[Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] mcneal's signature on this one item

[joe harcz Comcast]

Here is precisely why this case is tied to BEP issues for Cannon, et al went 
after Mark and Terry Eagle (the latter indirectly for conflicts of interests 
related to quasi-judicial actions of the MCB Board, yet conflicts of 
interests of real scope with thousands, and indeed millions of dollars, over 
time by paid upper management of MCB are alive and well and evident here.

Also ref. this:

January 17, 2012

Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail:  joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

Subject:  Information on M. Eagle / State of Michigan Ethics Board

Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:

This letter is in response to your January 7, 2011, email request for copies 
of public records under the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MCL
15.231 et seq, received by this office on January 9, 2012.

In your email, you requested information/records described as per the 
attached copy of your email.

In order to determine the amount of non-exempt information within the 
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs that might be responsive to 
your request,
a search must be undertaken for the information of which you have requested. 
For this reason, it is necessary to extend the time for response, as 
permitted
by section 5(2)(d) of the FOIA, to a date prior or by January 30, 2012.

Sincerely,

Carla Miller Haynes, FOIA Coordinator

Michigan Commission for the Blind

Attachment - Email Request of 1-7-12

Cc:      Patrick Cannon

            Mel Farmer

            Susan Turney

            Elsie Duell

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

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 9:17 PM

To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)

Cc: Larry Posont MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.; 
Elmer Cerano

MPAS; Arwood, Steve (LARA); Mark Eagle; nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org

Subject: request mark eagle case related info

JANUARY 7 2011 REQUEST INFORMATION RELATED TO MARK EAGLE

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

(VIA E-MAIL)

DEAR DIRECTOR CANNON,

I AM WRITING TODAY TO REQUEST THE DECEMBER 4, 2008 LETTER FROM PATRICK D. 
CANNON AND INDEED ALL COMMUNICATIONS TO THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ETHICS BOARD 
RELATED
TO THE MATTER OF MARK EAGLE ATTACHED IN FUL AFTER MY SIGNATURE LINE.

MOREOVER AS A PERSON WHO IS LEGALLY BLIND I REQUEST THAT ALL DOCUMENTS ARE 
PROVIDED  IN A TIMELY AND ACCESSIBLE MANNER WITHOUT A SURCHARGE PURSUANT TO 
OBLIGATIONS
UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 (TITLE II, SUBPART E, 
COMMUNICATIONS), AND SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.

MY OONLY REQUEST FOR ACCESS AT THIS TIME IS TO HAVE ALL DOCUMENTS SENT TO MY 
E-MAIL ADRESS LISTED ABOVE AS EITHER WORD ATTACHMENTS OR PLAIN TEXT 
ENCLOSURES
FOR MY COMPUTER “TALKS”.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT AND ACCESSIBLE RESPONSE TO THIS INQUIRY AS ALWAYS.

SINCERELY,

PAUL JOSEPH HARCZ, JR.

CC: MCB COMMISSIONERS

CC: FORMER COMMISSIONER MARK EAGLE

CC: S. ARWOOD, LARA

CC: RSA

CC: NFB MI

CC: ELMER CERANO, NISH, MPAS

ATTACHMENT FOR REFERENCE IN TOTO:

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BOARD OF ETHICS

ETH ETH 2009-EA-01

IN: MARK EAGLE, COMMISSIONER

RE: MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH

April 29, 2009

TO:  PATRICK CANNON, DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LABOR, & ECONOMIC GROWTH

201 N. WASHINGTON, 2ND FLOOR

P.O. BOX 30652

LANSING, MI  48909

ADVISORY OPINION

      By a December 4, 2008 letter, Patrick Cannon as Director, and on 
behalf of the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB), asked this Board to 
address
1) whether a conflict of interest arises where Mark Eagle is a member of the 
MCB and his father, Terry Eagle, represents various operators whose 
complaints
ultimately come before the Commission for final resolution and, 2) whether 
the appointment of Commissioner Eagle's aunt, Cheri Eagle, to the Business 
Enterprise
Program Elected Operator Committee creates a conflict of interest that 
affects his ability to deliberate and vote on issues in which his aunt is 
involved.

