OREGON COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND535 SE 12th Ave. (Portland office)

BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGONBECC MEETING

Friday, Jan 23nd, 2015 at 3:30 P.M.Conference line; 404-443-6397

Participant code; 943611#

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER- Chairwoman, Lewanda Miranda.a. Roll call.b. Adoption of minutes; Dec 11th 2014.

2. OLD BUSINESS (Potential action item)a. Revised Business Enterprise Rules: Chairwoman Miranda, Vice-Chair Stevenson.

3. NEXT MEETING- Chairwoman Miranda.4. ADJOURNMENT- Chairwoman Miranda

VERBATIM

Miranda: Okay, you guys. I’d like to call this meeting to order. It is right now 3:30pm. And so we’ll…

Smith: Hi Lewanda.

Miranda: Hi Gordo. So we’ll start with roll call. And we will start with the BECC Elected Committee members. So, Art Stevenson? Art, are you with us?

Stevenson, Art: I’m here.

Miranda: Char Mckinzie?

Mckinzie: Here.

Miranda: Cathy Dominique?

Colley-Dominique: Here.

Miranda: Ken Gerlitz?

Gerlitz: Here.

Miranda: Tessa Brown? Tessa, are you with us? Okay, no Tessa Brown. And Lewanda Miranda. Now we’ll start with the Elected Committee. Jerry Bird?

Bird: Here.

Miranda: Derrick Stevenson?

Stevenson, Derrick: Here.

Miranda: Gordon Smith?

Smith: Here.

Miranda: Harold Young?

Young: Here.

Miranda: Lin Jaynes?

Jaynes: Present.

Miranda: Steve Gordon? Steve Gordon? Randy Hauth?

Hauth: Here.

Miranda: Salvador Barraza? Salvador Barraza? Steve Jackson? Steve Jackson? Ann Wright?

Wright: Here.

Miranda: Okay, agency staff?

Morris: Eric and Dacia are here, Lewanda.

Johnson: Hi everyone.

Miranda: Hi everybody.

Smith: Hi ya.

Miranda: And visitors?

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Miranda: Any other visitors? Okay, that’s it for roll call. Now, I’d like to adopt, make a motion to adopt the meeting minutes from our December 11, 2014 meeting as recorded and sent out by Kathy Ewing. So I’ll do a yes or no vote from the Elected Committee. Art Stevenson?

Stevenson, Art: Yes.

Miranda: Cathy Dominique?

Colley-Dominique: Yes.

Miranda: Char Mckinzie?

Mckinzie: Yes.

Miranda: Ken Gerlitz?

Gerlitz: Yes.

Miranda: Tessa, are you with us yet? Okay, and Lewanda, I vote yes. So the minutes for December 11, 2014 passes. Okay, now we’re going to move into the old business. And the reason for this meeting is to share our comments and concerns and also to, for the Elected Committee to vote to either adopt or not adopt the Rules Committee revised portion of the Handbook. So, we, we’re going to have a few roles here. And we’re going to have open comment, public comment. Three minutes per person. And Eric, could you time that?

Morris: Sure.

Miranda: Okay. And no interruptions. And I ask that everyone be considerate of each other, and no speaking over each other. So right now we will open up for, and please address the Chair, and then I will address you. Right now we’re going to…

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair?

Miranda: Yes, Art?

Stevenson, Art: As a member of the Board, I believe that the public comment, or the managers’ comments, should at least be ten minutes and so, I would ask that each person be allowed at least ten minutes. I think that three minutes is not enough.

Miranda: Well, I, it’s still going to be three minutes. I’ll open comment…

Stevenson, Art: Can we, can we poll the Board on that, Madam Chair? Whether they think three minutes is significant amount of time for the managers… I believe it should be ten minutes. Can we poll the Board and see if they agree with that?

Miranda: Sure.

Stevenson, Derrick: There has to be a motion.

Miranda: Okay, make the motion, Art.

Stevenson, Art: Well, I, I mean, you didn’t make a motion. I just, I just think, you know, you could just poll the Board. I believe it should be at least ten minutes. If, if everybody agrees with the three minutes, of course I don’t. I think it should be ten minutes, so you could just ask…

Miranda: Okay, Art, Art, is that… Okay. What, all right, so I’ll poll the Board. Art is at ten minutes for public comment. Ken Gerlitz?

Gerlitz: I like three.

Miranda: Char Mckinzie?

Mckinzie: Three.

Miranda: Cathy Dominique?

Colley-Dominique: Three.

Miranda: Tessa Brown, are you with us? Okay, and I’m for three. So three it is. I will now open…

Colley-Dominique: Madam Chairman? Madam…

Bird: Chairman. Please? Madam Chair?

Miranda: Yes, Jerry?

Bird: I would like to make a comment on that. [inaudible]

Miranda: Okay.

Bird: I have sent you and I have reviewed the by-laws and I don’t see anywhere where we should, we’re supposed to be limited by time. And the idea of us giving our comments is, is give us time to present what, how we feel and our input. If you limit us, [inaudible] have to do that. So by limiting us, I think you are violating the rules, but, so I’ll leave it at that, but I, I believe you, we should not be limited by this Board to give comments on such a special issue of the Handbook. Thank you. Thank you.

Miranda: Thank you for your comment.

Stevenson, Derrick: Madam Chair, Madam Chair?

Miranda: Yes? Yes, Derrick?

Stevenson, Derrick: I don’t, I think Jerry might have just misinterpreted, that’s just for public comment. Comments by the licensed blind managers, I don’t believe, are going to be inside, under a time limit. Is that correct?

Miranda: Yeah. Three…

Stevenson, Derrick: Okay.

Miranda: Three minutes for public comment and then the Board will have time to speak. Talked about…

Stevenson, Derrick: The managers?

Hauth: Madam Chair?

Miranda: The Elected Committee.

Hauth: Hi. Yeah, in the by-laws it clearly identifies that a licensed blind vendor on any item of business has the right to…

Smith: That was changed?

Hauth: …has the right to comment and share their opinion, as well. So, if that’s, you know, I’m, I’m a little confused because recently public comment has been eliminated. And now mysteriously it’s back on. So, I would concur and agree with Mr. Stevenson that, along with Jerry Bird, that any manager wanting to share their input or their concerns on such an important matter shouldn’t be limited, and if you could share with us why the limitation, I’d certainly appreciate that.

