From suncat0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 03:51:54 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:51:54 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? Message-ID: <23EC1F25B4244F5BA69C41E84CC12489@Reputercat> At a recent administrative hearing, Assistant Program Manager James Hull stated in sworn testimony that there is no compliance issue for those operators who are assessed a 50% penalty for late payment of set-aside fees, but who do not pay the penalty as required by rule. Rule 27 states that the penalty payment is due with the next vending facility monthly report following notification of the penalty. If there's no compelling reason for payment of the late fee on time and no consequence where compliance goes, then why even have this so-called penalty in our rules? Licenses can be (but almost never are) revoked for failure to pay almost everybody else while operating a facility; including the set-aside fee itself. Somehow I doubt that the Treasury Department takes such a relaxed view when it comes to monies owed to the state for any lawful reason. If you have ever been slapped with the 50% penalty or you've been hit recently with and agree that you owe the 50% late fee and have not paid it promptly for any reason, I'd like to hear from you regarding statements made by BEP staff and your situation. I may be reached at: suncat0 at gmail.com or look me up in the Lansing phonebook. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From f.wurtzel at att.net Thu Oct 4 16:35:58 2012 From: f.wurtzel at att.net (Fred Wurtzel) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:35:58 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? In-Reply-To: <23EC1F25B4244F5BA69C41E84CC12489@Reputercat> References: <23EC1F25B4244F5BA69C41E84CC12489@Reputercat> Message-ID: <00a201cda24e$564f2a70$02ed7f50$@att.net> hello, Didn't Sam Toko win in front of the Commission Board on this issue or an issue closely related to it? I cannot imagine why the agency would take a position that their rules are unenforceable. What kind of management is this? Warmest Regards, fred From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:52 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? At a recent administrative hearing, Assistant Program Manager James Hull stated in sworn testimony that there is no compliance issue for those operators who are assessed a 50% penalty for late payment of set-aside fees, but who do not pay the penalty as required by rule. Rule 27 states that the penalty payment is due with the next vending facility monthly report following notification of the penalty. If there's no compelling reason for payment of the late fee on time and no consequence where compliance goes, then why even have this so-called penalty in our rules? Licenses can be (but almost never are) revoked for failure to pay almost everybody else while operating a facility; including the set-aside fee itself. Somehow I doubt that the Treasury Department takes such a relaxed view when it comes to monies owed to the state for any lawful reason. If you have ever been slapped with the 50% penalty or you've been hit recently with and agree that you owe the 50% late fee and have not paid it promptly for any reason, I'd like to hear from you regarding statements made by BEP staff and your situation. I may be reached at: suncat0 at gmail.com or look me up in the Lansing phonebook. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 21:28:30 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 17:28:30 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: The 50% Nonpenalty? Message-ID: <3CF8B0E21E864AD5B5F64E4D0D35B9E1@Reputercat> ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: Fred Wurtzel Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 15:06 Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? It seems to matter who you are and what management thinks of you. I don't know this to be true yet, but I believe Rutherford Beard was found to be out of compliance for having failed to pay a late fee and was denyed the remodeled SOS facility. At the hearing, Hull was alleging that a certain operator was in compliance and promotable, even though evedence exists showing a late payment and a bounced check prior to the transfer. ----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Wurtzel To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:35 Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? hello, Didn't Sam Toko win in front of the Commission Board on this issue or an issue closely related to it? I cannot imagine why the agency would take a position that their rules are unenforceable. What kind of management is this? Warmest Regards, fred From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 11:52 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? At a recent administrative hearing, Assistant Program Manager James Hull stated in sworn testimony that there is no compliance issue for those operators who are assessed a 50% penalty for late payment of set-aside fees, but who do not pay the penalty as required by rule. Rule 27 states that the penalty payment is due with the next vending facility monthly report following notification of the penalty. If there's no compelling reason for payment of the late fee on time and no consequence where compliance goes, then why even have this so-called penalty in our rules? Licenses can be (but almost never are) revoked for failure to pay almost everybody else while operating a facility; including the set-aside fee itself. Somehow I doubt that the Treasury Department takes such a relaxed view when it comes to monies owed to the state for any lawful reason. If you have ever been slapped with the 50% penalty or you've been hit recently with and agree that you owe the 50% late fee and have not paid it promptly for any reason, I'd like to hear from you regarding statements made by BEP staff and your situation. I may be reached at: suncat0 at gmail.com or look me up in the Lansing phonebook. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 14:43:56 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:43:56 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: 2011 resolutions Message-ID: <2526BECEDD014E4F9A5CDF971AE973C3@Reputercat> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Robinson To: 'Joe Sontag' Cc: 'David Robinson' Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:22 Subject: 2011 resolutions RESOLUTION 2011-01 RESOLUTION RELATED TO PROGRAM ACCESS AND MCB WHEREAS, all Vocational Rehabilitation entities, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind, (MCB) have long ago been required to provide "program access" to all the facilities it uses on a daily basis and to hold hearings, meetings and events in fully accessible facilities, even to the point of signing assurances with the Rehabilitation Services Administration annually that it does fully comply with these long-standing obligations; and WHEREAS, one of those long-standing requirements was, and is to have raised character Braille signage mounted on every permanent room, nearest the latch side of each door in accordance with American with Disabilities Act Guidelines (3.40.1, 4, 5, and 6); and WHEREAS, all such barriers were to have been removed under the required ADA transition plan by no later than July 26, 1995, yet exist to this very day in most, if not all, facilities used by the MCB; and WHEREAS, Patrick D. Cannon was the former Chair of the United States Access Board which establishes the standards of the ADAAG, the State of Michigan ADA Coordinator responsible for implementation and the Director of MCB responsible for full compliance and knowingly so; and WHEREAS, the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are civil rights laws requiring affirmative action; and therefore these inactions by Cannon constitute not only gross dereliction of known duties and deliberate indifference to these civil rights laws, but also must be considered malicious and intentional acts of mass discrimination; and WHEREAS, members of, and indeed the entire state affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, have promoted the full application of these requirements repeatedly over the years along with documenting violations; and WHEREAS, the NFB-MI has long promoted Braille, including its use in the built environment, for reasons obvious to all: NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that forthwith the NFB-MI lodges a formal Complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in the United States Department of Education, along with supporting documentation, on behalf of all its members, and indeed all people who are blind in the State of Michigan, against Patrick D. Cannon, individually, and against the Michigan Commission for the Blind as an entity; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a part of this Complaint, the NFB-MI urges OCR to promptly enforce our individual and collective civil rights and to make the class whole as its charge. RESOLUTION 2011-02 RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS WHEREAS, all entities of State and local government are required to follow the effective communications requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, including the obligation to affirmatively, let alone upon request, remit information sin alternate formats to people who are blind; and WHEREAS, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that all recipients of federal funds provide auxiliary aids and services to those who are blind; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court found in Tennessee v Lane that state and local courts are not immune from these obligations and, indeed, have high responsibilities in these regards, for lack of access fundamentally denies "due process and equal protection under the law"; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Administrative Hearing Systems (MAHS) is both a Title II entity, federal fund recipient and an administrative law program where blind Business Enterprise Program participants and advocates, as well as others, routinely appear to seek justice and receive due process and equal protection under laws, including Public Act 260 of 1978 as well as major aspects of the Rehabilitation Act; and WHEREAS, MAHS, in documented fashion and principals therein, have denied advocates and respondents who are blind repeatedly information in accessible formats and in a timely manner; and WHEREAS, these are systemic, chronic, pervasive and fundamental violations of the civil rights of all Michigan citizens who are blind, as a class, by failure to act affirmatively in these regards; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has also been complicit in not only ensuring that MAHS follows these laws, but rather, has repeatedly violated these very same provisions of the law in these administrative proceedings which are in and of themselves conscious and malicious acts of discrimination perpetuated repeatedly against numerous blind individuals; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled on November 6, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that forthwith, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan will lodge a Complaint against the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (MAHS's parent), MAHS, and The Michigan Commission for the Blind within the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, and the civil rights office of the United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NFB-MI will seek any legal support in these matters from other resources, including our National office. RESOLUTION 2011-03 COMMISSION BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT WHEREAS, over the years, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board has received quality secretarial and administrative support; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding this support, it is inappropriate for the Commission Board to co-mingle administrative support with that of the Commission Director; and WHEREAS, the Rehabilitation Act clearly calls for separate and independent administrative support staff directed and controlled by the Board; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board in its September 2011 meeting passed a unanimous motion to establish separate clerical support for the Board; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization calls upon the Michigan Commission for the Blind to take all appropriate, affirmative and expeditious steps to secure adequate and appropriate secretarial and administrative support as called for in the Rehabilitation Act, and adequate enough to assist the Michigan Commission for the Blind board in carrying out its duties and responsibilities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization commends the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board for taking action to establish separate secretarial and support services. RESOLUTION 2011-04 MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND MINUTES WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has been in operation since 1978; and WHEREAS, until the repressive present regime, the commission met approximately