      The State Ethics Board (Board) found that Commissioner Eagle had a 
personal interest that created a prohibited conflict of interest.  The Board 
recognized
that under ?1certain circumstances a conflict of interest may be cured by 
the public officer's recusal from those matters in which he or she has a 
personal
interest.   The Board found that the conflict of interest in this situation 
could not be cured since it was continuous, recurring, and pervasive.  In 
light
of this, it noted that Commissioner Eagle could not effectively function as 
a MCB Commissioner and that the only remedy for this conflict of interest 
was
for Commissioner Eagle to resign or to be removed from his appointment.

A.        Pertinent Facts

1.      Function of the Michigan Commission for the Blind

      The Michigan Commission for the Blind, established pursuant to MCL 
393.351, consists of five members, three of whom must be blind, who are 
appointed
by the Governor with the advice and consent of the senate.[1][1][1] 
Annually, the Commission provides various services to nearly 4,000 blind or 
visually
impaired individuals throughout the state. These services include vocational 
rehabilitation services, independent living services for the older blind,
and youth low vision services for visually impaired students in the K-12 
system. [2][2][2] It also serves as the State Licensing Agency (SLA) for 
blind
entrepreneurs operating food service facilities on state and federal 
properties.[3][3][3]?2

      The MCB established a Business Enterprise Program (BEP) to help 
facilitate the food service initiative.  Under this program a blind person 
becomes
an operator (licensee) in the BEP and is allowed to run a concession in a 
government building following evaluation, training, and other services.  The
operator and the MCB enter into a contract that provides, among other 
things, that the operator will pay a certain percentage of the concession 
profits
to the MCB.  The MCB, in turn, will provide supervision and advice, needed 
equipment, and an initial stock of goods.

     Additionally, as the SLA, the MCB also has a quasi-judicial function. 
For instance, when issues arise concerning an operator's failure to adhere 
to
the rules governing the operation and administration of the BEP, the 
operator may request that an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hear her/his 
case.  Once
the ALJ reviews the case and makes a recommendation, the MCB decides whether 
to adopt or reject the recommendation, in whole or in part.

2.      Function of the Business Enterprise Program Elected Operators 
Committee

      The BEP consists of approximately 90 blind operators.  These operators 
elect 15 members to the Elected Operators Committee (EOC) annually. The 
EOC's
authority and responsibilities are granted by the Federal Randolph-Sheppard 
Act.[4][4][4]  The EOC helps advance policies to the Commission and actively
offers its input on major administrative decisions, policy, and program 
development decisions affecting the overall administration of the state's 
vending
facilities program.  The members of the EOC also work with BEP staff to 
resolve program policy issues.  In addition, the ?3EOC receives and 
transmits operator
grievances.  The EOC presents recommended motions to resolve policy issues 
to the Commission for its approval. The MCB ultimately makes the final 
decision
on all motions presented by the EOC. The majority of the motions on which 
the Commission must render a decision originate from BEP.

3.      Pertinent Background Information

      Mark Eagle is a member of the MCB, appointed by the Governor in the 
fall of 2007.[5][5][5]       Commissioner Eagle’s father, Terry Eagle, 
represents
various operators whose complaints ultimately come before the Commission for 
resolution.  Although Terry Eagle is not an attorney, the rules do allow 
operators
to be represented by non-attorney representatives in the hearings.  Terry 
Eagle was not a representative at the time of Mark Eagle’s appointment to 
the
MCB.[6][6][6]

      At the September 2008 MCB meeting Terry Eagle stated that he served

as the representative of an operator whose case was under consideration. 
With this announcement, the question of a conflict of interest arose with 
Commissioner
Eagle's participation in the deliberation and vote on this particular 
matter.  The MCB did not vote on the conflict question and Commissioner 
Eagle participated
in the deliberations and voting.[7][7][7] Commissioner Eagle was active in 
the Commission’s decision-making process in addressing recommendations made
by his father on behalf of parties before the Commission.?4

      The issue of conflict also arose at the December 2008 meeting when it 
was time to vote on three ALJ recommended decisions.  Terry Eagle 
represented
the two operators involved, one of which was Commissioner Eagle's aunt, 
Cheri Eagle, who had two cases pending before the MCB.  At this meeting, 
Commissioner
Eagle recused himself from the deliberations and did not vote.