Miranda: Well, because we need to get, we need to get through this meeting, and there has been time for people to send in their concerns. And I feel three minutes is, is plenty of time.

Stevenson, Derrick: Well, you’re, you’re concerning the licensed blind managers as public?

Miranda: Yeah.

Stevenson, Derrick: Okay, well yeah, I strongly disagree with that.

Miranda: Okay.

Stevenson, Derrick: By-laws prohibit it.

Miranda: Well, I, I, I hear you guys, but…

Gerlitz: Madam Chair?

Miranda: Yes, Ken.

Gerlitz: We have had months and months and months to submit public comments on these. Now since we’ve had this last go-round, before it was the Confluence Center. We could have submitted information line by line, word by word, comma by comma, and most of the members did not. And since we’ve been going through this new review, Eric has submitted summaries at the end of each and every meeting and asked for comments, and I don’t think he’s gotten any, or received very many. So it’s not like you haven’t had any opportunity to comment on this. You have! Now, if you chose not to comment then, we don’t have the time to comment now. That’s the, that’s just the way it is. And I think our Chairperson has the right to set the laws for our own meetings.

Miranda: I agree, and we are going to stay with the three minutes, so…

Colley-Dominique: Madam Chairman? Mad--, Madam…

Miranda: I’m going to open it up right now.

Stevenson, Derrick: Just as long as it’s on the record that the by-laws are being violated.

Miranda: Okay, open comments are now open?

Colley-Dominique: Madam Chairman?

Miranda: Yes, Cathy?

Colley-Dominique: I, if I might be so bold as to say, before we go into our public comment for, with, with us, that our Executive Director is here, and I think she should be allowed to speak first. Give us her…

Miranda: Oh, thank you, Cathy. Yeah, that’s a good idea. Okay, so our Administrator Dacia Jones is with us. And I would like to allow her now time to speak on the feedback that she has gotten, the emails that have been going back and forth, and whatever else you’d like to speak about, Dacia, and welcome.

Johnson: Thank you. And I do think I can keep it within three minutes. I didn’t time myself, but…

Morris: Eric’s got it.

Johnson: I really just wanted to say to all of you, first of all, it’s incredibly impressive to the level of participation that the BEC is having in terms of other licensed managers here. That’s a testament I think to the strength of our collective power of working together. I wanted to thank the opportunity for the Rules Subcommittee for all of your work. And I understand from talking with Eric that there were a total of 29 hours of meetings, 18 meetings in total that were public noticed and held to discuss the rules. And I want to thank all of you, all the managers in the program for your commitment to staying informed and involved in the process of updating this Handbook. And you know, the last time that we did this, that was executed to completion, was in 2001, 14 years ago. And now, 14 years later, we’re working together side by side to update those rules. And you know, we’ve been through a lot in the program over the last 14 years. You all know that more than I. And what I do know is, in our future, is so much stronger than those 14 years of the past. And we’re starting to leave the past behind and working on a better future. And I do believe that if we work together we’ll be able to be successful to secure additional staff resources for the program so that we can have more employment opportunities and a stronger emphasis on training and continuing education. And also including exploring together on how we can improve and strengthen the program and developing the plan forward to improve the employment opportunities here in Oregon. I truly believe that our ability to work collaboratively together greatly affects our relationships with other public agencies, and our ability to do that well is going to impact our ability to move forward. And as Derrick Stevenson recently said in an email to all of us, positive actions create positive results. And it’s time for us to leave the past and start working on a better future. And to me this meeting is about active participation, which not only did we agree on the definition, finally, we’ve also figured out how to work with the BECC together and actually have it get that active participation happening in real time. So, I just want to thank all of the members of the BECC for your ongoing partnership at the Agency. And just as a reminder, together we can accomplish so much more than we can apart. So just thank you for everything.

Miranda: Thank you, Dacia. Any other public comment?

Stevenson, Derrick: This is Derrick.

Miranda: Hey, Derrick.

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Miranda: Uh, Derrick first.

Stevenson, Derrick: Okay. I guess I’ll just go to, stick to the points where I consider that there still needs to be more done in this [inaudible]book. And one of the, one of the big things is promulgating rules and regulations would be, is definitely the Director’s responsibility. Just for instance, he’s, he’s charged with enforcing the, the laws and the rules and the monitoring of the compliance, but nowhere does, nowhere in our Handbook does it detail how that’s going to work. Well, the AG’s office has told us many times that there are no policies in place to, to deal with the facilities that, that are, that choose to not comply. For example, I think it needs to be described that when a, when an entity sends a letter to the Commission stating that they accepted a, a different offer or is not allowing us to do it, I think it needs to be spelled out in our Handbook how that letter’s going to be, going to be handled. What’s the responsibilities of the Commission? For instance, the Commission should, should take the information given, based on its legality, reply on whether it’s legal or it’s not. If it’s not legal, then, you know, they need to say, you know, they need to inform these people that it’s not an illegal reason not, to not let a blind person operate the thing. And there’s only a couple reasons why, why they can, and that’s one not, deciding not to have vending at all. And another is if it jeopardizes the safety of the United States or, or whatever. You guys know what that is, but if we don’t have a strict procedure to follow, then, then we’re going to get opinions like we got in the past because, you know, if we don’t say hey, you can’t do it based on legalities, you cannot do it. As long as we can, you know, supply, supply the service, you can’t say no just because someone’s going to pay you a percentage and stuff. But there has to be some kind of guidelines that the Commission has to follow when they receive these letters. And if we don’t put it in these rules, you know, we’re not going to get it done. And we’re going to end up in the same problem that we are, that we’ve always been in. And that’s, that’s not good. We’re here to fix things, to lessen the work… That’ll make Eric’s job a whole lot easier if it’s spelled out what he has to do, how he’s, how he has to react if what, what a, if a letter and a, award of the permit goes somewhere else. Either, either it’s legal to do it or it’s not. In most cases, it’s not. And he needs to tell them that their, their contract that they decided to go into is null and void. If we don’t have those… If we don’t have…

Morris: Derrick, that’s three minutes.

