board,  with
the  active  participation  of  the
committee.  Failure to retake training
results in deletion of  the  potential
licensee's name from the potential list and
the  potential  licensee  is  not
eligible to bid or accept a facility within
the program.
History: 2004 AACS.
R 393.51   Bid award for vending facility.
Rule 51.  (1)  For the award of a vending
facility, seniority is based   on
the number of days in which a licensee is
licensed in the  program.   Bidders
are ranked by their seniority and on the
basis of all of the following:
(a)  The most recent  evaluation  score.   A
satisfactory  score  is   the
minimum requirement.
(b)  The date of transfer into the current
facility.  Six  months  in   the
current facility is the minimum requirement.
(c)  The status of set-aside payments or
reports.  A licensee who   submits
late reports or accompanying set-aside
payments is ineligible  for  promotion
until 30 days after the time and date stamp
of the delinquent report and  the
postmark receipt date of appropriate monies.
(d)  Training appropriate to the facility
for which the bid was placed.
(e)  The profit percentage of the high
bidder's vending facility  for   the
most recent 3 report months shall meet the
standard set forth in R 393.1.
(f)  Documentation on file with the
commission that  the  licensee  is   in
compliance with  workers'  compensation
laws,  unemployment  tax  laws,  and
liability insurance requirements.
(2)  From acceptance of a bid until the
projected  operation  date  of   a
vending facility,  a  successful  bidder
may  not  bid  on  another  vending
facility. If the vending facility doesn't
open on time, then a  licensee  may
bid on a second vending facility.  If the
licensee  is  awarded  the  second
vending facility, his or her name is
withdrawn  from  consideration  for  the
first vending facility.  The vending
facility location shall  be  offered  to
the next qualified bidder.
(3)  Locations that are not awarded to a
current licensee shall be  offered
in order of seniority to persons on the
potential licensee list who have bid.
Certification as a potential licensee and
seniority on the list of potential
licensees are the criteria for award to a
potential licensee, as set forth in
the program operations manual.
(4)   For  nonmandated  facilities,  the
building  grantor  may  hold   an
interview and choose a candidate from a list
of qualified bidders provided by
the program.  The commission shall not be
involved in the final decision.  If
a bidder is offered a nonmandated vending
facility and does  not  accept  it,
then the rejection of the offer shall be
confirmed in writing by the bidder.
(5)  Bid acceptance shall be addressed to
the program administrator at  the
commission.
(6)  All rejections of offers shall be
directed to the  commission   within
72 hours after the offer is made.  A future
bid shall not be considered until
a letter declining a previous offer is
received.
History: 2004 AACS.


Eagle
(517) 372-7552



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




From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 17:38:35 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:38:35 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] wonder if this was for catering?
Message-ID: <BF4CE762E1344762AB3EE54D8BAF7BB5@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to STATE STREET GRILL for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

ATTORNEY GENERAL

$5,269.94
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120209/d57c9ee6/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  9 19:58:21 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:58:21 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] wonder if this was for catering?
References: <BF4CE762E1344762AB3EE54D8BAF7BB5@YOUR7C60552B9E>
Message-ID: <4314777E6C7C4D81840813EDF8940339@Reputercat>

I found three businesses having this name without trying very hard.  Hope the food was good.  I don't think it's one of our locations.

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: joe harcz Comcast 
  To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 
  Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:38
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] wonder if this was for catering?


  Payments to STATE STREET GRILL for fiscal year 2012

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  ATTORNEY GENERAL

  $5,269.94



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/suncat0%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120209/404e289d/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb  9 20:27:49 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:27:49 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] wonder if this was for catering?
References: <BF4CE762E1344762AB3EE54D8BAF7BB5@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<4314777E6C7C4D81840813EDF8940339@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <980986AA477B4053A6AFE378D7095C38@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Yup. And the AG advises who on policy? And that includes what? Oh catering for example! Me thinks they work at cross purposes by design.

Like I said conflicts of interests and such are built right into the system here, I think it is by design too.

Joe Harcz
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
  Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] wonder if this was for catering?


  I found three businesses having this name without trying very hard.  Hope the food was good.  I don't think it's one of our locations.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: joe harcz Comcast 
    To: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 
    Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:38
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] wonder if this was for catering?


    Payments to STATE STREET GRILL for fiscal year 2012

     

    Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

     

    Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

    Agency Name

    Payment Totals

    ATTORNEY GENERAL

    $5,269.94



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


    _______________________________________________
    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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120209/6f96d440/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb 10 15:10:42 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:10:42 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] must be read carefully along with other rulings
Message-ID: <49FA6ED8618E4FE1BF9AE5D9E930FAD1@YOUR7C60552B9E>

http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06882.htm

Opinion #6882

 

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site

- www.ag.state.mi.us)

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

Opinion No. 6882

 

November 29, 1995

 

COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND:

 

Operators of vending stands in government owned buildings

 

Blind vending stand operators under the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program are not state employees.

 

Lowell W. Perry

 

Director

 

Michigan Department of Labor

 

P.O. Box 30015

 

Lansing, MI 48909

 

You have asked if blind vending stand operators under the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program are state employees. You indicate

your question is prompted by the claims of some operators that they are employees of the State of Michigan and, thus, do not have to comply with state

laws applicable to employers concerning paying unemployment compensation taxes and providing workers' compensation insurance.

 

Under 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 et seq; MSA 17.581(1) et seq (Act), the Michigan Commission for the Blind operates a program designed to aid blind and visually

handicapped individuals. Section 9 of the Act requires that "[a] concession in a building or on property owned or occupied by this state shall be operated

by a blind person." I have previously concluded under this Act that blind persons have the exclusive authority to operate concessions in state owned buildings,

OAG, 1989-1990, No 6651, p 356, 357 (July 24, 1990), and that the Department of Management and Budget may not charge rent for the operation of a concession

by a blind person. OAG, 1981-1982, No 5940, p 279 (August 4, 1981).

 

In order to carry out the mandates of the Act, the Commission for the Blind has established a Business Enterprise Program (BEP). In section 13 of the Act,

the Legislature has also designated the Commission to implement the Randolph Sheppard vending stand act, 20 USC Sec. 107 et seq. This is a federally funded

state program that seeks to provide opportunities to blind individuals by placing them in vending facilities in various government buildings. Under section

5(g) of the Act, the Commission for the Blind has promulgated administrative rules to implement the BEP. 1983 AACS, R 393.101 et seq.

 

This office has been informed that following evaluation, training, and other services, a blind person is placed as an operator in the BEP running a concession

in a government building. The operator and the Commission for the Blind enter into a contract that provides, among other things, that the operator will

pay a certain percentage of the concession profits to the Commission in what is called a set-aside fee. The Commission, in turn, will provide supervision

and advice, needed equipment, and an initial stock of goods. The operator sets his own prices and purchases his own stock after the initial stock is provided.

 

The operator must obtain a comprehensive liability insurance policy. The operator may hire other individuals as employees and is required to provide workers'

disability compensation coverage for any employees hired. Rule 393.107(c).

 

Under the contract between the operator and the Commission for the Blind, the operator is not paid by the State of Michigan for performing work for the

state. Rather, operators receive the proceeds from the operations of their vending facilities after paying their operating costs and set-aside fees. Rule

393.106(2).

 

If the blind vendors were state employees, it would be necessary for the Civil Service Commission to classify them in the classified state civil service

in accordance with Const 1963, art 11, Sec. 5, which provides, in part:

 

The classified state civil service shall consist of all positions in the state service except those filled by popular election, heads of principal departments,

members of boards and commissions, the principal executive officer of boards and commissions heading principal departments, employees of courts of record,

employees of the legislature, employees of the state institutions of higher education, all persons in the armed forces of the state, eight exempt positions

in the office of the governor, and within each principal department, when requested by the department head, two other exempt positions, one of which shall

be policy-making. The civil service commission may exempt three additional positions of a policy-making nature within each principal department.

 

It has been held that except to the extent that a position may be exempt under this section, all employees of the state are required to be classified into

the state civil service. Commissioner of Insurance v Michigan State Accident Fund, 173 Mich App 566, 582; 434 NW2d 433 (1988), lv den 433 Mich 872 (1989).

The position of vending stand operator has never been exempted from the classified state civil service or classified in the state civil service by the

Civil Service Commission.

 

Blind concession operators are included within the state employees' retirement system. Section 13a of 1943 PA 240, MCL 38.13a; MSA 3.981(13a) provides in

part:

 

Effective January 1, 1973, blind or partially sighted persons licensed as vending stand operators within the controlled programs of the bureau of blind

services are deemed to be employees within the meaning of this act for state retirement purposes only, and except as hereinafter provided are entitled

to all the rights and benefits of state employees covered by the provisions of this act. [ Emphasis added.]

 

The language "for state retirement purposes only" evidences an intent that blind vending stand operators are not considered state employees for general

purposes.

 

It is clear that blind vending operators in the BEP are clients rather than employees of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. With the exception of those

services provided by the Commission in accordance with the Act and implementing administrative rules, the operators are independent concessionaires with

the authority, in their capacities as employers, to employ other persons.

 

It is my opinion, therefore, that blind vending stand operators under the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program are not state employees.

 

Frank J. Kelley

 

Attorney General

http://opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06882.htm

State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General

Last Updated 11/10/2008 16:49:34
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120210/466241e6/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 10 18:58:03 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:58:03 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: mcb violated rehab act on the emergency meeting vote
Message-ID: <D82185EF97224C09BD7A047055979206@Reputercat>

The meeting refers to the special meeting held on February 8, 2012 at which the Commission Board gave its blessing to the proposal from the Elected Operators' Committee on the State Plate issue and concerns the requirement that the new operator chosen for that facility agree to participate in  a partnership arrangement with a management company for at least two years.  It was pointed out during the public comment portion of this meeting that the teaming partner requirement amounts to forcing the new operator to pay the cost of their training, since the profits from the location would have to be split between the partners instead of going exclusively to the operator.  Dry but important reading.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: David Robinson NFB MI 
Cc: Joe Sontag ; Fred Wurtzel ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:02
Subject: mcb violated rehab act on the emergency meeting vote


We've been here before. Remember the maintainence fiasco and the RSA citings?

Well here is what is violated in Title I of the Rehab Act itself. Note licences are required to be paid for under maintainence by the agency, as well as training and not to be paid for by the customer including those in BEP!

And what is the contract to take over a facility? A license to operate!

Joe

Here's the section:

    (g) Maintenance, in accordance with the definition of that term in 

Sec. 361.5(b)(35).

    (h) Transportation in connection with the rendering of any 

vocational rehabilitation service and in accordance with the definition 

of that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(57).

    (i) Vocational rehabilitation services to family members, as 

defined in Sec. 361.5(b)(23), of an applicant or eligible individual if 

necessary to enable the applicant or eligible individual to achieve an 

employment outcome.

    (j) Interpreter services, including sign language and oral 

interpreter services, for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing 

and tactile interpreting services for individuals who are deaf-blind 

provided by qualified personnel.

    (k) Reader services, rehabilitation teaching services, and 

orientation and mobility services for individuals who are blind.

    (l) Job-related services, including job search and placement 

assistance, job retention services, follow-up services, and follow-

along services.

    (m) Supported employment services in accordance with the definition 

of that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(54).

    (n) Personal assistance services in accordance with the definition 

of that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(39).

    (o) Post-employment services in accordance with the definition of 

that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(42).

    (p) Occupational licenses, tools, equipment, initial stocks, and 

supplies.

    (q) Rehabilitation technology in accordance with the definition of 

that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(45), including vehicular modification, 

telecommunications, sensory, and other technological aids and devices.

    (r) Transition services in accordance with the definition of that 

term in Sec. 361.5(b)(55).

    (s) Technical assistance and other consultation services to conduct 

market analyses, develop business plans, and otherwise provide 

resources, to the extent those resources are authorized to be provided 

through the statewide workforce investment system, to eligible 

individuals who are pursuing self-employment or telecommuting or 

establishing a small business operation as an employment outcome.

    (t) Other goods and services determined necessary for the 

individual with a disability to achieve an employment outcome.

 

(Authority: Section 103(a) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 723(a))

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120210/a994d136/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb 10 19:44:08 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:44:08 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: mcb violated rehab act on the emergency meeting
	vote
References: <D82185EF97224C09BD7A047055979206@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <2FCA2596D4954B539D5C4AD1E4161B42@YOUR7C60552B9E>

You got it Joe S! David was brilliant in documenting this in his public comment and goes to the savage attacks upon again not only ththis issue but systemically throughout all of MCB's affairs and for that matter beyond them.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:58 PM
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: mcb violated rehab act on the emergency meeting vote


  The meeting refers to the special meeting held on February 8, 2012 at which the Commission Board gave its blessing to the proposal from the Elected Operators' Committee on the State Plate issue and concerns the requirement that the new operator chosen for that facility agree to participate in  a partnership arrangement with a management company for at least two years.  It was pointed out during the public comment portion of this meeting that the teaming partner requirement amounts to forcing the new operator to pay the cost of their training, since the profits from the location would have to be split between the partners instead of going exclusively to the operator.  Dry but important reading.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: joe harcz Comcast 
  To: David Robinson NFB MI 
  Cc: Joe Sontag ; Fred Wurtzel ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. 
  Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:02
  Subject: mcb violated rehab act on the emergency meeting vote


  We've been here before. Remember the maintainence fiasco and the RSA citings?

  Well here is what is violated in Title I of the Rehab Act itself. Note licences are required to be paid for under maintainence by the agency, as well as training and not to be paid for by the customer including those in BEP!

  And what is the contract to take over a facility? A license to operate!

  Joe

  Here's the section:

      (g) Maintenance, in accordance with the definition of that term in 

  Sec. 361.5(b)(35).

      (h) Transportation in connection with the rendering of any 

  vocational rehabilitation service and in accordance with the definition 

  of that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(57).

      (i) Vocational rehabilitation services to family members, as 

  defined in Sec. 361.5(b)(23), of an applicant or eligible individual if 

  necessary to enable the applicant or eligible individual to achieve an 

  employment outcome.

      (j) Interpreter services, including sign language and oral 

  interpreter services, for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing 

  and tactile interpreting services for individuals who are deaf-blind 

  provided by qualified personnel.

      (k) Reader services, rehabilitation teaching services, and 

  orientation and mobility services for individuals who are blind.

      (l) Job-related services, including job search and placement 

  assistance, job retention services, follow-up services, and follow-

  along services.

      (m) Supported employment services in accordance with the definition 

  of that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(54).

      (n) Personal assistance services in accordance with the definition 

  of that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(39).

      (o) Post-employment services in accordance with the definition of 

  that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(42).

      (p) Occupational licenses, tools, equipment, initial stocks, and 

  supplies.

      (q) Rehabilitation technology in accordance with the definition of 

  that term in Sec. 361.5(b)(45), including vehicular modification, 

  telecommunications, sensory, and other technological aids and devices.

      (r) Transition services in accordance with the definition of that 

  term in Sec. 361.5(b)(55).

      (s) Technical assistance and other consultation services to conduct 

  market analyses, develop business plans, and otherwise provide 

  resources, to the extent those resources are authorized to be provided 

  through the statewide workforce investment system, to eligible 

  individuals who are pursuing self-employment or telecommuting or 

  establishing a small business operation as an employment outcome.

