COMMISSION FOR THE BLINDBUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM

BECC SPECIAL MEETINGTuesday, January 14, 2014, 4:30 PM

Conference call: (712) 432-1500Participant code: 312353#

VERBATIM

Called to order.Disposition of minutes (Dec. 19, 2013)Public comments. All public comments will be limited to 3 minutes.BECC vote for removal of Chairman Hauth.Adjournment.

STARTED AT 08:17

VERBATIM

Bird: Okay, folks, let’s have Lewanda take roll and then we’ll start this meeting. If you would, please, Lewanda?

Miranda: Okay, well, first start with the BECC. Randy Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, I’m here.

Miranda: Jerry Bird?

Bird: Yes, I’m here.

Miranda: Tessa Brown. She’s here. Harold Young?

Young: Here.

Miranda: Cathy Colley-Dominique?

Colley-Dominique: Here.

Miranda: And Lewanda Miranda is here. The managers. Ann Wright, she’s here but she’s on mute. Char Mckinzie?

Mckinzie: Here.

Miranda: Derrick Stevenson?

Stevenson, Derrick: Here.

Miranda: Gordon Smith? Ken Gerlitz?

Gerlitz: Here.

Miranda: Lin Jaynes?

Jaynes: Present.

Miranda: Steve Gordon? Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yes, Steve Jackson’s here.

Miranda: Salvador Barraza? Art Stevenson?

Stevenson, Art: I’m here.

Miranda: From the Agency?

Morris: Eric is here.

Miranda: The Lone Ranger today?

Morris: Yep.

Miranda: And anyone here from the public? Would you like to announce yourself please?

McQuillan: Carla McQuillan.

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Miranda: Anyone else?

Gerlitz: Did you get Linda Haseman?

Miranda: Yes. Okay, thank you, Jerry.

Bird: Okay. Thank you all. First off, first off I’d like to set a few little ground rules here that I’m going to ask that everybody, if they wish to speak, that they address the Chairman and then speak their name. And then when I identify you, you can, you can speak. And I am not going to impose any time limits, however, if I believe it’s getting too far out of, of course, I will put a stop to it and we’ll move on. I also want to…

Miranda: Vice Chair Bird?

Bird: Does anybody have any questions before I continue?

Miranda: Yes, Vice Chair Bird? This is Lewanda. I would like to make a motion that we accept the, the agenda as written?

Brown: I second.

Bird: I, I have a trouble with that because I, as Vice Chair, acting Chairperson, was not able to comment, or, or do anything with that agenda according to the by-laws. So therefore, because I was unable to, to do my duty, as you guys are requesting I do as Vice Chair and acting Chairman, procedures was not taken properly, therefore, I will not recognize them as written. I will keep to them as much as I can, but they will be adjusted slightly because of the reasons I just talked about. If anybody has any problems with that, you can bring it up at another time. That’s how I’m going to run this today. I’m going to run this as far as I…

Miranda: Chair Bird?

Bird: Please. I am not done. I’m going to try to run this as far as I can to be equal, to be, as much as I can to be just and to give everybody an opportunity to, to do, make their statements. And what I believe is my duty to be fair, as well. Any questions at this moment? Thank you.

Miranda: Well, Vice Chair Bird, I, I did, you did ask me to send out the notice. And I couldn’t send out a notice without an agenda. I did put the three minute limit on there just so that we could have a functional meeting. However, I, I would appreciate if you would do as you said and, and try to keep it orderly. Thank you.

Bird: Thank you, Lewanda. I will keep that in consideration. Okay, here we go. This meeting was called at the request of four of our Board members: Lewanda Miranda, Cathy Dominique, Tessa Brown, and Harold Young. I was contacted that they request, they have some concerns with our, with our current Chairman. And therefore they have requested that we provide a meeting. This is not going to be a witch hunt. This is going to be to the best that I can, like I said, to be equal, the way I believe it should be as a… And I may not do my Chairman, this is my first Chairmanship. Probably my last. But I’m going to do it the way I believe I should. So, what we have today is, I would like to bring that, this panel has asked us that they are, have concerns with Mr. Hauth as Chairman. I have received the, he has, he has been given a notice by certified mail, and this meeting has been scheduled and here we are. The, I was contacted by Mr. Hauth in an email, that I think I provided to most, that he is requesting under, I believe, the by-laws that he request that this portion of the meeting that concerns his performance, or whatever it may be, go to Executive Session. I received that request and as acting Chairperson, I reviewed the by-laws. Now, the way I read the by-laws, which may not be the way everybody else reads them, but I believe I’m, I’m, I’m doing to the best as I can. I believe that the by-laws actually are stating that the ORS 192.210. These are the, the by, the actual ORS’s that describes an Executive Session. Yes, that it can be handled several different ways. It can be, it can be requested by the Board members in different cases. It also states, that I’m reading here, that an active presiding officer as identified via authorization. Now, I believe that I am the proceeding officer. And I have reviewed these under the request of Mr. Hauth. On number 2b: “to consider the dismissal or discrimitate, discrimiting or to hear complaints for charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent who does not request an open hearing.” I believe, the way I read these, and the way, is that Mr. Hauth did take that action and did contact me, and request that this take place. I believe that under the thing, that I believe that is proper, and it’s necessary because of the disciplintary actions that may take, and it’s nothing that the, that open public should actually be part of at, at, when we discuss some issues. However…

Miranda: Vice Chair Bird?

Bird: Yes.

Miranda: I disagree with you. The by-laws read that he will, that the Chairman will be given written notice with cause by certified mail, which he was. I don’t think this needs to be mentioned in an open meeting like this, and an Executive Session cannot be taken unless it’s voted by the Board [inaudible] attendance.

Bird: Thank you, Lewanda. I believe that is incorrect the way I read them. I just read you were it says a proceeding officer. And the Board, the panel can do that also. Now, that is what I am going to request be done. If you wish to take other action, you may do so, but I, I’m, I’m stating that I believe the way this says, that he is, we’re required to allow that to him. I believe if we don’t, because it is like you said, Lewanda, cause. A board member, just a board member under the by-laws, and the Chairperson are two different animals.

Miranda: Vice Chair Bird?

Bird: I’ll get to you in a minute.

Miranda: Thank you.

Bird: I’m speaking. The Vice, the, now, see, you lost my… [inaudible] Anyway, I believe, bottom line, is that a person has an opportunity to defend hisself and to show that you have an opportunity to prove cause, not just hearsay. There needs to be written documentation on what he done wrong. And I will, I’m glad to get along with you. This is, this is a mechanism, is a tool that shouldn’t ever be used very much. It’s a very touchy one, because it deals with, as we know, that why, that’s why I believe that a panel member, board member believes cause is different than I may believe. And, and once again, that a Chairperson, the way I read them, is an officer. You don’t state the same as the panel, as the board member. That’s why the board member don’t have to be cause. You can get rid of the board member a little easier. The reason that mechanism was put in there for cause, is for just what it says. So they, there is a reason, and it’s got to be a good reason. It’s not just that a few people believe that this is their justification for cause. Now this is my determination and what I believe it said. So, I ask that this, that we, I believe we should continue and have some public comment. Let people state what they may concerning this. And then I ask that we go to a Executive Session where Mr. Hauth will have more of an opportunity to discuss, and we will have an opportunity to detail some issues we have with him. And then we will, then we will return and we will place a vote. And once that vote is taken, if it is, Mr. Hauth is removed. A meeting will be scheduled for the replacement of Mr. Hauth, as the by-laws state. So this is how I would like to, this meeting to proceed.

Stevenson, Art: Mr. Chairman? This is Art Stevenson.

Bird: Go ahead, Art.

Stevenson, Art: May I have a point of clarification? You stated there was a definition there. Would you clarify for me what, what Mr. Hauth falls under? Is he a public, I forget the word that you said. Where, where does he fall under the definition of those, I believe you said three different ones, is he a public official or, or what? And would you please, in order for the, for the minutes and clarification, read that definition?

Bird: Um. I don’t quite know where you’re getting, Art. Is the definition of what? Of a Chairperson?

Stevenson, Art: Well, well, no. You said Mr. Hauth falls under, you know, the rules that he was one of three things. And one of them was public official or, or something like that. And so…

Bird: I don’t understand what…

Stevenson, Art: Clarification, Mr. Vice Chair, on, on which one you feel, or which category Mr. Hauth falls under.

Hauth: Point of order, Jerry.

Bird: I am looking at… What?

Hauth: Jerry, Jerry, point of order, if I may please? I can tell you that Lynn Rosik, the AG, has identified in writing that I am a public official. Thank you.

Bird: Okay, and I, I, I been looking at it as a state’s, also. I, I know we went through with some, Mrs. Rosnik about, what, what are we? I don’t even know, we’re a public official, yes, and we can only do this, we can’t, we got, the four of us even at a party, it causes a, it’s a, it’s a meeting. I mean, we went through a day of that. And I’m still, to tell you the truth, troubled on just what are we? We seem to change depending on what position a person wants to take. However, Art! I mean, I mean, Art, to your question. I have read, what I was, just read was, was under the by-laws it describes two different things. It does not have cause. And it describes the Chairman as a, a official. So they’re claim--, the way I see it, they’re, they’re, they’re at a different standard apparently. Because they’re, they’re even making that as a, they…

Stevenson, Art: Thanks for the clarification, Vice Chair Bird.

Bird: Yeah, and I don’t know the whole answers to this, you guys. I’ve, I’m trying to do my best, and I’m trying to be like I say. And that’s the way I’m interpreting it. I haven’t went through all… I know we have Robert’s Rules of Orders, we have public meetings laws. I mean, we have the BECC, we have… It goes on and on. All I know is what I’m reading right here for this meeting today.

Miranda: Vice Chair Bird?

Bird: And that’s just how I believe this is to be handled, and that is how I would like to conduct it.

Miranda: Vice Chair Bird?

Bird: Yes, Lewanda.

Miranda: I would like to make a motion that this meeting does not go into Executive Order. Do I have a second?

Young: I second it.

Miranda: All in favor?

Voices: Aye.

Hauth: Point of order? The Chair is to accept the motions. You cannot force forward just simply by taking a motion. It also has to be discussed. So, the Chair has that responsibility to either call the motion out of order or to accept it, so… You should be a little bit kinder to the Chair, Lewanda.

Miranda: Well, I, I was taught by you, Randy. I’m just doing what I know.

Bird: Just a minute. Hey! I will not put up with this, you guys, no, no side comments. I’m not going to, I’m not, I’m not one that’s going to allow this stuff. So if you’re going to do it, you’ll be removed. I want you all to know that clear. Whether you like it or not. Now, Lewanda, your motion, I believe, is denied on this term, that I believe it states that, that I as the proceeding officer can, can ask for that to happen. And that is what I’m doing. I don’t think the panel, the Board members can, can take, take something away that I just read that is the, it, the session that we’re discussing. So, I believe that if by doing so I am not following the duties that, that the proceeding officer will, will make that call. So I don’t know what it has, what it tells with, but I do not accept that motion because of what I just told you. I believe we must give him his, his request and the, the BECC panel does not have the authority to override it. Because of the, what I just read to you. Now if you want to question the by-laws, the ones I just read you, the Executive Session rules, so be it. This is my decision, thank you. Let’s proceed. Who, who has any open, who has any public comments?

Haseman: Linda Haseman does.

Bird: Go ahead, please.

Haseman: Okay, I’d like to put on the record that House Bill 2788 is where ORS 192.640 requires that all interested parties to public notices tied to public meeting laws. The notice to those interested parties, as well as on either the Transparency Website, or in this case, I have confirmation from the Agency, that they had worked a deal with the Transparency Website situation under House Bill 2788, ORS 192.640, that they were supposed to notice, notice us even for special meetings, as they fall under the public law, on the Oregon Commission for the website. I hunted on the Oregon Commission for the website today, there was no notice. I hunted on the Transparency Website, there was no notice. Jodi Roth and Dacia Johnson have been aware of this for quite some time. I have a trailing email to them clear back to some time in May of June of this year where I questioned their responsibilities and roles, in making sure that they were noticing public individuals correctly. I’ve also signed up for Interested, the Interested Party list at Oregon Commission for the Blind. I find it quite intriguing that I was notified as an interested party for the BE Workgroup tied to the rules and regulations, along with everybody else that they noticed for the OCB commission board as interested parties. However, I was not notified or noticed for this, for this special meeting. And so that, therefore, for a variety of reasons, I contend that this is not a proper meeting and the, the Agency is duly notified not only in writing that I did today, but also by way of this public comment.

