[Vendorsmi] Cheri Eagle, Grievance Denied

[Joe Sontag]

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" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
To: "Terry Eagle" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>; "'Haynes, Carla (LARA)'" 
<haynesc at michigan.gov>
Cc: "'Cheri Eagle'" <cherileagle at comcast.net>; "Rodgers, Edward (LARA)" 
<rodgerse at michigan.gov>; "'Duell, Elsie (LARA)'" <DuellE at michigan.gov>; 
"Connie Zanger" <ZangerC at michigan.gov>; "'Hull, James (LARA)'" 
<hullj at michigan.gov>; <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>; "James Chaney" 
<resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net>; "'David Robinson'" <drob1946 at gmail.com>
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" <terrydeagle at yahoo.com>
> To: "'Haynes, Carla (LARA)'" <haynesc at michigan.gov>
> Cc: "'Cheri Eagle'" <cherileagle at comcast.net>; <rodgerse at michigan.gov>;
> "'Duell, Elsie (LARA)'" <DuellE at michigan.gov>; <zangerc at michigan.gov>;
> "'Hull, James (LARA)'" <hullj at michigan.gov>; <president.nfb.mi at gmail.com>;
> <resolutioncomm at sbcglobal.net>; "'David Robinson'" <drob1946 at gmail.com>;
> "'Joe Sontag'" <suncat0 at gmail.com>
> 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
>
>