[Vendorsmi] Fw: one more violation

Thu Jan 31 15:23:56 UTC 2013

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 <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  

To: David Robinson <mailto:drob1946 at gmail.com>  

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 <mailto:drob1946 at gmail.com>  

To: terrydeagle at yahoo.com 

Cc: 'Joe Sontag' <mailto:suncat0 at gmail.com>  

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/20130131/bab6e2c5/attachment.html>