Bird: Thank you, Linda for your comment. That will be, that is accepted and it will be part of the record. Any other comment?

Hauth: Mr. Chairman?

Bird: Yes.

Hauth: Mr. Chairman, hi there, this is Randy Hauth. First of all I’d like to say, I really commend you for stepping in to such an awkward situation. I think you’re doing a fabulous job. And I do truly, without being sarcastic, I hope that the Board members instead of interrupting you, give you the respect that you deserve. What I would like to note for the record is, I’m concerned that the Agency has assisted with this meeting. I believe the BECC by-laws have been violated. It’s clear that under the duties of the Chairperson, they’re supposed to work on creating the agenda the BEP Director. I would also share for the record that I believe the BECC Board Members: Lewanda Miranda, Harold Young, Cathy Dominique, and Tessa Brown, specifically are in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations, as I’ve requested their advocacy under the Code of Federal Regulations. As well, I believe that they did not appropriately interact with their constituents as their responsibility to do so. They did not do so in the betterment of the Program. They’ve taken this on as a, like you said, a, a witch hunt. It’s a, you know, they’ve identified, I have recordings where people have identified that there, this is a conflict of interest. I cannot see any, you know, I wasn’t, I was omitted and cut out from any emails recently. My responses to the Commission have been haphazardly responded to. The conflict of interest, I see no conflict of interest as identified through our training regarding that. So, I just want to put on the record, I object to this meeting, as well. It’s not an officially noticed meeting. And I also would like to file a complaint related to the Board members and their duties. I believe that they have violated their duties to the licensed blind vendors. Thank you very much.

Bird: Thank you, Randy, for your comment.

Male voice: [inaudible]

Bird: Just a second. Randy, that is I’m sure your opinion of, of the way you see stuff happening, which is fine. You, you do, are welcome to file any complaints that you feel necessary, so… You know, we’ll accept that as the record, and who’s next?

Gerlitz: Hello, this is Ken.

Bird: Go ahead, Ken.

Gerlitz: Mr. Vice Chair, I’d, I’d thought that Randy’s comments were supposed to be behind closed doors. I mean, he’s just made a speech that covers his side of this issue without giving us the opportunity to give our side of the issue in front of the public, so… I’m a little confused.

Bird: Thank you, thank you, Ken. I believe that he must have just decided he’d give his public comment. That don’t, I don’t think takes anything away of him not getting his Executive Session. But thank you for your comment. We’ll take that in consideration. Who’s next?

Stevenson, Art: Mr. Chairman, Art Stevenson. Bird: Yes, Art.

Stevenson, Art: I would like to say for the record that I believe that the elected committee has followed proper protocol and is complete in compliance with the by-laws, the federal code, and all of those other things. I would also… No, I think that’s enough said. Thank you very much.

Bird: Thank you, Art, that will be noted and it will be part of the record. Anyone else have a response?

Jackson: Steve Jackson. Can you hear me?

Bird: Go ahead. Yes, go ahead, Steve.

Jackson: Okay, hi. I’d like to say that I’m really shocked about this whole meeting. I feel like we could’ve just handled this in a, a regular meeting. Like it would normally be done, if someone had wanted to take a vote or make a motion, but I feel like things are just moving, like, super fast or whatever. Things are elevated, but I really, really feel like, you know, if people, you know, want to tell their story, why didn’t they tell it to all the managers. I feel like things are going on behind closed doors. And I just, I didn’t, I don’t like that, I don’t like how that feels. So, thank you.

Bird: Thank you, Steve, and I feel the same way. I, to let you know I was, I was left out of the process myself as a Vice Chair and as a board member. They did, they did contact me after, after the letter was written, after discussions was done, and asked me if I wanted to sign it. To me, that is not active participation. That is not talking to your Chairman. That is not to your Vice Chair. That is going behind his back. And therefore, I, I am really puzzled and, and upset about that that’s happened. So I, I appreciate that you see it also, but thank you, Steve. Any other public comments?

Stevenson, Derrick: Yeah, this is Derrick.

Jaynes: This is Lin.

Bird: Go ahead, Derrick will be first and then Lin. Go ahead, Derrick.

Stevenson, Derrick: Yeah, you know, I would just like to say, you know, I’m sad that this came to where it came to, but I, I [inaudible] don’t believe that any public meeting laws have been violated. And there’s been a problem with reps not contacting people and going on for years, and you know, the subject’s been brought up and really nothing’s ever been done about it. It... So, so to say that, that people weren’t aware of this is, in my opinion has no bearing on, on the case whatsoever. Obviously everybody knew what was going on. And you know, has, as the phone works both ways. If they had questions or wanted to comment, they could have called their reps and, and voiced their opinions at, at any given time. And I also wonder myself, as you stated, how you feel if in fact you don’t have a conflict of interest, and, and whether or not you’re going to be able to conduct this meeting in a fair, impartial manner. I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to comment on other people’s comment, in other words. And, you know…

Bird: Okay, are you done?

Stevenson, Derrick: No.

Bird: Okay, go ahead.

Stevenson, Derrick: Not quite done. If people feel that public meeting laws were broken, their responsibility is to contact the Attorney General, and who will then investigate it and then inform the Committee whether or not it was in compliance or not, and ask them to not do it again. I mean it’s not

the reason to not have, not continue with the meeting, because of course you can’t get the Attorney General’s opinion right now. I guess that’s about it, thank you.

Bird: I’d say, I have a comment a little bit, which I know Derrick don’t like it, but I, I, Derrick, we appreciate your concern. That is your opinion, the way you look at it. I believe some of them’s been broken, but that’s my opinion. Anyway, thank you for your comment. Lin, please.

Jaynes: Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you. I’m, you know, we have adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, have we not?

Bird: Yes.

Jaynes: Okay, I think what we need to do is, is do some refresher courses on the Robert’s Rules of Order. Specifically go down to question 20 on, on a special [inaudible] to Robert’s website. It actually has a area where it says, “how can we get rid of officers we don’t like before their term is up?” The answer is, is it has two paragraphs. One that explains what you need to do if we have term limits for the officer. The other is what you need to do if we don’t have term limits. I don’t believe we’ve set term limits yet, so I believe the second paragraph would pertain to this meeting. But in, another question I might have, if somebody would care to read that, there’s an [inaudible] that says if our by-laws have established a procedure for removal of office, officer, that procedure must be followed. So that made me have the question. There’s a lot of background noise. Could somebody please mute their phone so I can finish what I’m asking?

Bird: People, please mute your phone please?

Jaynes: I don’t usually speak up, so I’d like to have the floor for just a moment, thank you.

Bird: Go ahead, Lin.

Jaynes: It ends by saying, it ends by saying that the by-laws, it, if establish a procedure for the removal of an officer from his office, that procedure must of course be followed. I don’t believe our by-laws basically have that procedure in them. If they do, I will stand corrected. But I do think since we’ve adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, we need to look at number 20, and we need to see what it says. It mentions a 2/3 vote by a majority, but it also mentions that that can only be done if there are certain wording explicitly put into their question, indicating that the officer may be removed before his term expires. We have a voted as licensed blind managers to this officer, and it mentions disciplinary action. I heard nothing about disciplinary action or a group being formed to go over these formal disciplinary proceedings. All I’ve heard is let’s just go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think this is really, really wrong, and I do believe by-laws have been violated.

Bird: Thank you, Lin. Now, I, before you go to someone else I got a comment on this. I do understand what you’re saying. I’m not that brushed up on Robert’s Rules of Order, however, I did read our by-laws and the Executive Session thing quite, many times here in the last day or two. I’ve, I’ve been quite stressed over this. I do believe that our by-laws do have a, have a, have a removal condition in it, the way the Rules, Robert’s Rules explain it or not, our by-laws do have it. Now, after saying that, and this is where I’m at, they do say that as far as the Chairman, which is… He has to be with cause. It has to be cause. Therefore, I have no problem, and I believe that that mechanism is there for a purpose of, of a cause, I mean… Now, what I believe’s cause, and you may believe is cause, or they believe is cause may

be totally different. I believe it’s very, it has to be brought out. They have to identify, are they proper, are they just hearsay? Some managers I heard that, say that they got some complaints about Mr. Hauth. Well, that’s, that’s fine, you know? They need to be documentated, they need to be in writing, and they need, need to come to a board for addressing. And therefore we’ll take [inaudible] actions. If there’s something we don’t like the Chairman doing, which is going to probably happen, well then, we, we tell him what we’re, we expect of him, you know? And give him time to do it. And then we take our disciplinary action. So, actually, I do understand what you’re trying to say, Lin. They, they do probably work in that mechanism, but it does have that clause in there. So… And I think it should be because there is a time that, you know, on, for cause. So I’m, I’m to where, I have no problem taking disciplinary action and removing any board member, any Chairman for just cause. But it can’t just be cause that someone wants make up and say three or four board members believe it’s cause. That’s not how we do it in the United States. And that’s not how we do it, in, in the, in the world. And that’s for sure not how we should do it in our program. I mean, these are our own people, you know, and we do make mistakes. So therefore, I must say, I believe this action can’t take place. My question is cause. Have you guys, have you guys provided enough cause to justify it? Is, is my only problem, so I’ll leave that stand at that, and thank you, Lin.

Jaynes: Thank you.

Gerlitz: Mr. Vice Chairman?

Bird: Yes, Ken, go ahead.

Gerlitz: Ken Gerlitz again. I read the letter that was sent out, and I believe that there was cause mentioned in the letter. Randy had the letter attached, and I believe that it, it gave cause. These are your board members who are coming forward. This isn’t just somebody sitting out there trying to figure out what they’re going to eat for lunch today. These board members represent all of our constituents. They were elected members. They weren’t appointed. And if they feel that there was cause, there’s nothing that says it has to be a certain level of cause. It just says they have to feel that there is cause, and they did list several pieces of information that were cause. And so I don’t know where you’re coming from. Who’s going to make these decisions?

Bird: Well, Ken, I believe that it’s, it’s supposed to be a decision after we give the, the parties time to be given the causes. You’re, you guys want to be, and this is, I’m trying to be neutral. I, I, I don’t care who it is, I wouldn’t put, I wouldn’t agree with it anyway, because as a panel, as a BECC membership, board members, it doesn’t mean that they get to be, come up with whatever cause they determine is cause. You’re not that type of people. There, you know, you don’t do that stuff. There’s laws, there’s ways, and there’s things to give a person his due process before he was removed. I mean, goodness sake, you just don’t come up with some peoples that says, oh, so and so, Joe Blow told me this, and Joe Blow told me that, and…

Gerlitz: You’re not, you’re being neutral again, Mr. Vice Chair. Not [inaudible] neutral.

Bird: So once again, Mr., Ken, it, that is your opinion. How you believe it should work. And once again, I, I, I thank you for your opinion. I believe it’s wrong. Thank you.

Young: Vice Chair Bird.

Wright: This is Ann.

Bird: What was that?

Young: Vice Chair Bird.

Wright: This is Ann.

Bird: Uh, I’m not sure… Who was that, Harold?

Young: Harold, yes.

Bird: Uh, yeah, there’s two of you. Go ahead, Harold.

Young: I would just like to say for the record that I feel that the by-laws were followed correctly. Everything was done properly. I went through the by-laws. I don’t recall anything being in there about the Executive Session, so I’d like to be on the record saying I don’t agree with that. And that I feel that there was just, there was cause in the certified letter that was sent Randy. Thank you.

Bird: Thank you for your opinion. Anyone else?

Wright: Vice Chair? Vice Chair Bird?

Bird: Who is this?

Wright: This is Ann.

Bird: Ann, go ahead, Ann.

Wright: I would just like to go on record as saying that as a licensed blind vendor, I would like it if somebody got the rules in order as to how this takes place. I’ve been in the program five years. This is the third time we’ve had to, gone, go through this process of removing somebody from the Board. The most recent being Art Stevenson. The other two were under the direction of Chairman Hauth, and I don’t recall any of these things that are being asked for being put into place when Tessa Brown and Art Stevenson were removed. So if these are the rules, I agree with Lin Jaynes that they need to be brought up and everybody needs to be made aware of them. Because if that’s the case, we did both Tessa Brown and Art Stevenson an injustice when they were voted off the Board. Thank you.