      (t) Other goods and services determined necessary for the 

  individual with a disability to achieve an employment outcome.

   

  (Authority: Section 103(a) of the Act; 29 U.S.C. 723(a))

   



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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120210/05efb69e/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sat Feb 11 03:47:03 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:47:03 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] opinion requested
Message-ID: <428EFE5185454519A6DD7F312C5AC075@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Dear Attorney General and Dear Pat Cannon,

The other day a person from State of Michigan and the Michigan commission for the Blind put a gun in my face and said, "you're money or your life." Of course, I gave him all the money I had, because I was scared.

But, next day I went to the Michigan Commission for the Blind, the Michigan Attorney General's Office, and the CIA, the DEA , and all kinds of triple Aaas and all kinds of government outfits that would give this blind kid some justice and relief. Man, I even went to Arlo Guthrie's Group W Bench. No real answer though.

Well I found out that the guy who stuck a gun in my face and asked me for my money was someone who worked for the state and then he had his pals in the state like you guys kind of said it was just kind of peachy keen and all right and all that that he could do what the heck he done.

So, I'm gonna ask you all for your opinion here and I don't want you to be all conflicted or nothing like that and I want you to be all sort of fair ok?

Can you tell me in that sort of fair and non-biased sort of way I heard about on the news and all that that the bugger that worked for you and that was funded by my buddies paying their taxes and who stuck that gun in my face and all that and who says it's ok is really ok?



Just wanted your unbiased and non-conflicted opinion here...
 Now close your eyes and concentrate real sort of careful here and tell me the truth...The real truth... Cross your heart and don't cross your fingers and promise not to die and spit on the cross if your lying ok?

Oh yes and I heard that the "State Plate" is open for a "soft opening" excuse the rather limp phallic reference but it was Constance Zanger's term and not mine for crying out loud.

And anyways I've just got to ask is this all sort of a sort of April Fools joke or what?

 Now just who is them there April Fools anyways? Are they the operators who get the luxury of genuflecting with federal funds to the benighted slaves of the state apparatus or they the slavees who genuflect to your royal highnesses in your own glorious and illustrative briliant clothes?

I'm just kind of dazzled by all of your magnificant brilliance and don't know whose ring to kiss outright and whose posteior I should kiss either so please excuse my and my brethren's sorry excuse as to not knowing how to be proper supllicants to whom and when and how and all that.

Just asking anyways don't you know??

Oh please, please and pretty please make this a Michigan Freedom of Information Act request. I just love to hear Mel Farmer punch out those numbers on his innaccessable and artificial Pure Michigan calculator.

Wow maybe if he keeps on punching he'll make early retirement that is unless the effort gives him carpel tunnel syndrome do to the repetive motion of all that streess and he goes out on disability God forbid for then he might find himself fighting the SState over all that "undue hardship and administrative burden" sort of thing. Now that wouldn't due. That wouldn't due at all!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120210/32865771/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sun Feb 12 15:31:51 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:31:51 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] lots of bep related in this
Message-ID: <9CBCDF5671094BDB9AF5544538174A95@YOUR7C60552B9E>

DEPARTMENT-OF 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

INTER-AGENCY INTER-ACCOUNT 

 

 

 

 

October 12, 2011 

 

 

 

 

To         Shirley Callahan 
 Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs 
 Flnance Division . 
 

FROm: Beth Ball

Department of Attorney General 

          Office of Fiscal Management

RE: 4th Quarter 2011 Billing - Commisslon for the Blind (Handwritten 37010/11315/8140)

 

IAB NO. 11-02520-4

 

This serves as a request for relmbursement of legal servlces and related travel 
 expenditures for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011. These services were provided by Michele Lemmon, Emily McDonough, and Thomas Warren. The total charges for this period are $22,952.63. 
 

Please process a GQ transaction for these charges using Agency 111, AY 11, 
 Transaction code 962, Index 02520,and Agency object code 6897. 
 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 335-724. 

 

(Handwritten notes:  Approved by Elsie Duell verbally to Kevin C. 10-25-11.  Posted with a check mark, 10/21 Elsie Duell, 10/17 ? Judy Wallace then with a cross through, Constance Zanger with a cross through)

 

 

 

 





DAFR7840 111 NLL9 56 13   13        0(ORG) 3(PRG)  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  (  )  RUN DATE 10/08/11 R*STARS

CYCLE: 10/07/11 20:09 8547 CFY:  12    CFM: 01    LCY: 10  LCM: 11  FICHE 111 11    

1300      TIME: 04:21:26

 

111 ATTORNEY GENERAL (111)

APPROPRIATION ACTIVITY SUMMARY

PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED:  100%    REPORT PERIOD= ADJUSTMENT = 11 PROD V 

Page 118

APPROPRIATION YEAR   11

APPROPRIATION NUMBER  01040   ATTORNEY GENERAL OPERATIONS

PROG CODE 03    2520   COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND-FEDERAL (DELEG)

 

                                                                                                                Adjusted                                Cash-Revenue/                                   Encumbrances/

OBJ        OBJ        TITLE                                                                     Budget                   Expenditures                        Accruals                Pre-Encumbrances END REM                 BUDGET BAL

                3010       Reg Hours 1st Shift ? Class employe              .00                          48,772.41                              .00                          .00                                          48,772.41-

                3245       Longevity-Annaul & Anniv Date-CL EM            .00                              216.31                               .00                          .00                                             216.31-

                3250       Terminal Longevity-Retirement-Class            .00                               44.80                 .00                          .00                                               44.80-

                3260       Annual Leave Used-Classified Employ          .00                            2,153.49                              .00                          .00                                            2,153.49-

                3264       Banked Leave Used ? Classified Empl         .00                                3.45                  .00                          .00                                                3.45-

                3265       Sick Leave Used ? Classified Empl                                .00                            1,517.45                              .00                          .00                                                  1,517.45-

                3280       School Leave Use- Classified Employe         .00                               44.52                 .00                          .00                                               44.52-

                3289       Retroactive Pay Adjustment-Class Em           .00                               40.20                 .00                          .00                                               40.20-

                3290       Term AL, Comp & 81 DEF - Class Empl        .00                            1,739.49-                             .00                          .00                                            1,739.49

                3310       Term SL ? not EO 5 yr pmt ? Class E             .00                            1,739.49                              .00                          .00                                            1,739.49-

                3345       Soc Sec Tax-Not Early out 5yr or LT .00                            3,052.69                              .00                          .00                                            3,052.69-

                3355       Medicare Tax-Not Early Out 5 yr or L                .00                              716.63                               .00                          .00                                              716.63-

                3365       Retirement ? Classified Employees                               .00                            8,086.33                              .00                          .00                                                  8,086.33-

                3367       DEF CONT Pension Plan Classified Em       .00                            2,889.39                              .00                          .00                                            2,889.39-

                3370       Flex Ben Allow & Recovery ? Class E             .00                                16.27                                .00                          .00                                                16.27-

                3410       Health Insurance ? Classified Emplo             .00                            4,121.05                              .00                          .00                                            4,121.05-

                3420       HMO?s & PPO?s ? Classified Employee         .00                            4,041.88                              .00                          .00                                            4,041.88-

                3545       Dental Insurance - Classified Emplo                              .00                              780.97                               .00                          .00                                                    780.97-

                3560       Vision Insurance - Classified Emplo                              .00                              103.74                               .00                          .00                                                    103.74-

                3565       LTD Insurance - Classified Employee            .00                              254.45                               .00                          .00                                              254.45-

                3570       Life Insurance - Classified Employe                               .00                              538.62                               .00                          .00                                                    538.62-

                3652       Banked Leave Time Employer Contr -            .00                              440.34                               .00                          .00                                              440.34-

                6897       Cash Transfer Expenditure Credit                   .00                          54,882.37                              .00                          .00                                          54,882.37-

 

*TOTAL EXPENDITURE                                         .00                   132,717.37                .00                   .00                               132,717.37

 

*PROG CODE 03         2520                                   .00                   132,717.37-               .00                   .00                               132,717.37-

 

                                                                                                                                                (Handwritten:  22,952.63)

 

 



INTER-AGENCY PAYROLL REPORT BY INDIVIDUAL

 

111 ATTORNEY GENERAL        Pay Periods Dated: 08/12/2011 thru 10/01/2011

Report Run Date: 10/11/2011      Index Code 02520

 

      Employee Name
     Pay End Date
     Pay Rate
     Gross Salary
     Overtime, Longevity, Lump or On-Call
     Insurance & Fringes
     FICA & Retirement
     Total
     Gross Hours
     
      Artaev, Daniel
     06/25/2011
     $23.29
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Artaev, Daniel
     07/09/2011
     $23.29
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Artaev, Daniel
     07/23/2011
     $23.29
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Artaev, Daniel
     08/06/2011
     $23.29
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Artaev, Daniel
     08/20/2011
     $23.29
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Total for A. Daniel
      
      
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Hawkins, Jason
     06/25/2011
     $27.71
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Hawkins, Jason
     07/09/2011
     $29.26
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Hawkins, Jason
     07/23/2011
     $32.56
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Hawkins, Jason
     08/06/2011
     $32.56
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Hawkins, Jason
     08/20/2011
     $32.56
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Total for J. Hawkins
      
      
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     06/25/2011
     $23.04
     $460.80
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.92
     19.9
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     07/09/2011
     $23.04
     $460.80
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.92
     20.0
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     07/23/2011
     $23.04
     $460.80
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.92
     20.0
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     08/06/2011
     $23.04
     $460.80
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.92
     20.0
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     08/20/2011
     $23.04
     $460.80
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.91
     19.9
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     09/03/2011
     $23.04
     $460.79
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.91
     19.9
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     09/17/2011
     $23.04
     $460.80
     $0.00
     $122.43
     $112.69
     $695.92
     19.9
     
      Lemmon, Michele L.
     10/01/2011
     $23.04
     $460.79
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $114.08
     $574.85
     19.8
     
      Total for M. Lemmon
      
      
     $4,963.17
     $0.00
     $857.01
     $902.89
     $5,446.27
     159.4
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     06/25/2011
     $31.02
     $620.40
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.80
     $904.89
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     07/09/2011
     $31.02
     $620.39
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.80
     $904.88
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     07/23/2011
     $31.02
     $620.40
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.80
     $904.89
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     08/06/2011
     $31.02
     $620.39
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.80
     $904.88
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     08/20/2011
     $31.02
     $620.39
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.80
     $904.88
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     09/03/2011
     $31.02
     $620.40
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.79
     $904.89
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     09/17/2011
     $31.02
     $620.40
     $0.00
     $114.69
     $169.79
     $904.89
     20.0
     
      McDonough, Emily A.
     10/01/2011
     $31.02
     $620.40
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $170.91
     $791.31
     20.0
     
      Total for E. McDonough
      
      
     $4,963.17
     $0.00
     $802.85
     $1,359.49
     $7,125.51
     160.0
     
      Raterink, Dennis J.
     06/25/2011
     $59.15
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Raterink, Dennis J.
     07/09/2011
     $59.15
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Raterink, Dennis J.
     07/23/2011
     $59.15
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Raterink, Dennis J.
     08/06/2011
     $59.15
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Raterink, Dennis J.
     08/20/2011
     $59.15
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Total for D. Raterink
      
      
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $0.00
     0.0
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     06/25/2011
     $48.63
     $894.86
     $0.00
     $183.90
     $244.53
     $1,323.29
     18.4
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     07/09/2011
     $48.63
     $894.86
     $0.00
     $183.90
     $244.53
     $1,323.29
     18.5
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     07/23/2011
     $48.63
     $894.86
     $0.00
     $183.90
     $244.53
     $1,323.29
     18.4
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     08/06/2011
     $48.63
     $894.86
     $0.00
     $183.90
     $244.52
     $1,323.28
     18.4
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     08/20/2011
     $48.63
     $894.87
     $0.00
     $183.90
     $244.53
     $1,323.30
     18.5
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     09/03/2011
     $48.63
     $894.85
     $0.00
     $183.91
     $244.53
     $1,323.29
     18.2
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     09/17/2011
     $48.63
     $894.85
     $0.00
     $183.91
     $244.53
     $1,323.29
     18.4
     
      Warren, Thomas D.
     10/01/2011
     $48.63
     $894.85
     $0.00
     $0.00
     $222.97
     $1,117.82
     18.4
     
      Total for T. Warren
      
      
     $7,158.86
     $0.00
     $1,287.32
     $1,934.67
     $10,380.85
     147.2
     
      Report Total
      
      
     $15,808.40
     $0.00
     $2,847.18
     $4,197.05
     $22,952.63
     466.6
     

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120212/08207518/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 14:17:44 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:17:44 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
Message-ID: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat>

I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

This may be downloaded at the link below:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/cd05f698/attachment.html>

From drob1946 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 13 15:50:13 2012
From: drob1946 at gmail.com (David Robinson)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:50:13 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
In-Reply-To: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat>
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>

Dear Joe, 

 

   This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.
Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to
help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue
however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To
carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from
rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem
does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack
of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the
rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world
works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be
necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?
The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

 

Dave Robinson

 

  _____  

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
To: VENDORSMI List
Cc: Steve Arwood
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

 

I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so
fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic
"Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks
are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the
session.

 

This may be downloaded at the link below:

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/a4766b48/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Feb 13 17:04:27 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:04:27 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat>
	<198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>
Message-ID: <02111176447049EE858D6C0AF6870C95@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Amen. If I listen to another PA or Hull whine one more second about simply doing their jobs as established I'll hurl!

What Joe and others constantly point out is that rules need to be applied evenly and not ad hoc.

And that goes to the agency too in spades.

They are the ultimate scofflaws going all the way to upper management.

Personally I think there should be a license revocation process for PAs and for the BEP administration.

In fact there is. It's called firing them for cause.

Also why don't we entertain holding up their paychecks until they come into compliance themselves.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Robinson 
  To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  Dear Joe, 

   

     This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.  Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?  The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

   

  Dave Robinson

   


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

  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
  To: VENDORSMI List
  Cc: Steve Arwood
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

   

  I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
  written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

   

  This may be downloaded at the link below:

   

  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

   

   



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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/aab1b48d/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Mon Feb 13 22:11:59 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:11:59 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) for
	BEP
Message-ID: <50536F57DE3A4B8D97379ECF78239B10@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:15 PM
Subject: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) for BEP


February 13, 2012

 

Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458

 

Re:  Inventory Vendor for the Business Enterprise Program

 

Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

 

This letter is in response to your January 31, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on February 1, 2012, in this office.  Please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

 

You have requested information as described in your email, a copy of which is below.

 

Your request is partially granted and partially denied as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request.

 

The email attached is a string of questions and answers between yourself and Ms. Constance Zanger, Manager of the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) for MCB.

 

As to the granted portion of your request, I am providing information for the "Could you break down what we paid her (Natalie Maynard) for the equipment inventory?" and including additional invoices for services provided for the inventory of BEP equipment by Mr. Larry LaFerriere.

 

As to the denied portion of your request, redactions have been made for addresses and social security numbers per FOIA, 15.243 MCL, Section 13 (1)(a) "Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy" in regards to addresses and (w) "Information or records that would disclose the social security number of any individual."