eleven (11) times per year and is responsible to develop policy which affects blind Michigan citizens; and WHEREAS, it is very difficult to ascertain all relevant Commission policy pertaining to any specific topic or related topics; and WHEREAS, open and transparent government and the efficient operation of the Commission Board call for ready access to all policies and related discussions; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization call upon the Commission Board to enact policies to organize a searchable public database of Commission motions and minutes that is available to Commissioners, staff and the public via the internet. RESOLUTION 2011-05 EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND WHEREAS, Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that all Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) communicates effectively through "appropriate modes of communication: with all customers; and WHEREAS, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Subpart e, Communications) requires that all entities of State and local government provide information to all people who are blind in their most effective format and in a timely manner, including, of course, all those engaged with the Michigan Commission for the Blind; and WHEREAS, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires the same; and WHEREAS, it has been documented over the years that MCB does not, in all cases, remit timely materials in Braille, audio, electronic, or large print even after continued requests from customers, Business Enterprise Program licensees and members of the public who are blind; and WHEREAS, these documented and ongoing breaches of civil rights laws delay, deny and otherwise inhibit delivery of required services and "due process and equal protection" under these laws and thus constitute systemic, chronic and pervasive acts of discrimination against people who are blind in the State of Michigan; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is the leading advocate for the rights of all the blind of Michigan, and believes such violations of the law by the MCB denies blind persons of their right to equal access and such violations could be readily corrected by the MCB; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan files a Complaint forthwith to the United States Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights against the Michigan Commission for the Blind detailing the chronic acts of discrimination and demanding prompt compliance with all applicable laws in these regards. RESOLUTION 2011-06 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF MICHIGAN WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is an affiliate of the National Federation of the Blind, the oldest and largest organization of all the blind in the country; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan is actively involved in many activities that improve the lives of blind people in Michigan, including civil rights, advocacy, the education of blind children and adults, good training and job placement for the blind, information and technology access; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Business Enterprise Program (BEP) operates a phone information line called the Operator Information Exchange Line which is supported with state and federal funds and is designed for the purpose of providing useful information to BEP operators; and WHEREAS, the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan attempted to place an announcement about its up-and-coming annual State Convention on the Operator Information Exchange Line for the BEP operators in Michigan; and WHEREAS, management of the BEP, without permission from the Federation's representative, edited out the portion of the announcement which contained information about the state convention and only included information about the NFBM Merchants division training seminar; and WHEREAS, a second submittal about the convention was rejected outright by BEP management; and WHEREAS, BEP management subsequently admitted denial of our announcement on this Information Exchange Line which is supported by federal and state funds because such information was available elsewhere; and WHEREAS, to our knowledge there are no known laws, rules, policies or guidelines restricting the placement of information on the operator information exchange line; and WHEREAS, such censorship is a violation of our first amendment rights to free speech; and WHEREAS, such blatant discrimination of the NFBM by a state employee is a violation of our right to public access; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November, 2011 in the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization condemns and deplores such discriminatory action on the part of Michigan Commission for the Blind BEP management; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that sanctions be placed on the employees responsible for such behavior; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this organization takes all necessary steps to stop this discriminatory behavior of BEP management, including the Michigan Commission for the Blind establishing a written policy instructing all staff that such discriminatory actions against the NFBM in the future will not be tolerated. RESOLUTION 2011-07 CHALLENGE EXPERIENCES WHEREAS, successful, quality rehabilitation for the blind includes such mandatory skills as Braille, Cane Travel, Daily Living Skills, Technology, and Manual Arts; and WHEREAS, these skills represent a minimum, or can be considered, core competencies for a person to become prepared to live successfully in the world as a blind person; and WHEREAS, in order to fully benefit from these skills each person must have a philosophic view of blindness which encompasses these skills plus an intrinsic belief in oneself which informs an approach to life based on confidence and empowerment; and WHEREAS, successful rehabilitation programs include "challenge experiences" that require the student to aggregate and consolidate the individual skills to accomplish a goal that challenges and stretches the students' self-image as a blind person. Examples of such experiences include rock climbing, water skiing, sky diving, participation in large social events such as state fairs, Marde Gras, etc.; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center (MCBTC), in response to student demand, created a marksmanship challenge activity which served the ambient cultural needs of Michigan's outdoor hunting and sports environment; and WHEREAS, this marksmanship program was aborted in a drastic and destructive manner brutally repressing the spontaneous self-empowerment of blind people who were exercising their self-empowerment, thus undermining and stunting the full possibilities of a quality rehabilitation program; and WHEREAS, now that the misguided, mean and regressive actions to repress the positive goals of the National Federation of the Blind as expressed in positive and progressive rehabilitation administration have been repudiated and shown for what they are, anti-consumer and anti-NFB; and WHEREAS, it is now time to resume progress toward progressive, positive and creative rehabilitation that empowers blind people and creates an environment of encouragement and high expectation leading to personal freedom and confidence which will therefore lead to success in vocational and community pursuits; and WHEREAS, the MCBTC must assume its rightful role as the planning, organizing and motivating engine within the Michigan Commission for the Blind rehabilitation programs; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that this organization demands in the strongest terms possible that the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board take immediate and affirmative steps to enable the MCBTC to develop signature challenge programs reflective of the unique environment and needs in Michigan and that they reflect the diverse interests of Michigan citizens; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board act in its December meeting to initiate a planning process that will produce a plan for creative and effective challenge activities to be presented to the Commission for consideration in the March 2012 board meeting that incorporates the philosophical and skill building requirements as cited above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board incorporate this planning and implementation of an acceptable challenge program into the MCB Director's Performance Plan for 2012, and that the Board monitor progress towards this goal and take appropriate action if the goal is not achieved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization demands the reinstatement of the marksmanship class at the MCBTC. RESOLUTION 2011-08 NEW HORIZONS WHEREAS, Gwen McNeal has been on the Board of Trustees of New Horizons since 2010; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) through McNeal, continues to do business with New Horizons to this date including contracting for evaluations and engages New Horizons personnel on other cash match agreements, including one with Oakland County Schools; and WHEREAS, in the Rehabilitation Services Administration's (RSA) 5-year Monitoring Report, RSA found that the Michigan Commission for the Blind, the Macomb Intermediate School District, and New Horizons Rehabilitation Services engaged in an illegal "cash match" agreement whereby New Horizons kicked in funds for federal match, and then received a no-bid contract (see Finding 6); and WHEREAS, MCB Regional Manager Gwen McNeal was the responsible agent for this and even gave an award to New Horizons in 2008; and WHEREAS, this, by any reasonable definition, constitutes a conflict of interest between this MCB Regional Administrator and a Community Rehabilitation Program; and WHEREAS, this clearly violates state ethics guidelines and may well be a violation of state and federal laws; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan abhors this sort of apparent conflict of interests; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that forthwith NFB-MI informs, in writing, Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Office of the Inspector General in the United States Department of Education, and the Michigan Attorney General's Public Integrity Office about this situation and requesting a thorough investigation into these and other practices. RESOLUTION 2011-09 COLLEGE POLICY/MEANS TEST WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind has a history of requiring college students who receive Social Security benefits to financially participate in the cost of their vocational rehabilitation services as documented in the 2009 Monitoring Report issued by the Rehabilitation Services Administration; and WHEREAS, this is illegal under the Rehabilitation Act of 1998 regulations to ask college students who receive Social Security benefits to financially participate in the cost of their rehabilitation services; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind was asked to revise this specific policy by the Rehabilitation Services Administration to comply with federal laws and procedures; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind spent a considerable amount of time changing and updating the entire college student policy without specifically addressing the issue of asking college students who receive Social Security benefits to financially participate in the costs of their vocational rehabilitation services; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind insisted on creating a Means test as a part of this new college policy; and WHEREAS, the Michigan Commission for the Blind refuses to revise agency policies and procedures regarding the vocational rehabilitation services it provides to college students to comply with federal laws and procedures; and WHEREAS, the lack of revising and implementing policies and procedures for providing vocational rehabilitation services to college students that comply with federal laws and procedures is a direct reflection of the lack of leadership provided to the Michigan Commission for the Blind through the agency director; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, That this organization calls upon the Michigan Commission for the Blind to immediately cease and desist the use of any Financial Needs Form that requires the financial participation of any college student and creates a Means test for college students who receives Social Security benefits; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this organization calls upon the Michigan Commission for the Blind Board of Directors to seek appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including, the termination of the agency director based upon his inability to adopt and implement policies and procedures for administering vocational rehabilitation services to college students that adequately reflect federal laws and procedures. RESOLUTION 2011-10 FIRE CANNON WHEREAS, Michigan Commission for the Blind (MCB) Director Patrick D. Cannon has personally engaged in retaliatory actions in documented fashion against Christine Boone, Hazell Brooks, and David Robinson, that