Bird: Yes, and I will comment on that. I, I, I agree with you. And the thing is, is you’ve got to also remember, I tried to explain that, you were talking two different animals. The previous was, which I, two different animals as far as the Chairman versus a Board member. Which there is stricter cause for the Chairman. And, and for that to being said, how Mr. Hauth ran his Chairmanship doesn’t mean that that’s the way it, I’m not saying it was right. If he didn’t do it right, that don’t mean it’s a presidence [precedence?]. I believe how I’m doing it is proper. And, and so, you know, Randy ran it the way he thought, I mean, if he didn’t do it the way you guys thought, and, because I’m doing it different, that’s because I view it as being different. I, I view that this is my duty to do this and to make it happen the way our statutes and laws and procedures on this type of action takes place. So, once again, Ann, there is a couple differences there, and I agree, there shouldn’t be, you do it for one, and then you don’t do it

for other. And what justifies their cause. They didn’t have to be removed without cause, you know, whether, I was part of one of them. And I stand by that because of, I won’t get into it now, but once again, the way… Every Chairman will run his, his meetings differently and that don’t mean that we’re all bound to one Chairmanship. I’m bound by my duties that are specified in the by-laws. And that is what I’m sticking to. So, thank you.

Stevenson, Art: But Mr. Chairman, Art Stevenson.

Bird: Go ahead, Art.

Stevenson, Art: Point of clarification, Mr. Vice Chair. We’re, we’re talking about cause here, so I want to completely understand your, your reasoning for this threshold. And, can you explain, please explain what your definition of cause is, and why you feel that the Board did not meet that specific specification? Because I read, I read the letter, and it did give cause. And cause is cause, Mr. Chairman, so please, Vice Chair, please explain yourself.

Bird: Well, I’m not going to get in debate with you, Art, on, on, on whether I think I’m right or I’m wrong. That is the way I read them. I believe cause means just that. You have to give specific reasons, not Joe Blow gave me this. I mean, documentation. And then, and then, you have just cause. And then he can defend himself. When you guys want to simply, [snaps] that’s it. It’s simply cause that we’ve decided that he didn’t do his duties. Well, you’ve got to prove your, you’ve got to prove that stuff. You just can’t say it. So once again, Art, I’m sorry that you feel that’s how it should be, and if there’s just cause. My feelings, the way I’ve researched it, and I believe it is is he has, you have to identify the, the cause, the reasons. They have to be justifiable. They need to be discussed. Are they just someone’s reasons that come out of the blue sky? We don’t know. You guys say, no, well, we, we, we, we talked about it. Well, you know, you can’t have a quorum, you can’t talk about it. That’s what these meetings are for, for us all to discuss it, and come up with a reasonable disciplinary action. And once again, I’m not saying that the action to remove a Chairman is not, can take place. I, once again, I believe the way I interpret them, that you haven’t proven cause.

Hauth: Mr. Chairman?

Bird: Yes, Randy, go ahead.

Hauth: If I can say one thing here, it’s… I have a legal definition for just cause that I downloaded off the internet. And basically it says, “A reasonable and lawful ground for action.” So that’s what I would like to say. And also, if I can weigh in, when there was a removal of Board members, which you are right. It’s a whole different animal, the articles are clearly separated out for the officer, which is the Chairperson, and the Board members. And I don’t even, you know, quite understand it, but they are, they are separate. But, when Art Stevenson was removed, Art Stevenson was provided an opportunity to… We provided documentation related to that issue. The Agency also did a public records request upon documentation. And so we provided documentation related to that. Also, when Tessa was removed, I believe, if I remember, it was concerns regarding attendance, and I believe that we went into an Executive Session with Tessa and tried to resolve the issue, but it didn’t, it didn’t work out. So, I believe even during those times, that we tried to resolve the issue, but it just didn’t work out quite properly. Thank you.

Stevenson, Derrick: Mr. Chairman?

Bird: Yes, Derrick.

Stevenson, Derrick: I’d just like to put on record since you brought it up, I, I did contact my representative via phone. I didn’t write a, write a formal complaint out. So if my rep says that she received complaints from her constituents, I would, I would, I would back that up, that it was verbal. So there’s no way to document it in writing. I, I will state for the, for the record that, that some of my concerns was I thought Mr., Mr. Hauth had a conflict of interest via his presidency and past. I had problems with him not following by-laws when, when he appointed you Vice Chair. And there were several other things that I had brought up to my, to my rep. But, it’s not in writing, and I don’t believe that you can require it to be in writing. Well, that’s about it.

Bird: Okay, Derrick. I must say, I thought you, I think you been around longer than that, that writing in a world of business is documentation. Without documentation it’s hearsay. When you want to file, and if your, if your rep didn’t write that down, then you’ve got to talk to your rep. Because when it comes down to something like this, you have no documentation. And you can’t come back, you know, ignorant isn’t law, you know. Just because you thought that you could say something, and they’re, and they’re going to say exactly what you said. This is America, this is business, you document when you have, try to get, do something. So, there is no question on he said, she said. So, Derrick, I, I, I, I understand what you’re trying to say, but, but it gets you nowhere. Documentation, you must do, because it’ll come back and bite you, just like it does here. That you cannot come up with hearsay. Because that was between you and that…

Stevenson, Derrick: Well, Jerry…

Bird: Yes.

Jaynes: Point of order.

Stevenson, Derrick: The fact, the fact that I am now letting you know that I personally made contact with my rep and gave cause makes it so that is no longer just hearsay, because I am telling you in first person, that I contacted my representative and I voiced my concerns. [inaudible]

Bird: Okay, thank you, I don’t know how far legally that would get you, but you’re welcome to do whatever action you like, thank you. Are you done? Do you have any other comment, Derrick?

Miranda: Mr. Vice Chair?

Jaynes: Point of order.

Stevenson, Derrick: Other, other than this isn’t a court of law, this is an informal meeting.

Haseman: Linda Haseman would like to speak.

Bird: Okay, thank you, Derrick.

Stevenson, Derrick: Yeah.

Haseman: Linda Haseman would like to speak.

Bird: Go ahead, Linda.

Haseman: Yes, this is Linda Haseman. First of all I would like to clarify an item tied to what Derrick just, Derrick Stevenson just indicated. Conflict of interest according to the Ethics Commission is really about financial interest of an individual. If they’re taking a vote in a matter of financial interest to themselves, they need to either denote their conflict of interest or recuse themselves for the vote. However, conflict of interest is not, to my understanding through the Ethics Commission which would govern a governing body, committee member is not just simply having a conflict of interest with an affiliation or a political association or anything to that matter. So I would like to put that on the record. The other thing that I would like to put on the record is that, not only through the Ethics Commission is, there are rules tied to that, but also where Eric [Derrick was meant–KE] indicated that he had contacted his representative and shared his concerns with regards to Chairman Hauth, that’s perfectly fine to do as far as contacting. I would strongly recommend, as I have through a variety of situations, recommend documentation. However, I do know that several other individuals, licensed blind vendors like Mr. Stevenson have contacted their reps and indicated their disapproval of their reps’ actions towards Mr. Hauth. So those all need to be weighed equally and fairly. One licensed blind vendor’s opinion and consideration to their representative should not outweigh another person’s opinion and information to their representative. Thank you.

Bird: Thank you, Linda.

Gerlitz: Mr. Vice Chairman, this is Ken again. I don’t think…

Jaynes: Point. I’ve said point of order twice, Mr. Vice Chair.

Bird: Just a second, I think Ken… You’ll be next. Go ahead, Ken.

Gerlitz: I… I know we keep talking about like this is a vote between all blind managers. It’s not.

Bird: [inaudible]

Gerlitz: This is a vote that is, is between the Board, and the Elected Board represents all blind managers.

Jaynes: No!

Bird: Well, that’s your opinion.

Gerlitz: So, I think we need to—No, it’s not an opinion! It’s in the by-laws. It talks about the…

Jaynes: Point of order.

Gerlitz: It doesn’t say 2/3 of the vote of all blind managers. It says 2/3 of the vote of the Board.

Bird: Thank you.

Gerlitz: It’s not an opinion. That’s not an opinion! It’s, it’s in the by-laws.

Bird: Okay. Thank you, Ken. I disagree.

Stevenson, Art: Mr. Chair. This…

Jaynes: Point of order. Three times.

Bird: Lin, go ahead.

Jaynes: This is…

Bird: We’re going to be wrapping this up, not going to, you’re not going to start a debate here on who, who believes which is right, so if you guys got something that’s pertinent to the removal of Mr. Hauth, I’ve already stated the procedures and why I’m taking the action I am. Please start doing so. I will not debate whether your opinion is better than mine, or your, your, your research is better than mine. I’m not going to do it. This is not the time for it. I’ve stated how I’m going to, how I’m going to proceed. So whoever wants to talk about, directly issues of removal of Mr. Hauth before we go to Executive Session, time is, there. So please go ahead, Lin.

Jaynes: I was just going to simply make a comment and sort of had a question, too. One of the licensed blind managers had mentioned a conflict of interest and prior to Ms. Haseman giving a very professional analogy of, of what the definition was. I just wanted to make a comment that I’m having a hard time understanding how due to conflict of interest would the Chairman and was, was [inaudible] in particular in being a Chairman for the BECC, when in fact, he’s also a member of the ACB. We have Board members who are NFB. I, also, am NFB. And I don’t consider it a conflict of interest. So, I don’t see, I don’t understand that. That, that just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. And that’s really all I wanted to say.

Bird: Thank you, and like I say, I mean, we all have our opinions. That’s why I want, I’m going to do what I’m going to do. We’re going to go into Executive Session. Randy will have an opportunity to use that opportunity for how he wishes. We will come out, and we will resume our thing, and you guys will be allowed to vote, and we’ll take action.

Miranda: Mr. Vice Chair. Mr. Chair.

Bird: So that way he can’t—just a second—that way it can’t be said that he never got to have his Executive Session. I don’t know why you guys have a problem with, with it so it can be brought out, but.. I’ll take a few more if they’re directly with removal of Chairman. Who was that?

Miranda: Lewanda, Mr. Vice, Vice Chair.

Bird: Go ahead, Lewanda.

Miranda: We did adopt Robert’s Rules of Order version 10, however the by-laws supersede that. You keep saying “just cause”. “Just cause” is not in there. It’s just “cause”. That’s as bad as “best offer”, which of all people, Jerry, that’s all we ever hear is “best offer” from you. So it is “cause”, not “just cause”. Thank you.

Bird: Thank you, I’m very aware of what I believe cause is, and thank you. Anyone else?

Stevenson, Art: Mr. Chair, Art Stevenson.

Bird: Art, it better be directly to…

Stevenson, Art: I, I, I understand, for the record, “cause” in the letter that was written, I believe the, the fact that Mr. Hauth did not properly follow our rules and regulations in assigning you as Chairman, Vice Chair, was not followed. That was a cause. And I would also like to say that the elected committee has stated that Mr. Hauth did not consult with him and corresponding, writing letters in those matters. And that is cause and you cannot have that in writing, specifically. Those individuals did state that. And so, for the record, those are two causes that need to be considered when the elected committee takes their vote. So they do have cause. Thank you very much.

Bird: Like I said, everyone has their opinion on what cause is. I don’t know if yours is necessarily or if mine is, however, I am running this procedure today. So, I got last comments. Anyone got a quick one that’s directly. I won’t… Go ahead or we’ll be moving to our next session. Okay, without any more being said, I ask…

Gerlitz: Mr. Chairman, can you give us an idea how long it’s going to be?

Bird: Yes, I will try to project this… I will, it’s hard to say, I would… I can’t exactly say. Half hour to an hour? I can’t say what things will take. However, I do understand because I been in that position ourself, that if we could have, contact someone when we come back that can let you all know we’re back, because it does make it tough to keep calling back in and see if we’re back. But I cannot give a exact time other than offering some kind of a notification that we’re returning to the meeting. How would you wish to do so?

Hauth: Mr. Chairman.

Stevenson, Art: Point of clarification.

