[Vendorsmi] I only heard

[Terry Eagle]

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 <mailto:f.wurtzel at att.net>  
	To: 'Joe Sontag' <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  ; 'NFB of Michigan
Vendors List' <mailto:vendorsmi at nfbnet.org>  
	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 <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