 

We will not charge for the cost of this FOIA but this does not prohibit us from charging you or any other requestor for other requests.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

Attachments: 

1.      Email of 1-8-12

2.      Maynard Invoices

3.      LaFerriere Invoices

                                                                                                        

cc:     Patrick Cannon

          Mel Farmer

          Susan Turney

          Elsie Duell

          Constance Zanger

          James Hull

 

 



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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year 2011.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)


From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM 

To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?


Here's a little more:

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$17,501.96

 

 

Source:

 

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20

MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

 

 

And then these:

 

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,805.00

 

 

 

Source:

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20

MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

Hello, Joe;

 

Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. 

Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those 

she provided to B E P.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)


From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM 

To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?


http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%

20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)


From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM 

To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB 

meeting?


Joe

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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott 

MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, 

Sue (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

Mr. Harcz:

 

Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for 

the Business Enterprise Program.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)


From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM 

To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB 

Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; 

Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

Subject: simple question inventory vendor

 

January 31 2012 Inquiry

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

Patrick Cannon

Constance Zanger

James Hull

MCB

 

 

 

Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP 

program referenced today?

 

"Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,215.00"

 

 

A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: MCB Board

Cc: EOC Chair

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: several

 

 

 

 

Carla Miller Haynes

DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

Phone:  517/373-2063

FAX: 517/335-5140

 

www.michigan.gov/mcb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/5543ebd0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response of 2-13-12 Granted.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 69632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/5543ebd0/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Maynard Invoices Scanned Text.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/5543ebd0/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Laferriere Invoices Scanned Text.txt
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/5543ebd0/attachment-0001.txt>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Mon Feb 13 23:48:33 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 18:48:33 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s)
	forBEP
In-Reply-To: <50536F57DE3A4B8D97379ECF78239B10@YOUR7C60552B9E>
References: <50536F57DE3A4B8D97379ECF78239B10@YOUR7C60552B9E>
Message-ID: <DB751E6FD3044FA398BE2B8EF4E80892@TerryPC>

Who is NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD?


  _____  

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:12 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Cc: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s)
forBEP


 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Haynes, Carla  <mailto:haynesc at michigan.gov> (LARA) 
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) <mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net)>

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) <mailto:cannonp at michigan.gov>  ; Farmer, Mel
<mailto:farmerm at michigan.gov> (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA)
<mailto:turneys at michigan.gov>  ; Luzenski, Sue
<mailto:LuzenskiS at michigan.gov> (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA)
<mailto:DuellE at michigan.gov>  ; Zanger, Connie
<mailto:zangerc at michigan.gov> (LARA) ; Hull,  <mailto:hullj at michigan.gov>
James (LARA) 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:15 PM
Subject: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) for BEP


February 13, 2012

 

Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458

 

Re:  Inventory Vendor for the Business Enterprise Program

 

Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

 

This letter is in response to your January 31, 2012, email request for
copies of public records, received on February 1, 2012, in this office.
Please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind
(MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

 

You have requested information as described in your email, a copy of which
is below.

 

Your request is partially granted and partially denied as to existing,
nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your
request.

 

The email attached is a string of questions and answers between yourself and
Ms. Constance Zanger, Manager of the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) for
MCB.

 

As to the granted portion of your request, I am providing information for
the "Could you break down what we paid her (Natalie Maynard) for the
equipment inventory?" and including additional invoices for services
provided for the inventory of BEP equipment by Mr. Larry LaFerriere.

 

As to the denied portion of your request, redactions have been made for
addresses and social security numbers per FOIA, 15.243 MCL, Section 13
(1)(a) "Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the
information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an
individual's privacy" in regards to addresses and (w) "Information or
records that would disclose the social security number of any individual."

 

We will not charge for the cost of this FOIA but this does not prohibit us
from charging you or any other requestor for other requests.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

Attachments: 

1.      Email of 1-8-12

2.      Maynard Invoices

3.      LaFerriere Invoices

 


cc:     Patrick Cannon

          Mel Farmer

          Susan Turney

          Elsie Duell

          Constance Zanger

          James Hull

 

 




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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year
2011.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM 

To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?

Here's a little more:

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$17,501.96

 

 

Source:

 

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20

MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

 

 

And then these:

 

Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,805.00

 

 

 

Source:

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20

MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

Hello, Joe;

 

Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
paid to Ms. 

Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than
those 

she provided to B E P.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM 

To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20M
ARIE%

20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry
LaFerriere.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM 

To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

 

Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the
most recent MCB 

meeting?

Joe

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

From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ;
John Scott 

MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ;
Luzenski, 

Sue (LARA) 

Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

 

Mr. Harcz:

 

Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment
inventory for 

the Business Enterprise Program.

 

Constance Zanger

Business Enterprise Program Manager

Michigan Commission for the Blind

517/335.3639

517/335.5140 (facsimile)

From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM 

To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia
Schuck MCB 

Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; 

Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

Subject: simple question inventory vendor

 

January 31 2012 Inquiry

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

Patrick Cannon

Constance Zanger

James Hull

MCB

 

 

 

Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for
the BEP 

program referenced today?

 

"Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

Payment Totals

LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

$6,215.00"

 

 

A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: MCB Board

Cc: EOC Chair

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: several

 

 

 

 

Carla Miller Haynes

DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

Phone:  517/373-2063

FAX: 517/335-5140

 

www.michigan.gov/mcb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/3cc7c318/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 03:50:20 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:50:20 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory
	Vendor(s)forBEP
References: <50536F57DE3A4B8D97379ECF78239B10@YOUR7C60552B9E>
	<DB751E6FD3044FA398BE2B8EF4E80892@TerryPC>
Message-ID: <8A33CBCAEED14169AB6C96975550352F@Reputercat>

She is a very capable driver/reader who worked with John McEntee regularly, if I'm not mistaken.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Terry Eagle 
  To: 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 18:48
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s)forBEP


  Who is NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD?




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:12 PM
  To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
  Cc: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) forBEP



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
  To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:15 PM
  Subject: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) for BEP


  February 13, 2012

   

  Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

  E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

  1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

  Mt. Morris, MI 48458

   

  Re:  Inventory Vendor for the Business Enterprise Program

   

  Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

   

  This letter is in response to your January 31, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on February 1, 2012, in this office.  Please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

   

  You have requested information as described in your email, a copy of which is below.

   

  Your request is partially granted and partially denied as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request.

   

  The email attached is a string of questions and answers between yourself and Ms. Constance Zanger, Manager of the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) for MCB.

   

  As to the granted portion of your request, I am providing information for the "Could you break down what we paid her (Natalie Maynard) for the equipment inventory?" and including additional invoices for services provided for the inventory of BEP equipment by Mr. Larry LaFerriere.

   

  As to the denied portion of your request, redactions have been made for addresses and social security numbers per FOIA, 15.243 MCL, Section 13 (1)(a) "Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy" in regards to addresses and (w) "Information or records that would disclose the social security number of any individual."

   

  We will not charge for the cost of this FOIA but this does not prohibit us from charging you or any other requestor for other requests.

   

  Sincerely,

   

  Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

   

  Attachments: 

  1.      Email of 1-8-12

  2.      Maynard Invoices

  3.      LaFerriere Invoices

                                                                                                          

  cc:     Patrick Cannon

            Mel Farmer

            Susan Turney

            Elsie Duell

            Constance Zanger

            James Hull

   

   



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

  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM

  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

   

  B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year 2011.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM 

  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?


  Here's a little more:

  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $17,501.96

   

   

  Source:

   

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20

  MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

   

   

  And then these:

   

  Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

   

  Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

  Agency Name

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $6,805.00

   

   

   

  Source:

  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20

  MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Hello, Joe;

   

  Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. 

  Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those 

  she provided to B E P.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM 

  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?


  http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%

  20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

  Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM 

  To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB 

  meeting?


  Joe

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

  From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

  To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

  Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott 

  MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, 

  Sue (LARA) 

  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

  Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

   

  Mr. Harcz:

   

  Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for 

  the Business Enterprise Program.

   

  Constance Zanger

  Business Enterprise Program Manager

  Michigan Commission for the Blind

  517/335.3639

  517/335.5140 (facsimile)


  From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM 

  To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

  Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB 

  Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; 

  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

  Subject: simple question inventory vendor

   

  January 31 2012 Inquiry

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

  joeharcz at comcast.net

   

  Patrick Cannon

  Constance Zanger

  James Hull

  MCB

   

   

   

  Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP 

  program referenced today?

   

  "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

   

  Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

  Payment Totals

  LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

  $6,215.00"

   

   

  A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

   

  Sincerely,

   

  Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

   

  Cc: MCB Board

  Cc: EOC Chair

  Cc: NFB MI

  Cc: several

   

   

   

   

  Carla Miller Haynes

  DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

  201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

  P.O. Box 30652

  Lansing, MI  48909

  Phone:  517/373-2063

  FAX: 517/335-5140

   

  www.michigan.gov/mcb



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


  _______________________________________________
  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/suncat0%40gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120213/7f86f57f/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 11:02:10 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:02:10 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat>
	<198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>
Message-ID: <BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>

I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were, not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no risk to themselves.

This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Robinson 
  To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50
  Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  Dear Joe, 

   

     This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.  Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?  The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

   

  Dave Robinson

   


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

  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
  To: VENDORSMI List
  Cc: Steve Arwood
  Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

   

  I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
  written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

   

  This may be downloaded at the link below:

   

  http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

   

   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/9f150160/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 13:29:45 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:29:45 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat><198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>
	<BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <7D69CFEDEA464C06BBAC340DFBAE9504@YOUR7C60552B9E>

You are both correct. Let us not forget that it was the agency, after this ad hoc meeting that went to the EOC and then the Commission to rubber stamp eliminating the rules on "The State Plate". And let us not forget that Zanger herself before the Board said they've done this before. Ad Hoc indeed!

The agency in particular "bootstraps" or acts ad hoc, and so do some pet operators.


Regardless you are both correct in that what purpose are rules if they are not followed, or applied uniformly?

Now I do think there is a training component that is a problem when it comes to newer operators. That is pretty clear.

But, Joe S rightfully points out issues with long standing operators. I hear him in that he and others who operate on the up and up are put at a competitive disadvantage by doing so when rules are not evenly applied across the board. That is simply a reality not unlike having any outside competition.


Still this all ultimately goes to the agency.

I understand the chicken and egg dilemma posited by Joe, however.

Let us not forget there is a third element always skulking in the background. That is other state agencies and actors like these tyrannical building managers who think they can flout the law, and who do because the agency sells us all out to them.

Allowing a building manager to be formally on the interview process for the State Plate with all kinds of nebulous and dictatorial abilities is more than allowing the Camel's nose under the tent. It is telling us all who runs the program in the mind of the agency and for whom. It is letting the big bad Wolf in tright in the home invited and then jumping into the oven so we might make a tasty dinner for him.

Oh, yes and he apparently will dictate the price of that dinner too.


Joe H


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: David Robinson 
  Cc: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were, not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no risk to themselves.

  This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: David Robinson 
    To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50
    Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


    Dear Joe, 

     

       This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.  Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?  The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

     

    Dave Robinson

     


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

    From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
    To: VENDORSMI List
    Cc: Steve Arwood
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

     

    I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
    written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

     

    This may be downloaded at the link below:

     

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

     

     



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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/c6dac104/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 13:32:09 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:32:09 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request -
	InventoryVendor(s)forBEP
References: <50536F57DE3A4B8D97379ECF78239B10@YOUR7C60552B9E><DB751E6FD3044FA398BE2B8EF4E80892@TerryPC>
	<8A33CBCAEED14169AB6C96975550352F@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <512D50DE76AF459D9C916DBD36992E6A@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Yes, and remember that Zanger said they weren't happy with the results of the inventory and that I asked for the inventory itself and think commissioners should review it.

The elephant in the room is why are they unhappy?

Remember the auditor General is auditing this program.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: terrydeagle at yahoo.com ; NFB of Michigan Vendors List 
  Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - InventoryVendor(s)forBEP


  She is a very capable driver/reader who worked with John McEntee regularly, if I'm not mistaken.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Terry Eagle 
    To: 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 18:48
    Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s)forBEP


    Who is NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD?




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 5:12 PM
    To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
    Cc: Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) forBEP



    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
    To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 4:15 PM
    Subject: Response to FOIA Request - Inventory Vendor(s) for BEP


    February 13, 2012

     

    Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

    E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

    1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

    Mt. Morris, MI 48458

     

    Re:  Inventory Vendor for the Business Enterprise Program

     

    Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

     

    This letter is in response to your January 31, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on February 1, 2012, in this office.  Please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

     

    You have requested information as described in your email, a copy of which is below.

     

    Your request is partially granted and partially denied as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request.

     

    The email attached is a string of questions and answers between yourself and Ms. Constance Zanger, Manager of the Business Enterprise Program (BEP) for MCB.

     

    As to the granted portion of your request, I am providing information for the "Could you break down what we paid her (Natalie Maynard) for the equipment inventory?" and including additional invoices for services provided for the inventory of BEP equipment by Mr. Larry LaFerriere.

     

    As to the denied portion of your request, redactions have been made for addresses and social security numbers per FOIA, 15.243 MCL, Section 13 (1)(a) "Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual's privacy" in regards to addresses and (w) "Information or records that would disclose the social security number of any individual."

     

    We will not charge for the cost of this FOIA but this does not prohibit us from charging you or any other requestor for other requests.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

     

    Attachments: 

    1.      Email of 1-8-12

    2.      Maynard Invoices

    3.      LaFerriere Invoices

                                                                                                            

    cc:     Patrick Cannon

              Mel Farmer

              Susan Turney

              Elsie Duell

              Constance Zanger

              James Hull

     

     



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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:26 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    B E P paid Ms. Maynard $1232 for equipment inventory services in fiscal year 2011.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:19 AM 

    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Ok could you break down what we paid her for the equipment inventory?


    Here's a little more:

    Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2011

     

    Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

     

    Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

    Agency Name

    Payment Totals

    LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

    $17,501.96

     

     

    Source:

     

    http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20

    MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

     

     

    And then these:

     

    Payments to NATALIE MARIE MAYNARD for fiscal year 2012

     

    Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

     

    Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

    Agency Name

    Payment Totals

    LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

    $6,805.00

     

     

     

    Source:

    http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NATALIE%20

    MARIE%20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:17 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Hello, Joe;

     

    Those are the amounts the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs paid to Ms. 

    Maynard in 2011.  Ms. Maynard provided more services to the Department than those 

    she provided to B E P.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 10:11 AM 

    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    So is this what MCB paid Natalie for these services?


    http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2011&v=NATALIE%20MARIE%

    20MAYNARD&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' 

    Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:57 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Two vendors provided this service, Joe,  Natalie Maynard and Larry LaFerriere.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:42 AM 

    To: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    Subject: Re: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Thanks so who was the vendor paid for to do that that you referenced at the most recent MCB 

    meeting?