Bird: Excuse me, who was that?

Stevenson, Art: Art Stevenson, point of clarification.

Hauth: This is Randy.

Bird: Okay, go Art.

Stevenson, Art: I do believe that Mr. Young stated that he’s not in favor of doing an Executive Session, and so I believe that, that a vote needs to be taken of the BECC [inaudible] whether the Executive Session will…

Bird: Out of order! You’re out of order, Art! I told you I’m not taking any more discussion on, on, on this. Someone made a vote. I asked [inaudible]…

Male voice: Mr. Chairman.

Bird: Who do, how do you guys wish to be contacted? If you don’t want to say, you’ll just have to keep calling in until we’re back.

Gerlitz: I would just go on hold.

Hauth: Mr. Chairman?

Bird: Okay. However you guys wish. We’ll try to do, try to do this as quick and as, as, as best we can. And that’s all I can say to you guys.

Female voice: Chairman Hauth?

Hauth: Mr. Chairman, can I, can I ask a question about the telephone conference? If Eric is there, now, I do not feel comfortable whatsoever having this Executive Session on the line that Board member Miranda set up, so I did request a specific and distinct telephone conference number from Eric. Eric, did you provide that?

Morris: I’m ready to when you guys tell me.

Hauth: Well, I told you this morning. I requested it this morning.

Female voice: Mr. Chair?

Morris: Well, I can push the button and send it to you if you would like, if that’s what [inaudible]…

Hauth: Well, I would have liked that, would have liked that this morning, thank you.

Bird: [inaudible] Wait a minute. Eric, would you please give us the number? You can say it verbally and then send it for the other ones, but would you just give us the number and then we will be calling in.

Hauth: We don’t want, we don’t want other people to call in.

Morris: It’s on its way.

Brown: Mr. Chair?

Bird: Excuse me. No more comments, I’m asking a question.

Colley-Dominique: Mr. Chairman.

Bird: Eric, what is the number?

Morris: I just sent it to the, I sent it to the BECC, Jerry, so that not everybody has it. So it’s only the Executive Session.

Bird: That’s right, if you told it over the phone, then everyone has it. Oh, okay, that was silly of me.

Brown: Vice, Vice Chair. I, I’m commuting mass transit. I have no way of writing anything down or accessing my internet right now.

Miranda: Vice Chair, I, I refuse to participate in the Executive Session.

Bird: Your choice.

Miranda: Thank you.

Young: Vice Chair, this is Harold. I refuse to participate in the Executive Session, too.

Bird: No problem.

Colley-Dominique: Vice Chair, this is Cathy. I refuse to participate in an Executive Session.

Bird: Okay.

Brown: Vice Chair, this is Tessa Brown, and I also refuse to participate in an Executive Session.

Bird: Okay, you guys want to waive your rights, that’s fine. The, the Executive Session will be taking place as soon as we call in. So, if, whoever wants to, I will be there, and I’m sure Randy’s, the rest of you waive your… I want to, for the record, let it known that I accept these four Board members refusing or not willing, or does not want to participate in the Executive Session that has been proposed to take place. So that is at their own wishes. I, I would like to, I would like to express the concern that this is not your personal thing, you represent people. So when you are not at this meeting to, to deliberate, you are not doing your job as representing others that may wish you to be in there to hear what goes on. So I want you to again realize what you’re doing and make it clear that you all may be in violations of not representing your section. So thank you, and…

Gerlitz: Point of order, point of order?

Bird: We will, we will be leaving now, thank you! We’ll be back.

Gerlitz: Point of order!

Bird: [inaudible] Goodbye.

Gerlitz: I need some clarification.

Bird: No clarification, we’re going to an Executive Session. When we come back you can ask a question.

Gerlitz: [inaudible] both come here to vote?

Bird: Goodbye.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION STARTED 01-09-32]

Bird: Hello.

Morris: Hello.

Bird: Hello, who do we have on the line?

Morris: Eric’s here, I just cranked it up.

Hauth: Randy.

Bird: Okay, we have Eric.

Hauth: And Randy.

Bird: Randy, you there?

Hauth: Yes, yeah, I’m here, Jerry.

Bird: Is there anyone else? Okay, well, let’s, let’s start with this Executive Session. Once again, I am new at this and I believe the best way to do is go ahead and Randy, I believe you requested this Session, Executive Session. So, go ahead, and it’s your time to say whatever you like before we return.

Hauth: You bet, thank you, and I hope this is recorded, as well. I know Executive Sessions are confidential.

Bird: Is it, Eric? Eric, is this being recorded?

Morris: I’m sorry, Jerry, I was on mute. Yeah, I’m recording it. But it is, the Executive Sessions are, you can take notes or record them, but like, like Randy said, Executive Sessions are held in confident, confidentiality.

Hauth: And I’d like to, I’d like to say to you guys, Eric, this extremely concerns me that this orchestrated attempt. I mean, Carla McQuillan’s on the phone. The entire Board excused themselves. Art Stevenson and Derrick Stevenson have been very active on the email today. And BEST was spoken about. You know that there’s been an issue with that from several different people. And I tell you, I’m sorry, but I think whoever’s leading the Agency and allowing you to assist in this meeting is opening the Agency up for a great liability. I just want to share that with you. And this confirms exactly what my position and contention is. With that being said, Eric, do you know what the responsibilities of the BECC Board member are?

Morris: Randy, are you asking me?

Hauth: Yeah.

Morris: I don’t think this is really about me, Randy.

Hauth: No, but I’m asking you if you know.

Morris: Yeah, I’ve read the by-laws about a thousand times now.

Hauth: Well, can you tell me in relationship to grievances, what that’s about?

Morris: Are you talking about the advocating, the advocating piece?

Hauth: Yep, yep.

Morris: Yeah, it talks about that a BECC member will advocate for a person filing a grievance. I’m not quoting it directly. [inaudible]

Hauth: Okay, let me, let me, let me, let me read this. It’s under Section C of our Handbook and also on the Code of Federal Regulations. It says, “Receive and transmit to the Commission grievances at the request of licensees and serve as advocates for such licensees in connection with such grievances. Now, the BECC who dropped off the line, how are they acting, I guess my question is, how are they acting as advocates? I have notified the BECC that I requested their advocacy, which I’ve also provided you in writing.

Morris: Yeah.

Hauth: I’m, I’ve also contacted my representative and she refused to call me back, which also, so I can tell you, it certainly concerns me that the BECC, who is taking action against me, or proposing action against me, and you allowing this to occur, because you are the administrative authority in violation of, what I believe are the, you know, the laws, really raises a question of how deep is this and what is this all about? But if I, if I may, I just want to go over this letter with you that I received, and, and…

Bird: Please, Mr. Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

Bird: I’m sorry to break in, but I have to make a statement here, please.

Hauth: Sure.

Bird: I must ask that you really, if you want to make some statements in quotes, and statutes, and codes, and process how you believe them, that is wonderful. I’m, I’m a little uncomfortable with you asking the director on his position of stuff on this particular moment, because unless you say his position is, is part of the complaint. I understand you want to kind of make sure that he understands what your interpretation and stuff of this, these issues are. I have no problem with that. I would ask that you don’t, I don’t, I feel a little uncomfortable you asking him directly as his [inaudible] and all that. [inaudible] you understand what I’m saying, so just try to keep…

Hauth: [inaudible] Let me tell you, I apologize. I just, my concern is, is that, that the Agency assisted in this meeting, and so I’m just wanting to make sure that, you know, Eric understands that responsibility. And so, with that being said, I would like to…

Bird: Yes [inaudible]. Please refer to the Agency, not [inaudible], thank you.

Hauth: [inaudible] You bet. I want to go over this letter that I received on the 7 th, which appears to be grounds, which they appear grounds for my removal. “We the majority of the Oregon BECC Enterprise Consumer Committee, BECC regrettably advise you that your services as elected committee chair will no longer be required.” Now, one of the things I want to note is that I’m, I’m elected to a term, it’s not a service. I’m really responsible for only the duties as outlined under the Code of Federal Regulations, the OARs. And the OARs mandate that I will serve, that a Board member will serve a two-year term, so our by-laws are conflicting with the OARs. And also there’s two separate by-laws. I believe these by-laws have never been adopted officially and sent to RSA, so very concerning with that. Just as a point of record. It goes on to say, “As you are aware, a Board member may be removed from his or her office with 2/3 vote of the Elected Committee.” Now it doesn’t identify “cause”, okay? In their letter, they did not say “cause”. It does say “cause”, and “cause” cannot be simply that somebody doesn’t like you or thinks that the new Chairperson will work better with the administration or the BEP Director. I don’t think any reasonable person would accept that. I do want to tell you the duties of the Chairperson. “The Chairperson shall provide over the BECC Meetings,” which I’ve done. “He or she shall call additional meetings as needed,” which I have done. “He or she shall inform BECC representatives of the time and place of the meetings and any issues of interest to BEP licensees upon which input is needed, in coordination with the BEP staff,” which I have done. And that’s one of the concerns right there is, that the by-laws, I believe, the by-laws have been violated. With, and then it goes on to further say, “The Chairperson shall consult with the BEP Director to develop agenda for meetings, no later than 15 business days prior to meeting.” Another, I believe, violation there which is concerning to me. So any kind of action, Eric, that will be taken during this meeting, which I expect them to vote me out, I mean, that’s what I believe has already occurred. But any action certainly will be challengeable. So I just wanted to share that with you, that’s my belief. “Consult with the BEP Director to develop agenda for meetings, no later than 15 days prior to the meeting. Agency shall be, agendas shall be distributed to meetings 10 days prior to the meeting.” So, it’s pretty clear that not only have I complied with my duties, but I’ve also gone above and beyond in many cases. I’ve been very involved in, and I’m proud of what I’ve done. So, the letter goes on to say, “As you are aware, Board members may be removed for, from his or her office with a 2/3 vote of the Elected Committee.” It doesn’t say for cause, so I think this letter is actually inaccurate. And point of record, just so you know, I’ve still not received the certified letter. It was mailed to me, it said that I could not pick it up until, I believe, after the 11 th, and I have not had access over there to get it. I live in a gated community, and the post office is quite some way away. So, anyway, so, and you know, when I, when I say “Eric” it’s just because I’m comfortable with Eric. And I do apologize. I mean, “Agency”, “SLA”, “OCB”…

Morris: Randy, Randy, Randy, Randy, that’s fine, I don’t have a problem with that.

Hauth: Okay. “The signatures will all confirm that we the elected committee have the 2/3 vote necessary for removal.” My question is this: how did they collect the votes, okay? And that’s one of the questions, I believe they’ve not allowed me a due process. That’s another thing that I’m going to contend, that my due process has been violated, because they, the Board members signed have not even participated in this. And so, how did they collect the votes? That was one of the questions that I wanted to know. Also, why did you send the letter, you know, with all names on it? If you haven’t collected and gathered a vote, and you haven’t had electronic submission of a quorum, why was it sent from Lewanda Miranda’s email? Why wasn’t it sent from individual? So, that’s another concern. You know, also, also, you know, I wanted to ask them if they’re familiar with the duties of a BECC representative. And I would say quite honestly, they must not be, because they all vacated their responsibilities. You know, and so, let me look through here… You know, what, what are the, what are the relevant complaints? We have asked for documented concerns. I’ve asked you, Eric, the other day. What complaints you have on me. You said

you didn’t have any. Jerry had asked and they said, oh, I mistreated the Board. But nobody has ever brought anything forward to me in documentation. So again, “cause” I don’t believe can simply be because they’ve changed their mind and direction. One related to their, your represent, representative, representative constituents. Under the by-laws, if they’re contending that I’ve broken by-laws, under the by-laws, when Harold did not appoint somebody to replace him when he flew off to Florida during the In-Service meeting, that is a violation. When they did not reach out to their representative body to engage and support with them, this, that is a violation. You know, I was not emailed along with the other BECC members on several emails. They omitted me. It proves that they’ve already taken a vote. That’s something I will utilize moving forward. It shows clear intent that they’ve already decided and they were not going to… And they violated their duties by doing that, that’s my perspective. And that’s, I believe, will hold the test of time. You know, what, what are the, what are your representative’s constituents? Why didn’t you contact your constituents? You know, I wanted to ask them that. Who directed this process? It’d be, be interesting to know. I was contacted by several vendors who indicated that Mr. Ken Gerlitz, who’s not even on the BECC, and who has also sent me several emails that synch his concerns right along with, with the complaint that I filed, is that this process is [inaudible]. It’s related to my advocacy, my affiliation with BEST, and really, really troubling, concerns me. How, how were you, you know, how were you contacted? Who headed this up? You know, I was, I was informed that Ken and Lewanda headed this up and then reached out and contacted others, and they simply rolled along with it. I want to know, you know, did they talk to the Agency? Eric, have, you know, I was not going to ask you this, have you talked, or has Dacia talked, or has the Agency talked to Art Stevenson…

Morris: Randy, you and I talk to Art every day.