are still not fully resolved and typify reckless and illegal behaviors which have already cost case services for customers of MCB to be restrained, let alone the personal cost to these stalwart blind people; and WHEREAS, Cannon has directly, and through his subordinates, violated core provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended for more than a decade, including, illegal means testing, failures to "fast track" SSI/SSDI recipients, violations of maintenance, informed choice, and even basic eligibility, among others, in both policy and practice harming all blind persons seeking services from MCB; and WHEREAS, Cannon and subordinates have committed documented violations and perverted the Business Enterprise Program and Public Act 260 too many times to articulate by the employment of sighted persons over competent blind persons; and WHEREAS, Cannon has scoffed at the Rehabilitation Services Administration which is the primary funder of MCB even to the point of not ensuring corrective actions required in the RSA monitoring report due almost one (1) year ago; and WHEREAS, Cannon has directly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which violates the civil rights of the entire class of blind people in Michigan; and WHEREAS, Cannon has actively worked to suborn due process rights of individuals and has openly scoffed at legal processes themselves by not responding to lawful subpoenas; and WHEREAS, Cannon has directly intervened to control the MCB Board with extra legal and highly political measures from the ethics attacks against former Commissioner Eagle to his recent, documented interventions with the Governor's appointed office in a ludicrous attempt to deny commissioners the right to write their own by-laws; and WHEREAS, Cannon has directly, and through his subordinates, repeatedly violated the Open Meetings Act and the Michigan Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Cannon has directly intervened to deny vital information to the MCB Board in a timely and accessible manner, impeding them in fulfilling their duties: from not remitting state plan information for over a decade, to not ensuring that all complete transcripts, including exhibits, were afforded to commissioners in reviews of A.L.J. decisions; and WHEREAS, these and other actions represent not only malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance, but also violations of law and equity over a protracted period of time, and in numerous instances so as to be construed to be pervasive and malicious by any reasonable person and thus accuse of dismissal from his position; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan in convention assembled this 6th day of November 2011 in the City of Kalamazoo, Michigan that forthwith this organization will transmit a letter to Governor Richard Snyder, LARA Director Steven Hilfinger, and Patrick Cannon's immediate supervisor, Steven Arwood which states that Cannon should be immediately dismissed as director of MCB for cause. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 14:43:14 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:43:14 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: announcement discrimination Message-ID: <55F213EC2EF94BC1B22AFF579AA2A09B@Reputercat> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Robinson To: terrydeagle at yahoo.com Cc: 'Joe Sontag' Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:20 Subject: announcement discrimination Terry, Great response to this deliberate act of hatred and discrimination. We should follow up with another resolutions based on last years resolution. I Have forwarded last year's resolutions to you which includes the issue form last year. What are your thoughts? Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 14:42:51 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 10:42:51 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Deleted Information - BEP Operator Info Line Announcement RequestDocument8 Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Eagle To: 'Joe Sontag' Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 8:01 Subject: Deleted Information - BEP Operator Info Line Announcement RequestDocument8 October 5, 2012 Good morning Constance, I am writing concerning the posted announcement requested on behalf of the Michigan Association of Blind Merchants, a division of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan, and its annual convention and meeting. Please tell me the reason and justification for deleting important information that likely is of interest to blind vendors. The deleted information in the posted announcement was provided as information vital to interested blind persons to be able to make accommodations to their blindness to attend the evening event. The deleted information is reasonable and necessary to achieve accommodations to attend the event. I find it difficult to believe this deletion to be a simple oversight in your decision to edit and delete valuable information of interest to blind individuals who routinely must make accommodations to attend meetings away from their locale, given your many years of consideration of the need for accommodations to be made by blind persons to allow and achieve attendance and participation by blind persons at numerous Elected Operators' Committee events around the state. I hope and pray your decision is not another act of discrimination based on your personal contempt for me, or because of a similar act toward the NFB, based on your close relationship with a member of another smaller organization of blind consumers and vendors, and your attendance at their local and out-of-state events. Regardless, acts of discrimination based on affiliation are totally unacceptable, must and cannot be tolerated within the public sector, by agents of the state charged to serve all persons and groups equally, regardless of one's own affiliation. I urge you to reconsider your action of deleting important imformation of interest and accommodation value to blind vendors; correct your action without delay, and be cognizant of the need for blind persons' need to know any and all information that will achieve access through accommodations to all events of interest to the blind. Please publish the entire event information announcement requested as a public service to blind vendors. Best regards, Terry Eagle, President Michigan Association of Blind Merchants -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Terry Eagle [mailto:terrydeagle at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:44 PM To: 'zangerc at michigan.gov' Cc: 'edmondsl2 at michigan.gov' Subject: BEP Operator Info Line Announcement RequestDocument8 Hello Constance, Can you please have this announcement read on the Operator Information Line on October 2, 9, and 16? Thanks. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Michigan Association of Blind Merchants cordially invites you to attend the annual convention of the National Federation of the Blind of Michigan (NFBM), the weekend of Friday, October 19 through Sunday, October 21, 2012, at the Doubletree Hotel in Dearborn Michigan, 5801 Southfield Road. Room rates are $89 plus tax per night. Room reservations may be made by calling 313-336-3340 or 1800-222-8733. The Michigan Association of Blind Merchants will be holding its annual meeting Friday evening October 19, at 7:00 p.m. Registration for the merchants meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. Bring your concerns and your ideas, as many changes will be taking place as the Commission undergoes transition, and all of us need to be informed and involved. Chief Deputy Director of LARA, Mr. Michael Zimmer, and the new BSBP Director, Mr. Edward Rodgers are scheduled to appear at the convention. You can register for the convention online at the NFB of Michigan website at www.NFBMI.org. We are changing what it is to be blind and doing business in Michigan. Looking forward to meeting you at our annual meeting and convention. Michigan Association of Blind Merchants -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Document8.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26624 bytes Desc: not available URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Tue Oct 9 12:39:18 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 08:39:18 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: The 50% Nonpenalty? Message-ID: FYI. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) To: 'suncat0 at gmail.com' Cc: Luzenski, Sue (LARA) Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:47 Subject: The 50% Nonpenalty? Dear Mr. Sontag, I am in receipt of your email from October 3, 2012. I received it on October 4th. I was out of the office part of the day and not in the office on Friday. I will meet with staff and review the information you have provided to us along with investigating the record that you mentioned. Thank you for sending this information to me. Sincerely, Edward F. Rodgers II (517-335-4265 - Management Assistant, Sue Luzenski) ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: VENDORSMI List Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 23:51 Subject: The 50% Nonpenalty? At a recent administrative hearing, Assistant Program Manager James Hull stated in sworn testimony that there is no compliance issue for those operators who are assessed a 50% penalty for late payment of set-aside fees, but who do not pay the penalty as required by rule. Rule 27 states that the penalty payment is due with the next vending facility monthly report following notification of the penalty. If there's no compelling reason for payment of the late fee on time and no consequence where compliance goes, then why even have this so-called penalty in our rules? Licenses can be (but almost never are) revoked for failure to pay almost everybody else while operating a facility; including the set-aside fee itself. Somehow I doubt that the Treasury Department takes such a relaxed view when it comes to monies owed to the state for any lawful reason. If you have ever been slapped with the 50% penalty or you've been hit recently with and agree that you owe the 50% late fee and have not paid it promptly for any reason, I'd like to hear from you regarding statements made by BEP staff and your situation. I may be reached at: suncat0 at gmail.com or look me up in the Lansing phonebook. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Tue Oct 9 16:21:12 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 12:21:12 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty? References: Message-ID: Dear Mr. Rodgers: Thank you for your response to my recent e-mail at what must be a busy and difficult time for you. The Business Enterprise Program is long overdue for some high-level administrative attention in my opinion. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or comments you may have regarding the BEP or the former Commission. Sincerely, Joe Sontag ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) To: 'suncat0 at gmail.com' Cc: Luzenski, Sue (LARA) Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:47 Subject: The 50% Nonpenalty? Dear Mr. Sontag, I am in receipt of your email from October 3, 2012. I received it on October 4th. I was out of the office part of the day and not in the office on Friday. I will meet with staff and review the information you have provided to us along with investigating the record that you mentioned. Thank you for sending this information to me. Sincerely, Edward F. Rodgers II (517-335-4265 - Management Assistant, Sue Luzenski) ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: VENDORSMI List Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 23:51 Subject: The 50% Nonpenalty? At a recent administrative hearing, Assistant Program Manager James Hull stated in sworn testimony that there is no compliance issue for those operators who are assessed a 50% penalty for late payment of set-aside fees, but who do not pay the penalty as required by rule. Rule 27 states that the penalty payment is due with the next vending facility monthly report following notification of the penalty. If there's no compelling reason for payment of the late fee on time and no consequence where compliance goes, then why even have this so-called penalty in our rules? Licenses can be (but almost never are) revoked for failure to pay almost everybody else while operating a facility; including the set-aside fee itself. Somehow I doubt that the Treasury Department takes such a relaxed view when it comes to monies owed to the state for any lawful reason. If you have ever been slapped with the 50% penalty or you've been hit recently with and agree that you owe the 50% late fee and have not paid it promptly for any reason, I'd like to hear from you regarding statements made by BEP staff and your situation. I may be reached at: suncat0 at gmail.com or look me up in the Lansing phonebook. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 10 00:12:30 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:12:30 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard Message-ID: If you've checked the bidline announcement at the time of this writing, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? If you have factual knowledge about this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Wed Oct 10 12:57:12 2012 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:57:12 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B34315631F44337895CF42DE8F2DA4E@TerryPC> Is this any surprise to anyone familiar with the Commission's attitude toward the blind? It truly says much about living up to the Commission's new name: B S for Blind Persons! Re-inventing the way state government does business for efficiency: get rid of the programs that empower people. -----Original Message----- From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:13 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard If you've checked the bidline announcement at the time of this writing, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? If you have factual knowledge about this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag From suncat0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 10 16:55:26 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:55:26 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard References: <6BB118FEA8214676B944B09507E13A70@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: I've been informed that BSBP intends to grant hearings to BEP licensees only if they can cite a specific promulgated rule that has not been followed. The BEP tried to make that a requirement back in 1995, but it was rejected by the legal types outside of MCB. ----- Original Message ----- From: joe harcz Comcast To: Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:37 Subject: Re: I only heard Hi Joe, Anymore on this? ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: VENDORSMI List Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:12 PM Subject: I only heard If you've checked the bidline announcement at the time of this writing, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? If you have factual knowledge about this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From f.wurtzel at att.net Wed Oct 10 17:14:00 2012 From: f.wurtzel at att.net (Fred Wurtzel) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:14:00 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard In-Reply-To: References: <6BB118FEA8214676B944B09507E13A70@YOUR7C60552B9E> Message-ID: <00de01cda70a$a4376de0$eca649a0$@att.net> hello Joe, As I recall, not a very reliable thing, In 1995 we adopted a format for hearing requests that asked operators to state the issue, the rule violated and the requested remedy. Again, as I recall, this was not meant to reduce hearings, only to assist everyone, including the operator, to clarify the issue and how to deal with it. Many issues ought to be resolved quite simply. You are correct in your underlying implication that there can not be a limit on grievances. The law clearly says that an operator can file for a hearing on ANY action of the agency. As the administrator, I did feel this is a little broad, but no matter, that is the law. Either they will see the obvious contradiction or another judge will set them straight. Finally, I don't think there is much of a point in filing for a hearing if there are no rule violations, so, theoretically, this procedure should not stop anything. As I stated above, operators will be much more successful if they can go into the hearing or grievance process with an idea of exactly which rules were violated. This may not end up to be an issue. On the other hand, it seems that the system can mess up an empty room, so to speak. Thanks. WarmestRegards, Fred From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:55 PM To: joe harcz Comcast; VENDORSMI List Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] I only heard I've been informed that BSBP intends to grant hearings to BEP licensees only if they can cite a specific promulgated rule that has not been followed. The BEP tried to make that a requirement back in 1995, but it was rejected by the legal types outside of MCB. ----- Original Message ----- From: joe harcz Comcast To: Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:37 Subject: Re: I only heard Hi Joe, Anymore on this? ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: VENDORSMI List Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:12 PM Subject: I only heard If you've checked the bidline announcement at the time of this writing, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? If you have factual knowledge about this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 10 19:09:56 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:09:56 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard References: <6BB118FEA8214676B944B09507E13A70@YOUR7C60552B9E> <00de01cda70a$a4376de0$eca649a0$@att.net> Message-ID: Fred, the law is broad precisely because no set of rules can ever begin to address all of the wrongs that rogue or ineffective staff and management can do to a licensee, as we've seen since you were driven out in 2006. Events of the previous 7 years have also shown how licensees have no reasonable expectation that Agency policy will be followed consistently, short of the grievance procedure in our current rules. Of course, BEP management has argued that policy is meaningless if a rule permits a lower standard of performance on their part. I well remember when the first version of the proposed BEP promulgated rules was brought to the EOC, and the "rule only" wording was one of the few issues we had with it. I was pleased to see the change that was made in a subsequent version a few years later. I don't think we disagree on much here. ----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Wurtzel To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 13:14 Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] I only heard hello Joe, As I recall, not a very reliable thing, In 1995 we adopted a format for hearing requests that asked operators to state the issue, the rule violated and the requested remedy. Again, as I recall, this was not meant to reduce hearings, only to assist everyone, including the operator, to clarify the issue and how to deal with it. Many issues ought to be resolved quite simply. You are correct in your underlying implication that there can not be a limit on grievances. The law clearly says that an operator can file for a hearing on ANY action of the agency. As the administrator, I did feel this is a little broad, but no matter, that is the law. Either they will see the obvious contradiction or another judge will set them straight. Finally, I don't think there is much of a point in filing for a hearing if there are no rule violations, so, theoretically, this procedure should not stop anything. As I stated above, operators will be much more successful if they can go into the hearing or grievance process with an idea of exactly which rules were violated. This may not end up to be an issue. On the other hand, it seems that the system can mess up an empty room, so to speak. Thanks. WarmestRegards, Fred From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:55 PM To: joe harcz Comcast; VENDORSMI List Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] I only heard I've been informed that BSBP intends to grant hearings to BEP licensees only if they can cite a specific promulgated rule that has not been followed. The BEP tried to make that a requirement back in 1995, but it was rejected by the legal types outside of MCB. ----- Original Message ----- From: joe harcz Comcast To: Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:37 Subject: Re: I only heard Hi Joe, Anymore on this? ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: VENDORSMI List Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:12 PM Subject: I only heard If you've checked the bidline announcement at the time of this writing, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? If you have factual knowledge about this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Thu Oct 11 02:14:41 2012 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:14:41 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] I only heard In-Reply-To: References: <6BB118FEA8214676B944B09507E13A70@YOUR7C60552B9E><00de01cda70a$a4376de0$eca649a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <2938FA3EEAA6481F9EE6C3DBA662834A@TerryPC> Hello, What part of the law do many don't get that hearings are not limited to administrative rules? The federal law and regulations are abundantly clear, and state procedures for due process must also be consistent with federal mandate, that a licensee has an unimpeded right to a full evidentiary hearing to aggrieve any action taken by the state licensing agency, for which a licensee is dissatisfied. This right is not defined within the context of the state hearing mechanism is born out of the administrative rule legislation. To confine grievances to just that which is in the administrative rules, is at best an abuse of process by the BEP/BS to Blind Persons administration and hearing system, and at its worse, it is a fundamental denial of substantive and procedural due process, guaranteed under federal law and U.S. Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite the fact that BEP/BS for Blind persons management's desire is to have its' conduct adjudged solely by the administrative rules and the corrupt system, run by bought off sell-out blind persons, that only know how to operate within a corrupt political manner, that is simply not the expectation of the law. Now, the only question is: Will the blind standby and allow the corrupt, rights-denying administrators to continue to erode, destroy and remove the hard fought for rights by the past generations of blind persons, who do not believe in being a spectator of their lives passing by, and do not accept go-along-to get-along free of controversy, conflict, and confrontation, as the rights of blind persons are trampled upon by those who desire to silence and control the blind. What has happened to the backbone and resolve of the organized blind of the past generations. When there was no money to fight a cause in the courts on principle of law, the funds were found and raised. Where is that spirit and resolve today? For what purpose does one believe funds were left to the NFB by those of past generations? For what are those funds being used? -----Original Message----- From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:10 PM To: Fred Wurtzel; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] I only heard Fred, the law is broad precisely because no set of rules can ever begin to address all of the wrongs that rogue or ineffective staff and management can do to a licensee, as we've seen since you were driven out in 2006. Events of the previous 7 years have also shown how licensees have no reasonable expectation that Agency policy will be followed consistently, short of the grievance procedure in our current rules. Of course, BEP management has argued that policy is meaningless if a rule permits a lower standard of performance on their part. I well remember when the first version of the proposed BEP promulgated rules was brought to the EOC, and the "rule only" wording was one of the few issues we had with it. I was pleased to see the change that was made in a subsequent version a few years later. I don't think we disagree on much here. ----- Original Message ----- From: Fred Wurtzel To: 'Joe Sontag' ; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 13:14 Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] I only heard hello Joe, As I recall, not a very reliable thing, In 1995 we adopted a format for hearing requests that asked operators to state the issue, the rule violated and the requested remedy. Again, as I recall, this was not meant to reduce hearings, only to assist everyone, including the operator, to clarify the issue and how to deal with it. Many issues ought to be resolved quite simply. You are correct in your underlying implication that there can not be a limit on grievances. The law clearly says that an operator can file for a hearing on ANY action of the agency. As the administrator, I did feel this is a little broad, but no matter, that is the law. Either they will see the obvious contradiction or another judge will set them straight. Finally, I don't think there is much of a point in filing for a hearing if there are no rule violations, so, theoretically, this procedure should not stop anything. As I stated above, operators will be much more successful if they can go into the hearing or grievance process with an idea of exactly which rules were violated. This may not end up to be an issue. On the other hand, it seems that the system can mess up an empty room, so to speak. Thanks. WarmestRegards, Fred From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:55 PM To: joe harcz Comcast; VENDORSMI List Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] I only heard I've been informed that BSBP intends to grant hearings to BEP licensees only if they can cite a specific promulgated rule that has not been followed. The BEP tried to make that a requirement back in 1995, but it was rejected by the legal types outside of MCB. ----- Original Message ----- From: joe harcz Comcast To: Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:37 Subject: Re: I only heard Hi Joe, Anymore on this? ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: VENDORSMI List Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 8:12 PM Subject: I only heard If you've checked the bidline announcement at the time of this writing, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? If you have factual knowledge about this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag From suncat0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 11 20:34:37 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:34:37 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Message-ID: <04FA58B9A87F404891214BFE0025EBB6@Reputercat> If you've checked the bidline announcement recently, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? Why is the Committee not demanding answers and holding an emergency meeting for the purpose of finding facts and taking a stand for the Program and its licensees? Do you not realize that the most profitable facilities on State property will be the first to be taken if the EOC and those who voted for them just sit on their hands and let the State Plate be given away to the private sector? If you have factual knowledge about any of this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. You can reach me by replying to this message. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Fri Oct 12 23:03:54 2012 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:03:54 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away In-Reply-To: <04FA58B9A87F404891214BFE0025EBB6@Reputercat> References: <04FA58B9A87F404891214BFE0025EBB6@Reputercat> Message-ID: <440B26546FCC435C8E10146F0E93B3AA@TerryPC> UPDATE: There is now a new announcement on the Operator Information Line that states the Anderson Building cafeteria was removed from the Operator Bid Line so that the new B S for Blind Persons Director Ed Rodgers can "review" the Anderson Building operation, and following the "review" the Anderson Building Cafeteria will be returned to the bid line. Does it not make you wonder what there is to review about the Anderson Building operation, since there has not been an operation open for the past ten months? Is this removal needed to find a way to give away a job from a qualified blind person, or is it an opportunity to figure out how to deal with the already expressed resistance of the EOC and the NFB to allow the giveaway of BEP locations by the new director of B S for Blind Persons to the private sector because there is no confidence in and supportive attitude toward blind persons? In addition, did you also notice that the two bidders on the Anderson Building Cafeteria location were withheld from the announcement? An oversight, right? No way. In fact, one operator who is waiting on the potential list to return from an approved medical leave was found ineligible, get this, for not attending the last workshop while on medical leave. Is that not creative of Constance Zanger and James Hull, in order to first, stop an operator from returning to the program, and secondly, to prevent awarding an operator a location simply because they have a past axe to grind with the operator, for winning a grievance in a hearing, based upon the illegal and unethical act by Constance Zanger, having to do with operator audits. Zanger and Hull will go to any extent to retaliate against a targeted operator, including unofficially rewriting the rules as they did here, and giving away a mandated location to the private sector, so they did not have to assign a targeted operator to that location, according to the rules. Watch out, your location likely is next, that is, if you allow these illegal and unethical acts by the new B S for Blind Persons , and Zanger and Hull. In the end, you will get and have that which you fight to protect and preserve. Just sit back and be an observer, and you will have nothing left of the Business Enterprise Program. Your best interest by the agency gets even better--get this: The Operator Information Line has an announcement billed as an opportunity to meet the new B S for Blind Persons director, Ed Rodgers on Monday, October 22nd at three o'clock in the afternoon. Yes, that time is correct, three o'clock in the afternoon, just when you are expected by Zanger and Hull, and according to your signed facility agreement, to be at your facility and open until four o'clock in the afternoon. Dare to close early to lose income, like anyone could afford to do that, and attend the meeting, and your licensed will be revoked guaranteed, that is, if your on Zanger and Hull's target list, or don't enjoy a close relationship with either. Does not the scheduling of a three o'clock week day meeting to meet the director seem strange to you, a BEP operator, who is expected to be at your facility and open until four o'clock? It certainly sends a few negative messages to BEP operators. 1) Just perhaps the truth is that you are not wanted at the meeting; 2) With a three o'clock meeting time, where is the sincerity to really meet you; 3) It sends the message that new director of B S for Blind Persons is going to be an eight to five, Monday through Friday, come to me to meet, office type of bureaucrat. This is already clear from the new director's desire to not attend a meeting of blind consumers on a Saturday or Sunday; 4) You as BEP operators just likely will ask reasonable questions of the new director, and equally demand truthful factual answers to those questions. I'm sure these comments will cost me getting a cafeteria location. Oh yeah, that's right, the "Terry Eagle Clause" is in effect, and now it has been extended to another Eagle. Thanks Connie, James, and Pat Cannon. -----Original Message----- From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:35 PM To: VENDORSMI List Cc: garsvend at comcast.net; Shane Jackson; nathanual at att.net; steven langtry; Robert Essenberg; James Chaney; Garnet Prentice; Greg Keathley; Hazell Brooks; Lisa L. Weber; Dale Layer; momandmikey at hotmail.com Subject: [Vendorsmi] Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away If you've checked the bidline announcement recently, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? Why is the Committee not demanding answers and holding an emergency meeting for the purpose of finding facts and taking a stand for the Program and its licensees? Do you not realize that the most profitable facilities on State property will be the first to be taken if the EOC and those who voted for them just sit on their hands and let the State Plate be given away to the private sector? If you have factual knowledge about any of this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. You can reach me by replying to this message. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag From suncat0 at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 23:46:19 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:46:19 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Message-ID: Boy, I really heard, even if I don't know what the complaint is about or that the topic of my message should be as important to an EOC member as any personal conflict with the messenger. What do you think? ----- Original Message ----- From: Hazell Brooks To: Joe Sontag Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 18:42 Subject: Re: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Please believe me if we knew about this situation we, the EOC would of been craving attention to the situation. But you Joe Sontag on the other hand have meeting we aren't invited to attend and when you were on the board we got even less done because well you know that bias attitude that you have against certain people and or groups of people. But thanks for the heads up Joe I wish the NFB and the merchants would stop this NAME CALLING and this BETTER THAN attitude and actually, stop grinding the axe's,and working a personal agenda. Hazell Brooks Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2012, at 4:34 PM, "Joe Sontag" wrote: If you've checked the bidline announcement recently, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? Why is the Committee not demanding answers and holding an emergency meeting for the purpose of finding facts and taking a stand for the Program and its licensees? Do you not realize that the most profitable facilities on State property will be the first to be taken if the EOC and those who voted for them just sit on their hands and let the State Plate be given away to the private sector? If you have factual knowledge about any of this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. You can reach me by replying to this message. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 00:25:14 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 20:25:14 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away References: <04FA58B9A87F404891214BFE0025EBB6@Reputercat> <440B26546FCC435C8E10146F0E93B3AA@TerryPC> Message-ID: <4B7FEC3ADB964937A9BE38C88B900B4C@Reputercat> Why not leave State Plate on the bidline while doing whatever evaluation seems necessary, then act in the best interests of the Program and its licensees? It seems somebody's been listening to us and the few on the EOC that get it; and the bidline updates stand as the proof. While the official announcement says EOC members are welcome to appear in person, this is a public meeting that is taking place in a room large enough for more than the entire EOC and BEP staff, so show up in person if you care about the BEP, want to get to know Ed Rodgers or what ever else moves you. I dare Zanger, Hull or anyone else to try to turn me away from the meeting just because I'm not on the Eoc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Eagle" To: "'Joe Sontag'" ; "'NFB of Michigan Vendors List'" Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 19:03 Subject: RE: [Vendorsmi] Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away > UPDATE: There is now a new announcement on the Operator Information Line > that states the Anderson Building cafeteria was removed from the Operator > Bid Line so that the new B S for Blind Persons Director Ed Rodgers can > "review" the Anderson Building operation, and following the "review" the > Anderson Building Cafeteria will be returned to the bid line. > > Does it not make you wonder what there is to review about the Anderson > Building operation, since there has not been an operation open for the > past > ten months? Is this removal needed to find a way to give away a job from > a > qualified blind person, or is it an opportunity to figure out how to deal > with the already expressed resistance of the EOC and the NFB to allow the > giveaway of BEP locations by the new director of B S for Blind Persons to > the private sector because there is no confidence in and supportive > attitude toward blind persons? > > In addition, did you also notice that the two bidders on the Anderson > Building Cafeteria location were withheld from the announcement? An > oversight, right? No way. In fact, one operator who is waiting on the > potential list to return from an approved medical leave was found > ineligible, get this, for not attending the last workshop while on medical > leave. Is that not creative of Constance Zanger and James Hull, in order > to > first, stop an operator from returning to the program, and secondly, to > prevent awarding an operator a location simply because they have a past > axe > to grind with the operator, for winning a grievance in a hearing, based > upon > the illegal and unethical act by Constance Zanger, having to do with > operator audits. Zanger and Hull will go to any extent to retaliate > against > a targeted operator, including unofficially rewriting the rules as they > did > here, and giving away a mandated location to the private sector, so they > did > not have to assign a targeted operator to that location, according to the > rules. Watch out, your location likely is next, that is, if you allow > these > illegal and unethical acts by the new B S for Blind Persons > , and Zanger and Hull. In the end, you will get and have that which you > fight to protect and preserve. Just sit back and be an observer, and you > will have nothing left of the Business Enterprise Program. > > Your best interest by the agency gets even better--get this: The Operator > Information Line has an announcement billed as an opportunity to meet the > new B S for Blind Persons director, Ed Rodgers on Monday, October 22nd at > three o'clock in the afternoon. Yes, that time is correct, three o'clock > in > the afternoon, just when you are expected by Zanger and Hull, and > according > to your signed facility agreement, to be at your facility and open until > four o'clock in the afternoon. Dare to close early to lose income, like > anyone could afford to do that, and attend the meeting, and your licensed > will be revoked guaranteed, that is, if your on Zanger and Hull's target > list, or don't enjoy a close relationship with either. > > Does not the scheduling of a three o'clock week day meeting to meet the > director seem strange to you, a BEP operator, who is expected to be at > your > facility and open until four o'clock? It certainly sends a few negative > messages to BEP operators. 