BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGON SPECIAL MEETING

Date: Friday, January 26th, 2018 Time: 3:00 pm

OREGON COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

535 SE 12th Avenue (Portland office) Conference line: 404-443- 6397

Participant code: 943611#

Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Adoption of Minutes

3. Public Comment

4. Denial of Meetings

5. Director’s Report

6. Priority/Preference Rulemaking Discussion

7. Sub-Committee Reports

8. Old Businessa. Priority Concernsb. Operating Agreementc. BEP Rules Update/Overview – What Managers Need to Knowd. Unassigned Vending Machines and Locations – What Actions to Takee. Active Participation Concerns/Communication/Responsivenessf. Relevant Information Concernsg. Use of Set-aside h. Assignment of Additional Vending to Managersi. Other

9. New Businessa. Assigned Locations Updateb. New Locations Updatec. RSA-15 Reviewd. BEP Budget Workshope. Strategic Priorities/Strategic Planningf. Other

10. Open Discussion

11. Next Meeting

12. Adjourn

Verbatim

Hauth: All right, everybody. Thanks… Thanks for your patience. I was listening while Art confirmed that there was a quorum there. I just received a call from Steve Gordon and he’s not going to be able to make it. There’s some family matters…

Jackson: Steve Jackson’s here.

Hauth: Steve Jackson just joined in. So let’s go ahead and start the meeting and take roll. Let’s go ahead and start by the Board, open the meeting, call roll. Derrick Stevenson.

Derrick Stevenson: Here.

Hauth: Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Here.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Here.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: I’m right here. Can you hear me?

Hauth: Myself. Yeah, yeah. Thanks.

Jackson: Okay. Just checking.

Hauth: Myself, I’m here. So we will also call the membership. Start by calling Lin Jaynes.

Jaynes: Present.

Hauth: Hi, Lin. Cathy Dominique. Char Mckinzie. Carole Kinney.

Kinney: Here.

Hauth: Hi, Carole. Do we have Salvador Barraza? Do we have Tessa Brown? How about Harold Young? Lewanda Miranda? Lewanda Miranda? Okay. How about Celyn Brown? Okay. Anybody from the agency, please identify yourself.

Morris: Eric is here.

Hauth: Hi, Eric. Okay. Anybody else that would like…?

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes?

Art Stevenson: Was that Harold Young that chimed in there? I heard somebody but it was muffled. I think it was him.

Hauth: Harold, are you on?

Smith: Gordo just came on.

Hauth: Gordo, hey! Thanks for reminding me, buddy. Thank you very much. Harold, you’re not on, correct? Okay, no Harold. Who else would like to be identified? If I’ve left anybody off or if there’s any public bodies that would like to… or public persons that would like to be identified, please let me know. Anyone else out there? Okay. Well, we’ve taken roll and I’m going to open the agenda…

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art?

Art Stevenson: I think… I think one of our trainees was on there. Trevor Lautenberg or something like that. Is that one of our trainees?

Hauth: Yeah, I’m not sure. Nobody else has asked to be identified. So if Trevor’s on, I hope you…

Garcia: Yeah, I’m here. Sorry.

Hauth: Oh, hi, Trevor. Welcome. That’s okay. No worries. No worries. And everybody make sure and keep your phones muted until you have an opportunity that you want to talk. So, anybody else that’s joined in since we’ve taken roll?

Cross: This is Theresa Cross, Public Health Division.

Hauth: Hi, Theresa.

Cross: Hi.

Hauth: So I know that there’s been times where people have called in and for one reason or another don’t want to identify themselves. And, you know, we encourage as inclusive participation as we can muster. But if people want to call in and listen, that’s simply their prerogative to do so. But feel free to call for the floor as appropriate if you have comments and I’ll call on you. So, call to order. We have the adoption of minutes. Do I have a motion to adopt the previously recorded minutes?

Art Stevenson: I think we got two sets, Randy. I believe the last time we didn’t do that. If I’m mistaken…. But anyways, I move that we adopt any of the minutes that we haven’t adopted.

Hauth: Okay, motion’s been made to adopt those recorded minutes. Do I have a second?

Derrick Stevenson: I second.

Hauth: Any discussion around that? Okay, we’ll do a yea or nay vote. Derrick Stevenson.\

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: And I vote yea as well. So that motion passes. Moving right along to public comment. Please, if you have a public comment, ask for the floor, identify yourself by name and I will call on you. Any public comment?

Art Stevenson: Randy, this is Art.

Hauth: Art, yes.

Art Stevenson: Okay. I would like to put on the record, as a blind licensed manager and as a member of the Elected Committee, that I want to say I really appreciate all the hard work of the Elected Committee and also, and very especially, all the hard work of Chair Hauth working on the rules, working on all the controversial issues that are before us. I do want to say that I appreciate all the time and effort of the managers, especially the members of the Elected Committee, who have been working diligently on the rules, trying to get things right, and working very hard to try to make our program what it should be.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Any other public comment? Going once… going twice… No other public comment? Okay. We will move right along. So I think next up on the agenda we have denial of meetings. This item was brought to me I believe by Board member… one of the Board members. And so, as… as I’ve seen this, there was, you know, the Elected Committee is a public body. But we’re also stewarded with advocating for the licensed blind vendors of Oregon, now known as the vending facility managers, we’re mandated and empowered through both federal and state statutes. And, while there have been a lot of meetings over the last year trying to deal with not only the rule writing but also many other issues, there’s also recently been several concerns that have raised, most notably the request to… by Co-Chair… well, Chair of the Training… or it was the Selection and Transfer, I believe. Let me look here at my notes. It was the Site Development and I believe that was a request made by Board member Stevenson to hold a subcommittee meeting. I believe that was denied by Director Morris as not being pertinent or relevant at that time. And so I know there was some back and forth dialog, discussions. And then, most recently, there was a request to have a meeting and I believe Director Morris said, indicated he wasn’t available and proposed that we have a meeting following when it was requested.

And so, while I’ll open this up to you, Art, or any other member that wants to weigh in on this, I do want to identify that, while we do work hard to cooperate with the scheduling of our Director and always have, there may be times when we cannot wait or cannot work around that schedule and have a duty and responsibility to hold the meetings. So I would just like to state that if, in fact, that does occur, I want to let the membership know that I will request that a meeting be convened. And if that doesn’t occur by the agency I will make a second request and ask for that meeting to be noticed and we will take any and all appropriate measures to hold the meeting and also request that the agency provide representation to that meeting if Director Morris can’t be there. So I’m not thinking that that will happen but just want to assure the membership, because there were concerns brought forward, that if, in fact, a meeting needs to occur a certain week or a certain day we will do everything we can to make that happen. So.

Art, I don’t know if you have any conversation around this. I believe it was you that maybe brought this forward? So.

Art Stevenson: Thanks, Chair Hauth. I really do appreciate that. And I will say that I wanted this on the agenda because federal law dictates in the CFRs that we will hold bi-monthly meetings or as necessary to conduct the business of the Elected Committee and… and that our State Licensing Agency is supposed to abide by those laws and work with us very diligently to comply. I know there was some comments about well, you know, we’ve been having so much… so many bus… so many meetings and stuff. Well, we’ve been trying to conduct the business and we’ve been trying to resolve issues. We’ve tried to function… the committees have tried to function as an arm of the Elected Committee. And that’s why, you know, committees in our bylaws are set up. And, in order for that to happen, we have to have meetings and, you know, we’re required by law to do it in open meetings, et cetera. And these things need to happen.

It’s a part of the SLA's responsibility to make sure that those meetings happen upon request. There’s a lot of questions out there that we need, you know, that we wanted answers to, that we’re not getting answers to and… and it is very concerning. And so we have to be able to do the job that we were elected to. And I’m empathetic with our Director, you know, and I would like to have less meetings also. And as soon as we resolve issues that are out there that need to be resolved and, you know, I’m sure that we might have [inaudible] meetings.

