[Vendorsmi] I only heard

[Fred Wurtzel]

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 <mailto:joeharcz at comcast.net>  

To: Joe Sontag <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:37

Subject: Re: I only heard

 

Hi Joe,

 

 

Anymore on this?

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

From: Joe Sontag <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  

To: VENDORSMI List <mailto:vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>  

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: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121010/4dfd88be/attachment.html>