Hauth: But about this issue.

Morris: Yeah!

Hauth: And, and what was it?

Morris: Randy, I, I talk to people all the time, and I hold those conversations in confidence. Yours included.

Hauth: Did you talk, did you talk to Ken Gerlitz about it?

Morris: Uhh, yes.

Hauth: Did you talk to Lewanda Miranda about it?

Morris: I did.

Hauth: Did you talk to Tessa Brown about it?

Morris: Uhh, no.

Hauth: Did you talk to Cathy Dominique about it?

Morris: I did.

Hauth: Harold Young?

Morris: Uhh, yep.

Hauth: And Terry Smith?

Morris: I did talk to Terry Smith about it yesterday.

Hauth: Okay, that’s pretty much… Carla McQuillan?

Morris: Nah, I don’t talk to Commissioners.

Hauth: Okay. Well, and I guess, Eric, that’s…

Morris: And Randy, just to, to, to talk to that point, the Agency has stayed out of this. If people call me and ask me for interpretation or to quote the by-laws or look at stuff in the by-laws, that’s my part of this process. I’m not swaying votes or convincing people to do anything. Answering the phone, and if people ask me where the information’s at or what it says, that’s all I’m doing in this part.

Hauth: Did you, did you talk to Dacia Johnson about it?

Morris: Yeah!

Hauth: And what’s the position on the Agency? Is it, I mean, like you just said a hands, I mean, kind of a hands-off or what?

Morris: Yeah, you told me since I walked in the door here that the internal politics of the BECC are that. It’s that, it’s the internal politics of the BECC, the Agency, because you recounted the NFB whole debacle thing a couple years ago. And so why would the Agency be involved in any of this? Why, how is it any of the Agency’s responsibility to, besides just actively participating with the Commission? And, you know, we go round and round…

Hauth: It’s the AG’s, yeah, Eric, it’s the AG’s ruling, the training that you assisted in providing with the AG’s and the documents I sent you today, and I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to share, but the Agency is the administrative authority and we are a public body. And you know, we haven’t had, you know, any other reason to think that. And so, I mean, when you say, well, Randy thinks this, well, I think we should have every vending stand in the location, uh, errr, in the state. So I don’t think that really holds the test of time. I think it really comes down to the Agency’s responsibility under the AG’s office and, and that governing body. So, I know you said that to me earlier. And, I don’t necessarily think that we are a governing body, but the Agency said we are, okay? So, I’m going to tell you that. I know this is in confidence. The Agency said we are, and I am supporting that. I am confirming that, and I have tried my best to be that. So that’s where I come in. The, the Agency I don’t believe, you know, can take a hands-off it. Thank you. I wanted to say following on, you know, there’s, the next steps is, “we don’t want a, we don’t want a Board that marches in lockstep with no questioning anything.” Now, when I, when I looked up lockstep, I certainly see that it’s a negative connotation and it’s really geared toward German heritage. When I’ve conveyed and talked to several other people, they confirmed that same thing. And I was really, wanted to ask them what did they mean by that? Why would you use a word like that? You know, but, they wanted, said we won’t, don’t want somebody that walks, marches in lockstep

with no one questioning anything. And I wanted to ask the other Board members, now, what does that mean? You know, where did you come up with that language? You know, and then it goes on to say, “we want a Board that engages in vigorous debate.” What do you mean by that? I mean, I’ve heard, you know, I’ve heard on the last work groups, I’ve heard people on there saying, “Oh, if that didn’t happen, I’d file a complaint. If that didn’t happen, I’ll file a complaint.” Now, is that vigorous debate? Or I mean, I don’t know. I think you and I have had quite a few conversations, and I have had conversations with others. So, I mean, I don’t, I don’t quite understand that. Then it goes on to say, “We want people who will think deeply and who will take the time to work through decisions with care.” I would go again back to the duties of the Chairperson and those responsibilities. These things are not included in the by-laws, or in the OARs, or in the Code of Federal Regulations. I believe that I have done this. I am not perfect, nor is anybody else. But I’ve tried my hardest to engage, and if people have problems, they should have brought them in documented form. They should have come and tried to resolve that. You know, many times, as you probably know, I have reached out to people, historically, asking for people to help. And they just don’t, you know. They, they say recently it’s because they don’t want to work with me? Well, I have records that show that hasn’t always been that case, and they haven’t still come on and helped. Did you call, did you call, just why I’m asking, did you call Terry Smith about this? I know that you had said that the others called you, but did you call Terry Smith?

Morris: Well, to be perfectly honest, Terry called me after I said, hey, call me at 1 o’clock. But the reason I reached out to Terry is, because as you said before, Terry’s a national leader within the BE community. And I think, as we’ve talked about numerous times over the year, that if we only talk within our own little groups of people, we’re always going to agree on the same points we’re trying to make. So I asked Terry, I said, hey, here’s the situation that’s developing. As an expert in the BE Program, how would you handle it?

Hauth: And what did he say?

Morris: Terry said he would not have touched this. If he was the director in the Tennessee, in the Tennessee, you know, where he was in Tennessee, he goes, he would, he said he would not have gotten involved. And I felt pretty good about that, because that was my initial reaction, that, you guys don’t want me meddling in this type of stuff.

Hauth: But, but the only thing is, Eric, like, the Agency has to, and they’ve done it before, they’ve got involved before when… There was this public records, and I think you saw that, but there was a public records made when Art Stevenson was dismissed. And they did a public records and… So the Agency did get involved. I don’t think they can get involved in that situation and then take a hands-off approach. And I guess my position is this: the Agency has to assist with the meetings. And so for you guys to simply say, look it, we’re not going to assist in that, that would have probably done as well as saying we’re going to assist, then take a hands-off approach. I mean, what did, you know, was RSA contacted on this? Would you mind…

Morris: I don’t know who I would contact at RSA because Dan Frye’s not there.

Hauth: Okay. Okay, thank you. Anyway, it goes on to say, it goes on to say, “We want all members to join, to join the team and go with the plan.” I mean, whose plan? What are you talking about a plan? I haven’t seen a plan. Do you know of a plan? I mean, does Jerry, do you know of a plan? I don’t know of a plan.

Bird: Well, I don’t know of a plan. To me, that, that’s not the way a Board works. There’s not a plan, it’s, it’s discussed as, as Boards and as representatives. I think people fail to think, when they become a Board member it becomes their personal things. They forget about, they are representing people and they actually should ask for their blessing or their decisions, and they are to bring that forward. And when they say a “plan”, it sounds like a handful of people make their plan, and by damn, we should join their club and get with the plan. I don’t know what they mean by a plan. We have procedures and rules and regulations that directs the way we handle stuff, so I don’t know, so if you don’t agree to their plan, which I don’t know who “they” is. Apparently there’s a handful that, that figures they are the, consists of everything, and they’ll determine stuff, which they may. And I think that’s why we’re here today, for you to get this on record, and, and… But no, I, I, I think that, I think them whole things you been talking about is, is absolutely nonsense. I mean, they, they, they got to prove some stuff. They got to… So, yes, that, that troubles me. Why it’s a plan and it’s like, you know, you’ve got to be part of our group, or you got to be… It, it, it’s conditional almost. I…

Hauth: I know Mr.—yeah—I know you’re in…

Bird: [inaudible] Sorry, go ahead.

Hauth: Yeah, I know yesterday during our work group meeting, Ken had indicated he emailed you, Eric, and I know that we’re going to be requesting emails related to this. I’m not sure if it was related to this or not, but… You know, I’m just really, again… And I’m sorry you’re in this situation, I really am, but you know…

Morris: Well, Ken, Ken didn’t email me yesterday. He left me a voicemail yesterday, but it wasn’t about this, wasn’t about this.

Hauth: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he, what’s that?

Morris: It, it wasn’t about this situation.

Hauth: Okay, yeah, I thought he said he had emailed you, so… Anyway, so, anyway, I guess when they say, you know, we want somebody to go with their plan, but then they turn around and they say, well, gosh, their plan is to work behind the scenes and to conspire to create something, to leave the Vice Chair out of it, to leave the Chair out of it, to leave their constituents out it, and violate the BECC by-laws, to violate the Randolph-Sheppard Act. And I guess where you guys get tied into it, Eric, is you guys are responsible for administering the program, so if the BECC isn’t complying with those regulations, you guys end up with the ones that the finger gets pointed at. So I guess it’s your responsibility to get in there and say, look it, you’re supposed to be an advocate for right here, under C, under article there. You can’t just simply dismiss yourself from the meeting. You simply can’t refuse a request for advocacy. So, I mean, that’s just my thoughts on that. Anyway, then it goes on to say, “We only want people to all work together rather than saboteuring or sniping or doing anything that would drag down the morale and the effectiveness of the Board.” I don’t know what that means. I believe it probably is related to some of the other comments I’ve heard. But what I will say, right, wrong, or indifferent, and if people agree or believe in or not, a person has a right to file grievances. They have a right to their due process. They have a right to voice up and stand their concerns. And I can tell you, even though you’ve, you know, done, done those, done the job better than I think most any other manag—BE directors we’ve had here, I still, you know, have concerns. And so, you know, no one, no one though, when I bring this up, no one ever notified me of the concern. So I’m not quite sure what they might mean by that. And I

wanted to ask them, so I wish they would have been here. But then it says, when the Board, you know, when the Board, I’m trying to struggle through this [inaudible] large print, I’m sorry. But then it says, “Randy, there have been numerous complaints about how you treat others.” And again, why wasn’t I, I mean, why wasn’t I made aware of that? Why didn’t somebody come to me and say, hey, look it, this is this, and this is that. You know, if there’s concerns, let me know about them. Let’s work through them and document them like Jerry indicated. You can’t just simply go off of hearsay, or what you might remember now, you know. The other thing is, Eric, I do want to share, reference, or the Agency’s point of view. When RSA did a monitoring report here, they clearly identified that the BECC needs to exercise care in the way in which it construes its rights to dismiss members, ohh, you know, unilaterally without consultation or involvement of the broader blind vendor community. Obviously it’s a violation and so that just, I wanted to share that with you, that is a concern. It, it, it says further in my letter, and I wish they would have been there so I could have had my, you know, due process, but… It says, you know, that they’ve had complaints about, and of course, we haven’t seen any, and even though we’ve asked for them, haven’t seen them. But, oh, that they’ve refused to work with me because you don’t, you don’t include them in any decision making. Well, the decisions made are in a, in a public meeting. That’s in a BECC meeting. No one notifies me of those concerns. I have reached out to numerous times with no response, so for anybody to suggest that, again, I’m not perfect. And there may be times, just like you, Eric, where you get busy on a task and you do things. You were supposed to work with me the other day on an issue, and you know, you, you acknowledge, hey, look it, I got busy, I forgot about. Because sometimes that happens. But what I can tell you is I always do it for the betterment of the group. I’ve spent a lot of time and effort doing that, and so, that’s, that’s something that I wanted to share. And I wish I could have a chance to share it with the, with the signed complainants. Anyway, I’ve requested involvement before and I just can’t get anybody… And this goes back years, you know? I can’t get anybody to step up. Jerry and Lewanda and a few of them are the ones that did. I mean, Ken used to, but then he never did anymore. And so I think it was more than just simply not, you know, not liking me. But the Oregon Commission for the Blind has an obligation to see that the BECC operates in compliance with state public meeting laws and those agendas, and other materials. And so that again is in the RSA. They go on to say that you know, one example of this is when “you recently selected a Vice Chair without first going through the last,” errr, you know, the proper protocol I guess is what it is. And what I can tell you is this: prior to that meeting, I emailed several times Lewanda Miranda, who has been our custodian of records and also has maintained the by-laws. Now with that being said, there’s been several changes and amendments to the by-laws. I’ve found recently that there’s two different varying by-laws, which concern me a lot. But I reach out to Lewanda to say, Lewanda, look it, this is what I’m thinking about doing. What, where are we going to go with that, you know? We have a… So she emailed me back, for the record, and says, “I think you can just appoint Lin Jaynes,” and just do that, it’s past practice, and… And so, what I would share with you is that our custodian of records who takes track of the by-laws, not only hasn’t updated the by-laws in a accessible format, but also gave me conflicting information. So, did I do that right or not? I don’t know, it’s been done a lot of different ways. You know, the by-laws posted on the OCB website didn’t refer to any process in how I’m supposed to do that. So when they bring that up, I think it’s like grasping at straws. What harm impacted? We did take a vote, and you know, I did also during my initial email ask them for their support. Now if they would have reared back and said, “No, we don’t want Jerry,” then we would have had to talk about it. But I felt it was just kind of a procedural matter. Nonetheless we did take a vote on it, so I think again they’re grasping at straws. And again, if others had [inaudible]. Yes.

