[Vendorsmi] Fw: Okemos rest area

Fri Jun 22 14:42:23 UTC 2012

Hi Terry,

For my part, and Risa's I hope, I hope to not make this an Operator on
operator thing.  We, in my opinion, will do better when operators recognize
their mutual benefit for working together.  The agency made these mistakes
and the agency needs to take responsibility for making all parties whole.
The wholeness determination is between the agency and the individual
operators to resolve.  My goal is to support a move toward operator unity,
to whatever extent that can be achieved, though the history is not real
promising.  At least, we ought to not make it worse, if possible.

Until the MCB is appropriately administered, these issues will continue. The
law and rules are our best help in mending this broken system.

Warmest Regards,

Fred

From: vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Sontag
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:59 AM
To: VENDORSMI List
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Okemos rest area

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

From: Terry Eagle <mailto:terrydeagle at yahoo.com>  

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]
<mailto:%5bmailto:f.wurtzel at att.net%5d>  
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]
<mailto:%5bmailto:flingem at hotmail.com%5d>  
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]
<mailto:%5bmailto:flingem at hotmail.com%5d>  
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]
<mailto:%5bmailto:flingem at hotmail.com%5d>  
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/20120622/1cc7021f/attachment.html>