[Vendorsmi] Fw: Okemos rest area

Fri Jun 22 10:58:33 UTC 2012

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Terry Eagle 
To: suncat0 at gmail.com 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:11
Subject: FW: Okemos rest area

Hi Fred,

I am pleased you brought up Risa's more-than-generous suggestion of Marlene being granted a priority bid.  The truth-in-fact be known to others, that remedy would in itself reward both non-compliance on the part of Marlene, and corruption on the part of BEP management, first, for awarding Marlene the Howell facility, with full written documented knowledge of Marlene being out-of-compliance and ineliibility to be promoted and reassigned under the rules, and secondly, for selectively violating the practice of not bidding out a facility and assigning a permanent licensee to a facility, during the pendency of a grievance.

This suggestion would likely not be acceptable to BEP management, since they have consistently and repeatedly opposed to the award of a priority bid, making the arguments at administrative hearings and arbitration hearings that there is no precedence for awarding priority bid, and that a priority would be inherently unfair to other licensed operators.  I assure you I am not making up this fact.  I have the transcripts to validate it.

Do you remember the Richard Thelen disaster case?  While you may recall the basic facts of Constance summarily suspending Richard's license on the basis of mere allegation of Richard smearing feces on a rest room wall and urinating on the floor, then instead of Constance commencing an administrative hearing on the matter as required by BEP rules and APA law, she forced Richard to file for and have an administrative review, at which Constance illegally participated since Constance had taken the action of suspending Richard's license, and which Constance reinstated Richard's license; saying he could not return to his licensed facility, and would be placed on the potential list, without a priority bid, to bid on available facilities.  Constance stated this reinstatement was done because the mere allegations could not be verified or substantiated.  Constance had also bid out and assigned another operator to Richard's facility, under the guise of protecting the future of the BEP site.  Even the EOC did not support Richard, and defended Constance's action, as Rob Essenberg stated the action to protect the future of the site was more important.  The mere allegations against Richard even received negative press by the likes of MIRS.

Fast forwarding to the ultimate outcome after an administrative hearing, final agency decision, and arbitration hearing.  The MCB Board decided, and the arbitration panel concurred that despite the horrible injustice done to Richard because of Constance's action, Richard should be compensated only for the weeks his license was suspended, and the cost of location-specific printed materials Richard had purchased.  The final agency decision even had a requirement attached to the payment, that Richard first reenter the BEP by accepting a facility, before the payment would mmade.  So much for the prohibition against involuntary servitude under the U.S. Constitution.

I simply point the Richard Thelen facts and outcome of compensation as a way of gauging an appropriate possible remedy resolution for Marlene.  Remember, Richard had absolutely no culpability in the injustice forced upon him by corruption and failure by Constance to follow the rules and law.  Richard was also in compliance and good standing throughout the dispictable ordeal.  That remedy outcome rewarded corruption and total injustice on the part of Constance, with absolutely no negative consequence or impact to Constance, while destroying Richard's reputation and livelihood and retirement benefits.  In fact, Constance was further rewarded by a promotion, if even temporary.  I guess the U.S. Army saying among the ranks, "F up to move up", extends and is applied to certain parts and persons in state civil service.  I say this as Constances's and James' action of failure to follow the rules and laws are ongoing, repeated over and over, with similar outcomes-the BEP operator getting screwed, and absolutely no negative consequence to the law-breaker.  When is someone in state government with integrity going to have the courage to stand up and put a stop to such injustice?  That point may have come when Lydia spoke up and said such has to stop somewhere or sometime, and it might as well be now, and John and Larry whole-heartedly agreed.

With respect to a remedy for Marlene, she too is not without culpability, as she certainly was fully aware that she was out-of-compliance and ineligible to bid and promote at the time she bid on Howell, when it was offered to her and she accepted, and at the point of transfer, there was and remained a status of non-compliance.  Given those facts, Marlene holds a legally voidable license for cause because of her knowledge at the time of the grant of the license.  That concept and conclusion is derived from contract law, along with a doctrine called unjust enrichment also attaches, which, if her stated income of $50,000 from Howell in 2011 is correct and verified, then because of Marlene's culpability, she was not entitled to neither the difference between her income at the Romney Building, from where she illegally was promoted, and what her income is at Howell, nor is she entitled to the 401k benefit derived, for the difference between Romney and Howell.  This translates to an unjust enrichment and reward for her participation and culpability in an illegal act.  The concept was false pretense could also be in play.

