From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Sun Jan 6 12:58:20 2013 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:58:20 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] A Penny Saved is a penny . . . Message-ID: <5DBAA0B40F974D7D9A58186F16FCC352@TerryPC> > > Vending Times > > Issue Date: Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2013, Posted On: 1/3/2013 > > U.S. Mint Tests Cheaper Coinage, Seeks Minimal Effect On Vending Emily Jed mailto: Emily at vendingtimes.net Emily at vendingtimes.net > WASHINGTON ? It costs 2? to make and distribute a Lincoln penny, and more than 11? for a nickel, according to a new two-year study released by the U.S. Mint. But the agency is on a mission to find a way to bring the metal and production costs of U.S. coins closer to their actual face value, and with the least possible impact to the vending industry. The Mint has been working with a research and development consultant to test scores of metals and dozens of different alloys to identify potential cost-cutting changes to the composition and methods of manufacturing circulating coinage. In a progress report, the Mint explained that additional R&D is necessary before it can recommend any changes to the current coin composition. Going forward, the agency said it will continue to develop and test potential alternative materials; conduct production-scale runs to validate supply chains, "manufacturability" and costs; and further verify the estimated costs to stakeholders that depend on coins. The Mint said in its report that vending operators are an important group among those stakeholders. The vending industry, which has worked closely with the agency, estimates a one-time upgrade of its machines to accept coins of the same size and weight as the current ones, but with a different electromagnetic signature, would cost between $700 million and $3.5 billion. Except for pennies, all current U.S. circulating coins have the electromagnetic properties of copper, the report says. Another challenge for the Mint is the rising cost of copper, used in all U.S. coins, and nickel, used in all except pennies. Only four of the 80 metals on the periodic table -- aluminum, iron, zinc and lead, presently cost less than copper and nickel, according to the report. The U.S. Mint is now beginning the second part of its testing to determne if it can produce coins that are not only cost efficient, but also have the same weight, durability and look as current coins. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 22:56:58 2013 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:56:58 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Join the Tide to PUSH for Braille literacy In-Reply-To: <18EEA4F4AA1CA9429369286A90775514118FE9F2@EXCHANGE-9.gothamemail.net> References: <18EEA4F4AA1CA9429369286A90775514118FE9F2@EXCHANGE-9.gothamemail.net> Message-ID: <82704C54CA9941C1AC9FEA9A1A3BF6AA@TerryPC> Many of you have the opportunity to carry Push Water in your locations. The folks who partner with us have been kind enough to put a National Federation of the Blind logo and a message to "text to give for Braille literacy" on each bottle. We asked them to help us promote our cause. We asked them to keep the price of this water low and competitive. We have been told by many of our colleagues that they would purchase and at least try the water in their vending, snack bars, etc. Nicky Gacos, our national Association president, is selling about 20 cases a week. I know that we had a couple of blind vendors in Indiana who also have done well with the product. I'm asking that you at least try a few cases available from Vistar. The folks at Push Water did us a favor. I'm not asking you to do something harmful to the biz, but water is water. If you're going to carry water with a wholesale price of around $7 a case, please stock Push Water. Thanks for your help if you are able. It's important to get the word out about the National Federation of the Blind and our "text to give for Braille literacy" program. Your help is appreciated. At your service, [cid:image001.jpg at 01CDBCF2.C07B8380] Kevan Worley Executive Director National Association of Blind Merchants From suncat0 at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 18:29:01 2013 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:29:01 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Test, please ignore Message-ID: <4C707990DAAA4D7B87823E4227521325@Reputercat0> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 11:25:06 2013 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:25:06 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Test, please ignore In-Reply-To: <4C707990DAAA4D7B87823E4227521325@Reputercat0> References: <4C707990DAAA4D7B87823E4227521325@Reputercat0> Message-ID: <582D54483BF84C1D8E175103BC8745C4@TerryPC> Joe, Does this make you a tester or testee? _____ From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 1:29 PM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] Test, please ignore -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suncat0 at gmail.com Tue Jan 22 18:42:59 2013 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:42:59 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: [vendtalk] NYC Soda Sellers Get Grace Period Before Supersize Drink Fines Kick In Mar. 12; Hearing Next Week Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred wurtzel" To: "larry Posont" ; ; Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 21:59 Subject: FW: [vendtalk] NYC Soda Sellers Get Grace Period Before Supersize Drink Fines Kick In Mar. 12; Hearing Next Week > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vendtalk [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of > Vandervoort's > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 8:13 PM > To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List' > Subject: [vendtalk] NYC Soda Sellers Get Grace Period Before Supersize > Drink > Fines Kick In Mar. 12; Hearing Next Week > > Vending Issue Date: Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2013, Posted On: 1/17/2013 NYC > Soda Sellers Get Grace