However, if we continue to not work collaboratively to resolve the issues, those issues are going to continue to be raised. And once those issues are addressed in a collaborative effort of the agency and the Elected Committee to resolve those issues then, of course, we’ll have less meetings. But as long as there are issues that need to be addressed these meetings need to occur. And so I’m ready and willing and able to collaboratively work at resolving the issues and therefore we would not have as long meetings.

But anyway, you know, the law is the law and… and everybody needs to respect it. And if we have issues we’re required by law to have a meeting and it has to be an open meeting. And… And so, we’re subject to those restraints and we’re kind of following the laws but our State Licensing Agency needs to do the same. Thanks, Randy.

Hauth: Thanks, Art. And if anybody is off mute, please…. I don’t know if that was static or was an espresso machine going off but we heard some background noise. So thank you, Art. Eric, do you have any comment on that?

Morris: No, Randy, I don’t.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else before we move on? Okay. Director's Report, Eric Morris.

Morris: Randy, I didn’t prepare a report for this meeting. I’ll prepare one for next month’s normally scheduled meetings. So we can defer the time on that.

Hauth: Okay. Any… Any questions or any input from anyone?

Art Stevenson: Well, Randy…

Hauth: Art.

Art Stevenson: I… Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are.

Art Stevenson: Okay. I just want to say that, you know, [inaudible] is a lot of information that is not being shared by the agency to us on what’s going on in our program. And, you know, it really does concern me. We don’t know what’s going on with the new location that’s going to be coming up to bid

here fairly soon. We’re not being allowed to give input on what’s going on and it’s really concerning. I was hoping… because I know that there has been a lot of stuff going on in the program since we had our meeting. And I’m a little disappointed that our agency doesn’t want to share it like I believe they should be. And… And so I will make on that… make that point and leave it at that.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Anyone else? Okay. Just for the record, I do believe that, you know, we need to have more information. I know that there are some things that apparently have slipped through the… slipped through the communication channel, you know. So it’d be nice, as we move forward, to, you know, get back to getting the written reports prior to the meeting to, you know, be able to interact and communicate with those items of, you know, relevance to the program. So hopefully we can get that, moving forward. So, priority and preference. This was in rulemaking…

Art Stevenson: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: I hate to interrupt you but there is something that I would like to say concerning this Director's Report. I would like to make a motion, because I know you had requested from the agency to receive copies of all the surveys that were conducted and stuff like that. And so at this point in time I’d like to make a motion that from now on we would appreciate the Commission to do all surveys in accessible format for the blind licensed managers and those surveys be automatically distributed to all the blind licensed managers unless they inform the Commission that they have no desire to receive those surveys. So I make the motion that the agency makes it a policy to do that.

Hauth: Okay, a motion’s been made. Do I have a second on that? Do I have a second?

Derrick Stevenson: I’ll second it.

Hauth: Okay, a second. Any discussion around that?

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I find it kind of strange that something like this we even have to make a motion on. Although, I mean, surveys are very important, they’re part of the RSA-15 report. We happen to have the survey man of our program that we are paying money for him to do out of our set-aside and he’s writing down that he’s doing these surveys. And when we ask a simple question of let’s see the survey reports; it’s like, oh no, maybe he just called them on the phone. I mean, I don’t know.

Why wouldn’t it be, like, here they go? I mean, these should be a good thing. Surveys are our first process to see just what’s there. They don’t necessarily means he has to get them but he has to make a survey so he can identify what’s at a particular building and what they’re selling and see if it is something that would be profitable for our program. I mean, it’s the bones, it’s the roots, it’s the starting of it.

And when you get them to fill out information, just like they want on our reports. You know, they want us to go give them pictures of us filling a machine. It’s like we don’t even want to trust you telling us what to do. And we ask for a simple report that is required that the survey guy do… I mean, we can’t… Is it in Mr. Marshall’s head and we have to take him and find out… pull it out of his head so we know where surveys are? Or do we write stuff on paper? You know, there’s records so we can find out what’s going on.

I find it, again, very disgusting that it’s not just given to us. It’s like, here, you want us to see them. “Look what we’re doing – we’re out there doing sixty surveys. We are busy!” And then we ask,

“Show us where you went.” “Oh no, we can’t show you that, you know. Can’t you just take our word for it?” So it’s disgusting to me that this can happen and that we even have to go far enough to tell them to do a policy, when it’s actually part of our program. Thank you.

Hauth: Okay. Any other discussion?

Art Stevenson: Call the question, Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Okay. I do… I do have a question. Just out of curiosity, is there any problem, moving forward, that surveys can be provided to the Committee and membership?

Morris: I don’t know, Randy. I haven’t thought about that as a process, to automatically forward stuff out to blind managers. So I’ll have to put some thought behind it.

Hauth: Okay…

Bird: But what… when they’re requested by the Board? I mean, didn’t the Board… hasn’t people requested… so the Board, Eric, can see what you guys are doing? I mean, that’s our job, to make sure you guys are trying to do your job. And when we ask you for documents or data we expect to get them so we can make intelligent decisions on what the heck is going on behind scenes. And then you… And then you, “Well, I don’t know if we just had to. It’s a lot to send them to everybody.” Well, they were asked for. Why aren’t they readily available at the push of a button? Are they in Art Marshall’s secret closet that he only had the key of at the Commission? I hate to get the smart ass, but it’s just ridiculous.

Hauth: Yeah, before I do call the question I want to say that, in review of the RSA-15, Eric, it looked like there was a number of surveys done and I know that I did make a request that those surveys be provided to the Elected Committee and membership. I guess one of the things that stood out is, like, there were so many denials of these surveys. So I don’t know if that was the agency denying those locations or, you know, what the situation was. So I would just think that those surveys should be, you know, easily and readily accessible and should be a part of the, you know, function with the Elected Committee. So hopefully we can get to a point where those are provided, you know, without second thought.

So, I will call the question. A motion’s been made; a second. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea!

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson. Derrick Stevenson.

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes. I vote yes.

Hauth: And I vote yes as well. That motion passes. Thank you. Priority/Preference Rulemaking Discussion. I know this was a requested agenda item brought forth by Eric Morris, Director Morris. And also [inaudible] to get some more specifics behind that, which Eric did provide. So, Eric, the floor is yours.

Morris: Yeah, thank you, Randy. So… Okay. So, rulemaking, we have been actively involved in a lot of rulemaking lately. So, as we talked about when we were doing the last body of work, this priority and preference discussion needed to be… you know, I sent the recap out to you guys kind of teeing up the conversation about – and we’ve talked about it before – about how this piece of the rulemaking can’t be just done in a vacuum within the… within the Business Enterprise Program and within the agency itself. There’s… There needs to be some other parties brought involved.

So what I wanted to talk about today was potential timeline, like how long’s it going to take to do this piece of work and what language is… you know, what potential language…. Because the thing about the rules that we just completed was that there… there was already language around, you know, all the things we worked on. Because there was a previous handbook, and a previous handbook before that. So, talk a little bit about language today and see what people’s thoughts are on that. And then a little bit of in-the-weeds details about, you know, membership and the Rule Advisory Committee… because that’s going to need to be more than just the people on this phone call. And so that’s what I wanted to talk about today and get some discussions going around.

Hauth: Okay. Any comment on that?

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, I know at least the Elected Committee and most of the managers on the phone, I think, believe that there was a lot of concern by the Elected Committee that’s preference and priority language had not already been addressed and wasn’t in the current rules that are still sitting at RSA and haven’t got their blessing but have been implemented. And… And so, obviously, I know that all the members of the Elected Committee want preference and priority language definitely in place. In fact, I do know that Terry Smith had said, “Hey, your new laws don’t do much or haven’t got much that hasn’t been defined.” And so, the quicker that we get this done, most definitely the better off we are.