Stevenson, Derrick: …it spelled out in here, then, then we’re missing a great big opportunity. And I have a lot more, but since I only get three minutes, I guess I’ll conclude. Thanks for the time.

Miranda: Thank you, Derrick. Any other comments?

Gerlitz: Madam Chairperson? Madam Chairperson?

Miranda: Yes, Ken?

Gerlitz: This is Ken.

Miranda: Oh, wait, Ken. Kenny? Linda Haseman was next, I’m sorry.

Gerlitz: Okay.

Miranda: Okay, Linda.

Haseman: Yes, this is Linda Haseman for public comment. What I’d like to state for the record, is that you guys have been procedurally all over the board. Starting with the first meeting of the BE Rules Committee that I’ve been watching ardently from afar, listening to all the recordings. I actually called into the first meeting and was so appalled at how it was handled, due to public comment, and limiting participation, etcetera and etcetera. And I’m watching this new procedure currently occurring in the BECC meeting, as Derrick and Art indicated against BECC by-laws. The whole purpose of rules in this state once they become law, to effectively manage systems within the state or program. This is a program funded by state and federal funds. You guys have not been procedurally following what you need to procedurally follow. And I want to put on the record that this can be challenged legally through the Court of Appeals as you proceed on and if it’s fully adopted. And also I have not heard many of the BECC members participate or even call in to any of the Rules Committees. So I’m certainly hoping that the BEC members, BCC members who are getting ready to vote have done their due diligence and properly listened to all the recordings, have properly read all that came out just this week. I don’t think two days or three days is an appropriate amount of time to have individuals, including the public, understand what is being disseminated out in written form, versus what was actually put through on the recordings. A year ago, back, backtrack a year ago, the Commissioners wouldn’t adopt anything that quickly. They wanted at least another week before they’d adopt it. But you’re hardly putting it through for licensed blind vendors and it’s affecting their livelihoods. And I’m sorry, those AG’s opinions are still out there. They’re still being wielded like a knife out there against you guys, and if you don’t step up to the plate and promulgate rules and regulations at this time, that stick to those, you’re going to continue to have problems. So working together means fixing the whole program, not just putting together rules and regulations that operationally put together things for the administrative wheel against you guys or for you guys. It’s also putting together rules and regulations inclusive of fixing the problems currently in this program. And as a reminder, this BECC voted to not do state statute in lieu of following so that we have a promulgation of rules on quantity, quality, and price for the Freedman memo. And that has not happened. So you’re on record with what you voted to do in the past. It’s also on the BE Rules Committee Agenda about the Freeman Rule, Freeman memo. And for some reason, you guys are choosing or apparently [background noise] going to choose today to vote to move [inaudible] forward. And the reason this has become such an important vote today, and a hurried vote, is because in December…

Morris: That’s three minutes.

Haseman: …at the Commission Meeting, most, most of you were not on, Prateek Dujari asked if they could have them done in January and Director Morris agreed to it, without you guys being a part of that discussion.

Miranda: All right, thank you, Ms. Haseman. Any other comments?

Gerlitz: Madam Chairman? Yeah, I have one. You know, I worked for an agency that survived off of rules and regulations, and theirs were, well when I left the department, they were probably four inches thick. And daily, daily we got modifications and amendments to those rules and regulations. Probably, I don’t see this as an end-all to everything, this, you know, it’s not the Holy Bible. It can be readdressed. And I think we are, we’ve been promised by our Director that we’ll have opportunities to make these amendments. And it’s, it’s interesting that people talk about this Freedman memo. You know, there was only about four or five of us that paid for this. And it was directed to us as we paid the attorney for his opinions. And everybody’s taking this and running with it like it’s a public document. It’s not a public

document. It was something that was sent to those of us who are interested enough to take money out of our own pocket and pay them for their opinion, and we were going to take this information and move forward on it as a result. So, it’s just very interesting to me that everybody talks about that like it’s theirs.

Miranda: Thank you, Ken. Any other comments?

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair?

Miranda: Art?

Stevenson, Art: Just one quick clarification. Now, we’re having public comments. Are the Board members going to be allowed to comment each time that a, or ask questions, or are we going to have public comments and then the Elected Committee will discuss the issues and stuff?

Miranda: We’re going to have public comment and then after public comment, then we’ll move on to the, to the vote. But the, each Elected Committee will have a, a, an opportunity to speak.

Stevenson, Art: Oh, oh, okay. So just then we’ll go through all the public comments and then us, you know, Ken and everybody else can make further comments?

Miranda: Correct, correct.

Stevenson, Art: So I just, because, you know, Kenny made his statement and I just wanted to make sure that if he’s going to be allowed to make statements on each one, then the rest of the Board members should also. So, can we just take the public comments and then move on to our participation?

Miranda: Sure.

Stevenson, Derrick: There really hasn’t been a motion made yet, so… To the doctor, not [inaudible].

Miranda: Okay.

Hauth: Yeah, Madam Chair?

Miranda: Yes, Randy.

Hauth: Yeah, just a couple of things. First of all, I do adamantly disagree with the change in procedure and protocol. I do believe the by-laws are being violated. And also, as respectfully as I can, believe that you and several other members of the Committee are just conceding to the pressure by the Agency to meet this timeline and to complete rules and regulations at the expense of the managers. And that’s not the role of the Committee. With that being said, when the Freeman memo was sent to the Agency, it became a public record. And also any Committee members, two or more that are discussing any business relevant to the Elected Committee or business of the BEP becomes subject to public meeting law. So I would just respectfully request that Mr. Gerlitz understand that, as well. And furthermore, people were able to make comment to the Rule Committee, however, this is in that Elected Committee meeting, it’s not a Rule Committee Meeting. You guys know of the comments that I sent to you. And like Ms. Haseman said, these are certainly challengeable in the Court of Appeals. We have contacted an

attorney to review the process and procedures, and there’s significant violations. I’m just imploring you, encouraging you guys not to just concede and roll along with the Agency and look after the betterment of your managers and the program. Secondly, I’ve looked over the memo, the proposed draft documents. Numerous violations in there. I believe that are certainly challengeable program—programatically as well. You know, last but certainly not least, in the state statute it clearly identifies that rules are to be promulgated for the benefit of the blind vending operator. I cannot see anything in those rules other than a tightening of the screws, a squeezing of the rock to get as much blood and oversight and administrative authority that the Agency can. And over the last five, six, seven years, the managers have worked hard to have standing and have independence in business. And I’m just ashamed of this Board.

