<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.6182" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Finally here are the so-called approved meeting
minutes where PA 260 was violated. I think this laid the basis in part for the
DTMB component in the Executive Order....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>APPROVED</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>201 N. Washington Square</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Victor Center Building</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2nd Floor Conference Room</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Lansing, MI</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>February 8, 2012</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>VIA Conference Call</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MINUTES</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMISSIONERS PRESENT VIA TELEPHONE</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Larry
Posont
Ms. Lydia Schuck</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. John Scott</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMISSIONERS ABSENT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>None (2 Commissioner vacancies currently
exist)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MICHIGAN COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND STAFF
PRESENT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Pat
Cannon
Ms. Sue Luzenski</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ms. Constance
Zanger
Mr. James Hull (via telephone)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Josh Hoskins (via telephone)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>GUESTS/ATTENDEES</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Joe Sontag</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>GUESTS/ATTENDEES VIA TELEPHONE</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Joe
Sibley
Mr. Joe Harcz</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Fred
Wurtzel
Mr. Terry Eagle</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mr. Rob
Essenberg
Mr. Greg Keathley</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF
QUORUM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Commissioner Larry Posont called the special
meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was
present.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Discussion of State House of Representatives
Cafeteria Proposal</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Commissioner
Posont asked for a report of the Elected Operators Committee meeting from Monday
evening, February 6. Mr. Rob Essenberg, Elected<BR>Operator Committee
Chair, reported that the solicitation proposal was read to the nine members
present at the meeting and there was discussion and questions<BR>about how it
will be ensured that a blind operator would be running or be a presence in the
facility, the legality of this arrangement in relation to Public<BR>Act 260,
concerns about a precedent being set and about management of the building where
the cafeteria is located being involved in the process. Mr.
Essenberg<BR>shared that the EOC made some motions and some language in the
proposal was amended.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Commissioner
Posont asked if the amendments could be read as adopted. Ms. Zanger read
the EOC amendments to the solicitation proposal as they<BR>were added.
Commissioner Posont asked if this process follows the Promulgated Rules.
Commissioner Scott stated he had the same concern, that going contrary<BR>to the
Promulgated Rules is going contrary to law. Commissioner Schuck expressed
a concern about opening up this cafeteria opportunity to sighted people<BR>and
questioned if there was a chance that a blind vendor may not be awarded the
facility. Mr. Essenberg clarified that a qualified blind vendor will
be<BR>given first priority. There was discussion about what the timeline
would be if this proposal was passed by motion at this meeting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Commissioner
Posont expressed concern over a possible violation of the Promulgated Rules and
asked that Rule 47 (1) (e) be read. While waiting<BR>for the rule to be
referenced, Commissioner Schuck asked Mr. Essenberg to clarify that the EOC is
comfortable with the process being presented. Mr. Essenberg<BR>indicated
that he felt the EOC would be well represented on the selection panel.
Commissioner Schuck also asked for clarification of the cafeteria
certification<BR>rule and whether that certification rule would apply
here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ms. Zanger read the rule and there was discussion
about whether this rule was being violated by potentially not being applied
evenly to all operators and<BR>whether there needed to be a change to the
Promulgated Rules. Ms. Zanger reviewed the other two times that there had
been a temporary change request of<BR>the Promulgated Rules.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Director Cannon
answered a question from Commissioner Scott about P.A. 260 and the building
managers’ right to reject having a cafeteria in a<BR>State building.
Commissioner Scott also asked what the process will be for selecting the
operator for the House of Representatives cafeteria. Mr.
