[vendtalk] Questions

Mon Oct 1 22:32:00 UTC 2012

Colleen:

Thank you for taking the time to write back with a very educational glimpse
into the state of affairs in your program.  I am truly appalled that there
are only twelve vendors in the whole state and that even that paltry number
is having to struggle for a living.  I cannot imagine that this is all that
is possible.

Given your bleak account, I am assuming you currently do not have presence
at most major federal and state installations.  It sure sounds like you have
a lot of unrealized potential.  

With longer term considerations in mind, is there any way for you to raise
the political visibility of the program or to scale up the aspirations of
the program to a higher level of purpose and mission?  

My hunch is you'll probably need a lot of help from Kevan Worley and others
at the national level to assist with consciousness raising in the state.  If
you could engage local political interest in the promise of the program and
its benefits for the state, I would think the program would have more clout
and be better positioned to identify and develop prospective opportunities.

As I think about it, the idea of strengthening and growing your program is
not only morally just, it probably is also your best shot at achieving
needed longer term improvements.  

If any of this makes sense to you and your fellow vendors, I would contact
Kevan Worley and or Fred Schroder to see what, if anything, they might be
able to do for Idaho. 

By the way, I too am skeptical about blind vendors driving. In my book, , a
driver's license and an RS license are mutually incompatible.  You either
have corrected vision that allows you to drive safely in which case you are
no longer legally blind and must give up your RS license or your RS license
should be taken away for extremely dangerous and irresponsible behavior.
There are no two ways about it.  

Finally, on the subject of too few cane users, I am afraid you are looking
at a national pattern where SLA officials exercise their recruitment
preference for the least blind amongst us.  Our business is not rocket
science and we should be able to do a better job of allowing more totally
blind individuals into the program.  I am afraid the bigotry of low
expectations is very much at work.  As a totally blind individual, I was
fortunate enough to be able to get into the program and I am very proud to
be able to say that I am setting the standard for excellence in our program.

Mazher

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Colleen Mcfadden

Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 8:42 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Idaho has 12 vendors (5 are in Boise) and yes, we are limited to low sales

in most state, local, and federal buildings.  In fact, most buildings don't

have enough sales to pay for the machines. This is why we are splitting up

sites when vendors leave the program. At one of our committee meeting of

blind vendors, we decided that promotion would be based on performance

first, then geographic location and lastly income.  Most vendors service

some rest areas that are close to where they live.

We have many challenges and   one of those, unfortunately, has been program

supervision's priority  is in micromanagement and not improving training of

vendors. Our income sharing fuhnds are decreasing too.  I'm concerned about

blind vendors that drive.  There is much support for using bioptics in this

state.  We only have two vendors that carry a cane, and one will retire in

two years; that just leaves me.

Colleen

     From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org]

On Behalf Of mazher

Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 4:25 AM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Colleen :

This information exchange is useful.

I'd like to know more about the conditions facing your program and the

general well being of program participants.  Idaho is so sparsely populated,

I am wondering what sort of vending facility opportunities there are, where

they are concentrated in the state and the overall size of your program.

Judging from your comment about the prospective opportunity with the county,

I am assuming you have some access to opportunities in state buildings.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Kevan: thank you for the forum.  I think you're right, we all need to be

working together to overcome the challenges we face.  However, I am hoping

these exchanges can stimulate discussion of substantive issues so you can

hear directly from all of us about the challenges we might want to put on

your plate.  Bear with us.

Mazher Hameed

Chair, Policy Sub Committee,

Washington

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Colleen Mcfadden

Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:36 AM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

In Idaho, sites have been added to vendors locations to increase income as

vendors retire or have been pushed out.

Our state hasn't gotten any private companies yet but the SLA is getting

calls inquiring about our services.   When the SLA is available to work on a

contract for me, I plan to go after the county jail and offer $100 per month

to their association fund.  Currently, the sheriff's association is

servicing their own machines, and they are always empty.  Coke has put

together a proposal that was denied and now wants me to try to get in there.

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Terry Eagle

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 9:47 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

In Michigan, satellites are also used, but on a more permanent basis.

Usually, satellites are used by combining one marginal facility (a facility

that makes little profit and is not cost-effective to pay labor to work it),

to another marginal or more profitable  facility to make any kind of a

decent income (over $18,000., 120% of minimum wage), otherwise neither

facility would be bid on standing alone these days.  The only incentive is

to have a combined facility with hope of making some decent profit, and the

satellite usually is a permanent combined facility.

Reduced governmental workforce, building security measures following 9/11,

and the lengthy recession have created more and more marginal profit

facilities.  The SLA and EOC are reluctant to combine facilities, saying it

takes jobs from other blind persons.  So, like other states, the Michigan

program would be much smaller, but give a greater livable income to the

blind, were the SLA dedicated to and supportive of blind persons making a

decent income.

I know the Michigan program has lost an entire generation of young blind

individuals because of poor income producing facilities, and poor training

and lack of competent ongoing support and training.  BEP eligible relatives

of BEP licensees see little innovative change to the program from the SLA

and Elected Operators' Committee, and are simply not interested in working

55 to 60 or more hours a week, for so little income return on time and

energy invested.