Gerlitz: Thanks!

Miranda: Thank you, Randy. Any other public comment?

Bird: Jerry Bird.

Miranda: Jerry.

Bird: Yes. I’d like to say that, first off, the right, the way this sub-committee, and I want to express “sub”, the Committee’s appointed by our Chair, which is a sub-committee. They’re not a big old committee like you think that’s going to do this. They are to bring back a recommendation. Now, you can’t just say the recommendations are, are in cement. And we weren’t given time to talk during the revisions, give our input to try to, you know, everyone has ideas and that which may be helpful. When you’re shut off like Mr. Stevenson done to us, it made us all mad, so we wasn’t going to participate. Not even the, not even the Board members participated. And here they got a big decision. I’ve only, I haven’t even been able to read the whole thing and identify everything that’s wrong. And the reason I waited until the end is because you guys jump around on each meeting, oh, we’ll put this here, we’ll put this here, and Eric just come up with stuff. I wanted to wait until you guys got your ones together, and then we look at what you made. And then we get a comment. And I also want to say…

Brown: [inaudible] yet?

Bird: Do [inaudible].

Brown: Just want to let everybody know I’m here. Sorry I’m late, I forgot my phone at work.

Bird: Good.

Miranda: Thank you, thank you, Tessa.

Brown: But I’m here, just so everybody knows.

Miranda: Okay.

Bird: Okay, so I… Anyway, and I, I, I seen in there, I’m really upset about the way you’re trying to deal with vending facilities, vending machines, giving them out to people. This program is not a welfare program, and if these people, if you want to give out stuff like that, you’re not even following, you

cannot, you, vending is for the blind licensed managers. State statute says that we sh--, it shall go to us if we’re, if we can do that. Now, it don’t say you can put them on subcontract and keep the money. I mean, if there’s no blind vendor that can run them, then you might have a chance of doing that and using it for your other purposes. But I’ve read through that, and even timeliness on, on the complaint. No one likes to complaint. We don’t do them just for fun. We do them because they’re, I believe, that they’re justified. And for you guys to start giving them more time, 60 days, 30 days, before we know it it’s six, eight months, and it’s not done! Well, a complaint needs to be dealt with immediately. Not 15, 60, 80 days and then this goes to this. If your, if your customers complain are you going to tell them, write me a letter and I’ll get with you in 60 days? Any complaint needs to be, be dealt with immediately, taken in, dealt with, and put, and done. I mean, it’s just more time. Now, the Director gets 60 days to give her comment, which she only had 15. And all I see in there is the blind managers shall do this, shall do this. The Agency may do this and may do this. They’re going to pick who, who, what vending routes, what sections you’re in, or what service in area? I mean, that’s, it’s crazy. So I asked my rep to do not pass, if we need to more work on it. We all need to work together. So, we didn’t participate on that. We wasn’t, didn’t need to, it’s a sub-committee. Now’s the time we all get to see, after you guys have made your, your little Handbook.

Morris: That’s three minutes.

Bird: Don’t mean it’s right! There’s, you know, the people on it, three people. One was one of our oldest ones. So you’re not getting the participation, and you keep saying you had a chance. No, we didn’t have a chance to actually voice and make, make a thing, so… I want this done right. I’d want it done more than any of you. I’ve spent more time than any of you on these Handbooks. And I want them done with, but we can’t let it going like this. It’s worse than the one, the 2001 one. So, I’d just say you guys, don’t be pressured by time. Don’t let them do this. If it’s right, we all agree with it, let’s work on it. We don’t need to start all over. We can use this as a draft. And there’s things that needs to be worked on. Let’s do it as a team. So I asked my rep not to vote on this, to say no.

Morris: That’s, that’s three minutes, guys.

Bird: I don’t think she’s had time to even review it and to make a proper, informed decision on my behalf. So, that’s… Thank you.

Miranda: Thank you, Jerry. Any other comments?

Wright: This is Ann.

Miranda: Okay, Ann.

Wright: As quickly as I can, I would just like to say, we, I was a member at the committee. At the end, due to the time constraints, we as a committee voted to hand the Handbook over to the BECC with no recommendation attached. We did spend a great deal of hours on it, but there is more work, I feel, that needs to be done on it. And I don’t feel it is complete. For instance, just for the record, my, my big gripe so far with the Handbook is set-aside, the deductions. I need it stated for the record that I don’t agree with the way it is at this particular point in time. I still feel like it’s very gray, what can and cannot be deducted. I have a strong disagreement with, for instance, business management services. I pay 3%. Apparently I’m only allowed to deduct 1%. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a business expense no different than paying an employee, no different than paying an accountant. It should be dollar for dollar. That’s

just an example of what I’m talking about. Miscellaneous, we still don’t understand, or I still don’t understand, and maybe I’m missing something, but I still don’t understand exactly what can and cannot be deducted. And I just think it needs to be a bit more clear. I feel we did make an, we made great strides towards getting something accomplished, but I definitely don’t feel like it’s a finished product. I wish we would have had more time.

Miranda: Thank you, Ann. Any other comments?

Gerlitz: Yeah, I have a comment again. Do you think it will ever be completed?

Miranda: Well, Ken? Ken?

Gerlitz: Yeah.

Miranda: Let’s wait for the Elected Committee to speak after the public comments.

Gerlitz: [inaudible] the Elected Committee.

Miranda: So anyone other the Elected Committee, would you like to comment?

Young: Chair Miranda?

Miranda: Yes, Harold?

Young: Yes, I would like to say a few things. I know this has been a long, drawn out process. I mean, we’ve been working on this Handbook far back as I can remember. I remember working up in Portland in December of 2009. I was there. Randy was there. Walt Reyes was there. Joe McKeever was there. Numerous people were on the phone. I mean, we’ve been doing this for a long time. I agree with everybody, you know, it needs to be done and [inaudible] right, but my opinion is if we stop now, that we’re going to be taking steps backwards instead of forward. So, I, I feel that it needs to move forward and get this thing done now. Thank you.