Bird: If I make a comment to that before you get any further.

Hauth: Yes.

Bird: Because I was involved in that. I, and apparently the proper protocol once they figured out, it, that it, what it was, was taken care of. And the process happened. So I don’t know why they want to keep bringing that back out, how that would possibly been your fault. And once again, because it was shown, and then they, everyone voted at a meeting and accepted me. So it’s a mute. I don’t know why they, they think they can bring that up like it’s all up, up, it’s all Mr. Hauth is tried to pull a woolly over their eye, or something, you know. But the process happened, it was caught, and, and we held the, held it, and the vote was taken. So, you know, it can’t keep being used that, oh, it didn’t, it didn’t happen. Maybe if you refused to do it, they’d have a point. But it…

Hauth: Sure.

Bird: So once again they can’t do an issues that’s already been resolved. Go ahead, I’m sorry to break your…

Hauth: No, no, no, no, that’s fine, and you know, just to help look for that, I went to OCB’s website to look under the by-laws and it wasn’t involved, included in that also. And… You know, Eric, I mean, what, I mean, what are your thoughts on something, or what’s the Agency’s thoughts on something like that, I mean…

Morris: Something like what?

Hauth: Well, what we just, what I was just going over.

Morris: About the Vice Chair thing?

Hauth: Yeah.

Morris: Well, I think… You know, I had a long conversation with Jerry the other day about this whole, the whole issue. And this is not necessarily, it’s not a BE thing. This is politics from my personal opinion, because I’m involved in lots of politics.

[phone ringtone playing]

Hauth: Well, I guess the, I guess [inaudible] concern is that it’, I just [inaudible].

Morris: I can’t, I can’t hear you.

Hauth: Okay, hold on just a second. Let me put this, other one on mute. I had another phone sitting here. Um…

Morris: Randy, I guess if you’re going to, if you’re talking about the RSA monitoring report, I’d have to go back and read what it says. I think you sent me a copy of it in the several, several emails you sent over the last day or so. But…

Hauth: Yep, okay. You know, what I, what I would share with you is it’s clearly ties the responsibility of the Agency and the BECC. It’s, you know, I, it’s not just simply policy or politics. It is a joint relationship in the Agency. Like, we can’t have a meeting without the assistance of the Agency. And so for you to be

here and be involved, and it clearly brings you into the picture. And for any kind of supportive action by the Agency to remove me as Chair clearly, again, connects you guys to that issue, so… You know, I know what you’re saying and maybe what Terry Smith said. I don’t necessarily think that’s, you know, that’s right. I mean, are the by-laws on the agenda?

Morris: Well, I guess I quote Jerry, you know, Jerry’s been saying the same thing all night. Everybody has their opinion, and I, I agree with that. And it’s one of those things that, depending on what action’s taken tonight, we’re going to have to work it out and figure out whose purview it sits within. If anything was, you know, broken or that type of deal, so… Like my notes said today, they haven’t done anything yet. I mean, we’re…

Hauth: I would, yeah, I would, I would tell you also, Eric, that the OARs say that I’ll serve a two-year term. Now, the OAR, OARs, everything that I can see, trump the by-laws. And everything that I’ve seen about the by-laws say they’re very confusing and conflicting. Like I said, there’s two different ones. And also the officers under a whole different article, so I just wanted to share that with you as you reflect and go, go forward, you know. I’m expecting them to vote me out, I mean, they’ve already voted, I believe. They’ve already voted that way, so, but anyway, I wanted… I’m almost done here on this, at least wanted to… You know, it goes on to say, “…believe that a new and different approach to the office will be healthy.” What does that mean? I mean, I don’t, I don’t quite get that. Is that cause because they believe something would be healthy? You know, “not only to the licensed blind managers, but in dealing with the new administration.” Now, one of the things that I’ll tell you is concerning is when Dacia and you contacted the managers and started to go over the program, and the projects, and processes and also shared concerns related to pending and possible complaints. I’m, I’m concerned that that somehow will be reflected as we go through and find out, you know, what’s going on here, and I just, you know… I want to read one thing here as we close out, is that, from our training… Let me scroll through the page here, it will just take a minute, if you’ll bear with me please. And if you’ll, I still want to talk about due process and you know, as a public official, I’m entitled to my amendment, the 14 th amendment under the Constitution for procedural. And I just think that, personally, I think these folks just are leading themselves down a really twisted road, and it’s unfortunate because it’s going to create a lot of havoc within the BE Program. I think you’ve seen some of that just starting, and it’s going to continue to create some major, I believe, obstacles related to this thing. And, you know…Cheesy, Easy, Squeezy! If people don’t want me in that position, then in October they vote me out. And I guess I would have expected, Eric, and again I know you’re in a tough position. I would have expected you to do an investigation and I still, am, ask you to do an investigation. I think that’s the proper thing to do, so that you have all the facts, especially when these people run for the hills and shirk their responsibilities. They’re not even here, so how confident are they in their concerns, you know? Are, how valid are their concerns? So, you know, I’m, I’m, I’m just suggesting that I think somewhere down the line, people will question why an investigation wasn’t done, and why the OARs weren’t followed, and why the public meetings and the notices weren’t followed, and why there aren’t policies governing discrimination and all those. So, you know, just to share that with you. I do want to in closing, if I may, share with you from the AG’s training at the In-Services. It says, “If it is, if it’s in your own,” as far as ethics training, “if it’s your own financial interest, that’s a conflict of interest.” So, for the Board to unilaterally set an agenda without your involvement, or the BECC to reposition out of practice the public comments, for the BECC to omit me from emails, for the BECC to request that the Vice Chair to hold the meeting, for the BECC to quote as their conflict of interest, and I can’t see any justification or any content within the by-laws on this, that, that’s really concerning. Just in closing, did you talk to anybody else related to this matter?

Morris: I’m thinking. I, I don’t believe so. But maybe, maybe not. It’s late.

Hauth: Did you talk to, did you, Kevan Worley or James Gashel, or… Gary Stevens?

Morris: No, I, I don’t talk to the NFB guys, Randy, you should know that by now.

Hauth: Okay. Well, Terry’s an NFB guy, too. I just want to say…

Morris: Oh, Terry is not an NFB guy. He works for a subdivision of NFB. But he’s not, he’s not that guy. I think we all know that.

Hauth: Yeah, but, and I, I’ll tell you what, I like Terry, but he does work for NFB and so, you know, it’s, you know…

Morris: You’d probably like him, you’d probably like him in a different manner if he would have said, “Well, yeah, Eric, you need to dive in there and get this all straightened out.” But that’s not what he said, so… You know, it’s…

Hauth: I just want to say in closing that, like the AG’s training says, again, the agenda goes out to a mailing list of everyone who’s interested in the BE program by email. And we would also make the agenda available to the public. We would post it on the website, for example. I think that was a failure. Never saw it on the website and it didn’t go out to all the interested parties, so that was one thing that was concerning me, that it appeared that these folks were so heck-bound on getting this railroaded and ramrod through that a lot of things were, were missed. But you know, with that being said, Eric, I don’t know, you know, I don’t know what else to say. So… Jerry or Eric, if you guys have anything you’d like to share, I’d sure like to hear it.

Bird: Well, as far as I’m, I’m, I’m kind of neutral like I try to be. I, I understand a lot of stuff you’re saying. I may, I agree with, and I, I see because, I, I don’t know, the way I read stuff. And, and my whole concern here is, is, is cause. Where they want to say cause is this, cause is that. To me, cause has to be justified and it has to be direct, and they have to come out with some specific reasons and justify them; that they’re not just hearsay. So that’s my only concern, now, you know, apparently I will think they’re going to do what they want to do. I’m going to let it happen. But you have been given your opportunity to have this exclusive session, executive session. Now you have it on the record, and however it may go, and however you choose to proceed is certainly at your discretion. And you know, whatever actions you, you believe needs to be necessary so you do get your due process. With that being said, [inaudible]… And Eric, you have the…

Hauth: Yeah, thank you, Jerry.

Bird: Do you have anything, Eric?

Morris: I do not.

Hauth: Yeah, I just wish, Jerry, just in closing, I just wish the BECC members would have been here so I could have been, you know, actually a chance for due process. I, I, you know, I fully intend that this action will be taken against me. And I think it will just, you know, basically solidify my course of action. So…

Bird: And I’m going to say, I agree. I’m disappointed that they took that course. It’s not too surprising for me, but I was hoping they would at least participate. So, they got a chance to participate, and now you’re going to be, you, because they felt to, now you even have a more of a cause to I think file a complaint. And therefore, they’re going to drag the rest of us in for taking this thing, I believe, that it should have been dealt with. We could have been done here. The action was done, everyone had their thing to say, they’ve refused to specify stuff to you. So therefore, you know, I disagree with it, but that’s my opinion, and I, I done what I believed I should do on this meeting. And once again, good luck, and I hope things work out.

Hauth: Yep, thank you.

Bird: All right, are you, are you, you done, Randy? You’ve...

Hauth: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’m all done.

Bird: Okay. Okay, Eric, let’s return to the meeting and…

Morris: All right, I’m going to drop off and I’ll meet you guys back over on the other line.

Hauth: All right.

Bird: Thank you.

1-53-02

[RESTARTED THE REGULAR MEETING AT 01-53-12]

Bird: Hello.

Morris: Hey, Jerry, I’ll send a note out to everybody saying we’re coming back if anybody’s checking their emails.

Bird: Okay, cool.

Morris: Because I think we’re the only ones on here right now.

Bird: Yeah, sounds like it when I connected, so… I know it’s difficult. We got to come up with a better way of, of alerting people when you come back, because I set there for hours before, too. Wondering when they come back, and as soon as you hang up, by darn they come back. And then you don’t, miss the first part, so…

Morris: Yeah, I would just, I would just make sure that the full quorum comes back before you do anything, just as a recommendation.

Bird: Okay.

Morris: Just because it’s tough, you know. You don’t want somebody to say, hey, I wasn’t included because, you know, I had to, yeah, like you said, jump through hoops to be involved.

Bird: Yeah. Well, you know, they may just [inaudible] and that’s perfectly fine.

Morris: Yeah. It’s tough being the Chair. I, I’ve been there, done that. I know.

Bird: Well, I don’t like it. I’m, I’m, I’m might be removing myself from a lot of this program’s stuff. I’m stressed, I have, I, I’m medically I’m about had it. I’m just not wired for that to be, as much as I try, to be two-faced and this and that and I mean, I believe it should be cause and justifiable, but… By damn, they start doing it like this, I believe, we’ll never have a Board, because they’ll just be thrown out when anybody wants to, but that’s just my opinion. But God bless our program and I, they learned how to fish, so now they got to go catch their own fish.

Morris: Good analogy.

Bird: But they’ll do it without me. I’m not doing it no more. And I’ll announce that when the time comes, but…

Morris: I should have just brought my sleeping bag. I could have just camped out here tonight.

Bird: Where you at? The Agency?

Morris: Yeah, well, where else would I be?

Bird: Oh, that’s right.

Morris: Yep. It’s just easier for me because I got my computer here with the big monitor and stuff. I can, it’s just easier for me to navigate documents and emails and stuff.