Now, it’s kind of interesting that these particular two definitions need to seem to, at least we’ve been told, have to be done differently than the current rules that are definitely in controversy, had on. And so I still would like to see how come things [breaking up] done completely different than the rules that we have. Because I, quite frankly, haven’t got… gotten it. I, quite frankly, believe should be in the rules right now. It shouldn’t have been ignored. And so I want to definitely see it done as quickly as possible. In fact, I can state as a manager, that is why I myself have filed a complaint against the agency for not promulgating complete rules, not addressing that issue and… and it definitely needs to be done. And… And so, the quicker, the better. Eric, I would still like to see the confirmation from the agency, because I know I’ve requested it, why these rules seem to be… have to be done completely different than the current rules. Because I’m not seeing that.

But anyways, if you would please provide me and the rest of the Elected Committee and the managers… because we definitely want to see that information. I know I do. I’m pretty sure the Elected Committee wants to see the rest of it. But, yes, we want to get this language done. In fact, I do know there was some language – and you correct me if I’m wrong, Randy – but I do believe we did put forth some language and we actually didn’t get any comments on it except for the fact [inaudible] separate.

Hauth: Yeah, you’re right. I know Terry Smith provided, when he was doing the facilitating of the work group, initially I know he had suggested some language. Also, I believe Roger Harris had assisted with suggesting some language that we had put together and put forward. So, yeah, you’re right on that. I’d also concur with my concerns around, even though the rules have not been vetted or approved by RSA, nonetheless the agency is moving forward with the rules. That this whole process is different. Now there’s an advisory committee, when before they identified the work group as an advisory committee.

But then they changed it to a collaborative committee. The fiscal impact, you know, was a sham, in my opinion. And so, a little bit of concerns with competence around this.

You know, Eric wanted this on the agenda and as he well knows there’s a lot of issues around the… the rules and the rulemaking process and so forth and so on. So, while I do appreciate this being brought forward, like Eric said a little bit ago, I’m going to have to try and think through this and absorb it and… personally, and see what my thoughts are around it. I don’t know what your guys’ thoughts are. But, you know, those are my… those are my two cents’ worth, at this point.

So, is there anybody else?

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, I think, you know, the most important part of this whole rulemaking thing is… is by following the intent of the legislatures when they wrote not just the federal law but the state law, too. And I think, you know, if we do that we can’t really go around… and of course we also have, you know, a ruling by a federal judge that… that deals with the preference. And I think, you know, if we use the judge’s guidelines and the intent of what the legislators meant, that’s… we shouldn’t really have that big a problem. You know, obviously, the whole idea of the law is to put blind people to work and make sure that they get these locations. And that’s, you know, we’re going to write a rule, you know, we just need to make sure we’re following the intent. And of course, you know, we have to follow what the federal judge said.

Hauth: Thank you, Derrick. Anyone else? Yeah, you know, I’ll just say one other thing. I do believe priority in the state statute is identified as first right of refusal and so I think that’s pretty clear. I think that’s a pretty legally recognized and known identifier. Possibly preference could be tightened up or summarized. I guess my concern, again, is – and I’ve seen this historically – is that the agency – and I’ve seen it recently with some submissions, you know, relative to a case where the agency has historically, you know, not even really valued the state statute and not even really valued the preference and priority and have made written comments to that.

So my concern is… is that, if the agency, which is supposed to work collaboratively with the Elected Committee through meaningful active participation, inclusion, integration, and build these rules that promote the intent of the program… if they did that in a good faith effort we’d be far ahead. But I’m concerned that the agency is more concerned about stepping on the toes of other entities. And instead of trying to do a public relations campaign, where some of the vendors and some of the Board members and some of the administration actually engage with our customers, you know, I’m fearful that the agency will let some of these entities direct how these rules will end up ultimately.

And so I just wanted, for the record, I’m very concerned about that. And, you know, our position, when we were trying to work with the agency, I don’t think it’s a secret, the Elected Committee was concerned that the agency wasn’t listening to us, wasn’t valuing the meaningful… you know, there was no meaningful active participation. There was a lot of things that were not done, we believe, in good faith negotiations and, you know, including the fiscal impact. And so if now there’s… the agency is spearheading another work group, bringing in others who have not been as welcoming to the blind vendor. How is that going to look?

So I just wanted to share my concerns there. Again, priority, I think, is pretty well identified: first right of refusal. Anything… If anything, in my mind’s eye, if anything should be addressed it should the preference and, you know, the cafeteria language and that type of thing.

But is there any other comment around that before we turn it back over to Eric for his… his thoughts after listening to this?

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Hauth: Hi, Linda.

Haseman: Hi. As they enter into the newest rulemaking situation I’m going to side a lot with what Derrick said. There’s a federal judge that made it very clear. And for the agency or for the agency to allow other agencies to come in under a rule advisory committee and sideswipe anything that a federal judge has ruled on in regards to priority or preference, I don’t think it’s proper. So if the agency has the intention of opening up this rule advisory committee and allowing a lot of these other agencies to dictate the rules that the agency’s supposed to be promulgating and having deference over I think the pointer continues to need to go back to that federal judge ruling versus other agencies controlling that conversation. And if the other agencies want to control that conversation they need to be able to go back to the judge’s ruling and understand it. Because I don’t think there would be an intent anywhere, should be an intent anywhere, to sideswipe what that federal judge decided. So I certainly hope that’s not the plan, but I’ve seen odder things happen. So, thank you.

Hauth: Thank you. Any other comment? Any other comment?

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Yeah, I do want to make one more statement here. And… And I know probably everybody that was on the phone during the rulemaking process, especially the first day… Mr. Terry Smith, who is very wise, made the statement that the agency should very, very rarely exercise ultimate authority and should work diligently with the Elected Committee in adopting rules. And, of course, I can say that I don’t believe that has been happening.

I do know that the current state statute gives the State Licensing Agency the right to promulgate rules to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facilities and for the benefit of the blind licensed managers. And… And I would like to state for the record that, although I believe that this language should already be in the rules, that’s what prompted me, along with another fellow manager, to file a complaint against the agency that we’re adopting rules that don’t necessarily benefit the blind licensed manager. And so we’re going to be moving forward with that. And like I said, I want to get it done as soon as possible. I would much rather have it in the rules already. It should be.

But I for one, as a member of the Elected Committee, will not tolerate a definition… especially the [inaudible] definition that does not benefit the blind licensed managers. Because that is what the agency should be doing, is promulgating rules to benefit the blind licensed managers. And so this definition needs to fit those parameters. And I for one, as a manager and a member of the Elected Committee, will work hard to make sure that that happens this time. Because the current rules that we have are not necessarily beneficial for the blind licensed managers.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Anybody else before we turn it over to Eric? Okay. I did want to say just a couple quick things before we do that. Touching base on what both Linda Haseman and Derrick Stevenson said on the federal court matter, the case, that case was circulated and became part of, as I hear it, the intended rewrite of the Oregon state statute. So it became some supporting documentation in those efforts, clearly identifying the need to, you know, strengthen the state statute. So that’s one thing.

The other thing is, I would believe that the rulemaking, as far as the priority and preference, are clearly a major administrative decision. I know Eric is bringing them to the Elected Committee. But, you know, we’ve already been told how this process is going to work. I’ve been told by Dacia Johnson, Executive Director, and I’ve been told by Eric how this process is going to work. So how is it a major administrative decision built in good faith when these are already pre-determined? So, just want to share that as a concern, as well. So.

Eric, if you’d like to, go ahead and close out on this.

Morris: Yeah, Randy, I was just trying to think about your last comment there. I’m not quite sure the pre-determined part of it. I mean, the fact that we’re doing it… this is when we’re doing it is, I guess, the piece that you’re probably referring to. The one thing to keep in mind too is as we get into this process, the legislature, I’m sure everybody knows – I think the legislature starts next week, or maybe it’s the week after – so some of the people who might be helpful in this process might be tied up with the legislature for a month or so. But, yeah.

So, I guess the question that I would pose to everybody is, in the past – and as I said in my email the other day – I’ve drafted up language and then sent it to the Committee. And then I get the, you know, the feedback that, “Hey, you know, we didn’t talk about any of this language.” So, you want me to go back and try and find… I know you guys said earlier that Terry and Roger Harris had drafted some language. Do you want me to go back and take another look at that and try to start crafting something? From a language perspective?