Miranda: Thank you, Harold.

Jaynes: Lewanda?

Miranda: Any other comment… [inaudible] Who is this?

Jaynes: Yes, this is Lin, this is Lin Jaynes.

Miranda: Oh, go ahead, Lin. Yes, Lin?

Jaynes: Please excuse my voice, I’m battling the flu this week. But I will try to make it very, very cryptic. The written word is forever. When it’s written, it’s forever. I don’t, I don’t think we need to rush it any more. I think we need to be sure of what we’re, what we’re agreeing to. We all need copies of it. We need to be able to have time to go over it. And I don’t just mean go over it generally. I mean go over it, line by line. This affects 16 livelihoods. This should be serious, serious stuff to take into consideration.

And nah, I don’t believe it should have a timeline. And I also do know it has been going on forever and ever. But you know what? If that’s what it takes to make it right, that’s what it takes. Thank you.

Miranda: Thank you, Lin. Any other comments? Would anyone else like to make a comment? Okay, we’re going to move forward and I’d like to make a motion that we adopt the revised version of the Handbook that the Rules Committee just submitted. And so, we’ll open for discussion.

Stevenson, Art: Oh, wait a minute. Madam Chair?

Miranda: Do I have a second? Do I have a second?

Brown: I second.

Hauth: What in the hell is wrong with you guys to do this?

Miranda: Okay, open for discussion.

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?

Miranda: Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Point of order. The Elected Committee voted in a meeting that we were going to pursue writing the by-laws completely and making sure that they were done right. And we have just heard from, I didn’t keep count, many managers who are saying that the Handbook is not complete. And so, we, we did vote to make sure that we did the Administrative Rules properly, that it had all of the stuff in it that it needed to have in it. And so since all these managers have testified that it is not complete, can we make a motion to pass something that we already made a motion to make sure it was complete, and that it had all the stuff in it that it should, that it also included what the state statute said, is promulgate rules to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facility program. And, and everything that I’ve heard is, we’re not there yet. And so I, I, I don’t believe since we voted to make it complete, that we should be making, and now that we’ve heard testimony it isn’t, that, that we should make a motion to pass something that we already made a motion that it was going to be complete before we moved forward. I, I want this done just like everybody else does. But I’m, I’m, I’m thinking making a motion on something we already made a motion to, to complete, to say that we’re not going to do that is not an appropriate thing for this Elected Committee to do.

Miranda: Well, last week when we had our final meeting on Wednesday, you guys felt that it was completed, except for the Freeman brief wasn’t in it.

Voices: [inaudible]

Miranda: The Handbook started, the Handbook has already been gone through with the Confluence Center. We spent $50,000 on it. We didn’t, this committee was not put together to rewrite the Handbook. This committee was put together to address the AG concerns.

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair, I’m, I’m speaking as a member of the Elected Committee, who made a motion, it was seconded, it was passed, that we would write complete rules. You’ve just heard public testimony by lots of managers and, quite frankly, I know the committee would not recommend to pass

or not pass because the committee felt it was not completed. However, they were put under the pressures that, hey, we’re done, you’ve got to be done now. And, and, and so that was it. And I can tell you one thing that hasn’t been addressed because our Director has not been able to talk to Deanna Jones, and that’s the question on the inventory recovery policy. And so, I can tell you that the committee knew the rules were not complete. That’s why they did not make a recommendation to pass or not to pass, because they were not complete. They did not have everything that was in it, which state statute say that we are supposed, the Commission and the Elected Committee because we are supposed to promulgate rules to administer the program, and we haven’t, we haven’t completed that task. And so I’m, I’m raising the point of order because we are going against a motion that we already made and passed. And, and so, I just want to make the Committee aware of that we, procedure wise, we are going against something that we already passed as an Elected Committee. And I don’t believe that is a, a proper protocol. I believe that managers are going to file complaints about it. And, and therefore, you know, this body should really look at what they’re doing and not pass something that is not complete. We have had this problem forever. And if we continue to do things just because we’re told to, we’re going to end up, we’re going to end up in very shaky grounds. And so, that, that’s my point of order Madam Chair. And I believe that we should not be making this motion, and second, because it goes against something that we’ve already made a motion for, discussed, and passed.

Miranda: Okay. Let’s do a roll… Yes, Kenny?

Gerlitz: Madam Chair. This, this is not a document set in stone. This is a living document. This is going to be changed throughout the ages depending on changing times. And that’s what amendments are for. Dacia, I think if you talk about your rules and regulations regarding vocational rehabilitation, you’ll see that they’re changed periodically based on the times, based on the situation. So I don’t know why everybody thinks this is set in stone and it’ll never be changed. That’s not true.

Stevenson, Derrick: Process to change it takes a lot of time.

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair?

Gerlitz: Amendments are easier to make, amendments are easier to make than the not completed document and then try to get amendments, I’ll tell you that.

Stevenson, Art: Madam, Madam Chair?

Miranda: Were you done, Ken?

Gerlitz: Yeah.

Miranda: Yes, Art.

Stevenson, Art: Okay, and I agree, they are made to be changed. There is no doubt about that. The thing is that we’re supposed to adopt rules to assure the administration of the program, and it’s, it’s done properly, and there are certain holes there. There are certain things that are not covered. Yes, Ken, we can amend it and I agree, if something ain’t working then we should amend it. But right now, we are passing rules that don’t cover all the areas that they should be. And you know, I’m, I’m, I can see the writing on the wall. We’re going to have complaints, we’re going to have lawsuits, we’re going to have, I mean… We’re going to look to everybody that we can’t do the whole task. And, and that’s a bad, right

