From suncat0 at gmail.com  Wed Mar  6 17:32:17 2013
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 12:32:17 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] From My In-box
Message-ID: <EC1B44AF8B474186BDE0673C586B215A@Reputercat0>

Steve Arwood was appointed as the Director of LARA on 1/31/2013.  I'll be there just because; hope to see more of us there as well.

House Subcommittee Meeting
 Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
 subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Appropriations , Rep. Anthony Forlini,
Chair
DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 2013
TIME: 10:30 AM
PLACE: Room 424, State Capitol Building, Lansing, MI
AGENDA:
- Presentation by Steve Arwood, Director of LARA and the Unemployment Insurance Agency
(UIA)
- Presentation by Ruthanne Okun, Director of the Bureau of Employment Relations (BER)
- Public Comments
To view text of legislation go to:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord
Committee Clerk: Paul Holland
Phone: 517-373-8080
e-Mail:
pholland at house.mi.gov
Individuals who wish to bring written testimony need to supply a minimum of thirty
copies for distribution.
Individuals needing special accommodations to participate in the meeting may contact
the Chair's office.
Schedule changes or cancellations available at
www.legislature.mi.gov
 or 24 hours at (517) 373-8140.
Notice posted: 3/6/2013
_______________________________________________
To manage your membership please visit
http://legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=listserversignup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20130306/f68aa009/attachment.html>

From terrydeagle at yahoo.com  Sat Mar  9 12:04:33 2013
From: terrydeagle at yahoo.com (Terry Eagle)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 07:04:33 -0500
Subject: [Vendorsmi] BS4BP Business As Usual
In-Reply-To: <EC1B44AF8B474186BDE0673C586B215A@Reputercat0>
References: <EC1B44AF8B474186BDE0673C586B215A@Reputercat0>
Message-ID: <25539A5C8EA94639A32A6102EA235344@TerryPC>

Hello Fello Federationists and Colleagues,

Below is a classic example of the Snyder and BS4BP "Reinventing" how
Michigan Government is done and responsive to those it serves.  It only
demonstrates how the agency allegedly serving the blind citizens, and the
Elected Operators' Committee, allegedly serving the best interests of the
state's blind vendors, are unresponsive, disorganized, and lack the concern
or leadership to adapt to ever changing circumstances.  More thoughts
following the e-mail communication.   

From: "Zanger, Connie (LARA)" <zangerc at michigan.gov>
	Date: March 7, 2013, 9:29:09 AM EST
	Subject: March E O C Meeting in Grand Rapids


	Good morning, Colleagues;

	There has been much ado regarding this weekend's E O C meeting.
Please know that all the circumstances of the meeting do not lay directly at
the feet of the E O C chair.  Allow me to explain.	 

	The Committee has agreed to hold its quarterly meetings in various
cities around the State to make it as easy as possible for Committee members
to attend and reduce the amount of travel time required to attend each
meeting.  So, we had agreed that the February/March meeting would be held in
Grand Rapids.  It was a particular challenge for the Program Secretary to
find a hotel that could accommodate our meeting needs on the date required.
Once she found a facility and finally received the quote, we learned that
the hotel was not registered on MAIN. Unfortunately, the quote wasn't
received in time to get the hotel registered.   And you all know all too
well that if a vendor is not registered on MAIN, there is no way to make
payment.

	That the hotel is not registered on MAIN has multiple impacts on our
meeting.  First, we cannot pay for EOC member lodging on a group billing.
And as you know, we have asked all of you if you can pay for your own room
and we will reimburse you for the expense.  In fact, we will be bring Travel
Reimbursement Request forms to the meeting for you.  I thank you all for
your kind cooperation in this regard.  Remember that if you request
reimbursement for meals and lodging, the original receipts must be attached
to your Travel Reimbursement Request.   Incidentally, a complimentary
breakfast is included in the cost of the room.

	The hotel is kindly providing us a meeting room at no charge.  And
with that meeting room, they are providing a podium and a single microphone.

	Second, we cannot pay for portable microphones.  While certainly we
can generally all hear one another when we speak during an E O C meeting,
the microphones are important for the EOC Secretary's recording of the
meeting.  The single microphone at the podium is simply not be sufficient
for the recording.  In an effort to facilitate the meeting, with the
Committee Chair's approval, the Vice Chair will pay for 2 portable
microphones for the meeting and seek reimbursement from the Agency.