Hauth: Committee members?

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: If… If that occurs I think there needs to be information sharing, some input from the Elected Committee. Quite frankly, perhaps… Should we…? This is rulemaking; should we do a rulemaking committee again? I’m… I’m skeptical, Randy, because committees don’t seem to be working. And… And, of course, active participation doesn’t seem to be working, either. And so I would… I would love to see us working collaboratively with the same goal and stuff like that. And so maybe we should make a good faith attempt again and see how it goes.

Hauth: Yeah, Art. Thank you. Yeah, if I may, I’m going to have to think about that. I guess my concern is that, you know, if this is right or wrong, I think it’s been the impression of myself and others on the Committee that sometimes Director Morris drafts up a product and it ends up becoming the final product. So maybe when you’re drafting that up you’re consulting with, you know, who knows, the AG or the Administrator. And it doesn’t necessarily become the product that the Committee members believe that they’d worked with the agency on. So I know that has been a concern. And I know… I know at times when those have been… we feel that we work together on items sometimes those items and language change without any conversation, such as, you know, happened recently. So I, personally, I would have to think about it again. Just like you said earlier, you have to wrap your mind around it. Hey, Char? Char, I think you’re off mute.

Miranda: I think it’s Cathy.

Hauth: Char?

Colley-Dominique: It’s me.

Hauth: Cathy?

Colley-Dominique: Sorry.

Hauth: That’s all right. I think you’re off mute.Colley-Dominique: Okay, I’ll…

Hauth: But, anyway. So… So, Eric, that’s kind of where I am. I don’t know if anybody else wants to weigh in on this, but….

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Okay. Yeah, Art.

Art Stevenson: Yeah, you know, I… I concur with you on that. It… It would be nice. But like I said, I’m really skeptical anyway. I think all this work should already be done. And… And I would anxiously anticipating, you know, getting the information-wise, this time it’s completely different than last time, concerning the rules. I mean, we were told, you know, “No, we can’t… we can’t do it because it’s different.” I just would like, you know, some information backing up why it’s so different. Because I’m really having a hard time understanding, if we’re supposed to follow the laws and rules and regulations of rulemaking, then it should be consistent. And we should… we should have that backing up.

And I’m still, you know, one of the things, I mean, even in, you know, the information sharing, the backing up of what’s being said by actual laws and rules, that would be extremely helpful. And I hope the agency starts doing that. Because, quite frankly, then – and I’ve said this a hundred times, but I’m going to say it again – if I as a manager have a question and it’s a legitimate question and I want it… and I would like to have it backed up with the actual laws and rules and regulations that this is happening, I would… I would… I still want to see that happening. Because it would end a lot of the controversy that we continue to have. Because, you know, we don’t understand, because we’re not given the information on why the agency is doing what they’re doing.

Hauth: Thank you. Thank you, Art. Before we move on, again, I personally am going to have to think about this, you know, this process. And it sounds like other Committee members are, as well. So, Eric, I don’t know if you want to say anything in closing, before we move on to the next item?

Morris: No, I think I’ve got a good read on what everybody’s thinking.

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Yes. Go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah. Well, for one, I’m… I’m really not sure why we’re going through all this rule process separately from the handbook. The only process we need to do now is… is defining what preference means versus what priority means and how… how big a difference does it make. I just… I don’t think we have to write rules. Our rules are already written. We just need to define what they mean.

Hauth: Thank you, Derrick. So before we move on I want to do a general courtesy. I forget the lady’s name on the phone who was from the Health Department. But if you’re still on the line, if you would like to – I don’t know if you’re hear just to listen or if you wanted to talk about anything specific. But feel free to if you’d like to. So.

Cross: Thank you, Randy. It’s Theresa Cross [inaudible]…

Hauth: Oh, hi, Theresa.

Cross: … and I’m just here to listen today. That’s my [inaudible].

Hauth: Okay. You bet. Okay. So, subcommittee reports. We have three subcommittees: training and education… I believe we have three. Training and education. We have a site development committee. We have a financial/budget committee. And so, even though those haven’t been real functional because we’ve been so consumed in other items, such, you know, as have been talked about on the call here

today. They are an integral and important part of our functioning. And so I do want to say a couple of things. I have… I don’t know if anybody else on the line… I heard Cathy was on and she didn’t get identified. I don’t know if I heard Lewanda’s voice on there or not, but if there’s anybody…

Miranda: Yeah, Lewanda’s here.

Hauth: Hi, Lewanda.

Miranda: Hi.

Hauth: Anybody else that wants to get identified, for the record? Okay. And I know Cathy was on here, as well. So the subcommittees, I know we have all been busy, doing a lot of stuff but we need to try and get these more functional. Again, there’s been some concerns relative to trying to schedule some meetings and so forth and so on. But hopefully we can move forward through that.

One of the things that I do want to share is a concern that the financial committee, which I believe is comprise of Linda Haseman, Lin Jaynes, and Art Stevenson… and I act as an ex officio member of those committees. With the budget kickoff in March, you know, we wanted to take proactive measures to try and be involved in the BEP budget. And so we started doing some research. And as you’ll recall, back in, I believe, October was when our fall in-service was. There were some questions of a financial nature relative to the BEP budget that we began to ask Eric. And, in Eric’s defense – not that he needs me to defend him, or even wants me to – but, in his defense, I know a lot of these questions were not probably privy to his understanding at that meeting. And so what he… what Director Morris suggested is that we send those questions along.

So we formulated the questions, we sent them along, and I didn’t receive any response. And I followed up and didn’t receive another response. I’m kind of summarizing how this went, but finally requested that these be in anticipation of the budget kickoff we needed to understand where possibly our program had failed. There’s a lot of over expenditures and there was a lot of, you know, spending that… habits that we were trying to wrap our minds around so that we could use that to properly actively participate going forward with the agency.

And so, long story short, Eric responded and, in sum, said, “Lookit, these aren’t program-relevant.” So I think he did answer one item that was [inaudible]-related, which I’m not sure that’s program relevant. But I personally had heard that we were dissatisfied with that… those answers because they weren’t really answers and they didn’t help us understand the BEP budget and how we’d be able to move forward. So then I reached out to Executive Director Johnson and asked for that information, which clearly is program-relevant information. And I received a response from Director Johnson I believe yesterday that said, you know, Gail was busy and could not direct her – I’m summarizing, again – her time to provide this information. So, you know, we’re kind of in… kind of in a quandary here, when you’re trying to work on a budget and you’re trying to understand some of the pitfalls that have occurred so that we can work together to make sure those didn’t happen and understand and wrap our minds around the budget. But we can’t get the information necessary. It, you know, really puts us in a bad situation.

So I did want to identify for the record my disappointment with, you know, the last three, four months, trying to get the financial information. And then finally getting what I felt was a cursory reply that didn’t have any detail. And then going to the Director… the Executive Director and the Executive Director not providing that as well. So I will say, on the other hand, that Director Johnson and Director Morris did say that, you know, we could have a budget workshop, a budget work group. I believe your last email, Eric, you said that probably wouldn’t happen until March. I’m not sure if that’s accurate or not. But, again, I believe that we need that information requested to do a proper analysis of the budget and have meaningful participation and insight. So if there’s any way we can get that information to the subcommittee, that would be great. That’s one thing.

The training and education, or the site development… Art, I’ll turn that over to you because I know you had… and Derrick and you are on that, I believe. And I think you reversed roles at one time

and I’m not… I’m not sure, I think you’re the chair of that. So if you could kind of share a little of your thoughts around that, please have the floor.

Art Stevenson: Thanks, Randy. Yeah, I hear your concern and… and obviously there definitely needs to be an answer to some of the problems that we seem to be having, about committee work, active participation, information sharing, et cetera, et cetera. And so one of the things that we seem to be having now is that’s not active participation, that doesn’t follow in the scope of et cetera, et cetera. And of course, as you know, we’ve been concerned about that and we’ve been trying to address the issue.