    Joe

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

    From: Zanger, Connie (LARA) 

    To: 'joe harcz Comcast' ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

    Cc: Hull, James (LARA) ; Larry Posont MCB Comm. ; lydia Schuck MCB Comm. ; John Scott 

    MCB Comm. ; James Chaney EOC ; Shane Jackson ; Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Luzenski, 

    Sue (LARA) 

    Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:33 AM

    Subject: RE: simple question inventory vendor

     

    Mr. Harcz:

     

    Inventory Specialties is not the company paid to conduct the equipment inventory for 

    the Business Enterprise Program.

     

    Constance Zanger

    Business Enterprise Program Manager

    Michigan Commission for the Blind

    517/335.3639

    517/335.5140 (facsimile)


    From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]  

    Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:51 PM 

    To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) 

    Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB 

    Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; 

    Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org 

    Subject: simple question inventory vendor

     

    January 31 2012 Inquiry

     

    Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

    joeharcz at comcast.net

     

    Patrick Cannon

    Constance Zanger

    James Hull

    MCB

     

     

     

    Simple question here.Is this the company paid to conduct the inventory for the BEP 

    program referenced today?

     

    "Payments to INVENTORY SPECIALTIES INC. for fiscal year 2011

     

    Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

    Payment Totals

    LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

    $6,215.00"

     

     

    A simple "yes" or "no" will do for now.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

     

    Cc: MCB Board

    Cc: EOC Chair

    Cc: NFB MI

    Cc: several

     

     

     

     

    Carla Miller Haynes

    DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

    201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

    P.O. Box 30652

    Lansing, MI  48909

    Phone:  517/373-2063

    FAX: 517/335-5140

     

    www.michigan.gov/mcb



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


    _______________________________________________
    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/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/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/d87aa5f1/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 14:14:56 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:14:56 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat><198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>
	<BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <D30555E03D774A559E93161139C9CD97@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Again worth a repeat here. But this does go to issues such as workmen's comp, etc.
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06882.htm

Opinion #6882

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site

- www.ag.state.mi.us)

STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6882

November 29, 1995

COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND:

Operators of vending stands in government owned buildings

Blind vending stand operators under the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program are not state employees.

Lowell W. Perry

Director

Michigan Department of Labor

P.O. Box 30015

Lansing, MI 48909

You have asked if blind vending stand operators under the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program are state employees. You indicate

your question is prompted by the claims of some operators that they are employees of the State of Michigan and, thus, do not have to comply with state

laws applicable to employers concerning paying unemployment compensation taxes and providing workers' compensation insurance.

Under 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 et seq; MSA 17.581(1) et seq (Act), the Michigan Commission for the Blind operates a program designed to aid blind and visually

handicapped individuals. Section 9 of the Act requires that "[a] concession in a building or on property owned or occupied by this state shall be operated

by a blind person." I have previously concluded under this Act that blind persons have the exclusive authority to operate concessions in state owned buildings,

OAG, 1989-1990, No 6651, p 356, 357 (July 24, 1990), and that the Department of Management and Budget may not charge rent for the operation of a concession

by a blind person. OAG, 1981-1982, No 5940, p 279 (August 4, 1981).

In order to carry out the mandates of the Act, the Commission for the Blind has established a Business Enterprise Program (BEP). In section 13 of the Act,

the Legislature has also designated the Commission to implement the Randolph Sheppard vending stand act, 20 USC Sec. 107 et seq. This is a federally funded

state program that seeks to provide opportunities to blind individuals by placing them in vending facilities in various government buildings. Under section

5(g) of the Act, the Commission for the Blind has promulgated administrative rules to implement the BEP. 1983 AACS, R 393.101 et seq.

This office has been informed that following evaluation, training, and other services, a blind person is placed as an operator in the BEP running a concession

in a government building. The operator and the Commission for the Blind enter into a contract that provides, among other things, that the operator will

pay a certain percentage of the concession profits to the Commission in what is called a set-aside fee. The Commission, in turn, will provide supervision

and advice, needed equipment, and an initial stock of goods. The operator sets his own prices and purchases his own stock after the initial stock is provided.

The operator must obtain a comprehensive liability insurance policy. The operator may hire other individuals as employees and is required to provide workers'

disability compensation coverage for any employees hired. Rule 393.107(c).

Under the contract between the operator and the Commission for the Blind, the operator is not paid by the State of Michigan for performing work for the

state. Rather, operators receive the proceeds from the operations of their vending facilities after paying their operating costs and set-aside fees. Rule

393.106(2).

If the blind vendors were state employees, it would be necessary for the Civil Service Commission to classify them in the classified state civil service

in accordance with Const 1963, art 11, Sec. 5, which provides, in part:

The classified state civil service shall consist of all positions in the state service except those filled by popular election, heads of principal departments,

members of boards and commissions, the principal executive officer of boards and commissions heading principal departments, employees of courts of record,

employees of the legislature, employees of the state institutions of higher education, all persons in the armed forces of the state, eight exempt positions

in the office of the governor, and within each principal department, when requested by the department head, two other exempt positions, one of which shall

be policy-making. The civil service commission may exempt three additional positions of a policy-making nature within each principal department.

It has been held that except to the extent that a position may be exempt under this section, all employees of the state are required to be classified into

the state civil service. Commissioner of Insurance v Michigan State Accident Fund, 173 Mich App 566, 582; 434 NW2d 433 (1988), lv den 433 Mich 872 (1989).

The position of vending stand operator has never been exempted from the classified state civil service or classified in the state civil service by the

Civil Service Commission.

Blind concession operators are included within the state employees' retirement system. Section 13a of 1943 PA 240, MCL 38.13a; MSA 3.981(13a) provides in

part:

Effective January 1, 1973, blind or partially sighted persons licensed as vending stand operators within the controlled programs of the bureau of blind

services are deemed to be employees within the meaning of this act for state retirement purposes only, and except as hereinafter provided are entitled

to all the rights and benefits of state employees covered by the provisions of this act. [ Emphasis added.]

The language "for state retirement purposes only" evidences an intent that blind vending stand operators are not considered state employees for general

purposes.

It is clear that blind vending operators in the BEP are clients rather than employees of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. With the exception of those

services provided by the Commission in accordance with the Act and implementing administrative rules, the operators are independent concessionaires with

the authority, in their capacities as employers, to employ other persons.

It is my opinion, therefore, that blind vending stand operators under the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program are not state employees.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

http://opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06882.htm

State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General

Last Updated 11/10/2008 16:49:34

_______________________________________________
Vendorsmi mailing list
Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joe Sontag 
  To: David Robinson 
  Cc: VENDORSMI List 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were, not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no risk to themselves.

  This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: David Robinson 
    To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50
    Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


    Dear Joe, 

     

       This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.  Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?  The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

     

    Dave Robinson

     


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

    From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
    To: VENDORSMI List
    Cc: Steve Arwood
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

     

    I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
    written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

     

    This may be downloaded at the link below:

     

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

     

     



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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/f2a96083/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Tue Feb 14 14:34:07 2012
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:34:07 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
In-Reply-To: <BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat><198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>
	<BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
Message-ID: <C02FE471C41D4CDF9B9F1DC945908E0A@TerryPC>

Right on Joe and dave! Joe has pointed out a major factor when BEP licensees
knowingly and willfully dchoose to not meet there legal obligations with
consequences.  And yet, the lack of consequences is derived from a lack of
expectations by program management.  But what can be expected from
incompetent management that has a poor attitude about blindness and what the
blind can actually do, as well as management that knows little about
business, and could not interpret a financial statement or BEP monthly
report if their job or life depended upon doing so with competence, and have
only gotten their jobs, advanced, and stay in their jobs through literally
sleeping with the right person(s), and as Larry so pointedly stated that
they are just carrying out Pat Cannon's evil orders.  They all can deny that
fact all they can, as did James Hull, yet if it were nor true, then why are
they not standing with the majority of the blind, fighting for improvement
and survival of the BEP?  That question I extend to the blind operators who
also sleep in the very crowded bed with management, with full knowledge and
complicity that those operators do not meet there legal obligations, are
promoted while out-of-compliance of program rules and policies, and
manipulation of theirnmumbers and reports, while claiming to be for blind
people and survival of the program, and yet, advocating for such things as
"secondary priority" for blind persons who are indeed BLIND, UNEMPLOYED,
more QUALIFIED, COMPETENT, and have more INTEGRITY than any of
thoseso-called self-proclaimed advocates of the blind and BEP.  And in their
narcisstic way, they believe the BEP and their top locations will always be
there because they are where where they want to be, and moreover, in their
twisted minds, will be able to pervert and control the program to preserve
that which they now have.

 

Dave is so right also.  I have seen first-hand, while adbocating vigorously
for the retention of the license of more than one blind operator, where the
BEP management "OBJECTS" to the introduction and argument that the failure
of BEP management to follow program rules and their mandated obligations,
while espousing the failure of operators' to follow rules and fulfill
mandated obligations.  BEP management objection is grounded in RELEVANCE to
the failure to perform up to par.  What am I missing in this argument?  Is
not an operator's expected performance stand or fail upon a mutually signed
facility agreement?  Does the agreement demand mutual fulfillment of express
obligations on the part of all parties to the agreement?  Is it not quid pro
quo, something for something?  How can it be argued that one can allege
violation of terms of the agreement, and it it not be relevant whether the
other party fulfilled tgeir obligations?  If the counter-claim or defense is
not revelant, then why the need for an agreement in the first place.  It is
a well recognized legal doctrine in basic contract law that certain
obligations of one party must be fukfilled in order to trigger the
responsibility to fulfill obligations of the other party.  For example, to
trigger an operator's obligation to make a certain profit percentage and pay
a certain set-aside fee, is it not reasonable, and even legally mandated
that the other party, the MCB-BEP, first provide appropriate and adequate
training, provide an adequate facility, provide appropriate and adequate
equipment, supply an appropriate and adequate inventory, and provide
appropriate and adequate on-going support and training, and on and on?  I
need not give true examples of where each of those examples and unnamed
others have failed to be provided, as we all know and can cite numerous
examples involving different operators, and yet, such examples are not
revelent to the fulfillment of obligations by an operator?  Has BEP
management and the EOC not heard of the theory of cause and effect?  Perhaps
if the BEP management and EOC look in the mirror and do an honest assessment
of their legally mandated roles, we would not be either facing breaking the
law for an illegal interview process and stringent business plan, and
selling out to the sighted business world.  I believe that if those
operators and BEP management supporting such a process should demonstrate
their leadership by first fulfilling the State Plate business proposal
requirements and publish them to the blind community.  After all, how else
are we the blind to know that those indiuals are truly QUALIFIED to EVALUATE
and SELECT  the most qualified operator for the State Plate.  In addition,
those in support of the of the interview and business plan process, in good
faith, do the same for their current facility, as a demonstration of their
allegence to, and faith in, such a brilliant idea.  I official make that a
challenge to all of those in support of protecting the "blind" and
"Secondary blind" priority, as the law allegedly and arguably provides.    

 

It is my sad prediction that were the BEP to be lost for the blind, it will
be actually because of the revelation that through manipulation, greed, and
failure of blind persons BEP and MCB management are not achieving the
MISSION and SPIRIT of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and P.A. 260-to be
financially independent and be financial contributors to society.  When
others, the disabled, politicians, and public policy-makers can demonstrate
such failure, then in fact, BEP for the blind will be history.  And the
so-called advocates, blind and sighted alike, will be sitting on their butts
enjoying their handsome inflated retirement pensions.

 

What is it going to take to wake-up the sleeping blind to the ultimate
threat to the survival of BEP for the blind??  Like the tale of Rip
VanWinkle, by the time the blind wake-up, much time and many things will
have passed them by, and the difference between Rip VanWinkle and blind
sleeping experience is that the blind will be in the world of reality.


  _____  

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:02 AM
To: David Robinson
Cc: VENDORSMI List
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator
compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at
the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they
are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless
the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such
as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for
operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were,
not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive
promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I
am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all
just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil
Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows
who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do
at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both
operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame
to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to
break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more
free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no
risk to themselves.
 
This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is
an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to
provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent
with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of
participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to
distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff
indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: David  <mailto:drob1946 at gmail.com> Robinson 
To: 'Joe Sontag' <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  ; 'NFB of Michigan
<mailto:vendorsmi at nfbnet.org> Vendors List' 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50
Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


Dear Joe, 

 

   This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.
Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to
help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue
however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To
carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from
rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem
does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack
of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the
rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world
works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be
necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?
The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

 

Dave Robinson

 


  _____  


From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
To: VENDORSMI List
Cc: Steve Arwood
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

 

I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so
fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic
"Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks
are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the
session.

 

This may be downloaded at the link below:

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/6c423ce5/attachment.html>

From drob1946 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 15:31:25 2012
From: drob1946 at gmail.com (David Robinson)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:31:25 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
In-Reply-To: <C02FE471C41D4CDF9B9F1DC945908E0A@TerryPC>
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat><198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04><BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
	<C02FE471C41D4CDF9B9F1DC945908E0A@TerryPC>
Message-ID: <F2B3F99F5FDC4787BACFD4EE65568811@STATION04>

Dear Terry, 

 

  Thank you for your statements, and your passion for the blind of Michigan.
What you say is so trueand I to believe that the BEP has a valuable place in
the lifes of the blind,and if those who oversee it, either agency or
operators, do not put their self serving greed aside, the opportunity for a
better and productive life will be lost to the blind.  If that happens who
knows when we will wake up  an experience an opportunity such as the BEP.  

 

 

 

Dave

  _____  

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Terry Eagle
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:34 AM
To: 'Joe Sontag'; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List'
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

 

Right on Joe and dave! Joe has pointed out a major factor when BEP licensees
knowingly and willfully dchoose to not meet there legal obligations with
consequences.  And yet, the lack of consequences is derived from a lack of
expectations by program management.  But what can be expected from
incompetent management that has a poor attitude about blindness and what the
blind can actually do, as well as management that knows little about
business, and could not interpret a financial statement or BEP monthly
report if their job or life depended upon doing so with competence, and have
only gotten their jobs, advanced, and stay in their jobs through literally
sleeping with the right person(s), and as Larry so pointedly stated that
they are just carrying out Pat Cannon's evil orders.  They all can deny that
fact all they can, as did James Hull, yet if it were nor true, then why are
they not standing with the majority of the blind, fighting for improvement
and survival of the BEP?  That question I extend to the blind operators who
also sleep in the very crowded bed with management, with full knowledge and
complicity that those operators do not meet there legal obligations, are
promoted while out-of-compliance of program rules and policies, and
manipulation of theirnmumbers and reports, while claiming to be for blind
people and survival of the program, and yet, advocating for such things as
"secondary priority" for blind persons who are indeed BLIND, UNEMPLOYED,
more QUALIFIED, COMPETENT, and have more INTEGRITY than any of
thoseso-called self-proclaimed advocates of the blind and BEP.  And in their
narcisstic way, they believe the BEP and their top locations will always be
there because they are where where they want to be, and moreover, in their
twisted minds, will be able to pervert and control the program to preserve
that which they now have.