Since Bill made a reference to a lawsuit for compensation, I also consider an action in negligence.  Under this legal theory, there is a doctrine of contributory negligence, which basically means that the defendant seeks to assign proportional percentage negligent responsibility liability among the parties.  The plaintiff must accept responsibility for their role, and their compensation recovery, if any, is reduced by their assigned percentage of fault

There is also a defense that can be asserted called assumption of the risk.  This is where a plaintiff takes an action fully aware of the risk attached to that action taken, and must take legal responsibility for undertaking the known risky action.  With regard to Marlene's action, the facts show that she undertook a promotion transfer with full knowledge that it was illegal, and she assumed the risk of such action being discovered and acted upon to be corrected.  A finding of assumption of the risk would kill any recovery.

Therefore, based on the facts and equities involved, Marlene should be placed on the potential list, just as was done in the Thelen case, to bid on available facilities, without a priority bid, and with or without adjustment recovery for her unjust enrichment.

I know this would not set well with many, however, since the failure to follow the rules and law, by BEP management and licensees alike,must stop, it may seem harsh, however it is time to stop the illegal games and actions that are harming the BEP all-around in time, energy, resources, and cohesiveness.  It will also send a resounding and clear message to all that the time of favoritism games and illegal actions has stopped, and will no lonher  be tolerated. And the time has arrived to stop rewarding such illegal games and actions in any manner.  That includes taking disciplinary action against state employees engaged in such acts.         

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

Respectfully,

Terry

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

From: Fred Wurtzel [mailto:f.wurtzel at att.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:52 PM
To: terrydeagle at yahoo.com; 'Bill Lozier'
Cc: risasteve92 at yahoo.com; 'andrea nelson'; suncat0 at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area

Hi Terry,

You have stated the issue perfectly.  I must again point out that Risa, months ago, included a remedy in her hearing request to gain a priority bid for Marlene.  Admittedly, this is not a perfect compensation, but, Risa is not in a position to do anything else.

Operators are put into a position that if they get justice, someone els is treated unjustly.  Your point about following the rules and the law would have avoided this awful problem.

Warmest Regards,

Fred

From: Terry Eagle [mailto:terrydeagle at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:15 PM
To: 'Fred Wurtzel'; 'Bill Lozier'
Cc: risasteve92 at yahoo.com; 'andrea nelson'; suncat0 at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area

Hi All,

I would like to say that this NOT about one operator agains another operator.It is solely about a corrupt system and individuals that flat out refuse to "follow the BEP administrative rules and law, both management and licensees alike.  If the rule of law was consistently and uniformly applied and followed, it would remove all favoritism and retaliation toward any license or applicant for license, totally avoiding the appearance of operator against operator conflict, which is totally absent here.

If everyone knew or were willing to own up to the facts of his case, it would quickly resolved in accordance with the rules as they were to have been applied.  Much responsibility can be assessed at the feet of srveral persons, for why this has ben alloed to spin-out-of-control to this point.  However what is needed is to step back in time, and based on the facts of the case, simply resolve it based on the rules that should have been applied.  It is NEVER too late to do what is right and just under the rule of law.

As was emphasized by the MCB Voard is that failure to follow the rules and law has to STOP at some point.  Given the facts of this case, it is the perfect time to begin follow the rules and law, without harm or unjust enrichment being applied.

Respectfully,

Terry Eagle

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

From: Fred Wurtzel [mailto:f.wurtzel at att.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:18 PM
To: 'Bill Lozier'
Cc: risasteve92 at yahoo.com; andrea nelson; Terry Eagle; suncat0 at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area

Hey Bill,

Perfect!  Exactly the point.  how can we work together on these things?  I'm on board.  I just know fighting with each other will only keep the money away.  Cooperating will bring it in.

Warmest Regards,

Fred

From: Bill Lozier [mailto:flingem at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:04 PM
To: f.wurtzel at att.net
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area

Hi Fred,

   We need to be in control of our own money.   We need to quit blaming others for our problems.  We need to focus on the future.  we need money, money money.   You know the restraints they put on BEP staff.  We need our own lobbyist, we need our own PR firm to lobby state employee to use our locations.  You know the SLA can not do that.  We need to form our own SLA and get rid of the state SLA.  We need money money and more money.   We need a plan forward and to stop fighting all these battles of the past.  Just a few quick thoughts.  We need some positive forward thinking brain storming

Thanks,

Bill

p.s. have a good night please give my highest regards to Mary

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

From: f.wurtzel at att.net
To: flingem at hotmail.com
CC: risasteve92 at yahoo.com; drea7139 at yahoo.com; suncat0 at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:36:07 -0400

Hi Bill,

Again, I say that Marlene was not even involved when this started.  It has nothing to do with her, except she is the victim.  When will operators begin to see the benefit of working together to create a well-run system and quit attacking one another, the very people who can be the best of help?