My question is what are other state programs doing, if anything, to secure

facility opportunities in the private sector, and what are the successes,

challenges, and  pitfalls  encountered and overcome?

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Kevan Worley

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:33 PM

To: Vendor Talk Mailing List

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Very similar to Colorado rules.

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Vandervoort's

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:12 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Texas does satelliting.  From my best knowledge, usually, the incentive is a

6-month grant period to the existing manager that accepts the added

responsibility.  Yes, that facility is soon advertized and often to be made

available to a successful bidder 6 months after it is satellited.  If it is

not assigned at that time, the SLA may continue the temporary arrangement

and re-advertize it.

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Manasco, Brenda

Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:07 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Are there a lot of states that have enabled managers to run satellite

facilities?  If so, does the SLA provide any added incentive for running the

extra locations?  Are the facilities put out on bid again after a specified

time period?

Your feedback is most appreciated.

Smiles,

Brenda

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of mazher

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 4:01 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Many of our facilities, especially the more marginal stands, got closed down

or consolidated with other facilities.  We still have around 35 or 36

locations, one was closed down just last week and another is slated for

opening in the next few weeks.  For fy 2013, we are scheduled to open

another two locations.  We are keeping all of these facilities operational

with vendors operating satellites in addition to their primary locations.

As you may have guessed, some of us feel strongly that more blind people

should be able to earn a livelihood in our program.

Thanks for the interest.

Mazher

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Terry Eagle

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:06 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

With your indulgence, what has happened to the program facilities with so

many vendors leaving the program?

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of mazher

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 6:34 AM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

We're struggling for an adequate answer to that question of why we've lost

so many vendors.  Let me see if I can provide a partial answer.

About a decade ago, the SLA decided to bring the program in house from a

nominee organization and set about cleaning house.

Since then, we have had a very high attrition rate and many older, poorly

educated and ill-trained vendors have slowly been let go without much effort

or outreach on the training/retraining front.  I call this the absence of a

strategic vision.

On the other side of the equation, on the recruitment side, we have very

high barriers to entry.  Rightly or wrongly, but so far without success, the

SLA has been looking for blind individuals with business degrees or business

experience.

The alarming results speak for themselves.  Since 2005, we have lost 21

vendors and gained two new entrants.  That's a replacement ratio for the

last seven years of less than ten percent.

No, definitely not a model to be emulated!

Mazher Hameed

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Colleen Mcfadden

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 3:28 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

I appreciate the responses from Terry and you.  This case is going to

evidentiary hearing and if the vendor loses, I don't think his location will

be given to another new trained vendor. Time will tell.

Why has Washington DC lost so many vendors?

 -----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of mazher

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:19 PM

To: 'Vendor Talk Mailing List'

Subject: Re: [vendtalk] Questions

Depriving someone of their right to a livelihood is serious business and

should only be undertaken as a very last resort.  Those livelihoods are what

the program is all about, notwithstanding the heavier burden of

responsibility for turning things around for all concerned.

Without knowing anything about the situation you have in mind, I would say

that without a due process hearing of the facts, complaints of poor service

from building management do not constitute grounds for expulsion.  Certainly

grounds for launching a review where the vendor has an opportunity to give

their side of the story.

Training, retraining, reassignment to another facility, SLA provision of

temporary stopgap staffing support to assist the vendor are the kind of

problem solving tools I would look at before I would agree to have a

vendor's livelihood taken away.

If the vendor in your program was summarily expelled without the benefit of

a due process hearing, I would urge a problem solving approach rather than

one that is punitive.

Here are the kind of questions I would ask.  Is the vendor way over his head

in terms of the responsibilities of the location?  Did the vendor previously

manage the facility in a satisfactory way before it started slipping?  Are

there other available facilities that the vendor might be able to handle

more easily?   Can the vendor turn things around with more competent staff?

Is the vendor temporarily unable to fully devote him/herself to the job

because of personal health issues or the care of a sick child, spouse or

elderly parent?

If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, you may have

something solid to work with toward a solution.

As for protecting the brand and giving another blind guy a chance, I would

urge you to keep in mind that nationally at least we are losing more vendors

than facilities each year.  In our program in Washington DC, we have gone

from over 85 vendors around fifteen years ago to 35 five years ago to 16 in

2012.

-----Original Message-----

From: vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:vendtalk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On

Behalf Of Colleen McFadden

Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 7:10 PM

To: vendtalk at nfbnet.org

Subject: [vendtalk] Questions

Dear Fellow Vendors,

If a vendor has been pushed out of BEP because he will not service his

location and gets complaints from the building  manager should he be allowed

back in the program?  We have talked on this listserv about vendors

performing and protecting Randolph Sheppard.  If a vendor's behavior

consistently hurts the reputation of the program, shouldn't we give another

blind guy an opportunity to operate a business?

Please share your thoughts.

Colleen

_______________________________________________

vendtalk mailing list

vendtalk at nfbnet.org