[Vendorsmi] Fw: one more violation

[Joe Sontag]

        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: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130130/fddaab23/attachment.html>