So one of the things that I think will be helpful is that we should look at our bylaws and… and strengthen up our position, make it more clear at what the expectations are. And… And… And that way, you know, at least the Elected Committee and the committees work and stuff like that… issues will be addressed on our side. One of the things that I do want to say is that this body, the Elected Committee, and the blind licensed managers adopted a more extensive definition of active participation. It laid out more of the foundation on how we believed that the agency should be working with us in accomplishing what I feel is the common goal is that is strengthening and growing our program. And… And so, number one, I do want to say, as a member of the Elected Committee and as a blind licensed manager, that I do… because we followed all the laws and rules and regulations of our program and the bylaws and adopted that definition of active participation. It laid out, you know, what we wanted to see happening. And then the agency just kind of said, “We’re not going to allow you to put it into your bylaws,” which I believe is wrong.

And… And so, as a blind licensed manager, well, as a member of the Elected Committee, I want to make a motion right now that our passed definition of active participation in the, you know, what we wanted to see happen in order to build a better relationship, end controversy and move this program forward and growing, you know, I want to make a motion that the agency put our definition of active participation and the parameters around it into our bylaws. I don’t believe they have the right to say, “We’re not going to do it. We’re denying you the right to have that in your bylaws.”

So I want to make a motion that we insist that that be placed in our bylaws.

Hauth: So a motion’s been made. Do I have a second on that? Calling for a second on that.

Derrick Stevenson: I second.

Hauth: Okay, Derrick has seconded. Open for discussion. I want to say a couple things. It’s my understanding, and I think I have it in written form, that the agency has not authority over the bylaws and can’t interpret them or interfere with the bylaws. So, I mean, Eric, I think you had identified that a couple of times as well as Director Johnson did over the last few years. So what’s your thoughts about this motion, prior to our vote? Or what’s the position of the agency? Does the agency feel like they can approve or disapprove items in the bylaws? Or…?

Morris: Well, Randy, I… I haven’t studied up on our bylaws and what we communicated about bylaws. I don’t think we’ve talked about bylaws in probably, what, a couple years now? But I guess the thing that comes to mind is, if I remember correctly, the House Bill, the new state statutes have… discusses active participation, right? I mean, I don’t have it right in front of me but I’m pretty sure there’s a piece in there. So, you know, just like the rules can’t be stronger than the state statutes or the laws, I think it would be tough to hold a different version of active participation and say, “This is the one we want and it’s in our bylaws.” So that’s just my thought, right off the top of my head.

Hauth: Okay. And, I mean…

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: … it’s funny you mention that the, you know, the rules can’t be stronger than the… than the state statute. But, I mean, when I look at some items, like punitive penalties against managers, then it looks like possibly that’s where the agency has taken a stronger approach. So I know that there’s been a lot of, you know, concern and confusion around that topic. But hopefully… you know, I wanted to see what your thoughts were on the agency and the bylaws relative to that authority. But go ahead… Thank you, Eric. Art, go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, well, I kind of understand where Eric’s going. I mean, if we don’t have a definition in our state regs or in our handbook then, you know… of course we can put them in there but there’s really no way we can force the agency to abide by them. So I, you know, I’m not sure this is worth… worth… worth the battle. I mean, sure we can put them in there if you want but, you know, they don’t really hold any weight when it comes to telling a state agency, you know, how to do active participation. We can’t enforce them. So…

Hauth: Thank… Thank you very much, Derrick. And yeah, it does identify active participation in the state law and it identifies, you know, different concepts around active participation and what the Elected Committee and the agency are supposed to actively participate in. However, you know, where the rubber meets the road it really comes down to that mindset, right? It comes down to that inclusion and integration and meaningful value of those relationships and good faith negotiations. So really, no matter what you put in the bylaws, even though it can give a good documented guide it, you know, if the agency, like you said, doesn’t value it, doesn’t honor it, you know, then… then you’re forced to take other measures to empower that voice.

Anyway, so if there’s no other discussion, there has been a motion and, I believe, a second. So I don’t know if there’s any other discussion, if we want to move forward with this vote…

Bird: Jerry.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Bird: Could you tell me the motion again? Please?

Hauth: Art. Yes…

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are. It was… Jerry, it was to incorporate the active participation into our bylaws. So.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, first of all, let me state that there is no definition in the federal, I mean the state law, for active participation. It talks about active participation but if you look at the actual law there is not a definition of active participation. Now, obviously, we wanted a stronger active participation definition in the rules which, by the way, further clarifies what the state statutes were. And we were actually overruled on our definition, that we wanted to see in the… in our administrative rules. And, as a matter of fact, the complaint that I just filed with the agency, along with a fellow manager, further clarifies that there is a need for meaningful active participation. Actually, we are definitely more

than advisory, et cetera, et cetera. And so, we completely have the right, as an Elected Committee and as blind licensed managers, to further clarify active participation as far as we see it. And… And, therefore, this is very legitimate. And I believe that then it’s in our bylaws and that it will make our Elected Committee stronger to advocate for all the things and the jobs that we’re supposed to be doing. And so…

Hauth: Okay, well, you know, Art, I’m going to… It’s 4:15 and we have a bunch of other stuff. And I appreciate your commentary and I am going to call for the vote on that. So, thank you. So, we’ve had a motion, we’ve had a second, yea or nay. Derrick Stevenson.

Derrick Stevenson: I think a vote like that has to be done by the whole body, the body as a whole. So I don’t think we can decide that ourselves. So I’ll vote no.

Hauth: Okay.

Derrick Stevenson: Or abstain. Sorry.

Hauth: Yeah. Art Stevenson. You know, as a point of order, Derrick is right. As I recall, two thirds of the membership have to approve any change to the bylaws. So, you know, you could amend that motion to request that this go out to a vote of the membership, if you’d so like. Or withdraw your motion or…. Whatever you…

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Okay. I might remind you that we already did vote on this. The members passed it with a two-thirds majority. And then the agency arbitrarily and capriciously decided they weren’t going to put it into… into our bylaws. We already voted on this. It already was passed by two-thirds of the membership and it should never have been not placed in there. And so we’ve already had the vote. It was already adopted by our membership. And therefore it should be put in it. And that’s what my motion was.

Hauth: Thank you for… Thank you for the correction. Derrick, do you want to reconsider your vote?

Derrick Stevenson: I’ll vote yea.

Hauth: Okay. Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Sustain. [sic]

Hauth: Steve Jackson. Steve Jackson? And I vote yea and the motion passes. I believe there’s still a quorum. There’s four Board members and three vote yea, so let’s go ahead and move along, if we may.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, I’d just like to close this out by saying that we need a definition in our rules and regulations, our rule book and that’s where it should be. And, you know, every other state in the country has it defined in their rules. And I don’t know why our agency is refusing to stand up and do what’s right.

Hauth: Thank you, Derrick. Last under subcommittees are Training and Education Committee. So I know I… Lewanda’s been awful busy and we’ve had a few emails back and forth and I know she’s shown some interest in being involved in those sort of items. And, you know, she really shines at, you know, communicating with managers and correspondences and so forth and so on. And so I’d like to find a way, I don’t know if you’re still on the line, Lewanda. She did offer… She’s flying off to…

Miranda: I am.

Hauth: … to Washington DC to go to the… is it the fly-in or a special training meeting, but…

Miranda: The fly-in.

Hauth: … if you want to give just a little bit of a brief on that and then when you come back, on the next meeting you can do a more in-depth… but if you could…

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yeah? Lewanda? Hold on.

Miranda: Yes, I would.

Hauth: Okay.

Miranda: Yeah, so we’re doing the Washington fly-in. It’s the merchants along with NFB. So the main reason why I’m going is for the merchants and it’s to work on the commercialization of rest areas. I know that we’re going to have the president of the truck union will be there. We’ll have a meeting with them on Monday. So we have their support. And then also 7-11 stores. So that pretty much sums it up.

Hauth: Okay. And you can… when you get back, hopefully during our next meeting, you can give us a more detailed report, like you’d offered to do. And so I…

Miranda: Yeah, I’d love to do that.