	There is clearly a misunderstanding over the issue of participation
in the meeting via teleconference.  It was the Agency's understanding that
the Committee no longer wished to permit participation via telephone for
several reasons.  First, it is typically difficult to capture telephone
comments on the official recording of the meeting.  Second, teleconference
participants often leave the meeting and return at the end of a discussion.
When they return they asked questions about issues that were discussed and
resolved earlier in the conversation.  This necessitates take the time to
review what has transpired for the returning teleconference participant.
And third, we are all too well aware of the consequences of a teleconference
participant forgetting to put their phone on mute.  It demonstrates a
disregard for other meeting participants and delays the meeting.

	The Agency is making an effort to provide teleconferencing services
for the meeting.  We have ascertained there is a telephone line in the
conference room.  The hotel is working to determine if the line is digital
or analong.  The Agency will take a polycom to the meeting and if the line
is properly analong, there will be teleconference service.   

	As Director Rodgers has committed to participating in the meeting,
Committee Chair Chaney does not wish to cancel or postpone this last meeting
of this particular Elected Committee.

	I am sorry for any inconvenience these circumstances have caused
Committee members, and I thank you for your understanding and willingness to
work together to overcome these difficulties.


	With best regards,

	Constance Zanger

	Business Enterprise Program Manager

	Bureau of Services for Blind Persons

	Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

	517/335.3639

	517/335.5140 (facsimile)

	Let's examine the explanation, circumstances, and excuses  which
were written above, and how what was written raises more questions than
answers.

First, indeed there was much questioning by some EOC members of the
unilateral decisions about the meeting made by the Chairs and BEP
management, without input by other members of the EOC.  The email begins in
an attempt to minimize or remove blame from the EOC Chair.  Blame assignment
or deflection is not what is needed, but rather, first and foremost,
sensitivity, respect, and consideration for the entire EOC and all blind
vendors, as the EOC and agency are charged by law to represent and act in
the best interest of such seventy other blind vendors.  Secondly, what is
needed is open, honest, and transparent communication to and between the
EOC, the agency management, and the seventy other blind vendors for whom the
EOC and agency are to be representative and working.  After all, it is
because of those seventy other blind vendors that agency management are
collecting a bi-weekly paycheck and enjoying generous fringe benfits, and
EOC members are receiving and running up promotional points for enhancement
of facilities, income, and favor.  One would logically believe that for such
compensation, those in alleged leadership would at least pander to their
fellow EOC members and seventy other blind vendors concerns and interests,
with regard to minimal communication dialogue.  More about pandering and
dialogue below.  

	The meeting date and place.  Certainly it is admirable that EOC
meetings be scheduled around the state, especially to encourage attendance
by those among the seventy other blind vendors in the area in which meetings
are held, rather than the convenience of travel of EOC members, as was
explained in Ms. Zanger's e-mail.

Now let's examine this particular meeting, and the explainations given by
Ms. Zanger.  First, it is notable that the scheduled February meeting date
was changed to this wweekend, to accommodate the travel plans of EOC Chirs
and agency management to attend the ACB Randolph-Sheppard conference in Las
Vegas, beginning the Monday following the scheduled Saturday meeting.  That
meeting change alone raises several questions.  First, had the previously
scheduled meeting been arranged at a place that addressed the concerns and
challenges discussed by Ms. Zanger in her e-mail, like payment and audio
needs issues?  Why were the issues of payment and audio needs not  addressed
as a requirement in the solicitation for meeting space?  It is not as if
this was a first-time go-around in seeking meeting facilities.  As with the
annual workshop, things are scheduled at the latest possible date, and so
blind vendors are the ones who are ultimately and all too often
inconvenienced. Look at the additional work created by this meeting change.
Now EOC members are required to attend in-person, at out-of-pocket expense,
whether they can afford to wait for reimbursement or not.  Then Ms. Zanger
states that reimbursement forms will be brought to the meeting.  Are the
forms in a format that can be accessed and used by blind persons?  Then
there is the added and unnecessary processing of the reimbursement forms, at
a hourly pay and benefit rate of at least $31.00 per hour; time and
expenditure that could be better utilized to make materials available to EOC
members and blind vendors in Braille, in accordance with the law. 