now, given the environment, the Senate bill that’s been introduced to get rid of the Commission for the Blind, and all those kind of things. We should not send the message out to our senators, our legislators, our Governor, that we cannot complete the task. We cannot write the rules to administer the program completely, totally, to cover the things that we should. I’ve gone through all of those Attorney General rulings, or their, their opinions, and nowhere does it say that we cannot promulgate rules on how the Commission is supposed to ensure the, the compliance with our state statutes. And that is the Agency’s responsibility, and for the Agency not to have that in there is, is, they’re not, we’re not doing their job. And we have the responsibility as the Elected Committee, everybody, to make sure that, that we have administrative rules that cover all the different avenues. And it says right in the, one of the AG’s opinions, that we can file an injunction against that. And the reason why we never have done it, is because it’s not a rule. The AG’s office had said, well, we don’t have anything that says we have to do it, so we’re not going to do it. Now, if we all want to pass something that’s incomplete, that’s going to cause us problems… And I can tell you, I’ve talked to RFA and Deanna Jones and Jesse Hartell say they need, they need a complete Handbook so they can see the total picture. And this is not a total picture; this is a partial picture. And there’s gaps, there’s problems, and we continue to do this. We continue to go around in circles like Groundhog’s Day, and it always comes back and bites us, and we have problems, we have audits and everything else. And do we want to open that can of worms again? Do we want to have people filing complaints with attorneys, filing lawsuits, filing grievances, going to the legislature and saying hey, you guys are doing just exactly what you were doing before. And that’s not, and that’s not completing the job. That’s not doing what you’re supposed to do. And we can’t go there anymore, my friends. We cannot go…

Gerlitz: Art, Art… [inaudible] promulgate rules and regulations that cover every situation, you’re dreaming. You’re dreaming.

Stevenson, Art: No, I didn’t say every situation, Ken. I said the situations that must occur. And that, and ensuring compliance through the state statutes is the obligation of the Oregon Commission for the Blind and the AG’s office. And they’ve been shirking that responsibility because there’s no written rule that they have to. And we cannot, we can’t have that anymore, Ken. Because it’s going to destroy our program. It’s going to destroy our…

Gerlitz: Art, two hours ago you were telling us what a great job they were doing. You said we got to get behind them! [inaudible] When you…

Stevenson, Art: That’s the Agency. Hey, I am behind 100% on doing it right. They have come a long way, Ken. They have come a long way, and you have said yourself that the Attorney General has been a roadblock. And I agree with that because…

Gerlitz: [inaudible]

Stevenson, Art: …because they, because, because they have a conflict of interest because they represent those other agencies. And we haven’t had, we have not gotten written, written documentation from the AG’s office that we can’t do this. And this, hey, I tell you, my friend, we are opening a can of worms if we don’t complete this and do it right this time. And we may not, we may not ever be able to go back. We have been lucky to keep the Governor from closing the Commission for the Blind. We have been lucky that we’ve been able to maintain our program with what we got. But if we, hey, if we do what will happen if we don’t do it right this time, we’re going to all suffer the consequences. And there’s a lot of blind lic--, managers out there that don’t want to suffer the consequences, Ken. And we cannot have the

blame on our heads. We must do it right. We must do it completely. The Agency must promulgate rules to administer the program properly. And the AG’s office must work with us to ensure that the laws are carried out. And they’ve been, they’ve been, they’ve been fighting on it because they have a conflict of interest. They have those other agencies that they’re protecting that want to keep their money. So, you know, you guys? I love you all, and if we stick together, we can get this done right and we won’t have to suffer, okay, any ill, ill things that happen. But if we pass this Handbook right now, when it doesn’t have the things in there that were in the Andy Freeman memo, we are begging for trouble. We are going to have trouble. And everybody’s going to be on us. The Governor’s office, the legislators, and, well, anyways, the list goes on. So, as far as that, as the motion goes, I think we are, are going back on what we said we would do. I also think we are not completing our job as the Elected Committee. I believe the Agency is making another mistake on not doing things correctly, putting Band-Aids on, on, on the holes in hopes that it, that the water doesn’t come flooding in and we don’t sink.

Gerlitz: Yeah, Art, let me ask you a question. Now, I came in in 1996 and we were talking about this same subject. I think back then we had 30 some managers, 32, 33, something like that. We can’t get 16 managers to agree on anything. So what makes you think that if we extend this time limit, all of a sudden we’re all going to come together and sing Kumbaya? I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Stevenson, Art: Hey, Kenny. I think, in general, most of the stuff that’s in there, like I said, we’re not, we’re not putting the stuff in there that should have been in there all along. How the Agency would ensure compliance and stuff like that. And, and we, hey, I’ve been here longer than you have. I’ve been trying to get things done right. And I want things done right. I want this program to be the best program. I want to create more jobs for blind people. I don’t want to see, okay, Senate Bill 289 get passed and, and us ending up losing what we luckily have now, because certain individuals wanted, want to introduce legislation and, and open it up so people will take away what we have. So, hey, Ken, I don’t, hey, we’re not going to agree totally on everything. But we have to have the tools in there to ensure compliance, that the Agency’s doing their job. I think we’ve come a long, long ways. And let’s not, let’s not stop, let’s complete it and, and then, and then we can get it passed. I mean, [inaudible]…

Gerlitz: Completed, that’s, that’s the [inaudible]. That’s the whole point.

Stevenson, Art: Well.

Gerlitz: You’ve been here forever. I’ve been here long enough. And nothing’s ever been completed. What makes you think all of a sudden now, we’re going to come together and complete this thing? Everybody’s got different opinions on each and every one of these issues. And that’s why we have to go with the majority.

Stevenson, Art: Me…

Gerlitz: We, because we’re never going to all agree on everything that’s in there. We won’t.

Stevenson, Art: We are almost, Ken, Ken, we are almost there. We covered that what OCB does about quality, quantity, and price for the goods and services, and the process that it will do to ensure compliance. And we’re there, Kenny. We’re so dang close that, that it, it’s pitiful. Now you want to, do you want to stop it now and create a, a, a tidal wave of problems because, because we, we aren’t going to finish, finish the job. I, I, I don’t think you want to do that. We are almost finished, Kenny.

Gerlitz: This isn’t the last step. [inaudible] This, this, this isn’t the last step. This isn’t the last step! There’s several more reviews that it’s got to go through. RSA being one of them.

Stevenson, Art: RSA, RSA has said, okay, that they want a complete Handbook, and we don’t have the language. So let’s get it right, so that when it goes to RSA, they can give us a, their final comments and it goes from there. Right, right now, you know, like I said, we’re almost there. We almost got it. A few more weeks, Kenny, pounding out that, the last little part of it. And, and I’ll vote for it, I’ll promote it. But I can’t do that right now because we haven’t completed the job. I’m going to…

Miranda: Okay, thank you, Art. Is there any other Elected Committee members that would like to speak?