Hauth: Okay. And…

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Yeah, I’m the chair of the Training and Education. And, Lewanda, thanks very much. I’ve been trying to get ahold of you. There is a couple questions. You know, there has been a lot of things floating around and I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read all your emails but I do know that a very prominent attorney – Brown, Bolton and Leavy – is on the agenda. And I would encourage you… In fact, if you want to give me a quick call after the meeting to ask him, because I know he’s going to be making a presentation, to ask him a couple questions concerning training and education but also some issues that we’re having here in the state of Oregon. I would appreciate that.

Miranda: Okay. Yeah, I’ll give you a call.

Hauth: So, anyway, yeah, thanks… thanks a lot. And hopefully we can get you more involved in that, Lewanda, because we’d truly value that. So, yeah…

Miranda: Thank you.

Hauth: … we’re happy that you’re back there advocating on behalf of the blind vendors across the land. Because commercialization of rest areas, or the possible pending commercialization of rest areas, really could be a devastating blow. And so I know there’s a lot of organizations that are, you know, not in support of that, including the Randolph-Sheppard, like you identified, the convenience store associations, association of truck stops and so forth and so on. So, closing out the training and education, can… Eric, can you give us an update on what’s going on with the program? I know I reached out to you here a few weeks back, as far as trainees in the program. You know, the Elected Committee, as I understand, is supposed to be intimately involved in these sort of training procedures. And, you know, I don’t know that we feel that we have been that involved. I don’t even know if, you know, how many trainees are in. Or if you could just give us a summary of what’s going on I think that would be helpful.

Morris: Yeah, I can… I can give you a summary, Randy. So right this second we have three… three trainees in the process, all at various different stages. So, you know, part of our process is to have them go through the Hadley course. And then, as they’re going through the Hadley course, plug them in with work experiences, trainings, where they’re actually, you know, taking some of the concepts that are taught in the Hadley class. Because I’m sure that everybody understands that the Hadley class is a series of 12 modules, basically nine, ten of them. And then 11 and 12 with like ServSafe and stuff like that.

So, as they’re progressing through, getting them plugged in to be hands-on and get these different training opportunities… so we’ve got three people in that process. And then we’ve also got, I believe it’s two or three people who are interested in the program. And we… we kind of track that separately because VR counselors are constantly working with clients to see, you know, is a client interested in doing, you know, job X? Are they interested in the BE Program? And so Kathy works with the VR counselors every single month to see if there’s people that are interested, potentially recruit them in, and get them plugged into the process. So that’s kind of where we’re at right this second.

Hauth: Okay. And hopefully when we get the training – you know, like Art said, he is the chair of that committee – so hopefully when we get that a little bit more functional we can get more engaged and integrated into that process. I believe that’s clearly a function of active participation. And so, you know, if we can understand the curriculum and be involved in that better that would be… that would be great. I do want to, before we move off of subcommittees, I failed to ask you about it earlier but I’ve made – as far as site development – I’ve made a couple of requests for unassigned vending information and what’s going on with the locations. Like White City and the locations like, you know, the Lottery Building and the locations formerly known as Joe Bassett’s and so forth and so on.

And I know you identified a couple times you were going to try and get me that information but I think it’s been, gosh, I don’t know, three weeks or more and I haven’t gotten it. Are you getting any closer?

Morris: Yeah, I… Randy… and it’s one those things where I think I explained it in a couple different emails, it’s a matter of trying to prioritize what everybody’s working on. So hopefully I can get it to you next week. I know I said I’d try to get it this week but it didn’t work out. So I will do my best for next week.

Hauth: Thank you.

Morris: Hey, Randy? Randy?

Hauth: Yeah, I was on… I was on mute. Hold on just a second.

Morris: Sorry.

Hauth: Go ahead.

Morris: Just real quick on the training and education thing, so I can better understand kind of what… what people are thinking. How…? How…? What are…? With the training and education subcommittee, what… what are you guys thinking? I mean, what…? What’s…? You know, saying being more involved in the process, is that subcommittee members actually training people or…? I mean, I’d like to hear more about that.

Hauth: Yeah. Well, I’ll let… I’ll let Art, being you asked, I’ll let Art weigh in on that. My thoughts are, sitting down at the table, you know. I mean, the proverbial table, if that’s by phone or…

Morris: Sure.

Hauth: …if that’s in person. But being involved in the curriculum and understanding, you know, point A, point B, point C. How is it going? What’s going on? How are people, you know, being recruited? And maybe even, you know, making sure that there’s some kind of survey of the needs of those trainees. I mean, I don’t know, you know, I don’t know exactly the specifics. Art may have some other, you know, other items. But that would be what my thought would be. Even kind of, you know, informing them about the Elected Committee and, you know, maybe being involved in, like the gentleman on the phone tonight, being involved in some of the meetings and those type of things. So, go ahead, Art, if you want to.

Art Stevenson: Well, Randy, again, you know, having constructive meetings with the training and education committee, actually developing in the rules where there is more involvement with managers, who have a lot to offer to these trainees. I might say, you know, your 30 years of experience, my 30 years of experience and integrating that into the training. I’ll never forget sitting on a plane going to BLAST – I think it was BLAST – with our latest manager and talking about different things that I knew, having experience working in cafeterias, snack bars, vending, et cetera. And, you know, that wasn’t integrated into the training and I feel that that most definitely should be incorporated into… into the training. It helps them have less problems when they get their first vending facility, et cetera, et cetera. I do believe that we’re supposed to – you know, the Elected Committee – adopt and, you know, help with the training thing. And it… And it seems like, and I could be wrong, but it just feels like that the agency wants to keep certain individuals away from these trainees for some reason or the other. And I haven’t figured that out, yet. But it has to change. We need to integrate the vast knowledge that a lot of our managers have, especially the ones on the Elected Committee, and… to be able to help these blind licensed managers. And, you know, it just needs to get done. And I’m just going to stop right there.

Hauth: All right. Thank you. Eric, I don’t know…

Garcia: [Inaudible.]

Hauth: Go ahead.

Garcia: Sorry. This is… This is Trevor.

Hauth: Oh, hi, Trevor. Go ahead.

Garcia: I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the vendors I’ve worked with thus far. I’ve had really good trainings with them and… three of them and, you know, that’s gone really well. I really feel like I have a vast well of experience to draw from and, you know, I really… it’s going really well.

Hauth: Well, that’s great to hear and we’re happy that you’re on the call, Trevor. And, you know, we wish you success going forward. I can tell you this, Trevor – for the last ten years there was, like, a moratorium. I think the Executive Director put a moratorium at one time on even recruiting new people into the program. And so the Elected Committee was saying, “Gosh, we need to get more people. We need to get… and grow this program.” Because if we don’t grow it, we’re dying, right? And…

Jaynes: Chairman Hauth, you’re breaking up.

Hauth: I think one of the… one of the newest managers in the program was Steve Jackson. Steve, how long…? I think Steve has been in the program now ten years. So that gray part of the state statute, when we were going through building the state statute, it required the agency to recruit new vendors. Because we believe the lifeblood of this program is not only growing opportunities but bringing in new persons just as you. So Celyn, I believe, is the latest new manager to join us. And so, again, real happy that you’re on the phone and real happy you’re in the program and let us know if we can do anything at all. So, anyway, Eric, if we can, let’s go ahead and move on to…

Morris: Yeah. Thank you.

Hauth: Yep. Old Business. And I believe, you’ve mentioned it a couple times, but priority and priority concerns. And, you know, I think the agency’s priority concerns may be different than the Elected Committee or the managers. So I’m trying to figure out how we get on board with addressing some of the key concerns.

You know, I’ll… and this may be different than other people but just… just throwing it out there, my concerns are clearly right now the rules, which I’m sure you’re aware of. Clearly, the unassigned vending locations that… where the vending is going away from the managers and going into the… into the, you know, the program, the set-aside program. Clearly, locations like White City aren’t being put out to bid. So those… active participation, inclusion, integration. I mean, real meaningful nuts and bolts of that. So those are like… to me, those are the top three. Now, that might be different than other people.