	Ms. Zanger speaks about the audio issues, and how the agency cannot
pay for portable microphones.  Well, where is the audio equipment and
wireless microphones, and the videotaping equipment, that the agency
outright purchased for use at meetings of the now defunct Commission for the
Blind Board.   Given that outright purchase of audio equipment, why is it
necessary for Mr. Essenberg to even expend money, and the blind vendors
reimburse for portable microphones.  Is it just that nobody had given
thought to use of that outright purchased audio and video equipment?  Or can
it be explained away as among the unaccounted for equipment noted in an
state auditor's report?  Or was it simply left and abandoned at the site of
the final meeting of the MCB Board, never to bee seen again (no pun
intended, given such a serious issue)?  Also, that same equipment could be
used to stream the EOC meeting over the internet, ridding Ms. Zanger and the
EOC Chairs of all their excuses for not tele-broadcasting the meeting.  Now
if only if someone would account for the whereabouts of the audio and video
equipment!

	Additionally, let's further explore explainations offered by Ms.
Zanger regarding not teleconferencing the EOC meetings.  

	First, Ms. Zanger offers that it is the agency's understanding that
the Committee desires to no longer offer participation by teleconference.
It would be welcomed by blind vendors and citizens alike, for Ms. Zanger,
Mr. Chaney, and Mr. Essenberg to identify the meeting and minutes that
communicate such understanding regarding the COMMITTEE no longer desiring
teleconferencing of meetings?  A close review of available EOC and EOC
Subcommittee minutes do not verify or justify such an understanding between
the COMMITTEE and agency.  Perhaps Ms. Zanger is confusing her public and
private understandings between her, the official COMMITTEE, and Chairs
Essenberg and Chaney.  And neither Chair Essenberg nor Chaney are vested
with the authority to unilaterally made decisions for the COMMITTEE, and it
is for this reason that there was quote "much to do" unquote by EOC members
about not teleconferencing the EOC meeting. 

	Next, Ms. Zanger offers concern about EOC members minimally
participating during meetings through the use of teleconference.  So why
should potentially seventy other blind vendors be inconvenienced and forced
to travel, without reimbursement and point compensation, to hear what is or
is not happening with THEIR Business Enterprise Program.  Tfhere are two
simple solutions to this problem with EOC members.  First, amend the EOC
Bylaws to require EOC members to appear and attend EOC meetings in-person.
Secondly, abolish the promotion points given for EOC membership.  We all
know there are some on the EOC that don't speak at meetings and contribute
in any meaningful mmanner to the best interest of all blind vendors.
Elimination of the promotion points will likely remove that sole incentive
for some to be on the EOC.  Why should such non-participation and disregard
for the respect and best interest of all  blind vendors be rewarded with the
award of promotional points?  Is this not a business program of
professionals?  If the answer is yes, then it should be run and function as
professionals.  Also, if were the audio and video equipment accounted for
and used, meetings could be streamed via internet , while EOC members attend
in-person.  Also the additional option of teleconferencing could be offered
for blind vendor and citizen listening, with the phone system being in muted
mode, so that in-person meeting attendees could not hear those on the phone,
as was done during the now defunct Commission Board meetings.  There would
be the added benefit that area blind and sighted vendors could attend
in-person and actually interact with EOC members, asking questions of their
EOC representatives and the agency management, were there ever to be open
uncensored questions-and answer dialogue welcomed and permitted by the EOC.

	Lastly, on the teleconference issue, Ms. Zanger addresses the issue
of official meeting recording quality.  With regard to that issue, the
meetings need not be recorded through the telephone.  Were the EOC Secretary
to be in-person and a quality digital recorder be provided to the Secretary,
a quality recording could be obtained of each meeting.  In fact, if the
aforementioned outright purchased audio and video equipment were to be
accounted for and used in conjunction with a quality digital recorder, the
official recording could  record even the softest voice.  Another
alternative is to comply with the provisions of the Open Meetings Act,
permitting attendees the use of their audio and video equipment..  Again, if
this Committee is of a professional stature, then it ought to be run and
function in a professional manner.  Even active participation advisory
status does not translate to or require functioning in a non-professional
manner.

	Lastly, on Ms. Zanger's e-mail statements, she offers that because
Mr Rodgers has committed to travel the distance to attend the meeting, Chair
Chaney unilaterally decided he did not want to cancel or reschedule the
meeting.  This once again raises the question of who's best interest  does
the EOC serve, the blind vendors or those of the agency?  It certainly
appears the EOC Chairmen are pandering to the whims of the agency, rather
than conducting business with involvement of the other EOC members, and
without regard to respect and best interest and accommodation of the blind
vendors.   