Essenberg<BR>reviewed the process, including that a blind operator will be given
preference for this facility and will be running the facility for 2
years.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Commissioner
Schuck referenced an email that she had just received that gave reasons why the
proposal is illegal. She then reviewed the contents<BR>of the email and
there was discussion about the validity of the information.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Director Cannon
thanked the Elected Operator Committee for their hard work on developing this
process and working through an awkward situation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMISSIONER SCHUCK MOVED TO ADOPT THE SOLICITATION
PROPOSAL; SCOTT SECONDED</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Discussion:
Commissioner Schuck asked if the Board was comfortable with the proposal not
having any written mention of a two year commitment or<BR>a commitment to hire a
blind person. Commissioner Posont stated that he wasn’t happy that legal
counsel from the Attorney General’s office wasn’t available<BR>to be at this
meeting and part of the discussion, shared that he is against it as it is
written and if a change needs to be made to the Promulgated Rules<BR>then the
proper channels need to be followed. Commissioner Scott said that he
is against the proposal as it is written but would consider passing it<BR>with
the added amendments that Commissioner Schuck mentioned. Mr. Essenberg
stated no objections on adding the amendments as suggested.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Commissioner
Posont summed up the four options to qualify for this facility:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. A licensed vendor that is
qualified;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. A vendor in the
program;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. A person who is blind who
could make it who is outside the program;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4. A teaming partner which would
hire blind people and would team up for up to two years;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> The added
amendments are:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>· Second
preference would be given to any other individuals who are blind (added to the
fourth paragraph)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>· For a
minimum of 2 years (added to the first paragraph)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE WITH SCHUCK AND
SCOTT VOTING AYE AND POSONT VOTING NAY.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> The Commissioners
asked that when dates are set to begin the interviewing process if they could be
advised and an update provided at the March<BR>Quarterly Commission
meeting.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PUBLIC COMMENT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Mr. Dave
Robinson: First of all I would like to inform the Commissioners about some
information that was conveniently deleted from the discussion<BR>today by the
Agency. One of the things under the rules in the bid process, if there’s a
cafeteria on the bid line and nobody bids on it that’s cafeteria<BR>certified
and it’s open to all licensed operators for bidding therefore after two weeks on
the bid line they are considered qualified to bid on that facility.<BR>That’s a
part that was conveniently left out. The other thing was that the
Commission for the Blind built this facility. They built it with rehab
money<BR>for the purpose of employing a blind person, that’s their
mandate. They knew what type of facility it was. They knew what type
of training it would take<BR>to run that operation successfully, ok, so it was
their facility. Now when you talk about requiring operators to have a
teaming partner, what does that<BR>mean? The Teaming partner comes in to
work with the operator but they also take some part of the profit from that
operator. It could be a 50/50 split,<BR>it could be 49/51 it could be
whatever which results in the operator paying for their training and the
training which was supposed to be the responsibility<BR>of the BEP
program. Now remember the BEP facility, they knew what it would take to
train somebody in that facility and they didn’t train the people in<BR>the
program to run that facility successfully. Now, now they’re going back and
putting the burden of the training on the operator because the operator<BR>is
basically paying for their own training. Now you can put this and mix it
anyway you want to but the reality is the agency is negating their
responsibility<BR>to train a person successfully for this employment opportunity
and yet there’s lots of times when the Commission for the Blind spends thousands
of dollars<BR>training people for their particular employment. Job
coaches, trainers whatever and now we’re telling a blind person that they have
to pay for their own<BR>training. So it’s a sham that the agency is
purveying and you guys just voted for the illegal procedure. It’s illegal
no matter how you twist and turn<BR>it and provisions, recommendations, won’t
undo that. So I just want to let you know where you stand in terms of what
you did.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Mr. Joe
Harcz: In the 1930’s Adolf Hitler had his brown shirts set fire to the
Reichstag and then used that as an excuse for violating the rule<BR>of the
law. Tierney is always started when we put the rule of man over the rule
of the law. What we’ve had and this echoes somewhat what Dave just
said<BR>is we have fundamental violations by this agency, dereliction of duty,
everybody goes ‘oh we don’t have enough cafeteria certified people to handle
this’,<BR> well whose responsibility was that to begin with? And
abdicating and violating and reversing the rule of law, oh on this so called one
time basis it<BR>is more than a slippery slope ladies and gentlemen. The
other issue that was never discussed was that we, the Michigan Commission for
the Blind are the<BR>State Licensing Agency and not building management.
Even if this interview process was legal to begin with we’re basically putting a
building manager<BR>outside this program in the position of granting a
license. Period. The license is the contract, the priority and the
mandate are clear. Again and again<BR>these go to fundamental violations
that go on over and over again in this system because we are a general VR
program and we are required to supply the<BR>competent training of individuals
in whatever their career choice is. Constantly, in over a decade, I’ve
seen this occur, the Agency is derelict in its<BR>duties, violating the Rehab
Act, violates Randolph Sheppard Act, violates Public Act 260, violates it’s
charge and yet it goes to the Commission Board<BR>or some subcommittee or the
EOC in this case, you know to try and rubber stamp those violations. These
are substantial things Ladies and Gentlemen. We<BR>have lit a match, we
have burnt the Reichstag, and when I say we I am talking about the Agency and
now we’re claiming an emergency. Where does the
responsibility<BR>go? Thank you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2> Mr. Joe
Sibley: I heard great discussion here. I’m not an expert here, I
wasn’t an operator, I know many people who were but I thought I heard<BR>great
discussion this morning. I thought I heard good scrutiny, good
discussion. The operators committee is on board with this, those that know
the law<BR>seemed to be on board with this, I think it was a good move. I
think this location is vital which is a showplace location and I think it needs
to be scrutinized<BR>and really have a first class operation. I think you
covered all the bases with this proposal and its changes so I salute the board
and all participating.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SCHUCK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING; SCOTT
SECONDED.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>____________________________
____________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Larry
Posont
Date<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>