        The issue of conflict arose once again on December 6, 2008, when 
Cheri Eagle was appointed to the EOC after one of its members resigned.  The 
Board
has since learned that although Ms. Eagle continues to be an operator in the 
BEP, she resigned from the EOC a couple weeks prior to the Board's February
26, 2009 meeting.[8][8][8]

      Mr. Cannon informed the Board that during the appointment process, he 
informed the Governor's office that Terry Eagle was a former operator and 
client
of the Commission and that from time to time he interacted with the agency. 
However, shortly after Commissioner Eagle's appointment, his father became
highly involved in various aspects of the Commission's operations, 
particularly the BEP and EOC.[9][9][9]  At the Board’s meeting, both 
Director Cannon
and Commissioner Eagle acknowledged that Terry Eagle currently represents 
over 50 percent of the operators whose complaints will ultimately come 
before
the Commission for final resolution.[10][10][10]  Commissioner Eagle stated 
he recused himself when matters involved family members Cheri Eagle and 
Terry
Eagle, and would continue to do so because he believed it was the right 
thing to do.?5

B.        Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues

      The State Ethics Act applies to "public employees" and "public 
officers".[11][11][11] As appointees of the Governor, MCB Commissioners are 
public
officers and are subject to the Ethics Act.

C.        Board Decisions

      After deliberation, based upon the discussion of the parties, the

information submitted and consistent with its prior decisions, the Board 
decided as follows.

      Under the Ethics Act, a personal interest of a public officer includes 
the interest of a public officer's father or aunt, even though the public 
officer
may not receive monetary or pecuniary remuneration. The Board held that 
Commissioner Eagle has a personal interest in matters before the Commission 
where
his father or aunt is involved. The Board recognized that under certain 
circumstances when a conflict of interest is present, the individual with 
the conflict
of interest can recuse himself or herself from the deliberative process or 
abstain from voting on

those matters.  However, the Board found that because the conflicts of 
interest presented in this situation are continuous, recurring, and 
pervasive, recusal
or abstention would not be an adequate remedy.  In light of this, it held 
that Commissioner Eagle could not effectively function as a MCB Commissioner
and that the only remedy for this conflict of interest was for Commissioner 
Eagle to resign or be removed from his appointment.?6

D.        Analysis

      The Board of Ethics is a creature of statute and limited by the law 
under which it operates.[12][12][12] Section 2 of the Ethics Act prescribes 
standards
of conduct for public officers and employees.[13][13][13] The MCB inquiry 
implicates sections 2(6) and 2(7) of the Ethics Act.[14][14][14]

Section 2(6) provides:

Except as provided in section 2a, a public officer or employee shall not 
engage in or accept employment or render services for a private or public 
interest
when that employment or service is incompatible or in conflict with the 
discharge of the officer or employee’s official duties or when that 
employment
may tend to impair his or her independence of judgment or action in the 
performance of official duties.[15][15][15]

Section 2(7) provides in relevant part:

Except as provided in section 2a, a public officer or employee shall not 
participate in the negotiation or execution of contracts, making of loans, 
granting
of subsidies, fixing of rates, issuance of permits or certificates, or other 
regulation or supervision relating to a business entity in which the public
officer or employee has a financial or personal interest.

      These two provisions form the context of the Board’s analysis.  The 
two-fold purpose of these prohibitions is to prevent conflicts between a 
public
officer's official duties and private interests and to prevent individuals 
from using their position as public officers to obtain favorable treatment 
for
themselves or another person or entity.?7

      Public officers and employees are expected to exercise independent 
judgment in the performance of their official duties.  Section 2(6) of the 
Ethics
Act prohibits any employment that "may tend to impair" the public officer's 
independence of judgment or action in the performance of his or her official
duties.  Based on the facts in this case, the Board finds that Commissioner 
Eagle did not violate section 2(6) of the Ethics Act since he has not 
performed
any services that may tend to impair his official duty and his father's or 
aunt's services cannot be imputed to him.[16][16][16]

       Under Section 2(7) of the Ethics Act, MCL 15.342(7), the Legislature 
prohibited a public officer from participating in the issuance of permits or
certificates, or other regulation or supervision relating to a business 
entity in which the public officer or employee has a financial or personal 
interest.
 This section is applicable because the MCB regulates blind entrepreneurs 
running food service facilities on state and federal properties by adopting 
standards
that an operator must meet in order to be eligible to operate a concession.