1) Just perhaps the truth is that you are not > wanted at the meeting; 2) With a three o'clock meeting time, where is the > sincerity to really meet you; 3) It sends the message that new director > of > B S for Blind Persons is going to be an eight to five, Monday through > Friday, come to me to meet, office type of bureaucrat. This is already > clear from the new director's desire to not attend a meeting of blind > consumers on a Saturday or Sunday; 4) You as BEP operators just likely > will > ask reasonable questions of the new director, and equally demand truthful > factual answers to those questions. > > I'm sure these comments will cost me getting a cafeteria location. Oh > yeah, > that's right, the "Terry Eagle Clause" is in effect, and now it has been > extended to another Eagle. Thanks Connie, James, and Pat Cannon. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe > Sontag > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:35 PM > To: VENDORSMI List > Cc: garsvend at comcast.net; Shane Jackson; nathanual at att.net; steven > langtry; > Robert Essenberg; James Chaney; Garnet Prentice; Greg Keathley; Hazell > Brooks; Lisa L. Weber; Dale Layer; momandmikey at hotmail.com > Subject: [Vendorsmi] Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away > > If you've checked the bidline announcement recently, you may have > noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not > among the > listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the > new Director > of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility > removed > from > the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of > Representatives, > saying > that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected > Operators' Committee > informed that anything like this was coming? Why is the Committee not > demanding answers and holding an emergency meeting for the purpose of > finding facts and taking a stand for the Program and its licensees? Do > you > not realize that the most profitable facilities on State property will be > the first to be taken if the EOC and those who voted for them just sit on > their hands and let the State Plate be given away to the private sector? > > If you have factual knowledge about any of this, please share it with all > of > us who care > about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. You can reach > me > by replying to this message. If the State Plate is > lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't > reveal my > source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. > Joe Sontag > > From dandrews at visi.com Sat Oct 13 19:12:36 2012 From: dandrews at visi.com (David Andrews) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:12:36 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] New Michigan At Large Chapter List Message-ID: I am pleased to be able to announce a new list here on nfbnet.org. It is michigan-at-large for members of Michigan's At Large Chapter and other interested persons. Below is information including how to subscribe. Dave The list exists to encourage discussion among at Large Chapter members, and to promote and circulate information pertaining to National and State Federation Affiliate concerns for those who are unable to attend a local chapter. To subscribe to the list either go to: http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/michigan-at-large_nfbnet.org or send e-mail to michigan-at-large-request at nfbnet.org and put the word subscribe in the subject line by itself. From drob1946 at gmail.com Sun Oct 14 15:54:25 2012 From: drob1946 at gmail.com (David Robinson) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:54:25 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E90AC71818F498592A0127E5091C496@STATION04> Dear Joe, I am not sure what to think. I have never known you to have any bias toward any group of blind persons and in fact, have worked very hard to keep personal issues out of discussions about the BEP. It is unfortunate that Hazell has to infer something that is not there, but I am sure she is just as frustrated with the agency's actions and deliverate indifference to the EOC. You would hope that the agency would want to consult with the EOC before any change of direction is taken on the State Plate, but ap apparently they believe it is not necessary. In any manner or form about this issue we find Rodgers making arbitrary decisions without any knowledge of the subject. If the agency staff did not know about the removal from the bid line and the EOC or staff were not consulted on the issue, then we may conclude that the orders to do so came from someone else. I think we all know who that was. I would like to address Hazell's comments about the NFB and the Merchants division. Yes, it is true that we have an opinion and position on what works the best for blind persons. Yes, we base this position on years and years of experience and a philosophy that blind people should control their own destiny, and that we have certain laws on a national and a state level that protects our rights as blind persons. Yes, we let our position be known and we know that others will disagree, but we stay with our position because we know that it is true and just for blind persons. As I said many times to Hazell, the Merchants division of the NFB will work along side the EOC to help if we agree with the actions being taken. We will be their greatest partner. If we do not agree with the EOC we will continue to speake our mind and work toward success. We will never and have never criticyzed or belittled any EOC member publicly for their position or their right to express it. Let us all know we all are equal in God's eyes and I will vigorously defend the NFB and its philosophy because I know it is the best one to embrace for the betterment of all the blind. Dave Robinson _____ From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:46 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Boy, I really heard, even if I don't know what the complaint is about or that the topic of my message should be as important to an EOC member as any personal conflict with the messenger. What do you think? ----- Original Message ----- From: Hazell Brooks To: Joe Sontag Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 18:42 Subject: Re: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Please believe me if we knew about this situation we, the EOC would of been craving attention to the situation. But you Joe Sontag on the other hand have meeting we aren't invited to attend and when you were on the board we got even less done because well you know that bias attitude that you have against certain people and or groups of people. But thanks for the heads up Joe I wish the NFB and the merchants would stop this NAME CALLING and this BETTER THAN attitude and actually, stop grinding the axe's,and working a personal agenda. Hazell Brooks Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2012, at 4:34 PM, "Joe Sontag" wrote: If you've checked the bidline announcement recently, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? Why is the Committee not demanding answers and holding an emergency meeting for the purpose of finding facts and taking a stand for the Program and its licensees? Do you not realize that the most profitable facilities on State property will be the first to be taken if the EOC and those who voted for them just sit on their hands and let the State Plate be given away to the private sector? If you have factual knowledge about any of this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. You can reach me by replying to this message. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Sun Oct 14 19:34:52 2012 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:34:52 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away In-Reply-To: <4E90AC71818F498592A0127E5091C496@STATION04> References: <4E90AC71818F498592A0127E5091C496@STATION04> Message-ID: Right on David! You summed up what is important to those of us who hold close the philosophy and proper path of the NFB and divine wisdom of God. We stand united, and as I have written before, if we step on toes it is because others are bystanders obstructing our march to positively protect, perserve, and advance opportunities and the quality of life of the blind. -----Original Message----- From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David Robinson Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 11:54 AM To: 'Joe Sontag'; 'NFB of Michigan Vendors List' Subject: Re: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Dear Joe, I am not sure what to think. I have never known you to have any bias toward any group of blind persons and in fact, have worked very hard to keep personal issues out of discussions about the BEP. It is unfortunate that Hazell has to infer something that is not there, but I am sure she is just as frustrated with the agency's actions and deliverate indifference to the EOC. You would hope that the agency would want to consult with the EOC before any change of direction is taken on the State Plate, but ap apparently they believe it is not necessary. In any manner or form about this issue we find Rodgers making arbitrary decisions without any knowledge of the subject. If the agency staff did not know about the removal from the bid line and the EOC or staff were not consulted on the issue, then we may conclude that the orders to do so came from someone else. I think we all know who that was. I would like to address Hazell's comments about the NFB and the Merchants division. Yes, it is true that we have an opinion and position on what works the best for blind persons. Yes, we base this position on years and years of experience and a philosophy that blind people should control their own destiny, and that we have certain laws on a national and a state level that protects our rights as blind persons. Yes, we let our position be known and we know that others will disagree, but we stay with our position because we know that it is true and just for blind persons. As I said many times to Hazell, the Merchants division of the NFB will work along side the EOC to help if we agree with the actions being taken. We will be their greatest partner. If we do not agree with the EOC we will continue to speake our mind and work toward success. We will never and have never criticyzed or belittled any EOC member publicly for their position or their right to express it. Let us all know we all are equal in God's eyes and I will vigorously defend the NFB and its philosophy because I know it is the best one to embrace for the betterment of all the blind. Dave Robinson ________________________________ From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 7:46 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Boy, I really heard, even if I don't know what the complaint is about or that the topic of my message should be as important to an EOC member as any personal conflict with the messenger. What do you think? ----- Original Message ----- From: Hazell Brooks To: Joe Sontag Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 18:42 Subject: Re: Business Enterprise Program Being Given Away Please believe me if we knew about this situation we, the EOC would of been craving attention to the situation. But you Joe Sontag on the other hand have meeting we aren't invited to attend and when you were on the board we got even less done because well you know that bias attitude that you have against certain people and or groups of people. But thanks for the heads up Joe I wish the NFB and the merchants would stop this NAME CALLING and this BETTER THAN attitude and actually, stop grinding the axe's,and working a personal agenda. Hazell Brooks Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2012, at 4:34 PM, "Joe Sontag" wrote: If you've checked the bidline announcement recently, you may have noticed that the Anderson Building Cafeteria, AKA the State Plate is not among the listed facilities. I have it from a credible source that Ed Rodgers, the new Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons has ordered the facility removed from the bidline and has turned it over to the Michigan House of Representatives, saying that PA260 of 1978 does not apply. Were any of you on the Elected Operators' Committee informed that anything like this was coming? Why is the Committee not demanding answers and holding an emergency meeting for the purpose of finding facts and taking a stand for the Program and its licensees? Do you not realize that the most profitable facilities on State property will be the first to be taken if the EOC and those who voted for them just sit on their hands and let the State Plate be given away to the private sector? If you have factual knowledge about any of this, please share it with all of us who care about the BEP, as the future of the Program depends on it. You can reach me by replying to this message. If the State Plate is lost, can all of the remaining State facilities be far behind? I won't reveal my source; and no, I'm not joking about any of this. Joe Sontag From suncat0 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 11:38:25 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:38:25 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Questions for Mr. Rogers Message-ID: <99EF502DC9CE4BAD837B7BF6F9C94611@Reputercat> ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 7:35 Subject: Fw: Questions for Mr. Rogers At least one member of the EOC is thinking and acting for herself and the Program. Your thoughts are most welcome. Joe Sontag ----- Original Message ----- From: Garsvend at aol.com To: abj.vending at yahoo.com Cc: edmondsl2 at michigan.gov ; jiggzee at att.net Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 20:20 Subject: Questions for Mr. Rogers Dear Bob, Hear are my Questions for Mr. Rogers. 1. Director Rogers, have you or are you aware of any formal request to the AG's office regaurding PA260 and the Anderson building cafateria, [State Plate]? This question relates to any attempt to remove it from the BEP. 2. Mike Zimmer has stated that the BEP is not going to operate like it has in the past. Director Rogers, can you tell us what changes can we expect to take place? 3. Director Rogers, are you open to working with individuals directley as a way to solve problems prior to the hearing process? 4. Director Rogers, how many of our are in jepordy and is the Anderson building a test case? 5. We believe that many of our current problems include the adminstrative staff and are not just the fault of the operators. So Director Rogers, do you intend to follow up with BEP staff and hold them accountable? 6. The BeP equipment inventory is a mess and extremely wasteful. Director Rogers, what plans are there to fix the problem? 7. Not all operators receive the same level of service or assistance. Director Rogers, how can you assure that all operators matter? 8. We believe that there are several illegal snack and food operations located in state buildings. They are operated by state employees. [Hanna building]. Director Rogers, what or how can we inforce our right under PA260 to provide that service? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 16:51:49 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:51:49 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] CHANCE TO GET ACQUAINTED WITH dIRECTOR rODGERS AND THE BEP Message-ID: There will be a special meeting of the Business Enterprise Program Elected Operators' Committee this afternoon at 3:00 PM at the BSBP central office in Lansing. The topics are the introduction of the new BSBP Director Ed Rodgers and the State Plate facility. You may participate by phone by calling (877) 873-8017, then entering pass code 9806128. Sorry for the extremely short notice. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 23:50:42 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 19:50:42 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] BSBP starting to look ugly Message-ID: <43AC1AA287FF451D85EA5022D10BBDBC@Reputercat> The following was faxed to Director Edward Rodgers early on the morning of October 25, 2012. Ed, please let me know if you're seeing this for the first time. It appears things will get much worse before they'll get better, but I hope I'm wrong. Here's what I sent: Ed, I am writing you in response to your claim that recording of BSBP meetings is not permissible because of a concern about the official record of any meeting. While I did in fact stop recording per your request, I stated that I would study the issue. I have done this and now say that the October 22, 2012 meeting of the Elected Operators' Committee was conducted in clear violation of Michigan's open meetings Act and that BSBP remains bound by the provisions of the OMA for the following reasons: Meetings of the Elected operators' Committee are to be conducted in conformity with PA267 of 1976 as set forth in BEP promulgated rule R393.52 (2) (a). You stated to me that the EOC meeting was a public meeting, yet you denied me the right to make my own recording of the meeting, saying I was limited to low-tech note-taking only. It is also true that no opportunity for public comment was given during this meeting, contrary to the requirements of PA267. That your staff is fully aware of this, yet remained silent suggests strongly that you may wish to question and more closely examine critically their statements to you about BEP operations and the way they conduct business on behalf of the Bureau PA267 of 1976 has this to say about the recording of public meetings: addressing meeting of public body; tape-recording, videotaping, broadcasting, and telecasting proceedings; rules and regulations; exclusion from meeting; exemptions. Sec. 3. (1) All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. The right of a person to attend a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape, to broadcast live on radio, and to telecast live on television the proceedings of a public body at a public meeting. The exercise of this right shall not be dependent upon the prior approval of the public body. However, a public body may establish reasonable rules and regulations in order to minimize the possibility of disrupting the meeting. The OMA exempts meetings in certain departments in which the merits of a case are being deliberated, but there appears to be no application to the former Commission for the Blind or the current BSBP, except as it relates to closed sessions of public meetings. >From EO2012-10: B. All authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds of the Commission for the Blind are transferred from the Commission for the Blind to the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, including but not limited to the following: 1. The Blind and Visually Disabled Persons Act, 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 to 393.369, Finally, from PA260 of 1978: BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS (EXCERPT) Act 260 of 1978 393.365 Conducting business at public meeting; notice; availability of writings to public. Sec. 15. (1) The business which the commission or any committee appointed under this act may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or committee held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 15.261 to 15.275 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of the time, date, and place of the meeting shall be given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976. (2) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the commission in the performance of an official function shall be made available to the public in compliance with Act No. 442 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 15.231 to 15.246 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The emphasis on the OMA in PA260 and in the BEP promulgated rules is a direct result of attempts in the past to deny the public generally and blind people specifically knowledge of how our Agency was being run, even going so far as to deny the right of BEP operators who were not EOC members to attend EOC meetings. Events of October 22 and the discovery that there is a plan to introduce legislation that would exempt the Executive and Legislative branches of State government from the food service priority established in PA260 of 1978 have changed my attitude about BSBP from cautious optimism to one of caution at best. Ed, here's hoping that you are genuinely interested in repairing and building a better Agency for the blind of Michigan and not merely a more educated and aggressive version of your predecessor. I've contacted you via fax as my internet service is not available. I should have working internet service again by 10-29; and the e-mail address that you have on record should remain effective. Joe Sontag -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Sat Oct 27 01:38:41 2012 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:38:41 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] BSBP starting to look ugly In-Reply-To: <43AC1AA287FF451D85EA5022D10BBDBC@Reputercat> References: <43AC1AA287FF451D85EA5022D10BBDBC@Reputercat> Message-ID: <897601BCDB6F4903830CD50A2E8E77AA@TerryPC> Unless my memory is failing me today, it seems this same issue arose at a MCB Board of Commissioners meeting when Ms. Velma Allen attempted to stop the news media from videotaping a public meeting, and only backed down when Commissioner Mr. Mark Eagle cited the same applicable section of the Michigan Open Meetings Act. Could it be true that the past tactics and sins of former Director Patrick Cannon are bound to be repeated? I thought the Snyder administration stood for reinventing the way state government does business, with transparency and accountability to the public. Could I be incorrect in what I heard during the last election campaign and the past twenty-two months of the Snyder administration? Is It just the same old method of doing governmental business,and just another party title? Is it just that the talk changes with the new party, but that career bureaucrats actually set the agenda and run the government in the same old way? That must be why there is the saying, "The more things change, the more things stay the same". I guess it is also true that if we don't learn from our history, mistakes, and sins; we are bound to repeat the history, mistakes, and sins. Does there really exist a fresh breathe of air, as suggested by EOC Chair James Chaney, at the meeting on Monday, October 22nd, or we simply experiencing a momentary shift in the air flow, or a calmness before a storm of more of the same destructive climate of the past administration, whereby the attitude, actions, andlack of accountability toward the blind of Michigan are simply being repeated? I hope and pray not, however are conditions such that the destructive storm is inevitable, and the reign of the administration will pour down upon us, as did the reign of the last destructive administration storm upon we the blind. I hope for the transparency of days filled with sunshine to disinfect the climate and environment toward we the blind, providing a near perfect forecast of clear vision of participation, independence, and self-supporting prosperity for all blind persons of Michigan, not just a privileged or favored few. -----Original Message----- From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 7:51 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] BSBP starting to look ugly The following was faxed to Director Edward Rodgers early on the morning of October 25, 2012. Ed, please let me know if you're seeing this for the first time. It appears things will get much worse before they'll get better, but I hope I'm wrong. Here's what I sent: Ed, I am writing you in response to your claim that recording of BSBP meetings is not permissible because of a concern about the official record of any meeting. While I did in fact stop recording per your request, I stated that I would study the issue. I have done this and now say that the October 22, 2012 meeting of the Elected Operators' Committee was conducted in clear violation of Michigan's open meetings Act and that BSBP remains bound by the provisions of the OMA for the following reasons: Meetings of the Elected operators' Committee are to be conducted in conformity with PA267 of 1976 as set forth in BEP promulgated rule R393.52 (2) (a). You stated to me that the EOC meeting was a public meeting, yet you denied me the right to make my own recording of the meeting, saying I was limited to low-tech note-taking only. It is also true that no opportunity for public comment was given during this meeting, contrary to the requirements of PA267. That your staff is fully aware of this, yet remained silent suggests strongly that you may wish to question and more closely examine critically their statements to you about BEP operations and the way they conduct business on behalf of the Bureau PA267 of 1976 has this to say about the recording of public meetings: addressing meeting of public body; tape-recording, videotaping, broadcasting, and telecasting proceedings; rules and regulations; exclusion from meeting; exemptions. Sec. 3. (1) All meetings of a public body shall be open to the public and shall be held in a place available to the general public. All persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. The right of a person to attend a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape, to broadcast live on radio, and to telecast live on television the proceedings of a public body at a public meeting. The exercise of this right shall not be dependent upon the prior approval of the public body. However, a public body may establish reasonable rules and regulations in order to minimize the possibility of disrupting the meeting. The OMA exempts meetings in certain departments in which the merits of a case are being deliberated, but there appears to be no application to the former Commission for the Blind or the current BSBP, except as it relates to closed sessions of public meetings. >From EO2012-10: B. All authority, powers, duties, functions, records, personnel, property, unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations or other funds of the Commission for the Blind are transferred from the Commission for the Blind to