Colley-Dominique: I guess I will.

Miranda: Okay, Cathy.

Colley-Dominique: Well, one thing I do want to say is I’ve heard several comments that, that we, people don’t participate. We don’t, you know, and I’m, I just want to say as for myself, and I’m sure there’s other members also who have kept abreast of all of the, all of the meetings and, I mean, the sections that Eric’s done. And I’ve read them and so, I take exception to the fact that, that just because I don’t make comments on, on the record, I do feel like I do participate behind the scenes. And I also think we maybe need a little more time…

Miranda: Yeah, please don’t say “behind the scenes”.

Mckinzie: Oh yeah, please!

Colley-Dominique: Yeah, that was not a good choice of words, was it? [laughter] Oh, I stop, I quit. Anyway, I just want to say that maybe there are things that need to be tweaked in the, in what we have, but I think a, I think that a lot of work has gone into this, and that it doesn’t mean we can’t make, make amendments later. And that’s just kind of my comment.

Miranda: Any other comments?

Bird: Madam Chair?

Miranda: Any other, any other Elected Committee members like to make a comment?

Stevenson, Derrick: [inaudible]

Miranda: [inaudible] Derrick.

Gerlitz: I’d just like to know what Dacia has to say about this in terms of the timeframes? And if we gave Art his wish of two more weeks, what, what kind of problems would that cause?

Male voice: Dacia.

Miranda: Dacia, could you comment on that?

Johnson: Sure. You know, I’m, I am listening to folks’s input. And I think the challenge that, to address the, that particular issue directly, the Freeman memo, the issues addressed in the Freeman memo have never been part of the Handbook. So, you know, part of it is, what we started out with with the workgroup was to really take and incorporate into the current body of work that, that was the Confluence Center work, which didn’t talk about quality, quantity, and price. It was never part of the discussion. And really fold in and say, okay, we’re talking about the operation, how we work with the internal administration of their program. And from my perspective, rules, this isn’t the only rule that can ever be developed related to the Business Enterprise Program. So, so, you know, part of it is for us to take something over the finish line. And the process would be for the Commission to look at this, this particular body of work, take action at their February meeting. Folks are correct; it would go to the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Simultaneously…

Female voice: [inaudible]

Johnson: …we are intending to resubmit it to the Attorney General’s office. By the way, we learned from the process and feedback that we got from the Elected Committee and other managers, that you guys want to see that feedback, so we have stated to Lynn, any feedback you give us on that particular Handbook stuff, it needs to be in the form that folks read and not a privileged document. So, that feedback will come back to us to work through the process to come up with a final version that would go through the hearings process and all of the rulemaking process that goes along with that. So I think that, you know, I understand the desire to cover the quality, quantity, and price and part of the…

Male voice: [laughter]

Johnson: …that is important to us, but that’s something that’s, we’ve never had. So, and it requires a whole separate, and I’ve said this numerous times, that involves our relationships with other parties. Not just our relationship with each other. So, in order to do that work correctly, you have to have a different approach in terms of engaging stakeholders. The best thing that we can liken that to would be in the healthy food arena, if we are not, if on paper an obvious stakeholder in that healthy food. If the, if, how would we feel if the Health Authority had promulgated rules related to healthy foods without involving us? Other public agencies will want to be involved in rules that involve them. And it’s, it is behooved upon us in order to that process right, and I hear Art’s desire when he talks about doing things right. Well, doing that rule right would be involving other agencies. Involving procurement staff. Involving policy folks at the, at the Executive branch. And making sure that as we’re doing that, we do it transparently, so when procurement folks see that rule notice, they’ll go, “Oh, okay, I know exactly what the Commission for the Blind is doing. We know that they’re trying to increase employment opportunities.” And by the way, you know, I do think that how we get through this period of time with each other and figure it out, if we’re just going to fight about it, then that is going to, in my opinion, completely… We might as well not even talk with other agencies, because that relationship, our relationship with each other greatly impacts folks’ desire to get excited about working with the BE Program. And I believe that if we do this right, people want to, why would any public agency not want to do business with increase, a program that increases employment opportunities for people who are blind here in our state? That’s something that anyone that’s excited about working in public service can get behind. So we, you know, part of it is for us to challenge ourselves to, to focus on the work, of the current work that, within the scope that we started out at, not knowing that if we can do this, then there are other arenas potentially that we can branch out into. I’m not dismissing that, but I also, we can’t commit to doing something that we have had, you know, a history of, of litigation around. There’s a, there’s a whole level of questions and conversations we won’t be able to reverse AG opinions. You

know, that’s part of our challenge is to work within the constructs that we have. I believe that there’s some things that we could do, but I’m not going to commit to something that I don’t know what it looks like yet, because we haven’t called the question. We haven’t figured out what that potentially could look like. I think the Freeman memo is a conversation starter, but it’s a conversation starter that Freeman didn’t u--, didn’t look at the AG opinions. So, that is a big hole in that particular memo without the constructs of, of what we’re really as an Agency confined to work within. So I would just encourage us to think about it in terms of, this isn’t the end all be all. This is a step along the process, but also that there were, just in this section alone, 18 meetings, a total of 29 hours, line by line by line. And I did listen to that part of the meeting wh--, and in, the subcommittee did indicate that, that, it was complete with the tweaks that were finished. So, I would just encourage us to think about it and, and let’s get something accomplished together and feel good about it. And understanding that rulemaking can be, it doesn’t have to be this difficult. We are making it much more difficult than it really needs to be.

Unidentified voice: [inaudible] year ago!

Gerlitz: Dacia?

Johnson: Yeah.

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair?

Gerlitz: This is Ken. Is it possible that we could get the Commissioners to listen to this tape before their next meeting so that they can hear the concerns of the managers that have spoken up?

Colley-Dominique: No, I don’t want them to hear any.

Johnson: I, we could certainly make that available to them, but you know, that, they, they are like as anyone else, they are volunteer citizens and we have numerous other items in front of them at their upcoming meeting. So, I, you know, I can’t guarantee that they would, you know, listen to, what is it now? Two hours or an hour of content, so, we can certainly encourage them to do that.