      Prior Board opinions hold that the interest of a public officer’s 
family member is a personal interest of the public officer and define 
“personal
interest”

as:[17][17][17]

. . . personal profit, financial benefit, incompatibility or conflict,

impairment of judgment or action, a direct or an indirect financial or

personal interest, the interest of the employer, the interest of a

company that is doing business with the employer, the interest of a

spouse, and the interest of one with whom an intimate relationship

exists . . .?8

      In Fischer,[18][18][18] during the settlement negotiations, the 
Director of the Public Service Commission's Office of Regulatory Operations, 
publicly
disclosed the fact that the president of Michigan Gas Company (MiGas), a 
regulated utility, was a close personal friend, and that his son was 
employed
at the utility.  Mr. Fischer initially abstained from any participation in 
the case, but later became involved when negotiations had failed.  The Board
was asked to determine whether a violation of the Ethics Act occurred based 
on the facts outlined above.

      The Board determined that a personal interest includes the father-son 
relationship as well as a close friendship which has risen to the level of 
an
intimate relationship. The Board held that Mr. Fischer had violated the 
Ethics Act when he participated in the settlement negotiations but found 
that since
the personal interest is not continuous, recurring, or pervasive, Mr. 
Fischer could avoid violating the Act by abstaining from matters involving 
MiGas.

      Similarly, in Hamill,[19][19][19] the Board addressed whether a 
conflict of interest existed where sons of two Michigan Department of 
Transportation
(MDOT) employees, a State Project Engineer and Senior Inspector, were 
employed by a private general contractor who was awarded a building contract 
by the
MDOT. The sons sought and obtained the temporary summer employment entirely 
on their own and the contractor paid them the lowest hourly laborer wage 
offered
by the contractor. The MDOT employees did not have any control over the 
general contractor's work assignment for the two sons. In addition, since 
all construction
contracts awarded by the MDOT are ?9handled by the Department of Management 
and Budget through competitive bidding, the MDOT employees had no control or
input in the competitive bidding process.

      The Board found that a personal relationship as contemplated by the 
Act did exist but concluded that the employment of these two sons by the 
general
contractor was purely coincidental.  Unlike the instant case, the Board 
found that there was no Ethics Act violation because any personal interest 
that
would be present would be de minimus since the sons were hired as the lowest 
paid laborers.[20][20][20]

      In other decisions, however, the Ethics Board has found that if the

involvement is continuing, recurring, or pervasive, the public officer or 
employee cannot avoid violation of the Ethics Act by merely abstaining on 
specific
occasions.[21][21][21]  In the case of Hillary F. Snell, Commissioner for 
the Department of Natural Resources, the Board found that a conflict of 
interest
would exist where Snell served as a Commissioner and a partner in her law 
firm that simultaneously represented a group which regularly appeared before
the Commission.

      The Board acknowledges that the MCB has many functions other than its 
SLA function, but also recognizes that the SLA role is a major function 
subject
to the Commission's jurisdiction.  In this situation, since Terry Eagle 
represents over 50 percent of the operators whose complaints will ultimately 
come
before the MCB, this conflict of interest is definitely continuous, 
recurring, and pervasive.  Commissioner Eagle's willingness to abstain from 
participating
in matters in which his father or aunt is involved is both commendable and 
expected.  However, this is an inadequate remedy.?10

      Reicks, made clear that recusal is an inadequate remedy to a conflict 
of interest in certain circumstances:[22][22][22]

[A] public officer or employee can avoid violating the Ethics Act if he or 
she abstains from participation in a matter in which the personal interest 
of
the public officer or employee is involved, unless the involvement is 
continuing or recurring, in which case the public officer or employee cannot 
avoid
violating the Ethics Act by abstaining.