 

Dave is so right also.  I have seen first-hand, while adbocating vigorously
for the retention of the license of more than one blind operator, where the
BEP management "OBJECTS" to the introduction and argument that the failure
of BEP management to follow program rules and their mandated obligations,
while espousing the failure of operators' to follow rules and fulfill
mandated obligations.  BEP management objection is grounded in RELEVANCE to
the failure to perform up to par.  What am I missing in this argument?  Is
not an operator's expected performance stand or fail upon a mutually signed
facility agreement?  Does the agreement demand mutual fulfillment of express
obligations on the part of all parties to the agreement?  Is it not quid pro
quo, something for something?  How can it be argued that one can allege
violation of terms of the agreement, and it it not be relevant whether the
other party fulfilled tgeir obligations?  If the counter-claim or defense is
not revelant, then why the need for an agreement in the first place.  It is
a well recognized legal doctrine in basic contract law that certain
obligations of one party must be fukfilled in order to trigger the
responsibility to fulfill obligations of the other party.  For example, to
trigger an operator's obligation to make a certain profit percentage and pay
a certain set-aside fee, is it not reasonable, and even legally mandated
that the other party, the MCB-BEP, first provide appropriate and adequate
training, provide an adequate facility, provide appropriate and adequate
equipment, supply an appropriate and adequate inventory, and provide
appropriate and adequate on-going support and training, and on and on?  I
need not give true examples of where each of those examples and unnamed
others have failed to be provided, as we all know and can cite numerous
examples involving different operators, and yet, such examples are not
revelent to the fulfillment of obligations by an operator?  Has BEP
management and the EOC not heard of the theory of cause and effect?  Perhaps
if the BEP management and EOC look in the mirror and do an honest assessment
of their legally mandated roles, we would not be either facing breaking the
law for an illegal interview process and stringent business plan, and
selling out to the sighted business world.  I believe that if those
operators and BEP management supporting such a process should demonstrate
their leadership by first fulfilling the State Plate business proposal
requirements and publish them to the blind community.  After all, how else
are we the blind to know that those indiuals are truly QUALIFIED to EVALUATE
and SELECT  the most qualified operator for the State Plate.  In addition,
those in support of the of the interview and business plan process, in good
faith, do the same for their current facility, as a demonstration of their
allegence to, and faith in, such a brilliant idea.  I official make that a
challenge to all of those in support of protecting the "blind" and
"Secondary blind" priority, as the law allegedly and arguably provides.    

 

It is my sad prediction that were the BEP to be lost for the blind, it will
be actually because of the revelation that through manipulation, greed, and
failure of blind persons BEP and MCB management are not achieving the
MISSION and SPIRIT of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and P.A. 260-to be
financially independent and be financial contributors to society.  When
others, the disabled, politicians, and public policy-makers can demonstrate
such failure, then in fact, BEP for the blind will be history.  And the
so-called advocates, blind and sighted alike, will be sitting on their butts
enjoying their handsome inflated retirement pensions.

 

What is it going to take to wake-up the sleeping blind to the ultimate
threat to the survival of BEP for the blind??  Like the tale of Rip
VanWinkle, by the time the blind wake-up, much time and many things will
have passed them by, and the difference between Rip VanWinkle and blind
sleeping experience is that the blind will be in the world of reality.

 

  _____  

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:02 AM
To: David Robinson
Cc: VENDORSMI List
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator
compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at
the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they
are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless
the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such
as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for
operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were,
not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive
promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I
am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all
just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil
Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows
who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do
at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both
operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame
to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to
break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more
free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no
risk to themselves.

 

This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is
an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to
provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent
with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of
participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to
distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff
indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.

 

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

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

To: 'Joe Sontag' <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  ; 'NFB of
<mailto:vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>  Michigan Vendors List' 

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50

Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

 

Dear Joe, 

 

   This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.
Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to
help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue
however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To
carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from
rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem
does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack
of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the
rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world
works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be
necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?
The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

 

Dave Robinson

 


  _____  


From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
To: VENDORSMI List
Cc: Steve Arwood
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

 

I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so
fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic
"Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks
are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the
session.

 

This may be downloaded at the link below:

 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/fef4a3f8/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 15:44:10 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:44:10 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat><198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04><BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
	<C02FE471C41D4CDF9B9F1DC945908E0A@TerryPC>
Message-ID: <96EE10270C644E92B54C3EE2688C7755@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Perhaps you misspelled "fulfilled" here...Nope on second thought you were right on in the first place.

Joe H
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Terry Eagle 
  To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  Right on Joe and dave! Joe has pointed out a major factor when BEP licensees knowingly and willfully dchoose to not meet there legal obligations with consequences.  And yet, the lack of consequences is derived from a lack of expectations by program management.  But what can be expected from incompetent management that has a poor attitude about blindness and what the blind can actually do, as well as management that knows little about business, and could not interpret a financial statement or BEP monthly report if their job or life depended upon doing so with competence, and have only gotten their jobs, advanced, and stay in their jobs through literally sleeping with the right person(s), and as Larry so pointedly stated that they are just carrying out Pat Cannon's evil orders.  They all can deny that fact all they can, as did James Hull, yet if it were nor true, then why are they not standing with the majority of the blind, fighting for improvement and survival of the BEP?  That question I extend to the blind operators who also sleep in the very crowded bed with management, with full knowledge and complicity that those operators do not meet there legal obligations, are promoted while out-of-compliance of program rules and policies, and manipulation of theirnmumbers and reports, while claiming to be for blind people and survival of the program, and yet, advocating for such things as "secondary priority" for blind persons who are indeed BLIND, UNEMPLOYED, more QUALIFIED, COMPETENT, and have more INTEGRITY than any of thoseso-called self-proclaimed advocates of the blind and BEP.  And in their narcisstic way, they believe the BEP and their top locations will always be there because they are where where they want to be, and moreover, in their twisted minds, will be able to pervert and control the program to preserve that which they now have.

   

  Dave is so right also.  I have seen first-hand, while adbocating vigorously for the retention of the license of more than one blind operator, where the BEP management "OBJECTS" to the introduction and argument that the failure of BEP management to follow program rules and their mandated obligations, while espousing the failure of operators' to follow rules and fulfill mandated obligations.  BEP management objection is grounded in RELEVANCE to the failure to perform up to par.  What am I missing in this argument?  Is not an operator's expected performance stand or fail upon a mutually signed facility agreement?  Does the agreement demand mutual fulfillment of express obligations on the part of all parties to the agreement?  Is it not quid pro quo, something for something?  How can it be argued that one can allege violation of terms of the agreement, and it it not be relevant whether the other party fulfilled tgeir obligations?  If the counter-claim or defense is not revelant, then why the need for an agreement in the first place.  It is a well recognized legal doctrine in basic contract law that certain obligations of one party must be fukfilled in order to trigger the responsibility to fulfill obligations of the other party.  For example, to trigger an operator's obligation to make a certain profit percentage and pay a certain set-aside fee, is it not reasonable, and even legally mandated that the other party, the MCB-BEP, first provide appropriate and adequate training, provide an adequate facility, provide appropriate and adequate equipment, supply an appropriate and adequate inventory, and provide appropriate and adequate on-going support and training, and on and on?  I need not give true examples of where each of those examples and unnamed others have failed to be provided, as we all know and can cite numerous examples involving different operators, and yet, such examples are not revelent to the fulfillment of obligations by an operator?  Has BEP management and the EOC not heard of the theory of cause and effect?  Perhaps if the BEP management and EOC look in the mirror and do an honest assessment of their legally mandated roles, we would not be either facing breaking the law for an illegal interview process and stringent business plan, and selling out to the sighted business world.  I believe that if those operators and BEP management supporting such a process should demonstrate their leadership by first fulfilling the State Plate business proposal requirements and publish them to the blind community.  After all, how else are we the blind to know that those indiuals are truly QUALIFIED to EVALUATE and SELECT  the most qualified operator for the State Plate.  In addition, those in support of the of the interview and business plan process, in good faith, do the same for their current facility, as a demonstration of their allegence to, and faith in, such a brilliant idea.  I official make that a challenge to all of those in support of protecting the "blind" and "Secondary blind" priority, as the law allegedly and arguably provides.    

   

  It is my sad prediction that were the BEP to be lost for the blind, it will be actually because of the revelation that through manipulation, greed, and failure of blind persons BEP and MCB management are not achieving the MISSION and SPIRIT of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and P.A. 260-to be financially independent and be financial contributors to society.  When others, the disabled, politicians, and public policy-makers can demonstrate such failure, then in fact, BEP for the blind will be history.  And the so-called advocates, blind and sighted alike, will be sitting on their butts enjoying their handsome inflated retirement pensions.

   

  What is it going to take to wake-up the sleeping blind to the ultimate threat to the survival of BEP for the blind??  Like the tale of Rip VanWinkle, by the time the blind wake-up, much time and many things will have passed them by, and the difference between Rip VanWinkle and blind sleeping experience is that the blind will be in the world of reality.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
  Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:02 AM
  To: David Robinson
  Cc: VENDORSMI List
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were, not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no risk to themselves.

  This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: David Robinson 
    To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50
    Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


    Dear Joe, 

     

       This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.  Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?  The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

     

    Dave Robinson

     


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

    From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
    To: VENDORSMI List
    Cc: Steve Arwood
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

     

    I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
    written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

     

    This may be downloaded at the link below:

     

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

     

     



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


  _______________________________________________
  Vendorsmi mailing list
  Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org
  To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Vendorsmi:
  http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/joeharcz%40comcast.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/c4078d8f/attachment.html>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 14 15:51:01 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:51:01 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?
References: <E970CCB8E9A74C96A43C73249D2DFC2D@Reputercat><198AC0AC61514EACB41C687E88F7B6C3@STATION04>
	<BCA2DA10279548C18A32F6EFF739BA4F@Reputercat>
	<C02FE471C41D4CDF9B9F1DC945908E0A@TerryPC>
Message-ID: <0ADCFC7AABD64E63B0D3CC29F462DC1F@Reputercat>

I can't find anything to disagree with here.  Ultimately it's up to the agency, Commission Board and staff, and operators alike to get serious about following established policy and rules consistently and to make necessary changes in the above according to procedure and protocol when it becomes obvious that existing policy and rules are ineffective or destructive.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Terry Eagle 
  To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:34
  Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  Right on Joe and dave! Joe has pointed out a major factor when BEP licensees knowingly and willfully dchoose to not meet there legal obligations with consequences.  And yet, the lack of consequences is derived from a lack of expectations by program management.  But what can be expected from incompetent management that has a poor attitude about blindness and what the blind can actually do, as well as management that knows little about business, and could not interpret a financial statement or BEP monthly report if their job or life depended upon doing so with competence, and have only gotten their jobs, advanced, and stay in their jobs through literally sleeping with the right person(s), and as Larry so pointedly stated that they are just carrying out Pat Cannon's evil orders.  They all can deny that fact all they can, as did James Hull, yet if it were nor true, then why are they not standing with the majority of the blind, fighting for improvement and survival of the BEP?  That question I extend to the blind operators who also sleep in the very crowded bed with management, with full knowledge and complicity that those operators do not meet there legal obligations, are promoted while out-of-compliance of program rules and policies, and manipulation of theirnmumbers and reports, while claiming to be for blind people and survival of the program, and yet, advocating for such things as "secondary priority" for blind persons who are indeed BLIND, UNEMPLOYED, more QUALIFIED, COMPETENT, and have more INTEGRITY than any of thoseso-called self-proclaimed advocates of the blind and BEP.  And in their narcisstic way, they believe the BEP and their top locations will always be there because they are where where they want to be, and moreover, in their twisted minds, will be able to pervert and control the program to preserve that which they now have.

   

  Dave is so right also.  I have seen first-hand, while adbocating vigorously for the retention of the license of more than one blind operator, where the BEP management "OBJECTS" to the introduction and argument that the failure of BEP management to follow program rules and their mandated obligations, while espousing the failure of operators' to follow rules and fulfill mandated obligations.  BEP management objection is grounded in RELEVANCE to the failure to perform up to par.  What am I missing in this argument?  Is not an operator's expected performance stand or fail upon a mutually signed facility agreement?  Does the agreement demand mutual fulfillment of express obligations on the part of all parties to the agreement?  Is it not quid pro quo, something for something?  How can it be argued that one can allege violation of terms of the agreement, and it it not be relevant whether the other party fulfilled tgeir obligations?  If the counter-claim or defense is not revelant, then why the need for an agreement in the first place.  It is a well recognized legal doctrine in basic contract law that certain obligations of one party must be fukfilled in order to trigger the responsibility to fulfill obligations of the other party.  For example, to trigger an operator's obligation to make a certain profit percentage and pay a certain set-aside fee, is it not reasonable, and even legally mandated that the other party, the MCB-BEP, first provide appropriate and adequate training, provide an adequate facility, provide appropriate and adequate equipment, supply an appropriate and adequate inventory, and provide appropriate and adequate on-going support and training, and on and on?  I need not give true examples of where each of those examples and unnamed others have failed to be provided, as we all know and can cite numerous examples involving different operators, and yet, such examples are not revelent to the fulfillment of obligations by an operator?  Has BEP management and the EOC not heard of the theory of cause and effect?  Perhaps if the BEP management and EOC look in the mirror and do an honest assessment of their legally mandated roles, we would not be either facing breaking the law for an illegal interview process and stringent business plan, and selling out to the sighted business world.  I believe that if those operators and BEP management supporting such a process should demonstrate their leadership by first fulfilling the State Plate business proposal requirements and publish them to the blind community.  After all, how else are we the blind to know that those indiuals are truly QUALIFIED to EVALUATE and SELECT  the most qualified operator for the State Plate.  In addition, those in support of the of the interview and business plan process, in good faith, do the same for their current facility, as a demonstration of their allegence to, and faith in, such a brilliant idea.  I official make that a challenge to all of those in support of protecting the "blind" and "Secondary blind" priority, as the law allegedly and arguably provides.    

   

  It is my sad prediction that were the BEP to be lost for the blind, it will be actually because of the revelation that through manipulation, greed, and failure of blind persons BEP and MCB management are not achieving the MISSION and SPIRIT of the Randolph-Sheppard Act and P.A. 260-to be financially independent and be financial contributors to society.  When others, the disabled, politicians, and public policy-makers can demonstrate such failure, then in fact, BEP for the blind will be history.  And the so-called advocates, blind and sighted alike, will be sitting on their butts enjoying their handsome inflated retirement pensions.

   

  What is it going to take to wake-up the sleeping blind to the ultimate threat to the survival of BEP for the blind??  Like the tale of Rip VanWinkle, by the time the blind wake-up, much time and many things will have passed them by, and the difference between Rip VanWinkle and blind sleeping experience is that the blind will be in the world of reality.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
  Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:02 AM
  To: David Robinson
  Cc: VENDORSMI List
  Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


  I reject the claim that the training is the problem where operator compliance is concerned.  Most of the serious violations are happening at the hands of experienced operators in the employer responsibility area, they are willful and they happen mostly because there are no consequences unless the operator in question has done things to anger BEP administration, such as help protect another operator's rights.  I have been penalized for operating a business properly and for showing the financials as they were, not as I always wished they could be, and I have seen operators receive promotion points for "training" based on nothing more than their word and I am sick and tired of sitting on my ass and telling myself that it will all just work out somehow.  The PAs have a job that is defined by both the Civil Service and by our promulgated rules, yet Cannon, Zanger, Hull and god knows who else work harder at getting their responsibilities reduced than they do at strengthening and growing our program.  Remember, the topic includes both operators and the agency and, in my opinion, there's more than enough blame to go around.  As free as certain highly regarded operators are free to break the law and rip off the program, the BEP administration is even more free to ignore or break the rules and sell the program down the river, at no risk to themselves.