Miranda: Yeah. Okay. If I’m going to…

Johnson: You know, part of it is…

Miranda: Go ahead.

Johnson: I just want to say, you know, I think I have encouraged us to keep the Commission at the 10,000 feet level, and it’s, it’s, you know, this has been a passionate conversation and may be an important conversation, but I, I want us to make sure that we’re focusing on a productive path forward, you know. That we’re really focusing on what is the best way forward? And I’ll just say that I don’t think fighting and threatening fighting is actually, you know, an empowering way for us to create a path moving forward together. And I don’t want the Commissioners to hear that. I want the Commissioners to see, here’s the, here are the concerns. I think that’s legitimate, to say we’re, we would have liked more time, we could have used a, you know, a little more time, or a lot more time, because we don’t feel like the work is done. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable to say we’re interested in looking at other areas where rulemaking didn’t happen. But they, to, they have, I think their role is to really look at it, once we come up with the summary recommendations, is to really look at it in order for them to say, is

this work product ready to go to the Rehabilitation Services Administration? Obviously the Agency’s opinion is, it’s ready to go. And we are asking, asking for the BECC for your active participation in giving us input into that decision.

Miranda: Okay, if I’m going to call for a yes or no vote from each…

Bird: Miss Chairperson? Can I have one, I just want to know, if the motion’s been made and seconded, isn’t the next to go out for a managers’ input? Not as a public comment. Every motion, every vote, once you bring it into, it goes out for comment for all the man--, for all the members. That’s why it should be…

Male voice: Good point.

Bird: Fine. So, I, I believe you’re not even doing it properly then. Thank you.

Miranda: You’re welcome. So I’m going to ask for a yes or no… Yes, Art.

Stevenson, Art: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? I’ve asked for the floor, please. Jerry, Jerry’s point well taken, but I want to address what Dacia said, because it, we are talking about the administration of rules for the Agency, on how they’re administering the program. To get a public comment and talking about all these stakeholders and stuff, it doesn’t have, this, this Handbook, this part what we’re discussing has no, no effect on these other agencies. It’s describing how the Agency is supposed to ensure, ensure the proper and satisfactory administration of this program. And without having that stuff in the Handbook, it’s, it’s a, it’s shirking the responsibility, but it has nothing to do with these other agency. It has a lot to do with how OCB proceeds when other agencies are not complying with the law. And so I respectfully would, would challenge what Dacia says. We’re, we, she’s, she’s talking about oranges. We’re talking about apples. We’re talking about how the Agency is supposed to administer the program and ensure the proper satisfactory operation of vending facilities and for the benefit of blind licensed managers. And we are shirking our duty to not complete that job. It won’t take that long, but, you know, people are going to say, Madam Chair and, and fellow Elected Committee members, that we shirked our responsibility in making sure that the Agency had rules on how to properly and satisfactorily administer this program. And that’s what the Federal Code says we’re supposed to do. That’s what the state statutes say we’re supposed to do. And so what we’re doing is, is, is wrong. And so I urge all of my fellow Elected Committee constituents to vote no and to complete the job so that people cannot say that we shirked our responsibility and neither has the Agency, because that will, that will damage us a lot more than you know, putting your little feather in her cap, “Hey we got a partial Handbook.” Okay, I’m, I’m done now.

Miranda: Okay, so I’m going to call for the vote.

Mckinzie: Madam Chair? Madam?

Miranda: Yes? Char?

Mckinzie: I just, kind of, I, yeah, I’m planning to get a…

Miranda: Okay. Pardon?

Mckinzie: [inaudible] Past, the past Handbook, I wonder how much time it would ever take to get an amendment?

Gerlitz: Well, we have, Char, I’ll, I’ll respond to that.

Mckinzie: Okay, please.

Gerlitz: We had amendments for the work for the State Personnel Board on a daily basis. So, there was a Policy and Standards Division. They’re the ones that were ultimately responsible for preparing these amendments. And I’d say normally they were probably within 30 days.

Mckinzie: Okay.

Stevenson, Derrick: Did those amendments have to go through Feds?

Gerlitz: No.

Stevenson, Derrick: Okay, well there’s a big difference.

Gerlitz: Well, there’s a, we, a lot of what we’re doing…

Mckinzie: [inaudible] Do they have to go through the Attorney General’s office?

Gerlitz: No. We, we brought the Attorney General in when we had a legal dispute. You know, if there was something that we were concerned about whether or not it was legal or not legal. That’s when we accessed the Attorney Generals. But we didn’t have the Attorney Generals involved near as much as [inaudible] our Commission does.

Morris: [inaudible]

Gerlitz: And we were a much larger department.

Bird: Randolph Sheppard Act and they are only the state licensing agency! This program is for the blind vendors, thank you.

Female voice: And they do have to go through the AG.

Miranda: Okay. Okay, I’m going to call for a yes or no vote. Tessa Brown? Tessa, are you with us?

Brown: Yeah, sorry, my phone was on mute. I, yes, I vote yes. [inaudible] progress.

Miranda: Cathy Dominique?

Colley-Dominique: With much reservation, I’m going to vote no.

Miranda: Ken Gerlitz?

Gerlitz: I vote yes.

Miranda: Char Mckinzie?

Mckinzie: No.

Miranda: Art Stevenson?

Stevenson, Art: No.

Miranda: And I vote yes. So that is a split vote. That’s the way it stands. And…

Stevenson, Art: It doesn’t pass.

Miranda: Okay. It’s a split vote, that’s the way it stands. I would also, since we’re in a BECC meeting, like to dismiss all my subcommittees that I have appointed other than the Training and Education [inaudible].

Hauth: That’s retaliation.

Miranda: And our next meeting, it, that’s your opinion, Randy. And our next meeting is February 12 th at 3:30pm, and this meeting is adjourned.

Hauth: I’m ashamed of you all.

Gerlitz: I’m ashamed of you, too. You were there for how many? 14 years? And what have you done? Nothing!

Bird: Come on, guys, let’s work together and get this Handbook that benefits us all.

Gerlitz: That will shut them up.

Stevenson, Derrick: I want to thank my rep for voting no. Appreciate it.

Bird: Good lord! Yeah, Ken, why don’t you…

[End of recording]