      Further, it is also appropriate to examine sources other than prior 
Board opinions when analyzing whether a conflict exists. The Board, in 
Smith,[23][23][23]
issued an advisory opinion concluding that, although the circumstances in 
that case did not constitute a violation of the ethical standards of Section
2 (6) of the Ethics Act, the rule in Warren Consolidated Schools v 
Employment Relations Commission, 67 Mich App 58; 240 NW 2d 265 (1976), was 
applicable
to the circumstances presented.[24][24][24] In Warren, the Court of Appeals 
vacated a decision of the Michigan Employment Relations Commission and 
remanded
the matter back to the Commission because one of the commissioners, who was 
a brother and former law partner of the attorney for one of the parties to
the case, actively participated in the decision. In ruling, the court 
stated:[25][25][25]?11

The object of this rule of absolute disqualification is more than a 
guarantee that a legal dispute will be resolved objectively by unbiased and 
impartial
persons. It is also a shield against any suspicion on the part of the 
litigants and the public that any subjectivity, bias and partiality 
contributed to
the outcome of the dispute. The thought behind such a rule was best 
expressed by Justice Frankfurter in Baker v. Carr, 369 US 186, 267; 82 S Ct 
691, 737-738
(1962):

The Court's authority -- possessed of neither the purse nor

the sword -- ultimately rests on sustained public confidence

in its moral sanction. Such feeling must be nourished by

the Court's complete detachment, in fact and in appearance, * * *

We find attainment of what the rule seeks to accomplish impossible with 
brother arguing to brother whether the proceeding be judicial or 
administrative,
and even where the only impropriety on the record is the fact that one 
brother participated in the decision of a controversy in which his brother 
was one
of the advocates.

      The Warren court held that the rule of absolute disqualification 
applicable to judicial proceedings is also applicable to administrative 
proceedings.
 MCR 2.003 provides that a judge shall be disqualified when he or she cannot 
impartially hear a case because a person within the third degree of 
relationship
is 1) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director or trustee of a 
party, 2) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding, or 3) known by the judge to 
have
a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the 
proceeding.[26][26][26]

      Thus, in accord with our previous decisions, we find that when

disqualification is continuous, recurring, or pervasive, it is not enough to 
merely abstain.  Even if Commissioner Eagle were to abstain and not 
participate
in the any of the matters in which his father or aunt is involved as he has 
stated he would do, we find that his inability to participate would impede
the full and faithful discharge of his public duties.  Considering Terry 
Eagle's continuing representation of various operators whose?12 complaints 
ultimately
come before the MCB for final resolution, there is no way that Mark Eagle 
can perform effectively as a member of the MCB by disqualifying himself when
these matters are brought before the Commission.

E.        Conclusion

      It is the opinion of the Board, therefore, that under the Ethics Act a 
personal interest of a public officer includes the interest of a father or
aunt, even though the public officer may not receive monetary or pecuniary 
remuneration.  The Board finds that Commissioner Eagle has a personal 
interest
in matters brought before the MCB where his father or aunt is involved.  The 
Board recognizes that under certain circumstances when a conflict of 
interest
is present the individual with the conflict of interest can recuse himself 
or herself from the deliberations or abstain from voting. However, the Board
finds that recusal or abstention would not be an adequate remedy in this 
situation since the conflicts of interest presented are continuous, 
recurring,
and pervasive.  In light of this, the Board is of the opinion that 
Commissioner Eagle cannot effectively function as a MCB Commissioner and 
that the only
remedy for this conflict of interest is for Commissioner Eagle to resign or 
be removed from his appointment.

      The Board requests that this Advisory Opinion be conveyed to the

Governor.[27][27][27]

“Yea” votes:                                           Absent:

Lynn Jondahl                                       Frederick P. Dillingham

Mark R. Fox                                            Frank J. Kelley

John D. Pirich?13

Mike Pumford

Rabbi Paul Yedwab

“Nay” votes:                                            Recused:

None                                                    None

BY ORDER OF THE BOARD

Dated:

            April 29, 2009

/s/

Janet McClelland

Executive Secretary

[1][1][1] MCL 393.352 (1).