  This is not a sheltered rehab shop, this is not a blindy pity party, this is an employment program, one that gives blind adults the opportunity to provide real service in exchange for real financial compensation, consistent with applicable laws, all of which they agree to as a condition of participation in the program.  If the BEP dies, it will be hard to distinguish between the effects of operator exploitation and BEP staff indifference and incompetence when trying to determine the cause of death.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: David Robinson 
    To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' 
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:50
    Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?


    Dear Joe, 

     

       This is an excellent example of the problem throughout the program.  Larry does a good job of pointing out that part of the agency's role is to help the operator to stay in full compliance.  This is not a one sided issue however.  The agency has an obligation to adhere to the rules as well.  To carry out their responsibility as the SLA and to move a blind person from rehabilitation to employment.  In today's BEP, I suspect that the problem does not mean an unwillingness to follow the rules, but the training or lack of training, that operators have been given. I also contend that some of the rules are outdated and lacking any understanding of how the business world works.  If the training was good then many of the rules would not be necessary.  Finally, why is the discussion of rules only about the operator?  The agency is willing to break them when they need to do so.

     

    Dave Robinson

     


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

    From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag
    Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:18 AM
    To: VENDORSMI List
    Cc: Steve Arwood
    Subject: [Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

     

    I now offer you a clue as to why the Business Enterprise Program is so fouled up.  Listen carefully to the following discussion on the topic "Operators/Agency Staff consistently following rules as they are
    written," which is one of the issues before the ad hoc.  Mr. Hull's remarks are extremely revealing, as is the vote that was taken near the end of the session.

     

    This may be downloaded at the link below:

     

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22266576/Ad%20hoc%20%2002032012%20excerpt1.MP3

     

     
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/5198bfbb/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 20:19:13 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:19:13 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] wow this is a big one
Message-ID: <85A3990E3BB44BD78CA73A2C959E2554@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Payments to CAPITAL DELI AND GRILL for fiscal year 2012

 

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

 

Table with 2 columns and 2 rows

Agency Name

Payment Totals

MILITARY & VETERAN AFFAIRS

$201,949.57

table end

Showing 1 - 1 of 1
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/fa2625e5/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 20:20:04 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:20:04 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Response to FOIA Request of 2-8-12 - EOC Minutes
	and Recording for Meeting of 2-6-12
Message-ID: <7D7ECB99BCCC482ABAB74AAABB68FA67@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:58 PM
Subject: Response to FOIA Request of 2-8-12 - EOC Minutes and Recording for Meeting of 2-6-12


February 14, 2012

 

Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458

 

Re:  EOC Meeting of 2-6-12 Minutes and Recording

 

Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

 

This letter is in response to your February 8, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on February 9, 2012, in this office.  Please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

 

You have requested information as described in your email, a copy of which is below.

 

Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request.

 

Attached and below are the minutes of the above meeting.  In regards to the recording of this meeting, this will be sent to you as soon as I receive a copy.  I am expecting this recording within the week.

 

We will not charge for the cost of this FOIA but this does not prohibit us from charging you or any other requestor for other requests.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

Attachments: 

1.            Email of 2-8-12

2.            Minutes of EOC Meeting of 2-6-12

                                                                                                                                                                             

cc:           Patrick Cannon

                Mel Farmer

                Susan Turney

                Elsie Duell

                Constance Zanger

                James Hull

 

 



From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org; Elmer Cerano MPAS
Subject: more ada rehab act requests information

 

Feb.  8 2012 Request for EOC Minutes Recording

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

To: Patrick Cannon, James Hull constance Zanger

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

And: James Chaney Elected Operators Committee Chair

 

And: Michigan Commission for the Blind Commissioners

 

 

All,

 

I'm writing today to request in accessible format the EOC meeting minutes of it's "emergency meeting" on Monday night. They may be sent to me as simple e-mail attachments and/or enclosures to my e-mail address listed above.

 

I'm also requesting that a thumb drive in mp3 format of the recording of that meeting is sent to me at my mailing address listed above.

 

I make these requests pursuant to obligations well known under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, and numerous provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: Several Vendors

Cc: RSA

Cc: Elmer Cerano MPAS

 



Elected Operators Committee Meeting Minutes, Monday, February 6, 2012, by Teleconference. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM, and was chaired by Shane Jackson.

 

Roll Call:

 

Present: Greg Keathley, Garnet Prentice, Andrea Nelson, Rob Essenberg, Kevin Tomczak, Risa Patrick-Langtry, Matilda Steele, James Chaney, and Shane Jackson.

Absent: Dale Layer.

BEP Staff Present: Constance Zanger, James Hull, and Jennifer Doroh.

Guests Present: Larry Posont, Joe Harcz, Cheri Eagle, and Hazell Brooks.

 

Interview Process for the House of Representatives Cafeteria by the Committee: Constance Zanger gave a history of the facility as discussed in the last special meeting of the committee. Information was provided on the previous operator serving the facility. The facility is classified as a cafeteria therefore; an operator with cafeteria certification is required. An alternate process will be needed for selecting a new operator as only one is cafeteria certified at present. An Ad-Hoc group consisting of Rob Essenberg, Andrea Nelson, Constance Zanger, James Hull, and James Chaney, met to identify a mechanism for having a blind presence at the facility while maintaining a skilled candidate to operate it. They drafted a solicitation and interview questions. Some members indicated that they did not receive that information. The solicitation document was read by Constance Zanger. Concerns were shared among members which ranged from how legal the process is, having an outside entity run the location, to violations against the promulgated rules. After discussion, Andrea Nelson made the following motion which was seconded by Rob Essenberg:

 

TO ACCEPT the document with the following amendments:

 

1. Should an outside entity be awarded this facility, that they must agree to enter into negotiations for a teaming partner arrangement with a licensee that expresses an interest in operating the facility.

 

2. Should an outside entity be awarded this facility, that they must be prepared to train a licensee in food service operations at the facility, but are not required to hire that licensee during that training period.

 

Roll call vote was taken. Greg Keathley, Andrea Nelson, Rob Essenberg, and Shane Jackson, voted yes. Risa Patrick-Langtry, Garnet Prentice, and Matilda Steele, voted no. Kevin Tomczak abstained. The motion passed with a 4 to 3 to 1 vote. Shane Jackson asked Constance Zanger and James Hull to inform the committee who is getting cafeteria certified for the February meeting. Rob Essenberg also asked the agency to provide Garnet Prentice with sample teaming partner arrangements from other states. The interview questions were not presented. However, the motion that passed along with the solicitation and questions will be E-mailed to committee members and Commissioners. If members have additional questions or they would like to remove a question, they were encouraged to forward them to James Hull, who will have a final draft by the February meeting. Discussion took place on the Commission Board meeting on Wednesday, February 8, 2012. James CHANEY inquired after the Commission Board votes on it, how soon the facility will be available on the bid line. Constance Zanger reported that she expects the facility to be on the bid line on Tuesday, February 14, 2012, provided the board passes the motion on Wednesday. Shane Jackson moved into public comment which was seconded.

 

Public Comment by the Public:

 

1. Rob Essenberg commented that when selecting operators, the interview panel should have equal representation so the building manager won't override the panel's decision.

2. Hazell Brooks inquired about which items were included in the proposal.

3. James Chaney commended Garnet Prentice, Kevin Tomczak, and Greg Keathley, for sharing their concerns about the interview process.

4. Greg Keathley inquired which committee was meeting.

5. Joe Harcz, Garnet Prentice, and Shane Jackson commented on Public Act 260 and the interview process for the House of Representatives Cafeteria may be a violation of that act.

6. Cheri Eagle commented on the legal aspects of the process. She also commended Joe Harcz for his input.

7. Greg Keathley feels that nothing has been violated.

 

Adjournment: Kevin Tomczak made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Garnet Prentice seconded it. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 PM.

 

Preparation and Distribution of Minutes by Jennifer Doroh:

 

Minutes were prepared and completed by Jennifer Doroh on Tuesday, February 14, 2012.

 

Minutes were approved (by the chair on date.)

 

 

 

Carla Miller Haynes

DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

Phone:  517/373-2063

FAX: 517/335-5140

 

www.michigan.gov/mcb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/f4da8c2e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response of 2-14-12 Granted - Minutes Attached.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 70656 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/f4da8c2e/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Elected Operators Committee Meeting Minutes Monday February #6 #2012.rtf
Type: application/msword
Size: 39494 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/f4da8c2e/attachment-0001.doc>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Tue Feb 14 20:26:51 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:26:51 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] for those who cannot read atachments
Message-ID: <A58B158A1FAC4044A7752948A94B858F@YOUR7C60552B9E>

Elected Operators Committee Meeting Minutes, Monday, February 6, 2012, by Teleconference. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 PM, and was chaired by Shane Jackson.

 

Roll Call:

 

Present: Greg Keathley, Garnet Prentice, Andrea Nelson, Rob Essenberg, Kevin Tomczak, Risa Patrick-Langtry, Matilda Steele, James Chaney, and Shane Jackson.

Absent: Dale Layer.

BEP Staff Present: Constance Zanger, James Hull, and Jennifer Doroh.

Guests Present: Larry Posont, Joe Harcz, Cheri Eagle, and Hazell Brooks.

 

Interview Process for the House of Representatives Cafeteria by the Committee: Constance Zanger gave a history of the facility as discussed in the last special meeting of the committee. Information was provided on the previous operator serving the facility. The facility is classified as a cafeteria therefore; an operator with cafeteria certification is required. An alternate process will be needed for selecting a new operator as only one is cafeteria certified at present. An Ad-Hoc group consisting of Rob Essenberg, Andrea Nelson, Constance Zanger, James Hull, and James Chaney, met to identify a mechanism for having a blind presence at the facility while maintaining a skilled candidate to operate it. They drafted a solicitation and interview questions. Some members indicated that they did not receive that information. The solicitation document was read by Constance Zanger. Concerns were shared among members which ranged from how legal the process is, having an outside entity run the location, to violations against the promulgated rules. After discussion, Andrea Nelson made the following motion which was seconded by Rob Essenberg:

 

TO ACCEPT the document with the following amendments:

 

1. Should an outside entity be awarded this facility, that they must agree to enter into negotiations for a teaming partner arrangement with a licensee that expresses an interest in operating the facility.

 

2. Should an outside entity be awarded this facility, that they must be prepared to train a licensee in food service operations at the facility, but are not required to hire that licensee during that training period.

 

Roll call vote was taken. Greg Keathley, Andrea Nelson, Rob Essenberg, and Shane Jackson, voted yes. Risa Patrick-Langtry, Garnet Prentice, and Matilda Steele, voted no. Kevin Tomczak abstained. The motion passed with a 4 to 3 to 1 vote. Shane Jackson asked Constance Zanger and James Hull to inform the committee who is getting cafeteria certified for the February meeting. Rob Essenberg also asked the agency to provide Garnet Prentice with sample teaming partner arrangements from other states. The interview questions were not presented. However, the motion that passed along with the solicitation and questions will be E-mailed to committee members and Commissioners. If members have additional questions or they would like to remove a question, they were encouraged to forward them to James Hull, who will have a final draft by the February meeting. Discussion took place on the Commission Board meeting on Wednesday, February 8, 2012. James CHANEY inquired after the Commission Board votes on it, how soon the facility will be available on the bid line. Constance Zanger reported that she expects the facility to be on the bid line on Tuesday, February 14, 2012, provided the board passes the motion on Wednesday. Shane Jackson moved into public comment which was seconded.

 

Public Comment by the Public:

 

1. Rob Essenberg commented that when selecting operators, the interview panel should have equal representation so the building manager won't override the panel's decision.

2. Hazell Brooks inquired about which items were included in the proposal.

3. James Chaney commended Garnet Prentice, Kevin Tomczak, and Greg Keathley, for sharing their concerns about the interview process.

4. Greg Keathley inquired which committee was meeting.

5. Joe Harcz, Garnet Prentice, and Shane Jackson commented on Public Act 260 and the interview process for the House of Representatives Cafeteria may be a violation of that act.

6. Cheri Eagle commented on the legal aspects of the process. She also commended Joe Harcz for his input.

7. Greg Keathley feels that nothing has been violated.

 

Adjournment: Kevin Tomczak made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Garnet Prentice seconded it. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 PM.

 

Preparation and Distribution of Minutes by Jennifer Doroh:

 

Minutes were prepared and completed by Jennifer Doroh on Tuesday, February 14, 2012.

 

Minutes were approved (by the chair on date.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/339e5b51/attachment.html>

From dandrews at visi.com  Wed Feb 15 01:13:34 2012
From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews)
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:13:34 -0600
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fwd: National Federation of the Blind Urges Congress to
 Reject Commercializing Rest Stops
Message-ID: <auto-000048817726@mailfront3.g2host.com>


>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>
>CONTACT:
>
>Chris Danielsen
>
>Director of Public Relations
>
>National Federation of the Blind
>
>(410) 659-9314, extension 2330
>
>(410) 262-1281 (Cell)
>
><mailto:Cdanielsen at nfb.org>Cdanielsen at nfb.org
>
>
>
>
>National Federation of the Blind Urges Congress
>to Reject Commercializing Rest Stops
>
>
>
>
>
>Transportation Bill Amendment Threatens Livelihood of Hundreds of 
>Blind Entrepreneurs
>
>
>
>
>
>Baltimore, Maryland (February 14, 2012): The 
><http://www.nfb.org/>National Federation of the Blind, the oldest 
>and largest nationwide organization of blind Americans, today urged 
>the United States Congress to reject an amendment to the proposed 
>American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 7) that 
>would allow the commercialization of highway rest stops.  Currently, 
>the only commercial activity permitted at such rest stops is the 
>operation of vending machines by blind entrepreneurs under the 
>Randolph-Sheppard Act.
>
>
>
>Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, 
>said: "This amendment would threaten the livelihoods of hundreds of 
>blind entrepreneurs in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />United States who 
>depend on revenue from rest stop vending machines.  With an 
>unemployment rate among blind Americans that exceeds 70 percent, 
>such a move is deeply irresponsible, as these entrepreneurs will 
>lose their businesses and be forced to rely on public 
>assistance.  We urge Congress to reject this ill-considered and 
>reckless proposal."
>
>
>
>The amendment, #217, has been put forward by Congressmen Steve 
>LaTourette (R-OH), Steve Stivers (R-OH), and Dennis Kucinich 
>(D-OH).  The House Committee on Rules is expected to vote later 
>today on whether to allow the amendment.
>
>
>
>###
>
>
>
>About the National Federation of the Blind
>
>With more than 50,000 members, the National Federation of the Blind 
>is the largest and most influential membership organization of blind 
>people in the United States. The NFB improves blind people's lives 
>through advocacy, education, research, technology, and programs 
>encouraging independence and self-confidence. It is the leading 
>force in the blindness field today and the voice of the nation's 
>blind. In January 2004 the NFB opened the National Federation of the 
>Blind Jernigan Institute, the first research and training center in 
>the United States for the blind led by the blind.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120214/e04a41f4/attachment.html>

From dandrews at visi.com  Thu Feb 16 02:23:30 2012
From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews)
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:23:30 -0600
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fwd: Four new opportunities at Hadley
Message-ID: <auto-000048322187@mailfront4.g2host.com>


>
>As Director of the Forsythe Center for Entrepreneurship, I have four 
>exciting announcements I want to share with you. We hope to continue 
>contributing to the success of your business with the following four 
>new offerings:
>
>1.      MYOB (Minding Your Own Business) Our new online business 
>series will begin on Monday, February 27 at 2PM CST. It will be 
>similar to the Seminars at Hadley series, but much more flexible and 
>conversational. Please join us on the 27th when we will discuss how 
>to start your business with $100 or less. Read more at: 
>http://www.hadley.edu/FCE-MYOB.asp
>
>
>2.      Business Directory. We would like to offer you even more 
>networking opportunities, as well as free advertisement of your 
>business. We have created a directory of businesses owned or 
>operated by visually impaired individuals around the world. You can 
>have your own business listed there, too. Read the directory and 
>submit your business at: http://www.hadley.edu/FCE-BusinessDirectory.asp
>
>
>3.      Discussion List for visually impaired entrepreneurs. We have 
>created a mailing list where blind and visually impaired business 
>owners can join the conversation, network with one another, ask 
>questions and exchange ideas and support. Read more at: 
>http://www.hadley.edu/FCE-DiscussionGroup.asp
>
>
>4.      One on One with Urban Miyares We put together a series of 21 
>short interviews on entrepreneurship with Urban Miyares, a blinded 
>veteran who has started several successful businesses. You can 
>listen to these interviews at: http://www.hadley.edu/FCE-SeminarsRecordings.asp
>
>
>Sincerely:
>
>Tom Babinszki
>Director, Forsythe Center for Entrepreneurship
>The Hadley School for the Blind
>700 Elm Street
>Winnetka, IL 60093-2554
>Phone: 847-784-2804
>Fax: 847-446-0855
>E-mail: babinszki at hadley.edu
>
>Check us out online:
>www.hadley.edu
>www.facebook.com/thehadleyschoolfortheblind
>www.twitter.com/thehadleyschool




From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb 16 17:18:07 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:18:07 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Warrants.htm
Message-ID: <8173C845FB5E4495AB3858C1F4F0E055@YOUR7C60552B9E>

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

  a.. State Expenditures by Category
   a.. State Expenditures by Appropriation Unit
   a.. Vendor Payments
   a.. By Vendor
     a.. By Category
     a.. By Agency
     a.. Tax Expenditure Reports
   Payments to a Vendor by Agency and Category
Payments to WOLVERINE AMERICA, LLC by LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS for fiscal year 2011

      Agency Name Category Description Warrant Date Payments Total 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 10/6/2011 $6,855.10 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 10/3/2011 $10,584.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 9/30/2011 $6,125.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 9/20/2011 $70,137.32 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 9/15/2011 $14,937.90 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 9/7/2011 $53,242.03 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/31/2011 $20,222.30 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/29/2011 $39,778.89 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/25/2011 $14,989.10 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/22/2011 $18,032.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/15/2011 $27,923.63 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/10/2011 $16,459.10 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/8/2011 $25,514.30 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 8/5/2011 $5,495.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 7/27/2011 $20,790.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 7/25/2011 $6,420.13 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 7/22/2011 $6,069.04 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 7/8/2011 $4,949.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 7/7/2011 $11,081.74 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 6/29/2011 $25,759.30 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 6/20/2011 $19,572.17 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 6/17/2011 $42,845.78 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 6/2/2011 $11,804.10 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 5/26/2011 $15,790.16 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 5/20/2011 $19,572.17 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 5/16/2011 $69,386.45 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 4/21/2011 $253.85 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 4/18/2011 $24,623.45 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Capital Acquisitions and Rentals 4/11/2011 $24,090.00 

Showing 1 - 29 of 29 


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

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120216/c77b4172/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120216/c77b4172/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120216/c77b4172/attachment.gif>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 16 19:55:29 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:55:29 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: A message from Terry Smith re: HR 7
Message-ID: <DB1BEFD155E3463B9F69399649C28F98@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Posont" <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
To: "nfbmi List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 14:39
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: A message from Terry Smith re: HR 7


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Freeh, Jessica
> To: Alpidio Rolon ; Amy Buresh ; Art Schreiber ; Beth Rival ; Bill Packee 
> ; Bob Kresmer ; Carl Jacobsen ; Cassandra McNabb ; Cathy Jackson ; 
> Charlene Smyth ; Christine G. Hall ; Dan Hicks ; Daniel Burke ; Donna Wood 
> ; Duane Iverson ; Elsie Dickerson ; Frank Lee ; Franklin Shiner ; Fred 
> Schroeder ; Garrick Scott ; Gary Ray ; Gary Wunder ; Grace Pires ; J.W. 
> Smith ; James Antonacci ; Jeannie Massay ; Jennifer Dunnam ; Joe Ruffalo ; 
> John Batron ; John Fritz ; Joy Harris ; Joyce Scanlan ; Ken Rollman ; Kim 
> Williams ; Kimberly Flores ; Larry Posont ; Lynn Majewski ; Mary Willows ; 
> Melissa Riccobono ; Michael Barber ; Michael Freeman ; Mika Pyyhkala ; 
> Nani Fife ; Pam Allen ; Parnell Diggs ; Patti Chang ; Patty Estes ; Rena 
> Smith ; Ron Brown ; Gardner, Ron ; Sam Gleese ; Scott LaBarre ; Shawn 
> Callaway ; Terry Sheeler
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:22 PM
> Subject: A message from Terry Smith re: HR 7
>
>
> UPDATE ON HR 7
>
>
> I wanted to follow up with everyone on the efforts to amend HR 7 to allow 
> commercialization of the interstate rest areas and to thank all of those 
> who responded so quickly to our call to action.  You were phenomenal. 
> Congressman LaTourette has definitely heard loud and clear that his 
> amendment would be devastating to blind entrepreneurs and that the 
> National Federation of the Blind and the National Association of Blind 
> Merchants intended on protecting those hard working blind individuals who 
> now earn their living with vending machines at the interstate rest areas.
>
>
> When we first heard of the amendment, the NFB issued a press release.  In 
> it, Dr. Marc Maurer called for the amendment to be withdrawn.  This press 
> release was sent to every member of Congress and some media outlets.  The 
> release resulted in many calls to our national office from Congressional 
> offices.  We sent out an alert to our many fine blind entrepreneurs and to 
> key state affiliates.  You came through with flying colors as literally 
> hundreds of calls were made to Congressional offices.  One co-sponsor 
> withdrew his support for the bill.  Other Congressional offices pledged 
> their support to oppose the amendment.
>
>
> As it currently stands, we are cautiously optimistic the amendment will 
> not pass as originally proposed.  Congressman LaTourette's  office is 
> still working to try to develop language to ensure that blind 
> entrepreneurs are not adversely affected.  We understand now that a vote 
> by the full House on HR 7 has been delayed and will now not go to the 
> floor for a vote before the week of February 27th.  This will allow them 
> time to reconsider the amendment and/or develop language that eases our 
> concerns.
>
>
> Thanks to all of you and the efforts of John Pare, Lauren McLarney, Chris 
> Danielsen, Nicky Gacos, Kevan Worley, and others at NFB's national office 
> including Dr. Maurer's personal involvement, we are optimistic that we can 
> defeat this amendment.  However, if it passes, it will go to conference 
> with the Senate which has already passed the bill without any 
> commercialization language.  The Senate has historically opposed 
> commercialization efforts so we will get another chance to defeat the 
> effort at that point.  We will need your efforts again if that occurs.
>
>
> One other point needs to be made.  As the process unfolded this week, 
> there was some talk about allowing commercialization but giving a priority 
> to blind entrepreneurs.  On the surface, that is tempting but everything 
> that glitters isn't always gold.  If commercialization passed with a 
> priority for the blind, many state licensing agencies would not be in 
> position to develop the type of partnership arrangements that would be 
> required.  No state has the resources to build a multimillion dollar 
> travel center that provides a wide range of services to the traveling 
> public including food, gas, etc.  It would require the states to team with 
> a private entity who could put forth the capital outlay.  If the SLA 
> passed on the opportunity, as I'm sure many would, the state departments 
> of transportation would then be free to invite other third parties into 
> the rest areas thus making the vending opportunities currently enjoyed by 
> blind entrepreneurs virtually meaningless.  Although the NFB and  NABM are 
> willing to look at a thoroughly thought out plan that would create 
> opportunities for blind entrepreneurs, we are not willing to rush into 
> agreeing to language in an amendment that could have severe consequences. 
> We are more than willing to sit down with proponents of commercialization 
> during the coming year to consider options.  But for now, we say "No" to 
> commercialization.
>
>
> Let me say that I am proud of all of you who sprang into action.  NABM and 
> the NFB have once again demonstrated that when we mobilize NFB members and 
> blind vendors across the country, the voice of the blind will be heard. 
> Thanks to all of you.
>
>
> Terry C. Smith
> Business Opportunity Specialist
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Sat Feb 18 00:11:35 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:11:35 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: A Message from our NABM President- RE: HR 7
Message-ID: <2A4675F5CCC04E6B90C383E8E63319E3@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kevan Worley 
To: 'Al Falligan' ; 'Art Stevenson' ; 'Charles and Betty Allen' ; 'Jim Farley' ; 'John Fritz' ; 'Lynn Reynolds' ; 'Scott Young' ; 'Virgil Stinnett' ; 'Dave Merritt' ; 'David Phillips' ; 'Don Hudson' ; 'Gene Fleeman' ; HackneyCharles at aol.com ; 'Jeremiah Wells' ; 'Joe Shaw' ; 'John Gerber' ; 'john Jones' ; 'Lorraine Magnessun' ; 'Manny Sifuentes' ; 'Mary Hayes' ; 'Pamela' ; 'Ray Marshall' ; suncat0 at gmail.com ; terrysmith at epbfi.com ; 'Willie Black' 
Cc: Harold Wilson ; Kim Williams ; nickycolorado at netscape.net ; sharonparis at comcast.net 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:49
Subject: A Message from our NABM President- RE: HR 7


Greetings,

 

I wanted to follow up with everyone on the efforts to amend HR 7 to allow commercialization of the interstate rest areas.  Congressman LaTourette has definitely heard loud and clear that his amendment would be devastating to blind entrepreneurs and the amendment has little chance to pass as originally proposed.  His office is still working on language to ensure that blind vendors are not adversely affected.  The bill will now not go to the floor for a vote before the week of February 27th.  This will allow them time to reconsider the amendment and/or develop language that eases our concerns.  

 

Thanks to all of you and the efforts of John Pare, Terry Smith, Chris Danielsen, and others at NFB's national office, we are optimistic that we can defeat this amendment.  However, if it passes, it will go to conference with the Senate which has already passed the bill without any commercialization language.  The Senate has historically opposed commercialization efforts so we will get another chance to defeat the effort at that point.  We will need your efforts again if that occurs.  

 

There has been some talk about allowing commercialization but giving a priority to blind entrepreneurs.  Although that is tempting, many state licensing agencies are not in position to develop the type of partnership arrangements that would be required.  If the SLA passed on the opportunity, as I'm sure many would, the states could invite other third parties into the rest areas thus making the vending opportunities currently enjoyed by blind entrepreneurs virtually meaningless.  Although NABM is willing to look at a thoroughly thought-out plan that would create opportunities for blind entrepreneurs, we are not willing to rush into agreeing to language in an amendment that could have severe consequences.  We are more than willing to sit down with proponents of commercialization during the coming year to consider options.  

 

Let me say that I am proud of all of you who sprang into action.  NABM and the NFB have once again demonstrated that when we mobilize NFB members and blind vendors across the country, the voice of the blind will be heard. I'd like to also personally thank our NABM board and leadership group, especially Kevan Worley of Colorado, John Gordon of Illinois, Tom Spilliotis of Florida and Pam Schnurr of Indiana.  Thanks to all of you.  

 

Nicky Gacos

 



 

Kevan Worley

Executive Director

National Association of Blind Merchants

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120217/5b66b9f2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2349 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120217/5b66b9f2/attachment.jpg>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb 23 11:23:41 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:23:41 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: FOIA Response to Request of EOC Minutes & Recording
	of Meeting of 2-6-12
Message-ID: <F991C9662B1941B094792935FC9BC014@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) 
To: joe harcz Comcast (joeharcz at comcast.net) 
Cc: Cannon, Patrick (LARA) ; Farmer, Mel (LARA) ; Turney, Susan (LARA) ; Luzenski, Sue (LARA) ; Duell, Elsie (LARA) ; Zanger, Connie (LARA) ; Hull, James (LARA) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:51 PM
Subject: FOIA Response to Request of EOC Minutes & Recording of Meeting of 2-6-12


February 21, 2012 (Replaced in the U.S. Mail, Prepaid on 2-22-2012)

 

Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458

 

Re:  EOC Meeting of 2-6-12 Minutes and Recording

 

Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

 

This letter is in response to your February 8, 2012, email request for copies of public records, received on February 9, 2012, in this office.  Please be informed that the Department's Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) is processing this request under the state's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq.

 

You have requested information as described in your email, a copy of which is below.

 

Your request is granted as to existing, nonexempt records in the possession of this department responsive to your request.

 

On February 14, 2012 the minutes of the above meeting were sent to you.  Enclosed in the package mailed to the address above is a CD with the recording of the EOC Special Meeting of 2-6-12.

 

We will not charge for the cost of this FOIA but this does not prohibit us from charging you or any other requestor for other requests.

 

Sincerely,

 

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

Attachments: 

1.            Email of 2-8-12

2.            Recording of EOC Meeting of 2-6-12

                                                                                                                                                                             

cc:           Patrick Cannon

                Mel Farmer

                Susan Turney

                Elsie Duell

                Constance Zanger

                James Hull

 

 



From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Cc: Zanger, Connie (LARA); Hull, James (LARA); Larry Posont MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; James Chaney EOC; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org; Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org; Elmer Cerano MPAS
Subject: more ada rehab act requests information

 

Feb.  8 2012 Request for EOC Minutes Recording

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

joeharcz at comcast.net

 

To: Patrick Cannon, James Hull constance Zanger

Michigan Commission for the Blind

 

And: James Chaney Elected Operators Committee Chair

 

And: Michigan Commission for the Blind Commissioners

 

 

All,

 

I'm writing today to request in accessible format the EOC meeting minutes of it's "emergency meeting" on Monday night. They may be sent to me as simple e-mail attachments and/or enclosures to my e-mail address listed above.

 

I'm also requesting that a thumb drive in mp3 format of the recording of that meeting is sent to me at my mailing address listed above.

 

I make these requests pursuant to obligations well known under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, and numerous provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended.