the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, including but not limited to the following: 1. The Blind and Visually Disabled Persons Act, 1978 PA 260, MCL 393.351 to 393.369, Finally, from PA260 of 1978: BLIND AND VISUALLY DISABLED PERSONS (EXCERPT) Act 260 of 1978 393.365 Conducting business at public meeting; notice; availability of writings to public. Sec. 15. (1) The business which the commission or any committee appointed under this act may perform shall be conducted at a public meeting of the commission or committee held in compliance with Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 15.261 to 15.275 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. Public notice of the time, date, and place of the meeting shall be given in the manner required by Act No. 267 of the Public Acts of 1976. (2) A writing prepared, owned, used, in the possession of, or retained by the commission in the performance of an official function shall be made available to the public in compliance with Act No. 442 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 15.231 to 15.246 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The emphasis on the OMA in PA260 and in the BEP promulgated rules is a direct result of attempts in the past to deny the public generally and blind people specifically knowledge of how our Agency was being run, even going so far as to deny the right of BEP operators who were not EOC members to attend EOC meetings. Events of October 22 and the discovery that there is a plan to introduce legislation that would exempt the Executive and Legislative branches of State government from the food service priority established in PA260 of 1978 have changed my attitude about BSBP from cautious optimism to one of caution at best. Ed, here's hoping that you are genuinely interested in repairing and building a better Agency for the blind of Michigan and not merely a more educated and aggressive version of your predecessor. I've contacted you via fax as my internet service is not available. I should have working internet service again by 10-29; and the e-mail address that you have on record should remain effective. Joe Sontag From suncat0 at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 22:22:44 2012 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Cheri Eagle, Grievance Denied Message-ID: If only a few of the tax cheats and book cookers got this kind of attention, we'd all have a much better Program. As it happens, we're talking about another enemy of the BEP management, one who stood up for her rights and won. Joe Sontag ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Sontag" To: "Terry Eagle" ; "'Haynes, Carla (LARA)'" Cc: "'Cheri Eagle'" ; "Rodgers, Edward (LARA)" ; "'Duell, Elsie (LARA)'" ; "Connie Zanger" ; "'Hull, James (LARA)'" ; ; "James Chaney" ; "'David Robinson'" Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 17:55 Subject: Re: grievance > So anybody on leave has no rights these days. Funny, there used to be a > paper license that went with a facility and an implied license obtained > after passing the probation period. My experience with arbitrations > confirmed to my satisfaction that the lawyers are familiar with this > concept. Guess it's time to get RSA into it, as they've ordered hearings > for operators whose licenses were revoked without a proper hearing. > > This "you have no rights" mentality appears to be what's behind the theft > of > 20 operator selection points from this writer and BEP management's refusal > to respond meaningfully to his requests for documentation and correction > of > the errors in his record. And what about the exclusion of the alternative > to > a rule violation as grounds for a grievance? It appears in the very rule > quoted in the Agency response ((b) A citation to the promulgated rule > that > has been violated or a > statement of the injury incurred by the complainant). > . Ya have ta have a reason for a grievance, but it doesn't require the > griever to cite a specific promulgated rule as the only basis for starting > the process. "Or" can be a powerful word. Wouldn't it be interesting if > a > number of operators asked for hearings, citing failure of their > Promotional > Agents to do their jobs as required by Rule 21? > > Joe Sontag > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Terry Eagle" > To: "'Haynes, Carla (LARA)'" > Cc: "'Cheri Eagle'" ; ; > "'Duell, Elsie (LARA)'" ; ; > "'Hull, James (LARA)'" ; ; > ; "'David Robinson'" ; > "'Joe Sontag'" > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 15:42 > Subject: RE: grievance > > > Dear Ms. Haynes, > > I am writing as Ms. Eagles authorized and appointed representative in the > matter of which you write about below. > > First, I wish to ask why it has taken this long for any response to the > questions and request for information submitted in this matter? This is > just another example of the BEP management not following agency policy > regarding timely response to communications within 48 hours of receipts of > emails. > > Moreover, where is the previously requested information on the bid award > decision, which is nowhere discussed or disclosed in your communication > below? > > Secondly, if in fact Ms. Eagle is not, as you claim, to be entitled to an > administrative review under BEP administrative rule R 393.54 because she > is > not licensed currently resulting from not having an assigned vending > facility and promotional agent, resulting from her status of being a > potential licensee on the potential licensee list, then what is the > authority that entitles Ms. Eagle to an administrative hearing? And more > importantly, your stated theory begs the question, then how is it possible > that, as an unassigned licensee, or more appropriately a potential > licensee > on an approved medical leave, could it be possible for Ms. Eagle to be > required to attend the annual BEP workshop while on an approved medical > leave, and be found ineligible to bid on a facility for not attending the > workshop, while on an approved medical leave? > > Finally, since when are requests for hearings sent directly to LARA by the > aggrieved party, since you, Ms. Haynes, are the agency hearings > coordinator? > If, in fact, there has been a change in the procedure, please forward me > a > copy of the change directive. > > May I strongly suggest and request that you huddle with your handlers, Ms. > Zanger and Mr. Hull, to address the above questions, and at the same time, > strongly urge them to provide you with the information previously > requested > regarding their decision to deny Ms. Eagle award of the Romney building > snack bar, and answers to the other questions presented in our previous > request to document in writing their bid award decision. > > Best regards, > > Terry Eagle, Representative > On behalf of Ms. Cheri Eagle > > -----Original Message----- > From: Haynes, Carla (LARA) [mailto:haynesc at michigan.gov] > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:16 PM > To: Cheri Eagle > Cc: terrydeagle at yahoo.com; Hull, James (LARA); Zanger, Connie (LARA); > Duell, > Elsie (LARA) > Subject: RE: grievance > Sensitivity: Personal > > October 29, 2012 > > Ms. Cheri Eagle > Email: cherileagle at comcast.net > > Dear Ms. Eagle: > > We are in receipt of your emailed grievance dated October 10, 2012, > received > in this office on October 11, 2012. Pursuant to the Business Enterprise > Program's Promulgated Rules established for the operation of the state > vending facility program, your request for hearing is denied as you have > failed to meet the following criteria. > > 1. As you are currently not operating a vending facility within the > Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP), Business Enterprise Program > (BEP), you are not entitled to the rights and privileges of licensees. > Therefore, you are not entitled to the dispute resolution process as > outlined in the BEP Promulgated Rules. You may refer your complaint > directly > to the Michigan Administrative Hearings System for their consideration. > Direct your request to: LARA Michigan Administrative Hearings System, 611 > W. Ottawa Avenue, 2nd Floor, Lansing, MI 48909. Their telephone number > is > 517-335-2484 and the fax number is 517-335-6696. > > R 393.12 License entitlements; license display; license validity. > Rule 12. (1) A license entitles a licensee to all rights and protections > under the Randolph Sheppard act of 1936, as amended, 20 U.S.C. ?107 et > seq., > as well as the act and corresponding promulgated rules. > (3) A license is valid only while the licensee is actively operating a > facility with a valid agreement or has signed a letter of acceptance > before > transferring to a new vending facility. > > > > Email - C. Eagle > October 29, 2012 > Page 2 of 4 > > > > > 2. As of the date of this mailing, you have failed to initiate > dialogue with the Promotional Agent regarding the matter that you are > dissatisfied with. > > R 393.54 Dispute resolution. > Rule 54. (1) Any decision of the program is appealable. (2) Dispute > resolution shall commence with an attempt to resolve problems between a > licensee and a promotional agent through direct discussion. A licensee > shall initiate dispute resolution by contacting the promotional agent and > verbally communicating about the problem or by submitting a written > communication stating the problem. The licensee's communication shall > include a proposed solution. The promotional agent shall document the > attempted resolution. > (3) If a promotional agent is unable to resolve the problem with the > licensee, then a licensee may request an administrative review by the > commission. > > 3. Your email does not contain the following issues: the action of > which you are dissatisfied, a citation to the promulgated rule which were > allegedly violated and a proposed remedy. > > R 393.55 Administrative review. > Rule 55. (1) The purpose of an administrative review is to provide an > informal procedure to enable a licensee to seek a remedy for > dissatisfaction > with an action of the commission arising from the operation or > administration of the vending facility program that does not directly > involve suspension and termination of a licensee's license. The > commission > shall make every effort to resolve licensee complaints at the > administrative > review level, since the resolution of disputes at the earliest possible > time > is mutually advantageous to all parties concerned. Resolution efforts are > not intended to discourage or interfere with the licensee's rights to > pursue > the formal full evidentiary hearing process. A licensee may request, in > writing, an administrative review within 15 working days from the date of > the mailing, or the receipt, of notification of the commission action > sought > to be reviewed. This review shall be by a > > Email - C. Eagle > October 29, 2012 > Page 3 of 4 > > > > > member or members of the administrative staff of the commission who have > not directly or indirectly participated in the commission action in > question. A written request for an administrative review shall contain a > description of the complaint and the remedy that is sought. The request > for > an administrative review shall include all of the following information: > > (a) The action with which the complainant is dissatisfied and the date of > the action. > (b) A citation to the promulgated rule that has been violated or a > statement of the injury incurred by the complainant. > (c) A proposed remedy to the complaint. > > 4. Your initial request to have Mr. Terry Eagle serve as your > representative in a grievance does not meet the established requirements > for > a request for an Administrative Review as outlined above. Therefore, as > your request does not meet the requirements established under this rule, > no > review may be scheduled. > > See R 393.55 above. Your request to have Mr. Eagle represent you is > denied. > > For all of the reasons stated above, your grievance is denied. > > Note: All references to the commission are deemed to apply to the Bureau > (Bureau of Services for Blind Persons). See Executive Order 2012-10. > > Sincerely, > > > > Carla Miller Haynes, Hearings Coordinator > Bureau of Services for Blind Persons > > Email - C. Eagle > October 29, 2012 > Page 4 of 4 > > > > cc: Terry Eagle > Edward F. Rodgers, II > Constance Zanger > James Hull > Elsie Duell > > Carla Miller Haynes > LARA Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) > 201 N. Washington Square, 2nd Floor > P.O. Box 30652 > Lansing, MI 48909 > Telephone: 517-373-2063 or Toll-Free 1-800-292-4200 > Fax: 517-335-5140 > > www.michigan.gov/bsbp > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cheri Eagle [mailto:cherileagle at comcast.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:48 AM > To: Haynes, Carla (LARA) > Cc: terrydeagle at yahoo.com > Subject: grievance > Sensitivity: Personal > > Dear Carla: > > This e-mail is to inform you that I have appointed Terry Eagle as my > representative to file a grievance for me on the matter of awarding of > facility 93 The Romney Building snack bar. Please direct all > communications > to Mr. Eagle and carbon copy me. > > Cheri L Eagle > >