[2][2][2] The background information was acquired from the DELEG Internet 
site

for the Michigan Commission for the Blind:

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-28077_28313-14762--,00.html.

[3][3][3] MCL § 393.359 requires that "[a] concession in a building or on 
property

owned or occupied by this state shall be operated by a blind

person."  Additionally, in MCL § 393.363, the legislature designated the

Commission to implement the Randolph Sheppard vending stand act pursuant to

20 USC § 107 et seq.

[4][4][4] 20 USC § 107.

[5][5][5] February 26, 2009 Tr (Cannon) p 12.

[6][6][6] February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) p 13.

[7][7][7] The MCB Meeting Minutes from the September 2008 Meeting.

[8][8][8] February 26, 2009 Transcript ("Tr") (Cannon) p 16.

[9][9][9] February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) pp. 12-13.

[10][10][10] February 26, 2009 Tr. (Cannon) p. 16 & (Commissioner Eagle) pp.

33-34.

[11][11][11] MCL 15.341(b)-(c).

[12][12][12] MCL 15.343; MCL 15.345.

[13][13][13] MCL 15.342.

[14][14][14] 1973 PA 196, §§ 2(6-7), MCL 15.342(6)-(7).

[15][15][15] Since Section 2a, MCL 15.342a, applies to public officers who

participate in State contracts, it does not apply to this case.

[16][16][16] See In Re: David Porteous, Chairman, Michigan Strategic Fund, 
ETH

1994-EA-1, p. 4 (December 9, 1994).

[17][17][17] In Re: Roger F. Fischer, Director, Office of Regulatory 
Operations,

PSC, ETH 1989-EA-1, pp. 5-8 (July 02, 1991) pp 5-6, citing to Reicks, 
77-EA-8

(May 31, 1977); Bellenger, 77-EA-6 (May 31, 1977); Snell, 75-EA-5 (July 18,

1975); and Lewis, 74-EA-5 (October 9, 1974). In Re: Travel Commission, 
78-EA-

5 (May 5, 1978).

[18][18][18] Fischer, ETH 1989-EA-1, (July 02, 1991).

[19][19][19] In Re: Robert Hamill, Personnel Officer, Department of

Transportation, ETH 1980-EA-1, (January 15, 1980).

[20][20][20] Hamill, ETH 1980-EA-1, pp. 4-5.

[21][21][21] Snell ETH 1975-EA-5, pp. 3-4.

[22][22][22] In Re: George H. Reicks, Member, Air Pollution Control

Comm, ETH 1977-EA-8, p. 3 (May 31, 1977) citing to In Re: William S.

Ballenger, Director, Licensing and Regulation, ETH 1977-EA-6 (May 31,

1977). Also see E.g. In Re:  Kenaga, ETH 1977-EA-12 (December 15,

1977).  In Re:  Snell, ETH 1975-EA-5 (July 18, 1975); and In Re:

Chairman, Michigan Environmental Review Board, ETH 1975-EA-3

(March 10, 1975).

[23][23][23] In Re: Nan Smith, Member, Barrier Free Design Board Department 
of

Labor and

Richard Smith, Administrative Assistant for Barrier Free Design to the 
Director

Bureau of Construction Codes Department of Labor, ETH 1979-EA-11, (June 12,

1979).

[24][24][24] The Michigan Attorney General also arrived at the same 
conclusion.

See OAG, 1979-1980, No 582 (February 1, 1980).

[25][25][25] Warren Consol Schools v Employment Relations Comm, 67 Mich

App 58, 59-60; 240 NW2d 265, 266 (1976).

[26][26][26] MCR 2.003(B)(6) (a)-c)

[27][27][27] MCL 15.345 (4)

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Sontag" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Michigan Vendors List" <vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] mcneal's signature on this one 
item


Interesting enough, but is it tied somehow to BEP or Randolph-Sheppard
concerns?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <Vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 12:52
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [nfbmi-talk] mcneal's signature on this one item



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "joe harcz Comcast" <joeharcz at comcast.net>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:36 AM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] mcneal's signature on this one item


January 27, 2012



Mr. Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

E-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI 48458



Re:  New Horizons Financial Data FY12



Dear Mr. Harcz, Jr.:



This letter is in response to your January 6, 2012, email request for copies
of public records, received on January 9, 2012.  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.