Period Before Supersize Drink Fines Kick In Mar. > 12; Hearing Next Week > > Emily Jed: Emily at vendingtimes.net > > NEW YORK CITY -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ban on large-size sodas will > take > effect in March, but businesses will still have a few months to conform to > the new regulations before they're hit with fines. > > City health department officials confirmed on Dec. 14 that the city will > begin enforcing a 16-fl.oz. size limit on sugary drinks beginning March 12 > as planned, but soda sellers who need more time to comply now will get a > three-month reprieve from fines. Instead, violators would get notices for > until June, after which they could face $200 fines. > > The rule, passed by the New York City Board of Health last September, will > prohibit restaurants, delis, concessions, food carts and other city venues > from selling sweetened drinks in containers bigger than 16 fluid oz. It > would not extend to vending machines, convenience stores or supermarkets. > Drinks that are more than half milk or 70% juice would be exempt, and the > rule wouldn't apply to lower-calorie drinks like water or diet soda. > > The city's decision to hold off on fines for the first three months comes > as > soda makers, restaurateurs and other businesses are suing to try to block > the unprecedented anti-obesity measure from taking effect. They say the > rule > oversteps the city Board of Health's authority. A hearing is set for next > week. > > Source: > http://vendingtimes.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=Articles&type=Publishing&mod= > Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=54C > 0CCF296694D5293C9FB684C57E8FB > > > > _______________________________________________ > vendtalk mailing list > vendtalk at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/vendtalk_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > vendtalk: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/vendtalk_nfbnet.org/f.wurtzel%40comcast.ne > t > From suncat0 at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 15:04:28 2013 From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: one more violation Message-ID: <2330E977AF8E492CB7A5E522A60D57F7@Reputercat0> There is no rule against a lot of things in this world, including the BEP. How far is the "no rule against it" mentality going to be used to justify questionable or inappropriate actions and conduct of BEP Staff? Don't tell us we have nothing to be concerned about; some of us have been around too long for that nonsense. ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: David Robinson Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:38 Subject: Re: one more violation Guesws Ed hasn't heard of third-party catering and the concept of appropriate use of staff time, oh boy. The operator has the ability to prepare a number of things on site, so the real "problem" is being hidden. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Robinson To: terrydeagle at yahoo.com Cc: 'Joe Sontag' Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 16:52 Subject: FW: one more violation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) [mailto:rodgerse at michigan.gov] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:54 PM To: 'David Robinson' Subject: RE: one more violation Good Afternoon Dave, I'm sorry it has taken awhile to get back to you on your question from January 20, 2013. I got your email on Tuesday the 22nd which was the first day the office opened following your Sunday email. I can find no specific rule which requires the operator in the building to receive preference to cater a lunch per se. If you can draw my attention to a specific rule I would be glad to review it again. We did give the operator in the Victor Building the opportunity to cater both the morning and afternoon session breaks. However, in the staff's assessment the operator in the Victor Building did not have the facilities to cater the lunch. Therefore we catered the lunch from the operator at the General Office Building. I do not believe that my staff is practicing favoritism with operators. As I told you when we met last fall I will listen to you and I would respond to your inquiries but I may not always reach the same conclusion that you do. Thank you for your time. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: David Robinson [mailto:drob1946 at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 4:33 PM To: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) Cc: drob1946 at gmail.com Subject: one more violation Dear Ed, It is truly unfortunate that problems with the BEP continue to come up when with the correct advise from your staff, they could have easily been avoided. According to the rules, if a BEP operator has a location in a building, he or she is to be offered the catering of food or beverage if it involves the expenditure of State funds. That includes the time of a state worker to organize it. The lunch for the advisory group on Thursday was not offered to the operator in the building, but someone else. Does the BEp staff think it is okay to do this,and if so, why did they try to appease him by offering the morning coffee. You can tell me the rule is not that way, but I can show you in black and white that it is just that way. Once again you are made to look bad and shoing favorites because of your staff. Also, I would like to have you find out who did cater the lunch. We know who and once again slaps of favoritism and buying the operators out. When are you and others going to recognize what is going on in the BEP? The actions that have been taken in this situation, is just another indication that the BEP is no place to make a living and State officials are out to destroy the lives of blind people in the BEP. Just go and ask them. Dave Robinson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From terrydeagle at yahoo.com Thu Jan 31 15:23:56 2013 From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:23:56 -0500 Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: one more violation In-Reply-To: <2330E977AF8E492CB7A5E522A60D57F7@Reputercat0> References: <2330E977AF8E492CB7A5E522A60D57F7@Reputercat0> Message-ID: Perhaps Mr. Rodgers needs to take a stroll to his former neighborhoods of SOAHR and MAHS and read some of the recommended decisions of the dministrative hearing officers he allegedly supervised , as it relates to direct competition to BEP vending facilities, i.e. Hazell Brooks and Office of Retirement Services, and how state employees, on state employment time, directly competed in business against Hazell Brooks. By the way, BEP management never has fulfilled the the Commission Board approved recommended decision of the hearing officer. I guess Ms. Zanger was too busy retaliating against Ms. Brooks, and pleasing certain favored BEP vendors, to follow MCB Board approved directives. While at his former neighborhood, perhaps Mr Rodgers can address and easily solve the never-ending issue of inaccessible communication with blind persons, by MAHS. Oh yes, it is really true that Mr. Rodgers got some of the neighborhood landscaped with location signs posted, so a blind person can be assured he or she arrives at the correct location, but what good is that, if a blind person does not receive and cannot read the invitation to the neighborhood events? But that is too logical, as to communicatwe in a format other than print, like electronically, (hint) (hint), as that would save money on paper, envelopes, postage, and of course, precious state employee time, that can be used for more productive purposes other than competing with sighted BEP vendors, whom have replaced the blind vendor thrown out, by BEP and BS4BP management. Perhaps Mr. Rodgers can hire another new neighborhood senior deputy director to direct activities at the intersection where accessibility and the law meet. Of course federal rehabilitation funds may also be used for that staff position, under the pretext that it will serve and benefit blind persons, just like the Snyder and Rodgers administration new program of WORK-TO-WELFARE for the blind of Michigan. What is just one more sighted person being put to work using federal rehabilitation funds going to hurt? Those funds are repeatedly used to replace blind persons with sighted persons in the Business Enterprise Program, willfully and knowingly by agency and program administrators. _____ From: Vendorsmi [mailto:vendorsmi-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe Sontag Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:04 AM To: VENDORSMI List Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: one more violation There is no rule against a lot of things in this world, including the BEP. How far is the "no rule against it" mentality going to be used to justify questionable or inappropriate actions and conduct of BEP Staff? Don't tell us we have nothing to be concerned about; some of us have been around too long for that nonsense. ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Sontag To: David Robinson Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:38 Subject: Re: one more violation Guesws Ed hasn't heard of third-party catering and the concept of appropriate use of staff time, oh boy. The operator has the ability to prepare a number of things on site, so the real "problem" is being hidden. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Robinson To: terrydeagle at yahoo.com Cc: 'Joe Sontag' Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 16:52 Subject: FW: one more violation _____ From: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) [mailto:rodgerse at michigan.gov] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:54 PM To: 'David Robinson' Subject: RE: one more violation Good Afternoon Dave, I'm sorry it has taken awhile to get back to you on your question from January 20, 2013. I got your email on Tuesday the 22nd which was the first day the office opened following your Sunday email. I can find no specific rule which requires the operator in the building to receive preference to cater a lunch per se. If you can draw my attention to a specific rule I would be glad to review it again. We did give the operator in the Victor Building the opportunity to cater both the morning and afternoon session breaks. However, in the staff's assessment the operator in the Victor Building did not have the facilities to cater the lunch. Therefore we catered the lunch from the operator at the General Office Building. I do not believe that my staff is practicing favoritism with operators. As I told you when we met last fall I will listen to you and I would respond to your inquiries but I may not always reach the same conclusion that you do. Thank you for your time. Ed _____ From: David Robinson [mailto:drob1946 at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 4:33 PM To: Rodgers, Edward (LARA) Cc: drob1946 at gmail.com Subject: one more violation Dear Ed, It is truly unfortunate that problems with the BEP continue to come up when with the correct advise from your staff, they could have easily been avoided. According to the rules, if a BEP operator has a location in a building, he or she is to be offered the catering of food or beverage if it involves the expenditure of State funds. That includes the time of a state worker to organize it. The lunch for the advisory group on Thursday was not offered to the operator in the building, but someone else. Does the BEp staff think it is okay to do this,and if so, why did they try to appease him by offering the morning coffee. You can tell me the rule is not that way, but I can show you in black and white that it is just that way. Once again you are made to look bad and shoing favorites because of your staff. Also, I would like to have you find out who did cater the lunch. We know who and once again slaps of favoritism and buying the operators out. When are you and others going to recognize what is going on in the BEP? The actions that have been taken in this situation, is just another indication that the BEP is no place to make a living and State officials are out to destroy the lives of blind people in the BEP. Just go and ask them. Dave Robinson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: