[Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

Tue Feb 14 14:34:07 UTC 2012

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>