As of this date, January 27, 2012, MCB has processed one payment to New
Horizons Rehabilitation Services for FY2012 (covering October 1, 2011 to
present).



Attached is an authorization, invoice and a vendor transaction inquiry for
the State of Michigan’s accounting system, the Michigan Administrative
Information Network (MAIN).  These documents contain redactions and are
indicated on the documents as to where and for what purpose.



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 1/6/12

2.      Authorization

3.      Invoice (2 pages)

4.      MAIN Screen Print



cc:     Patrick Cannon

          Mel Farmer

          Susan Turney

          Elsie Duell

          Leamon Jones

          Gwen McNeal

          Shawnese Laury-Johnson

          Cathy Cove









From: joe harcz Comcast [mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Cannon, Patrick (LARA)
Cc: Larry Posont MCB Comm.; John Scott MCB Comm.; lydia Schuck MCB Comm.;
Arwood, Steve (LARA); Craig McManus RSA

Subject: request new horizons financial data fy 12



January 6, 2012 Request Cannon Information Related New Horizons



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.

1365 E. Mt. Morris Rd.

Mt. Morris, MI  48458

e-mail: joeharcz at comcast.net



Patrick D. Cannon

Director, Michigan Commission for the Blind

Commissioners, Michigan Commission for the Blind



(Via e-mail)





Dear Mr. Cannon and Commissioners,



I am writing today to ask some questions and to get some detailed financial
breakdowns relative to the following LARA expenditures

Found on DTMB transparency web site at:

http://apps.michigan.gov/MiTransparency/Vendor/Agencies?y=2012&v=NEW%20HORIZONS%20REHABILITATION%20SERVICES&Column=AgencyName&Direction=Ascending



“Payments to NEW HORIZONS REHABILITATION SERVICES 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

$194,725.38”



Note these are expenditures denoted in this current State of Michigan Fiscal
Year alone and I’ll send a separate request for detailed accounting of MCB
expenditures made in FY 2011 and FY 2010 which anyone in the public has the
absolute right to and which should be sent to commissioners routinely as
well.



Regardless I wish for you to break out the numbers for MCB payments made to
New Horizons for I realize some of these expenditures are related to the
Michigan Rehabilitation Services. And I wish to know what they are for.



In other words send me the data related to job development, job shadowing,
transition services, vocational assessments and the like made with this
Community Rehabilitation Program and send me the authorizations of same.



Do not tell me that you or MCB cannot do this and don’t throw a FOIA [petard
at me either. Your comments made to Commissioners relative to not being able
to produce such data as this and even intakes, closures, etc. displays your
arrogant disregard for your fiduciary obligations and your stark and utter
violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, PA 260 and basic
principles of transparency let alone basic notions of competence of a GS-19
making $125,000 per year and directing this critical State agency.



I, also wish for this information in fully accessible format pursuant to
obligations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II,
subpart e, communications) as I am indeed blind. To wit send the requested
information is either Word attachments or plain text enclosures to my e-mail
address listed above. And again I suggest that you ensure such information
is made routinely available on MCB’s own web site in html form.



Cordially,



Paul Joseph Harcz, Jr.



Cc: Elmer Cerano, NISH, MPAS

Cc: S. Arwood, LARA

Cc: Craig McManus, RSA.