I mean, shooting off the top of your… shooting off the top of your head, what would be your three? They may be different than that. So, you know, how do we get… how do we get those identified? Do you have any suggestions or ideas? Or do any of the other Board members?

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Let me see… Let me see if Eric has any.

Morris: Oh, I was just waiting for everybody else. I’ll defer and wait till everybody else gets done, if that’s okay.

Hauth: Okay. Go ahead, Jerry.

Bird: Well, I was thinking the whole idea is to get the people in here. Well, anyway, never mind. Sorry, I lost my train of thought.

Hauth: Okay. That’s all right. If you gain it again, let me know. Anybody else have any ideas on…?

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Go ahead. Art, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: Oh, okay. Well, I wasn’t… you said Eric and you said, “Go ahead” and I thought you were telling Eric to go ahead. So I’m just going to say, okay, that when we’re having… and I know this because I’ve been all across the country. I’ve been to all the successful states. And when you have true active participation and you’re working together [inaudible] because we’re working collaboratively and… and I’m sorry, Randy, but it’s just not happening in this state. And if it was, we would get the work done, together, instead of doing what I’ve now had to do, file a complaint about it. Because I want to see it happen; I want to see Oregon like Alabama, like Illinois, like Texas, like Tennessee, like all the successful states.

And the only reason, in my opinion – and I’m saying that because I’ve been to all those places – that it isn’t getting done is because there isn’t true active participation, there isn’t, you know, a collaborative effort of resolving the problems and the issues in accordance with the law.

You know, and so, therefore, I have no doubt that Eric has a hard time prioritizing everything because of all the stuff that’s going on, the not working together and stuff. And so, if we prioritize working together we won’t have to say I’m too dang busy and there won’t be any complaints about it because we’ll be working together. And so I’m just going to make that statement and… and leave it at that. But things would get a lot easier… and I know it to be true because I’ve seen it in the other states. We have true active participation and true collaborative effort to resolve the issues and grow this program.

Hauth: Yeah, thank you, Art. Before we turn it over to Eric is there anybody else?

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, I just want to say that I agree with Art. There’s definitely a fence between us and OCB staff right now and we’re not, you know, we’re not meeting in the middle. We’re not necessarily approaching those things that we’re doing in the right way. And I… I just want to add, you know, I have serious concerns on the way training’s being done because, of course, we’re not involved in it, so we don’t know the ins and outs.

But, you know, we went for years and years and years without having any training at all. And then, you know, we had to put up with OCB saying they trained people when they really didn’t; they threw them in the spots and they end up failing and making us look bad and everything else.

And I think, you know, if we somehow could get together and, you know, meet with Randy and kind of explain and show how the training’s actually being done I think it would go a long way to lessening our fears that… that the people coming in aren’t getting trained completely. That’s about it.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Derrick. You know, I just wanted to touch base on one thing real quick before I turn it over to Eric is, I would agree with Derrick; there is a great divide. I don’t call it a fence, I call it a great divide. And, you know, when I see the agency justifying or attempting to justify active participation by simply logging hours, right, by saying, “Oh gosh, we’ve had 52 hours of meetings and we’ve had this many hours and we’ve had that.” Well, really, if it’s not meaningful and it doesn’t, you know, it doesn’t have a resolve that both sides are happy with it’s just simply that, logging of hours and going through the process.

And so I think that mindset needs to change to more of an inclusive, meaningful, you know, agreeable negotiation through good faith. And maybe the agency believes they’re doing that. We don’t. So again, there’s a great divide that needs to be overcome.

But Eric, what are your priorities? So what are your thoughts on, you know, how do we identify priorities and work on them?

Morris: Well, Randy, I think it tees up a couple… a couple good discussions… discussion items that are on the agenda and that’s strategic planning. Because I think, you know, I can set whatever priorities I think

are most important but I can’t read your guys’ minds. I mean, I’m taking notes and stuff and I read through the transcripts. But, you know, ultimately… and we haven’t looked at the strategic goals from the Elected Committee’s perspective in, gosh, it’s been a year, over a year probably now. So, you know, top-line goals have always been to recruit more people into the program, increase average income for the managers and expand the program. So I know there’s been some chatter recently about strategic planning because the Commission Board is teeing up that discussion next week to, I think, figure out what the process is going to be for the entire agency. So… and I don’t know where the Elected Committee fits into that process. But I know that it’s important that the Elected Committee comes to an agreement on what they think is… should be the strategic priorities for the program. And, you know, I guess we could make the strategic priority to work together but, you know, part of strategic priorities is taking that at the high level and as staff with the program and figuring out what that actually means and making it… making it happen. So, you know, we need to take those strategic priorities and say, “Well, what’s that look like in daily work for staff?” So I think having the discussions and talking about strategic planning and what’s important for the program is the first big key into figuring out what everybody’s priorities are.

Hauth: Well, and I appreciate that, Eric. That’s one reason that we reached out here recently. Because I do know that in the rules that we’re, you know… that’s still… RSA hasn’t approved but the agency is pushing forward on… it does identify one of the responsibilities of the Director as working with the Elected Committee on strategic planning. And I know that, as I identified four years ago and then two years ago, the Elected Committee was involved in those discussions.

So, again, even though Executive Director Johnson identified these as simply being preliminary, our fear is that preliminary discussions end up becoming the roadmap for how it’s going to go and then, you know, we have to run and jump on the train as it’s moving down the track. And so that’s why I believe it’s really important that the Elected Committee is involved in the preliminary. There’s nowhere that says we shouldn’t be, you know?

And so, I agree that there are priorities that we need to focus on. And I know it’s overwhelming for you and it’s overwhelming for a lot of us at times because there’s so many things to deal with. So…

Morris: Well, just… just to back up a little bit about the Commission meeting and stuff, I think everybody understands that the Business Enterprise Program is a small, small fraction of what the total agency does. So, you know, it’s like a lot of other things, I only have so much influence throughout the agency. So, you know, obviously we’re going to be part of whatever process the Commission Board sets up that’s relevant to us. You know, the Elected Committee and me can’t sit down and say, “Hey, VR Program, this is how you need to change what you’re doing and prioritize based on what we want to do.”

You know, we have to… whether we’re plugged into the Commission’s process or we do a separate process, so that we as an agency and the Elected Committee have common strategic goals; I think that’s what’s imperative. Because there’s lots of stuff to do. It’s not overwhelming. What happens when… what gets overwhelming is when you don’t have common understanding about what the strategic goals should be.

Hauth: Yeah, and, you know, I guess my only thought is, we shouldn’t be segregated because we’re a small piece of the puzzle. We’re still a piece of the puzzle and we’re an extremely important piece of the puzzle, as far as the funding mechanism and matching funds and how that all goes. So, you know, I think what happens is, I’ll just be frank, the agency doesn’t necessarily like us. I’ve heard this from – well, maybe not the entire agency – but I’ve heard this from those in Salem. We’re seen as troublemakers and so forth and so on. So, instead of hearing from us the things that the agency doesn’t want to hear, we’re relegated to the sidelines, we’re segregated, instead of trying to listen and embrace those voices for change.

So I would really continue to push for, you know, inclusion and integration. We should be there and shouldn’t be relegated to the sidelines. But that’s, you know, that’s my… that’s my two cents’ worth.

So it comes back to us finding the priorities to work on and, you know…. So how do we do that? I mean, obviously, there’s going to be discussions around the strategic planning and priorities and I would just encourage you as Director to ensure that our involvement is there, the best that you can. So… please. I know somebody else reached out. Is there somebody that wanted the floor?

Art Stevenson: Randy, it’s Art.