Anyway, I wanted to show a different perspective.  I don't see much advantage for operators to attack one another, but I guess if that is what is wanted, so it will be.  In the meantime, operators continue to get less than they deserve.  MCB is not even spending anywhere near the budget available.  The training is not up to par.  And still operators fight among themselves with no net gain for anyone.  Why?

Best Regards,

Fred

From: Bill Lozier [mailto:flingem at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:52 PM
To: f.wurtzel at att.net
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area

Hi Fred,

The SLA transitioned risa in to okemos, they gave her vending  in Jackson state office building , to cover any loses because of holt.  The SLA did their JOB, no judge will deny that.   I want this case closed and it just about is.  What judge their right mind will ever rule in favor of this.  It is my opinion the judge ruled against risa. and said move on to you new location and be happy.  I heard absolutely no evidence saying other wise.  Until you can prove this your case dose not hold water.    You and I have been through these battles before about combining locations.  Everything I said way back when was true and his been proven out over time.  you expect marlene to give up $50,000 a year to someone who is making more then that?               What was the original wording of the grievance Risa filled?   Was she trying to take okemos from Mike Constintinne when she started all of this? i know what she wanted, but why should she get it.   and how did Holt come into it?    
these are simple questions the Board should ask?   or was the fix in?   a can of worms Fred, that what we have here.

Thanks 

Bill

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

From: f.wurtzel at att.net
To: flingem at hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Okemos rest area
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:35:00 -0400

Hello Bill,

I understand your feelings on this.  Unfortunately, you you are attacking the victim.  Risa had requested the 2 sites to be combined before the bid was awarded. The agency purposely awardedthe facility while it was being contested which put everyone in a bind.  The same thing happened with the Grayling facility. If the case would have been allowed to be processed through the system the problem would have been avoided.  

I think it needs to be said that Risa has asked, as a remedy for Marlene to get a priority bid. She did this almost a year ago, not in response to this situation.  I think you are doing the right thing to try to assist marlene.  You are pointing at the wrong target.  Risa did not cause this problem.

How can we all look at this for what it is, one operator being pitted against another.  That is not the way to process this issue.  Operators need to come together to try to remedy this, as painful as it will be in the short term.  For the long term the EOC needs to work to see that if there is a grievance that the bidding is suspended until the conflict is resolved.

Marlene is not a bad person, Risa is not a bad person, you are not a bad person for defending Marlene, Terry is not a bad person for defending Risa.  The system has a due process process to deal with disagreements.  It is good to use it to do so.

From: Bill Lozier [mailto:flingem at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 5:15 PM
To: president.nfb.mi at gmail.com; cannonp at michigan.gov; zangerc at michigan.gov; hullj at michigan.gov; casey354 at comcast.net; catervend at charter.net; cherieagle at sbcglobal.net; dlayer8954 at yahoo.com; drea7139 at yahoo.com; duthiep at michigan.gov; elliottc23 at michigan.gov; elliottc2 at michigan.gov; edmondsl2 at michigan.gov; f.wurtzel at att.net; garsvend at aol.com; haynesc at michigan.gov; hoskinsj2 at michigan.gov; jendoroh at gmail.com; jiggyzee at att.net; joe.sibley at comcast.net; keathleygreg at yahoo.com; lcv61cook at gmail.com; markrothenhauser at hotmail.com; pellej at michigan.gov; silvano.uy at pagcor.ph; terrydeagle at yahoo.com; wallacej1 at michigan.gov; wndmcdnld at yahoo.com; jcscot at sbcglobal.net; resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net; rob.essennberg at yahoo.com; rob.essenberg at yahoo.com; sjx3 at sbcglobal.net; marz r; Bob L; risasteve92 at yahoo.com; risap92 at gmail.com
Subject: Okemos rest area

Good afternoon Larry,

            With all due respect Larry these are not 2 small locations.  If Okemos is a small satellite location why did Risa patrick langtree promote into it?   and try to get her old location added on to it?  Please read my emails.         In this case Okemos did $150.000 in sales for 2012.  The howell rest area did $120,000.00  These are facts. take the time to check it out    My i remind you will be the ones that have to take Marlene's license for absolutely no reason or fault of her own.  She will be filling for hearings and and will be the one to bring the law suit you are worried about.   Risa new all the facts when she took the Okemos  rest area being remolded.   She was originally was petitioning for the howell site to be improved, not personal reciprocity.      Not to be awarded anything personally only to improve her site at that time.      Shame on you Fed Wertzel!!!!

         if she had promoted into our location in the UP would she still be get  Okemos?    She has Okemos, how can she be rewarded Okemos?   that is why the agency never acted.

Sincerely 

Bill Lozier

please please pass this along to all commissioners we are 

defensibly appealing any board action that revokes Marlene Rothenhousers license for any reason!!!!!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20120622/d22838b3/attachment.html>