Cc: NFB MI









Michigan Commission for the Blind Purchase Authorization



      Date of Authorization: 10/19/2011
     MCB Authorization Number: 011130531A1



      Requesting staff:
     Phone Number:
     Fax Number:

      TINA WEST
     (313)456-1646
     (313)456-1645

      Address:

      Detroit
      3038 W. Grand Blvd., Ste.4-450

      Detroit, MI 48202

      Purchase for MCB Client - Name: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Consumer Name
redacted)  ID Number: 24211






      Vendor Name:
     Vendor's EIN or SSN:

      NEW HORIZONS OF OAKLAND COUNTY INC
     2381748781

      Vendor's Contact Person:
     Phone Number:

      ,
     (248)340-0559

            Vendor Address:

            1814 POND RUN



            AUBURN HILLS MI 48326









      Service Description:

      Job Development

            Service Begin Date:
           10/19/2011

            Service End Date:
           09/30/2012


     Account #:
           11-01-2012-01

            Account Name:
           2012 Detroit VR Funds


     Index:


            PCA:
           11369








      Quantity:
     Unit:
     Unit Price:
     Total Cost:

      1
     ea.
     $2,039.00
     $2,039.00

      Agency Object: 0710
     Void After: 09/30/2012










      Total: $2,039.00




      Comments:



      This purchase is authorized pursuant to   by .





      Signed by Gwendolyn McNeal
     Approved?
     Y
     10/19/2011


      Authorized By:   TINA WEST

      Please Submit invoices to the authorizer and Address above.

      Authorization is hereby granted to provide the services described
above. Payment can only be made for the services authorized and at the rates
authorized.  If there is any change required in this authorization the
Vendor must contact the authorizer first. Payment will be made promptly upon
receipt of properly prepared invoices.





      Authority: P. A. 260 of 1978, as amended


      Completion: Mandatory


      Penalty: Services may not be provided









Page 1 of 2- Invoice



New Horizons Rehabilitation Services, Inc.

1814 Pond Run

Auburn Hills MI 48326



Sales/Invoices:  073400

Date:  10/31/2011



Customer:



MI COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

CLIENT SERVICES DIVISION

3038 WEST GRAND BLVD.

DETROIT MI 48202





Purchase Order:  Description: XXXXXXX (Consumer name redacted)



Customer ID:  MI COMMISSION



SALESPERSON:



SHIPPING METHOD:



Payment Terms ID:  NET30, Amount $2,039.00



Subtotal $2,039.00

Misc. $0.00

Tax $0.00

Freight  $0.00

Trade Discount $0.00

Payment $0.00

Total Due:  $2,039.00



Signature of Gwendolyn McNeal and stamped "PAID NOV 22 2011"









Page 2 of 2 – Invoice

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH

MI COMMISSION fOR THE BLIND

CLIENT SERVICES DIVISION

3032 W GRAND RIVER STE 4-450

DETROIT MI 48202

ATTN: CATHY COLE



TINA WOODS

RSA AUTHORIZATION: 0111305319A1

XXXXXXX XXXXXXX (Consumer name redacted)

ID: 24211

JOB DEVELOPMENT

VENDOR PAY T0: 38-1748781



2,039.00



PLEASE SEE ATTACHED AUTHORIZATION



INVOICE TOTAL: 2,039.00



ACCOUNT #72-4125-500-100

NET 30 DAYS



Signature of Gwendolyn McNeal and stamped "PAID NOV 22 2011"































MAIN SCREEN





 S085 VER 2.0    STATE OF MICHIGAN PRODUCTION REGION (PMAIN)  01/26/12 12:52
PM

 LINK TO:                   VENDOR TRANSACTION INQUIRY
PROD



  VEND NO/MC: 2381748781      AGY: 641   DOC TYPE: W2  INV#:

  VEND NAME: NEW HORIZONS REHABILITATION SERVICES

 REC TYPE: I  APPR FUND:        FUND:        EFF DATE RANGE: 100111 TO
012612



  CUR DOC/SFX  REF DOC/SFX    INVOICE #   TC  PDT  PMT- #    DATE   APPR DT

             AP FUND  FUND  INDEX   PCA   AY  COBJ  AOBJ       TRANS AMT  R

 W2203839 001              073400         222 DA  061061263 120211   112811

              0110    0715  36500  11369  12  6125  0710         1604.69

 W2203839 001              073400         222 DA  061061263 120211   112811

              0110    7001  36500  11369  12  6125  0710          434.31





















 F1-HELP   F8-NEXT PAGE     F9-INTERRUPT      ENTER-INQUIRE       CLEAR-EXIT
_______________________________________________
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