Hauth: Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Okay. I just want to say one thing, Randy, okay? And I know this to be true. You, me, and the blind licensed managers have reached out to the agency and brought forward to them processes that work in the successful states. And… And, I’m sorry, but they’ve been ignored. The rules – Susan Gashel, who not only is an attorney but also was an AG who straightened around… straightened around the Hawaii program, ended a lot of the controversy, and it was ignored. We’ve had members of successful Elected Committees come in and talk about, you know, what’s going on in their state, how the state works with the Elected Committee and how they’re successful. And… And, you know, when that kind of stuff is ignored and, for instance, I’ll take Michael Talley from Alabama, who’s the chair of the Elected Committee in Alabama, when we were bringing forth our definition of active participation because we were tired of fighting, we wanted a system that worked and, you know, it’s totally ignored. And… And it’s like, you know, nobody’s listening. It’s not like, you know, these are just lamebrain ideas that come out there. It’s, you know, states… it works correctly, they have growth, they have happiness, they have fewer complaints, they have, you know, everything. And so…

Hauth: I… I agree…

Bird: Randy.

Hauth: Yeah, Jerry, before I turn it over to you for a second I just want to say there’s 15 minutes left. I know… and this is one reason that, you know, all these items on here, I believe, are important. And I know there’s been times where the agency’s said, “Gosh, you guys put too much stuff on here and we can’t get through it.” And then we’ve had two meetings a month and then somehow that becomes, “Oh, gosh, all you guys ever want to have is meetings.” So sometimes it becomes hard to work through these things. But clearly we’re not going to get through the agenda today. We’ll probably end up having to have another meeting and I don’t mean next month. So hopefully, Eric, we’ll be able to find a time and place to do that. But this is a case in point.

Morris: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Jerry.

Bird: Yes. Oh.

Morris: Sorry.

Bird: Yeah, I was just going to say real quick, because I’ve listened to you guys the last ten, fifteen minutes and it’s about, you know, size and you’re doing this and doing that. I think that what they’re missing and why Art describes some states that it’s working is because they care about the blind and they’re letting them make their decisions and it’s like what’s best for our blind people.

But for some reason here in Oregon that’s been lost and like we’re just troublemakers and we don’t know what’s best for us, even though we’ve all been in the program for a long time. So I feel like Oregon is what’s best for the agency and we’ve lost what’s best for the blind. And we’re intelligent adults and business people that you guys trained and then now you want to parent us. So I think whenever you want to parent blind people that are adults and educated or whatever but we run our businesses, we push back.

And I think that’s the whole problem because they haven’t embraced… we’ve had problems in the past and all this but, come on, now it’s like, you know, it’s not even… we have no respect as far as what’s best for you guys. “It’s what’s best for us and when we prioritize what’s best for us and if, you know, you guys are looking for some information to see what’s best for you then we dance around and that.” So it’s like, I just don’t understand it any more. It’s like a stand-off. But we got to get together and it’s what’s best, Eric, for this program of blind people that’s in this program. You know, the priority, the preference, every time we, every little thing we get that’s in our advantage you want to turn it around and, “We’ll ask the people in the state, the ones the law says it’s a priority now, ‘Would that be okay?’”

Well, what I’m saying is, come on, now; it’s what’s best for the blind in the BE Program of Oregon, the Randolph-Sheppard Act, may it live forever.

Hauth: Thank you, Jerry. I believe, Eric, I’m sorry. I think you wanted to say something. Go ahead.

Morris: Yeah, Randy. You’re right. I mean, and I have a hard deadline today, I’ve got to get on transit this afternoon. I would propose we could meet Wednesday or Thursday next week, depending on everybody’s preference, and we can try to get through the rest of the agenda.

Hauth: Okay. Well, that’s a great opportunity. So let’s… after this meeting, let’s look and see what we can do on that. So… because right now I don’t have my planner in front of me and…

Morris: Okay.

Hauth: I’ll… I’ll look. I’ll get ahold of you, you know, later tonight or Monday morning. So.

Morris: That sounds good.

Hauth: Okay. So I do want to talk about operating agreements before we go. I think it’s 4:51. So I know the operating agreement has been a bone of contention and it will continue to be a bone of contention and I believe is part of the complaint that was filed on behalf of the rules and items around that. I guess one of the, you know, one of the things I’d just like to mention is that the 30-hour work week that was included within, you know, I guess, the original operating agreement that was adopted by the Commission Board identified the 30-hour work week to be applicable across the board to everybody. And so, in some previous discussions, we had identified, the Elected Committee had identified that that is, by statute, only supposed to be applicable… not supposed to be applicable to the managers that are grandfathered in and currently in an agreement.

And so… but it didn’t seem that the agency listened to that. But then, the last minute, after it was already adopted, there were changes made to the operating agreement. I believe Eric said, “Lookit, we’ve heard from people now and so we’re going to make these changes.” One thing, I’m not sure that it was proper that changes were made again without the Elected Committee and without the Commission for the Blind Board. But more so I’m thinking, “Well, gosh, the agency didn’t listen to our concerns so how now are these concerns being listened to?”

So I don’t know if you can share with me, so I can understand that and the Elected Committee can understand that, you know, I’m not… I’m not complaining about the impact of the change. Because I believe that was a proper thing to do. But how did that end up…? You know, what finally got… what finally got through to the agency, I guess?

Morris: Well, Randy, I’m trying to think back through the time… because that’s been, like, I don’t remember how long ago that was. I… I just don’t remember, right off the top of my head.

Hauth: What’s that, Eric? I’m sorry.

Morris: I don’t remember, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. The other thing is, Eric, just consider this: I know you identified that punitive, and I know it’s in the rules, but punitive actions as far as penalties would be issued to people who, you know, didn’t file reports by this date and didn’t send their monthly check in by this date. And I think what you had stated was, “Well, being that this date falls on a weekend, you’re going to have to send it in earlier.” And so a couple of things that I’m concerned about is, you know, what happens if it falls on a holiday, during the week? Or what happens if it falls on a weekday? And shouldn’t it be… because most entities extend it further. They don’t cut it back shorter. So, like, if the 20th falls on a Sunday, it would be that following Monday. Or if it falls on a Saturday, it would be that following Monday. And I think the agency was saying, “Gosh, it falls on a Monday and it’s a holiday so you have to have it in by Friday.”

So I would just respectfully request that the agency, you know, going forward, to at least take that into… into consideration. So, is there any…?

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: … anybody? We have, like, four minutes before I think… Eric, what time do you have to go? At five? Is that what you said?

Morris: Yeah. Yeah, I got to catch the bus.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yeah, Art, I will hear from you. I do want to let anybody on the phone know we will, again, have a meeting next week. But if there’s anything you’d like to mention after Art, please do. Art, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, let me say, Chair Hauth, I am a victim of the new rule, sent my payment to the Commission for the Blind out on the 11th and, obviously, that wasn’t good enough. So I was assessed a $50 penalty, although I’m almost positive they got their payment on that Tuesday because it isn’t that far from Salem. But, yep, I got dinged.

Hauth: I’m sorry to hear that. Honestly, I am. I guess, you know, Eric…

Bird: Can we put him on a payment plan?

[Laughter.]

Hauth: Hey, so…

Smith: See you next week, guys. Gordo’s got to go.

Hauth: Hold on. Please. Please. Where does that money go, Eric, that’s collected by the agency?

Morris: Like, into what specific account?

Hauth: Yeah.

Morris: I… I don’t know, Randy. I can ask.

Hauth: Yeah, if you would, I’d appreciate it. You guys, listen, we’re going to go so Eric can catch the bus and we’re going to finish this meeting up next week. Is there anybody wanted to make any closing comments?

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, I can’t do Wednesday, just for the record. So…

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Derrick Stevenson: Thursday will work.

Hauth: Okay. Well, let’s… let’s go ahead and adjourn this meeting, you guys. Thanks everybody for joining in.

Motions Passed During January 26th BECC Special Meeting

1. That any past minutes not already approved be approved.  Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed (with Steve Gordon absent).

2. That the agency henceforth distribute to all vending facility managers a copy of all surveys, in accessible format, unless a manager requests otherwise.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed (with Steve Gordon absent).

3. That the agency include the blind licensed managers’ definition of active participation in the bylaws. Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed (with Jerry Bird abstaining, Steve Jackson absent and Steve Gordon absent).

Transcription: Mark Riesmeyer