Bird: Yeah. Well, [inaudible]

Hauth: Hey, Eric.

Morris: Yeah, Randy.

Hauth: Yeah, I was just informed that they took a vote without us while we were in Executive Session. And Commissioner McQuillan also weighed in on it. In case you guys were wondering, they took a vote. Art Stevenson, Lewanda Miranda, Harold Young, and they set Harold Young as a, as the Chair. And so, Eric, this is why I was really trying to encourage you to get involved, because you have got a major mess on your hands.

Bird: Yep.

Hauth: Just concerned about it. So…

Morris: So did they say…

Bird: Okay.

Morris: Did they say if they’re coming back, or?

Bird: [inaudible] you know, they have no respect for us, you know. Definitely, I’m disgusted. This is, this is the [inaudible] they’re willing to do whatever they want to do without following procedures. I tried to follow them the best as possible. They’ve taken their own action that… So, I don’t know. I, I guess we’ll give them a few more minutes to come back, and then I will, I don’t know what I’m going to do.

Hauth: Eric, Eric, they, yeah… Jerry, Jerry just to share with you. Lin called me up and she was on the line. And she’s going to send me a confirming memorandum of email. But they’ve already voted. Ken says they’re not going to waste all night on here. Carla said, you know, basically supported the vote. Lewanda made the motion and I don’t know who seconded it, but then they also voted to have Harold in that Chairman position. And so, I’m really disap—you know, hmm.

Bird: Hmm. Interesting. Well, that kind of confirms it. Well now, I hate, hate to do it, but now, I’m not going to be disrespected. So, Eric, you are in for a handful.

Hauth: Yep, yep.

Bird: So, and, and, you know, when they violate the, the things, statutes and the by-laws that they want to enforce, it don’t work that way. You don’t, you don’t do one wrong with another wrong.

Hauth: Yeah, Eric, are you still there?

Morris: Yeah, I’m still here.

Hauth: Yeah, well, I’m sorry that, I’m sorry you’re in this mess, too.

Morris: Well...

Bird: That’s why Terry didn’t, didn’t want to get involved, because you know… And, and, and they’re going to have to, now there’s going to be a complaint. Now you, we’re going to have to go to hearings. Now we’re going to drag in the money. Now we’re going to drag in this time. So, I, I don’t know, hope these people understand what they have just done, because, you know, whether they have the authority to do so, I don’t know. But it’s not proper procedure. And it’s disrespecting the acting Chair, which they have done all along. They will choose when they want to have a Chair, and what he’ll do for him, and if he don’t do what they want, we ignore you. So, Eric, be prepared.

Hauth: Yeah, I’ve gone… Yeah, I’ve… Hey, Eric, the one thing I would say is Carla McQuillan weighing in clearly shows some kind of collusion and involvement. Especially when, you know, the email just went out to the Commissioners. I mean, I’m really, really concerned. I wish, you know, I mean, I wish, I wish you luck as well, but… Yeah, I don’t know. I’m really, really concerned.

Bird: Well, okay, apparently no… I’m, as Chairman I’m going to finish this meeting. For those who did not, who are not here now, that is at their wishes. I now, let’s see, I, I, I now, I now because of their actions and they violated it. This meeting I will deem did not happen.

Hauth: Yeah, Jerry?

Bird: And what [inaudible] will not, will not be official. As Chairman, I was not kept in it. I, I, I asked for this session, and we done it…

Hauth: Eric?

Bird: And when we come back, they done what they’re done, so I now officially under my… Go ahead.

Hauth: Could you call a roll call vote? If there’s anybody there.

Bird: Yeah, I’d like to take a roll call. Who, is there anyone on the line?

Hauth: I’m here.

Bird: Randy, are you there?

Hauth: Yes, I’m here.

Bird: Okay. Lewanda? Harold? Tessa? Cathy? And the other ones, I’m not that concerned with because even though they want to be Board members, they’re not. Even though Carla, I guess, is a Board member, and she’ll tell us how to run our thing. Therefore… Okay, I make a, I make a motion that, and, and, and this is what I’m going to tell you. The by-laws says that if there’s not a quorum, the Chairman will appoint a quorum, and make a quorum. A quorum, for people refusing to be a quorum is not, is not a way of getting around not making motions. I make a motion that this meeting be deemed “null and void” because of the actions of the Board members. Therefore, that is what I deem. Do I hear a second?

Hauth: I second it.

Bird: Okay, any, any, any opposed? Any, any, any comments? Any, any concerns?

Hauth: I would just say I think you did a good job, Jerry.

Bird: Okay, this meeting has now been deemed because of improperness and further this meeting is null and void and must be redone. This is my decision. And Eric, I, I ask you to take that to the rest of the Board. I will be writing a letter, and I guess…

Morris: Well, Jerry, write, write, write a letter to the Board. Don’t write a letter to me, you can copy me on it, that’s fine.

Bird: Well, I’m telling you because you’re, you’re part of the meeting here. And I think as you, as much as you hate to be, you are responsible to make sure this program isn’t violated and that people are in compliance with the stuff. I know everyone want to kept saying, well, they believe the by-laws are, are being followed. Well, it’s clearly they have violated them now. So, as, as, as an Agency, I believe it’s your duty to talk to Dacia and to do some discipline that this action will not be taken lightly. And that I believe that you, as a, as a director of our Randolph-Sheppard Act program, has an obligation, even though you don’t like it, to make sure that people are in compliance.

Morris: So, Jerry, would you recommend that I remove licenses from people, or what are you talking about?

Bird: No, I, I recommend that you tell them that the meeting was deemed null and void and, and tell them the reasons that they did, that they did, they violated the by-laws. Now, maybe you might be asking me, what, I guess if you think they did, that’s a different thing, but it does specify what these by-laws are, and we shouldn’t immediately do an, have the authority to walk away in meeting, and close the meeting as they did. I believe, it’s… I want you to tell them they, they was improper. They done wrong. And this meeting will have to be retaken until they, until they act properly.

Hauth: Yeah. Yeah, if I may, Chairman. I believe they failed their duties as advocates. And Eric, I, I believe that, I would agree with Jerry that those members need to be notified of their wrongdoings. It’s clear that they pushed forward with this. I believe that Commissioner McQuillan’s involvement in this is also, needs to be addressed by the, through the Governor’s office and by Dacia Johnson. And you know, Dacia is the administrating, administrator. She wanted that job. She needs to, I believe, take some appropriate action. And this, you know, this is a concern. I would request also, Eric, if, and maybe if you would prefer I can do this through Kathy Ewing, but I’m going to request recorded minutes of the meeting, so…

Morris: Just make sure you copy me on it.

Hauth: Okay.

Bird: And I’ll do the same. But sorry, Eric, but I think you understand. I don’t know if you agree with it, or if it’s a tactic or something they can do, but it can’t be, I don’t think it’s just. And I, I, I am very disappointed that I’ve been treated as my position, as simply nothing, even though they, they state like I’ve said that what, what the Chairman’s authority will and his duty. And they can’t, they can’t stop that. And they did, so therefore, I, like I stated. I ask you to take, take actions to see if this was a proper meeting and it was a proper way to end the meeting. And, and, and them are [inaudible]…

Hauth: [inaudible]

Bird: We’ll discuss what needs to be done. I mean, I’m not going to say you take their license away. They just need to know, they do, we do stuff properly here. And [inaudible]…

Hauth: One of the things that I would…

Bird: And if they want to do it properly and officially, then they’ll be able to do what they want to do. But they’re not going to cut corners and pull little shenanigans and believe that we’ll just sit back. So…

Hauth: And Mr. Chair?

Bird: Yes.

Hauth: Yeah, I would, I would encourage Eric as I stated in my official complaint to do a full investigation, not only on this, but on the events leading up to this. I think it would help create, I don’t know, it would help resolve, or help determine what’s, I don’t know what’s going on behind this. This is a, I don’t know, this is a very confusing and [inaudible] situation.

Bird: Well, it’s got to be, it’s got to be separated from the group now. They made their decision, they think they’re right. So now, so now it’s got to go to a different quorum, a different authority, for like Randy just said, to be investigated. Because these are, these are complaints, these are justifications we are concerned with. And you can’t go off of just what they sold, so now there must be an investigation to see if it was properly done. So, that’s where I’m at and I’m sorry about it. I thought we was just about ready. We would have went back. They would have done what they wanted to do. And we would have been done. Apparently…

Morris: Jerry, please, please, please send me a note so I have it writing.

Bird: All righty.

Morris: Thank you.

Bird: Okay, I guess this meeting will be adjourned.

Hauth: Good night, Jerry. Good night, Eric.

Morris: Good night, guys.

Bird: Good night.

02-07-47

00-00-52

[meeting during the Executive Session with all of the BE Managers]

Gerlitz: Eric? Unreal… You’ve got to have a quorum. There’s no quorum. You know, they can’t have a [inaudible] one without a [inaudible]. Male voice: Lew, you there?

Gerlitz: Well, but we can vote.

Miranda: Yes, I am. I’m here.

Stevenson, Art: So everybody can remain on the line until they come back.

Stevenson, Derrick: They did say the vote was going be taken here, right?

Male voice: Yeah.

Stevenson, Art: Am I off mute?

Gerlitz: You bet.

Male voice: That’s what he said.

Miranda: Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Okay, yeah, they have to come back here to where the public meeting is occurring, and then, and then the Board members can make the motion and all that kind of stuff.

Miranda: And just a reminder, this meeting’s still being recorded.

Stevenson, Art: Okay.

McQuillan: Can I just say something? This is Carla.

Stevenson, Art: Hi Carla.

McQuillan: Hey. So, I think that the best way to represent all of the managers is to let them actually participate in this activity, not to make it a closed session. That would just be my thought.

Gerlitz: But we did, we just didn’t, and he it to the Executive Session.

McQuillan: No, I understand. No, no, I’m just, I’m just saying that the argument that you’re shirking your responsibilities as members of the BECC, I believe is inaccurate. I think you were fighting for the opportunity for your people to be a part of what has been described as kind of behind closed doors discussion that really should be something for everybody. That’s just my opinion.

Stevenson, Art: Duly, duly noted and thank you for your words of wisdom, Carla. Point well taken and I think most everybody would agree with you.

Colley-Dominique: That’s going to be some kind of meeting.

Gerlitz: Well, I just don’t understand, they go back in Executive Session, they can’t come to any conclusions because number one, there’s no quorum…

McQuillan: Nope!

Gerlitz: So I just don’t know… [laughs] I don’t see [inaudible]…

Stevenson, Art: Hey, you know, it, you’re absolutely right, Ken, and stuff. And I actually talked to Mr. Bird today, and, and said that he shouldn’t be having—this was my advice to him—that he shouldn’t be having an Executive Session unless all the Board members or the majority of the Board members agreed to an Executive Session, and he ignored my opinion and my advice. So, and I don’t mind that this is still being recorded.

Gerlitz: No, I wouldn’t either. I just wanted to say that I probably have heard the best description of a dictator that I’ve heard in my whole life.

[laughter]

Female voice: Hear, hear!

Female voice: Yeah.

Gerlitz: I mean… I know he was trying, and I know he was trying hard, but I just, I think they’re taking it way out of context there, you know. And they start talking about, you know, going to court and legal definitions and this and that, but… This is an advisory committee; first of all, it’s a nonprofit. There’s no money involved… It’s, it’s, it’s ludicrous, I think.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah.

Gerlitz: That’s me, my name’s Art now. That’s me.

Stevenson, Art: [laughs] Hey, hey, Lewanda?

Gerlitz: Lew, are you there?

Miranda: Yes? Mm-hmm? Can you hear me?

Gerlitz: Yeah, yeah. Art was yelling your name. Art, you there?

Stevenson, Art: Lewanda? Lewanda?

Gerlitz: Yelling your name… You’re on now.

Stevenson, Art: Oh, okay. Lewanda, is there any way you can stop the recording and restart it when the, when the meeting goes on, or do you know?

Miranda: Uh, well, you don’t know really who’s on here, so you don’t want to do that.

Gerlitz: [inaudible]

Stevenson, Art: Okay, that’s fine.

Gerlitz: Probably sitting back there just taking it easy. Probably [inaudible].