 

Sincerely,

 

Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

 

Cc: NFB MI

Cc: Several Vendors

Cc: RSA

Cc: Elmer Cerano MPAS

 

 

 

 

Carla Miller Haynes

DLARA Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Sq., 2nd Floor

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

Phone:  517/373-2063

FAX: 517/335-5140

 

www.michigan.gov/mcb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/0ba47253/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Response of 2-21-12 Granted - Recording Sent.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 63488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/0ba47253/attachment.doc>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb 23 14:10:56 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:10:56 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Warrants.htm
Message-ID: <17107FCF9B4D47AC946C97FB76D1DC2C@YOUR7C60552B9E>

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

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

      Agency Name Category Description Warrant Date Payments Total 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 2/1/2012 $2,400.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 1/11/2012 $1,890.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 12/20/2011 $398.06 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 12/19/2011 $1,890.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 12/14/2011 $1,890.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 12/7/2011 $3,780.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 11/4/2011 $2,070.00 

Showing 1 - 7 of 7 


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

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/c4cf6263/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/c4cf6263/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/c4cf6263/attachment.gif>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Thu Feb 23 15:23:52 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:23:52 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Warrants.htm
Message-ID: <E76563E3BAB246A482F4B2CB26C2E5BA@YOUR7C60552B9E>

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

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

      Agency Name Category Description Warrant Date Payments Total 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 2/21/2012 $204.25 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 2/16/2012 $593.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 12/14/2011 $450.25 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 11/9/2011 $1,021.75 

Showing 1 - 4 of 4 


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

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/b2f477b2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/b2f477b2/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/b2f477b2/attachment.gif>

From suncat0 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 23 17:17:17 2012
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:17:17 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Update on HR7: Please Take the Necessary Action
Message-ID: <446CE4C056C94358A339FFAF38C22CEF@Reputercat>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kevan Worley 
To: 'Dave Merritt' ; 'David Phillips' ; 'Don Hudson' ; 'Gene Fleeman' ; HackneyCharles at aol.com ; 'Jeremiah Wells' ; 'Jim Farley' ; 'Joe Shaw' ; 'John Gerber' ; 'john Jones' ; 'Lorraine Magnessun' ; 'Manny Sifuentes' ; 'Mary Hayes' ; 'Pamela' ; 'Ray Marshall' ; suncat0 at gmail.com ; terrysmith at epbfi.com ; 'Willie Black' 
Cc: 'Al Falligan' ; 'Art Stevenson' ; 'Charles and Betty Allen' ; 'John Fritz' ; 'Lynn Reynolds' ; 'Scott Young' ; 'Virgil Stinnett' ; Harold Wilson ; Kim Williams ; nickycolorado at netscape.net ; sharonparis at comcast.net 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:22
Subject: Update on HR7: Please Take the Necessary Action


Update on HR 7

 

It is our understanding that Congressman LaTourette is still working on language that will allow some degree of commercialization on rest area highways. He has heard the concerns of blind vendors and is now considering changing his amendment to allow the commercialization only on non-interstate highways. We have no assurance that he will restrict the scope of the amendment that much. Regardless, we remain steadfastly opposed to any attempt at commercialization of rest areas along our interstate or non-interstate highways. Several states have blind vendors operating vending facilities at rest areas on non-interstate highways. Consequently, LaTourette's amendment would still adversely impact blind vendors. Furthermore, it is our fear that this will be the first step toward full commercialization of the interstate rest areas. 

 

The situation is further complicated by the fact the Organization of State Departments of Transportation will be meeting in DC next week and will be calling on their congressional representatives. From what we understand, one of the issues they will be promoting is this very issue of commercialization of the interstate rest areas. Therefore, we need to make sure that the voices of the blind continue to be heard. Blind vendors and other blind consumers need to call their Congressmen and urge them to vote against LaTourette's amendment. All Congressional offices can be reached by dialing 1-202-225-3121.

Thank you for your response to this call to action. 

 

Terry C Smith

NFB Blind Entrepreneurs Initiative

 



 

Kevan Worley

Executive Director

National Association of Blind Merchants

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/a3bd7b5d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2349 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/a3bd7b5d/attachment.jpg>

From dandrews at visi.com  Thu Feb 23 23:56:25 2012
From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews)
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:56:25 -0600
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fwd: Applications being accepted for the Fellowship
Message-ID: <auto-000050050369@mailfront3.g2host.com>


>
>David, we in the Business Leaders Program at National Industries for 
>the Blind are proud to announce that applications are currently 
>being accepted for NIB's Fellowship for Leadership Development.  The 
>Fellowship is a salaried program for high potential individuals who 
>are legally blind and have a passion for business.
>
>The application process is competitive. We would like to be sure 
>that qualified individuals who are blind are made aware of this 
>unique opportunity.
>
>Attached please find our announcement which describes qualifications 
>and explains where to go to apply. Would it be possible for you to 
>circulate this to listservs and e-mail lists read by potential 
>Fellowship candidates?
>
>Thank you in advance for your assistance.  If you have any questions 
>pertaining to this email, please contact me. For questions regarding 
>the Fellowship itself, you may reach Karen Pal, Director Business 
>Leaders Program, at <mailto:fellowship at nib.org>fellowship at nib.org or 
>703.310.0515. Thank you.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Sandy
>
>Sandy Finley
>National Industries for the Blind
>1310 Braddock Place
>Alexandria, Virginia 22314
>Office Phone: 703.310.0506
>Mobile Phone: 703.919.8841
>E-mail Address: <mailto:sfinley at nib.org>sfinley at nib.org
>www.nib.org
>
>Description: Description: Description: Description: NIB_PlacesS
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/2b3c0ae4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Fellowship Announcement February 22 2012.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 24576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120223/2b3c0ae4/attachment.doc>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Fri Feb 24 20:25:23 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:25:23 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: EO 2012 (accessible) and Snyder
	news release
Message-ID: <5CE28B7F454442E7ACAAAA06758B9FD8@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Larry Posont" <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>
To: "nfbmi List" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:00 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: EO 2012 (accessible) and Snyder news release


Please read.  We will get together soon to bash them.

Larry
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Luzenski, Sue (LARA)
To: John Scott ; Larry Posont (president.nfb.mi at gmail.com) ; Lydia Schuck ; 
Posont, Larry (LARA) ; Schuck, Lydia (LARA) ; Scott, John (LARA)
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:29 PM
Subject: EO 2012 (accessible) and Snyder news release


FYI - this came out today.



Sue Luzenski

Management Assistant to the Director

Michigan Commission for the Blind

201 N. Washington Square

P.O. Box 30652

Lansing, MI  48909

517-335-4265 desk

517-335-5140 fax

luzenskis at michigan.gov







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


> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EO 2012-2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 59498 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120224/1dee89a1/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: snyder news release re EO 2012-2.doc.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38355 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120224/1dee89a1/attachment.docx>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sat Feb 25 15:02:08 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:02:08 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Agencies.htm
Message-ID: <BA84A2B8F88843229DD8BDA9A9A9EC87@YOUR7C60552B9E>

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

  a.. State Expenditures by Category
   a.. State Expenditures by Appropriation Unit
   a.. Vendor Payments
   a.. By Vendor
     a.. By Category
     a.. By Agency
     a.. Tax Expenditure Reports
   Payments to a Vendor by Agency
Payments to VENDORS SOURCE INC for fiscal year 2011

Click on a agency name to view payments to this vendor by this agency.

      Agency Name Payment Totals 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS $46,114.12 

Showing 1 - 1 of 1 


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

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120225/19367024/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120225/19367024/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120225/19367024/attachment.gif>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sat Feb 25 15:10:43 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:10:43 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] {Disarmed} Emailing: Warrants.htm
Message-ID: <5319E66D2D4B4943A19959E17E4ED2E6@YOUR7C60552B9E>

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

  a.. State Expenditures by Category
   a.. State Expenditures by Appropriation Unit
   a.. Vendor Payments
   a.. By Vendor
     a.. By Category
     a.. By Agency
     a.. Tax Expenditure Reports
   Payments to a Vendor by Agency and Category
Payments to VENDORS SOURCE INC by LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS for fiscal year 2011

      Agency Name Category Description Warrant Date Payments Total 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 10/11/2011 $985.50 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 10/6/2011 $160.65 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 9/29/2011 $1,993.13 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 9/28/2011 $1,230.11 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 9/13/2011 $1,722.09 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 9/1/2011 $640.97 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 8/26/2011 $4,127.63 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 8/8/2011 $2,810.91 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 7/27/2011 $4,182.18 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 7/11/2011 $2,772.28 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 7/8/2011 $4,801.54 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 6/21/2011 $2,680.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 6/2/2011 $1,836.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 5/16/2011 $2,083.15 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 4/26/2011 $3,277.33 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 4/19/2011 $67.90 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 4/11/2011 $1,769.04 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 3/23/2011 $766.75 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 3/15/2011 $162.45 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 3/14/2011 $701.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 3/7/2011 $191.31 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 3/2/2011 $831.84 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 2/3/2011 $2,291.00 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 1/27/2011 $539.41 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 1/5/2011 $2,436.78 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 11/24/2010 $607.03 
      LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS Contractual Services Supplies and Materials 10/29/2010 $446.14 

Showing 1 - 27 of 27 


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

Copyright ? 2001-2012 State of Michigan 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120225/52e6be3a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bannerRight.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3953 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120225/52e6be3a/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Excel.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 85 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120225/52e6be3a/attachment.gif>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Sun Feb 26 13:08:38 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:08:38 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] why unconstitutional
Message-ID: <F729F8191C4446DA978E55DDD34C360E@YOUR7C60552B9E>

The point that makes the consilidation and the stripping of powers of the MCB Board and the elimination of the Director's position (not the director himself
which should have been done)_ unconstitutional is that it is a legislative prerogative and not an executive one.
Here was when folks on the Michigan Rehab Council investigated the issue last year.
Again this stuff was done with no public in put and no legislative action.
Off the record for now is my State Senator is royally pissed and not for partisan reasons at this naked power grab. He is a Democrat, but he knows that
there are several Republicans ticked off too. Not that many of them understand the nuances, but I've made them aware of the checks and balances issues.
And people just don't like their delegated authorities tamperred with.
Joe

MRC MEMBERSHIP RESEARCH REQUEST

Date of Request:        April 20th, 2011

Members:                   Jackie Thomas & Luke Zelley

Staff Support:            Marlene Malloy

Due Date:                   June 3, 2011 (next Business Meeting)

Purpose:    The MRC considered taking a position on the possibility of combining/sharing Michigan Rehabilitation Services (MRS) and Michigan Commission
for the Blind (MCB). Four options follow:

1.      MRS and MCB remain separate i.e. no change.

2.      MRS and MCB remain separate but share office space.

3.      MRS and MCB remain separate but share staff and other resources.

4.      MRS and MCB totally combine into one agency.

Recommendation:  MRC cannot support # 2:and #3 : sharing office space, as it believes RSA regulations prohibit doing so and staff and other resources sharing
as doing so is not possible when space cannot be shared.

Initial research found reports and data with positives and negatives to combining.   Because it ultimately requires legislative action, Idaho?s legislators
requested a task force look into the issue before taking action. MRC recommends a task force  to include representation from MRS and MRC, be created to
look into this issue in-depth before taking action.

Information Requested:

1.      Current research on the topic of combined agencies.

2.      Status of other State?s VR programs (separate or combined).

3.      Overview information about the Michigan Commission for the Blind.

RESPONSE:

1. Current Research:

a.       About MCB:

?         Michigan Public Act 260 of 1978 Creating MCB

http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154-28077_28313-18135--,00.html

?         Overview of MCB:

http://www.michigan.gov/lara/0,1607,7-154-28077_28313-14762--,00.html

b.      Idaho:  The Idaho legislators passed a resolution to convene a "Task Force" regarding combining VR & Commission for Blind

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2011/HCR027.pdf

c.       Connecticut:  Legislative Report with recommendation & plan to combine

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/pridata/Studies/Consolidation_Final_Report.htm

d.      A Review of Research Studies: Separate vs. Combined Agencies

http://www.familyconnect.org/parentsite.asp?SectionID=85&DocumentID=4488

e.       2010 Mississippi State Study:  An Update on Services and Outcomes of Blind and Visually Impaired Consumers Served in Separate and General/Combined
VR Agencies

www.ncsab.org/alert/2010/final_report_replication_study.doc

f.        2005 Ohio State University Study:  Combined agencies had higher means on all variables studied.

http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=osu1126741654

g.       South Carolina:  A Review Restructuring and the Business Enterprise Program at Commission for the Blind

http://lac.sc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E1451232-56D6-4665-AE0F-6D7E81B164C4/0/SCCB_Summary.pdf

2. Status of Other States:  Gained from Rehabilitation Services (RSA)

VR SERVICE CATEGORIES BY TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC VR AGENCIES FUNDED BY RSA:

General Services:  24

Blind Services:  24

Combined:  32

3.Current national activity level regarding combining VR agencies:

Most recently combined states:  Connecticut Legislature combined the Blind and General Agencies in May 2011, Pennsylvania Blind and General were combined
in 1999.

State currently considering combining: New Mexico (saving administrative costs); two months ago Idaho considered it, but did not make the change.

Within the past few years the following states considered combining:  Vermont, Oregon, and Arkansas.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120226/4001452e/attachment.html>

From joeharcz at comcast.net  Wed Feb 29 13:49:17 2012
From: joeharcz at comcast.net (joe harcz Comcast)
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:49:17 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: free press story
Message-ID: <8140172A591A4151951C83CCACFBB93C@YOUR7C60552B9E>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: joe harcz Comcast 
To: blind democracy List 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:44 AM
Subject: free press story


Snyder plan to cut agency for blind people stirs anger | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Paul Egan

 

By

Paul Egan

 

Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau

 

 

LANSING -- Advocates for blind people are unhappy with a shake-up in services for disabled people announced last week by Gov. Rick Snyder, including elimination

of the Michigan Commission for the Blind.

 

They say Snyder ordered the changes without consulting or giving a warning to those who will be most affected.

 

Snyder's executive order would move most vocational rehabilitation services for disabled people to the Department of Human Services from the Department

of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

 

A small business program overseen by the Commission for the Blind -- under which blind people receive contracts to operate stores and provide vending machines

in state buildings and at highway rest areas -- is to be moved to the Department of Technology, Management and Budget.

 

In place of the commission, which has a full-time director whose position is to be eliminated, Snyder ordered the creation of an advisory board for services

to blind and visually impaired people.

 

"We don't want any stinking advisory board," said Fred Wurtzel, past president of the Michigan Federation of the Blind.

 

The state gets better results and more bang for the buck by having "a separate dedicated staff that specializes only in working with blind people," Wurtzel

said, adding that he was not speaking on behalf of the federation.

 

Joe Harcz, a member of both the federation and American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today, said federal law requires states to hold public hearings

before making significant changes in their vocational training plans. But that didn't happen, he said.

 

Mario Morrow, a spokesman for the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, said public hearings will be held before the order takes effect.

 

Harcz also questioned how Snyder can repeal an act of the Legislature that created the Commission for the Blind.

 

But Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said the order doesn't eliminate any powers the legislation created, but only transfers them.

 

The Michigan Constitution says executive orders with the power of law take effect in 60 days unless resolutions rejecting them are passed by both chambers

of the Legislature.

 

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660

orpegan at freepress.com



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


_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy at octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120229/e4bdfa13/attachment.html>