[Vendorsmi] do the BEP promulgated rules really matter?

Tue Feb 14 15:51:01 UTC 2012

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>