[Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty?

[Fred Wurtzel]

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: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121004/00c40e46/attachment.html>