	The final question to be answered is simply this:  Why was the
meeting simply not moved to a location that would have eliminated the many
alleged concerns offered by Ms. Zanger and Chairmen Essenberg and Chaney,
with a commitment of the next meeting being held in Grand Rapids?  After
all, the meeting date was changed to accommodate out-of-state conference
travel by the Chairmen and agency management, so why was the location or
date not changed to accommodate EOC members and seventy other blind vendors
to attend by telephone.  It only raises more questions as to the real
reasons why the decision was made without input of the other EOC members.

	It is likely that EOC Chairman Chaney will once again accuse NFB
members of throwing rocks at him, however, we actually admit to throwing
simple and valid questions at him, his fellow chairman, and agency, as to
why so many issues go unaddressed regarding the impact and future of
opportunities for blind vendors and the Business Enterprise Program as a
whole.  For example, why is the Anderson Building facility in the 16th month
without a blind vendor?  Who is behind the legislation to strip blind
vendors of work opportunities, creating more unemployment and
WORK-TO-WELFARE among the blind?  Why has the EOC not addressed and taken a
position on these and mmany many other issues facing the program, like why
is the EOC not involved in revising the new BEP rules?  If left to the
agency and Essenberg to do, they certainly will not be blind vendor oriented
or friendly, as already suggested by the first draft.  And why is a sighted
person still operating a Detroit vending route several months after the
facility was awarded to a blind vendor?  What happened to the temporary
operator 30 day notice policy?  Or does it have more to do with the status
and relationship of the individuals involved?  Does anyone among agency
management and EOC understand the business concept that perception is
reality?  Or that actions speak louder than flowery words?  Is it likely
that the agency has an incorrect understanding that the Committee no longer
wants to have quote "active participation" unquote in matters of
administration and issues affecting blind vendors?  If that is the case,
then the agency and EOC chairmen are sorely mistaken, as it relates to the
wishes of EOC members and blind vendors.

	In closing, while we the NFB members are accused of hurling rocks,
in the spirit of cooperation and improvement and retention of viable job
opportunities for current and future generations of blind persons, we have
offered sound , workable, and easy to implement solutions to best serve the
desires and needs of blind vendors, while creating and establishing a
professional image and method for conducting EOC meetings in the future.
The truth and proof will be in implementation action or inaction.         




From suncat0 at gmail.com  Sun Mar 17 19:47:56 2013
From: suncat0 at gmail.com (Joe Sontag)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:47:56 -0400
Subject: [Vendorsmi] Fw: Budget and Expenditure Information Deferred at the
	E O C MEeting
Message-ID: <ADF0E0F0256142658BFD11353486679F@Reputercat0>

----- Original Message ----- 
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 13:25
Subject: Budget and Expenditure Information Deferred at the E O C MEeting


> Good afternoon, All;
>
>
>
> At last week's E O C meeting, the B E P Budget and Finance report
> was deferred with a goal of providing Committee members additional time 
> with
> Director Rodgers.  In lieu of an oral report, an e-mail report was
> requested.  That e-mail report follows:
>
>
>
> Financial Report
>
> A.   Annual Program Budget
>
> Under Director Rodgers' leadership, the Bureau has developed a
> unified budget for the entire agency.  No longer is there a separate 
> budget
> for each of the Bureau's programs.  This method of budgeting gives Bureau
> leadership greater control in monitoring expenditures associated with the
> management of each program, thus allowing greater accountability.  And, it
> gives Bureau leadership greater flexibility in responding to the unique
> needs of individual programs.
>
>
>
> B.   Annual Set-aside Budget with the list of collections and
> expenditures
>
> 1.    In keeping with the Bureau's budget practices, B E P does not
> have a separate set-aside fee budget.  Consistent with the Program's long
> set-aside fee expenditure history, set-aside fees collected will be 
> expended
> for equipment repairs.  Typically, the cost of repairs exceeds the amount 
> of
> set-aside fees collected each fiscal year.  In fiscal year 2013, should 
> the
> cost of repairs not exceed the amount of set-aside fees collected, the
> additional set-aside fees will be expended on equipment purchases.
>
> 2.    Set-aside fees collected through February 28, 2013:  $86,318.
>
> 3.    Set-aside fees expended through March 7, 2013:  $51,378.
>
>
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Constance Zanger
>
> Business Enterprise Program Manager
>
> Bureau of Services for Blind Persons
>
> Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
>
> 517/335.3639
>
> 517/335.5140 (facsimile)
>
>
>
>