McQuillan: But I think you can. I think you have to hang up the phone and stop the recording. I think it automatically just keeps recording until the last person gets off.

Stevenson, Art: Okay. Well, I don’t have any problems. I haven’t got any secrets or anything, and I’m, you know. I’ve made my statements and stuff like that. And actually I think the Board can move to remove while Mr. Bird adjourned the meeting, this part of any kind of discussion. Could they not, Carla?

McQuillan: I’m sorry, [inaudible]. Okay, because…

Stevenson, Art: Well, well, what I’m saying is as far as the official minutes go, the Board could make a motion that, that this part, because we’re not, we’re not in Session can be, can be stricken from the official minutes.

McQuillan: Oh, stricken! Oh, absolutely. Sure. Absolutely.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah.

Female voice: Well, in that case, Bird sounds biased.

Gerlitz: Well, I just hope they haven’t sent out for pizza.

Miranda: What was that? Bird’s biased? Is that what I heard?

Female voice: Yeah, yeah. He’s, he’s…

Gerlitz: He’s trying. He’s trying to do a good job, but he just, you know, he can’t separate his friends from [inaudible].I think the Board could have just gone ahead and demanded a vote and voted, and closed the meeting. I don’t think we have to go [inaudible]…

Miranda: [inaudible] the easy way.

Gerlitz: It’s on Robert’s Rules of Order, that I read Robert’s [inaudible]…

Female voice: Do you…

Stevenson, Art: Well, I, I, this is… Am I off mute?

Voices: Yeah. You’re off. Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah, and Jerry, Jerry told me today, and you’ve already seen evidence of it, that, that he may just say, not accept the motion to remove Mr. Hauth today.

McQuillan: So, I have a question. The majority…

Gerlitz: Well, then we’ll have to make a motion to have him removed.

McQuillan: Yeah, I was going to say, 2/3 of the Board signed on to the letter. Can’t you request, do you, do you have a requirement for all votes to be in person at an official meeting? Can you take a proxy vote?

Stevenson, Art: Carla, this is Art.

McQuillan: Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah, I believe they can take a proxy vote, and I also believe if, if Mr. Bird, you know, denies them the vote then they can do, because he’s, he’s only the Vice Chair and a Board member, they

don’t have to follow the proper protocol for a Chairman. They could just make a motion and, and do it if, if Jerry does say that. They can do both.

McQuillan: I mean, typically there…You know, typically there is an opportunity. If you have a majority of the Board, even if the Chair doesn’t want something to occur, the, the majority of the Board can say “yes, it’s going to.” And it appears that in the, the by-laws for the BECC it’s 2/3 vote. So it would seem to me like that could take place regardless, if you’ve got the vote.

Miranda: Well, we…

Stevenson, Art: Yeah, and I, I, I believe that also, and, and of course it’s, it’s the will of the Board, and they can do exactly what they want to. But your, your comment I believe is, is absolutely correct. If Mr. Bird insists on, on saying that he can deny motions and, and do whatever he wants.

Miranda: Excuse me. We did, we did that concerning having this Executive Session, and here we are.

Stevenson, Art: Well, that, that’s okay, but you, you’re still on the phone, Lewanda, and, and you guys can do it, and it, it can be, it can be a part of the official record. And then even, even though Mr. Bird deny, denies it, I believe it’s, it would be an official vote.

Female voice: Let’s have a quorum.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah, because there is a quorum.

Young: Hey, Art.

Stevenson, Art: Yes, sir?

Gerlitz: Actually, Mr. Bird could be removed.

Young: I, well, yeah. I, sorry, I should, I didn’t think you really got out of hand. But I’m… [inaudible] He wasn’t allowing the motions.

Stevenson, Art: No, that’s fine. At, at, at this point in time, you know, you, you guys, you, you, you could have, or didn’t have to, make a vote to take action against Mr. Bird if that was your, your desire. So don’t, don’t apologize. The meeting’s not over, and you guys have rights as Board members. Mr., Mr. Bird does not think that, that you do, but, but you do. So, you know, what, whatever you do in the rest of the meeting, you still are a majority.

Gerlitz: Is Tessa and Cathy still here? Online?

Brown: I’m here, Tessa’s here.

Colley-Dominique: I’m here.

Young: Hey Tessa. Hey. All right.

Gerlitz: Lew, do you know?

Miranda: Yep, we’re all here.

Colley-Dominique: Yeah, we’re here.

Gerlitz: Okay, I just wanted to make sure. I thought you might, they might be smarter than I think! Come back out and say, well, this is the decision. There’s no quorum.

[laughter]

Stevenson, Art: I, I, you know, I’m, I, I was sad to see that Derrick, that Jerry didn’t listen to what Derrick said and realize that all, you know, everybody’s rights and responsibilities are still being followed, and that you, the Board has the right to remove Mr. Hauth. But Mr. Hauth also has the right to run in the special election, and if the majority of the managers vote for him, then he’s still the Chairman.

McQuillan: Absolutely.

Stevenson, Art: And, and so, Mr. Bird did not unfortunately take the advice of Derrick, which, which I agreed with wholeheartedly. And, and it’s unfortunate, but you know, you can lead a horse to water and you can’t make him drink. But the, the Board should do what they will and, and then Mr. Hauth has the opportunity to get reelected as long as he has the votes.

Young: All righty.

Miranda: Still, that due process is following the by-laws, which we’ve done. We sent the letter, certified with cause. And now we’re having a vote. That’s due process.

Young: Okay, let’s do it. I make a motion… Oh [inaudible], let me start over.

Female voice: I seconded it.

[laughter]

Young: Wait, wait, wait. I would like to make a motion to remove Chairman Hauth from Chairman by cause stated in the certified letter.

Brown: I second it.

Stevenson, Art: Okay, you guys, you guys got to wait until the meeting starts.

Gerlitz: [inaudible]

Female voice: [inaudible]

Stevenson, Art: But practice makes perfect.

[laughter]

Stevenson, Art: Isn’t that right, Carla?

McQuillan: Yep.

Gerlitz: Carla, what’ve you been up to? You’ve been real quiet lately.

McQuillan: Who me?

Gerlitz: Yeah.

McQuillan: Quiet? Really?

[laughter] Gerlitz: We usually, we usually, we usually hear you speak more like at the Board meetings, etc. And the last thing, the last conversation I had with you, and, and I’m ticked off at you, because you came up to me and said that there’s this guy who runs the School for the Blind in Washington and I need to go and talk to him, and you were going to get me all the information and set it up. And you know, I’m still waiting!

McQuillan: Yeah. Ohhh [inaudible]… I’m sorry. The state convention! You know what, you need to give me a little reminder on stuff. I make a lot of promises and state conventions. There’s a lot of stuff going on. I will, I will definitely get that to you. Well, Art’s got that information, too, but I can get that to you.

Stevenson, Art: Um, am I off mute?

Voices: Yeah. Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Ken? You know, I, I stated that OCB, you know, is, is, is running a lot better with Eric and Dacia on board. Now, we have to get the Elected Committee doing things right. And we’re, we’re taking the proper steps. And then we can begin to—hallelujah!—run this program like it should have always been run, so that we can have a successful program. And, and I know there’s a majority of managers that want to see that happen. So it’s going to happen. Even though the writing the new rules and regulations, certain people involved are, are slowing the process down. It is going to get done, close to on time, I hope, and, and we’ll be able to really start doing the things we should be doing in this, in this program. And I’m, you know, we’ve made more progress in the last year, Ken, than, than we’ve made in the 27 years I’ve been involved in it. So I’m, I’m really excited about that.

Gerlitz: Yeah, but if that Con—what do you call it? Confluescence… I can’t even say it.

Miranda: Confluence Center.

McQuillan: Confluence?

Gerlitz: There you go, that’s it. [inaudible] they going slower to go backwards.

Stevenson, Derrick: Yeah, I’m just kinda frustrated.

Stevenson, Art: Well, and, and Ken, you haven’t been involved in the whole process.

Gerlitz: [inaudible]

Stevenson, Art: And, and there have been individuals, and, and believe me, Lewanda can verify this, Derrick can verify this, Tessa can verify it, that, that don’t want to see it succeed and so they keep, they keep putting, putting, you know, sticks in the wheel to slow the process.

Gerlitz: Yeah. Yeah.

Stevenson, Art: But it is going to be done. And, and, you know, Theresa’s doing a fantastic job considering the individuals who, who do not want to see this process succeed. But it’s succeeding despite them. And that’s what’s slowing it down. I’ll tell you, if a couple people weren’t involved, we’d almost be done with the dang Handbook.

Gerlitz: I think so.

Stevenson, Derrick: Well, I just, I just want to say I don’t know one way or another if people are, are booby-trapping it, or don’t want it done or not. All I know is, I get frustrated because it takes too long to come to a consensus sometimes.

Gerlitz: Yes. Yes. And maybe these consensus votes should happen a lot sooner.

Stevenson, Art: Hey, this, this is Art again. You know, I actually had a conversation with Theresa today and she actually has read the Terry Smith process and what occurred. And, and she agreed with me that if we actually would have implemented the stuff that was in that we, we’d be in, in great shape. But, of course, you know, because of lack of proper leadership, that kind of stuff, on both sides of the fence, that didn’t happen. But Theresa, you know, is dedicated to getting it done and stuff. And we are going to have administrative rules that are clear and concise and, and that, there isn’t any, any leeway for either side not to do what we should be doing to make this program a success.

Stevenson, Derrick: Yeah, we’re going to come up with a Handbook that doesn’t have to be rewritten in four years.

Gerlitz: I hope so.

Stevenson, Derrick: That’s the main thing.

Gerlitz: Yeah, right.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah, Carla?

Gerlitz: Or, or, or it can be easily modified.

McQuillan: Yes?

Gerlitz: Right.

Stevenson, Art: You’re, you’re dang lucky that you aren’t involved in this process. I, I , I guarantee you, because I know you well enough…

McQuillan: Uh, you know what? I sat in on a couple of meetings, and that was all I could take.

Stevenson, Art: I understand. But you, you understand exactly where I’m coming from. That people, you know, first of all they don’t listen to what you’re saying. And, and they really don’t have a clear and concise understanding of the laws and stuff. And so they try to make them say what they really don’t say. And, and it confuses, you know, what’s going on. And I really feel sorry for Theresa because she’s, she’s gotten a real education on, on, on this stuff, but it, yeah. And like I said, you’re real lucky. We have to participate because we know we need to get it done and we need to get it done right this time. And Eric’s doing a fantastic job. He’s just frustrated that certain individuals don’t listen to what he’s saying and stuff, and it’s real hard to work with those kind of people.

Gerlitz: Yeah. [inaudible] Well, to begin with, I think…

Stevenson, Art: And I’m not saying anything that I wouldn’t say to their faces. In fact, I have a couple of times.

Gerlitz: I think that group started off being way, way too large to begin with. I mean, the larger your group, the more problems you’re going to have with [inaudible].

McQuillan: It’s pretty big. I agree. Yeah.

Stevenson, Art: Oh, I agree. I, I, I think, I think Eric and Theresa and myself and one or other, one or two other people would have just been fine, because, you know… The big thing that, that held up the whole process, and Theresa agreed with me, is that we didn’t adopt an active participation definition, and, and still haven’t. And that’s kind of, it’s kind of slowing down the…

Miranda: [inaudible] didn’t try.

Stevenson, Art: Pardon me?

Gerlitz: Yeah.

Miranda: Not that we didn’t try.

Stevenson, Art: No, we tried. But, you know, it’s going to get, it’s definitely going to get done. And Theresa’s looked at those two proposals, and I know once we adopt one or the other, that it’s, it’s going to be great.

Gerlitz: Either one of them would be [inaudible]. Miranda: I do agree that the current one is way too long and lengthy. I do agree with that. We need to shorten it up.

Stevenson, Art: Well, Lewanda, it was, it was never intended, the first paragraph like I said in the, in the meetings, or the Tennessee version was what actually was supposed to be the definition and then the

other parts were actually what was supposed to be written into the, the whole document. And, and that’s the way it should have been. But you know, there are a couple individuals who believe that that lengthy thing should be the whole definition and stuff. But it’s going to pass once we get to a vote.

Miranda: Yeah, I agree.

Colley-Dominique: I’m sure glad I have unlimited minutes.

Stevenson, Art: I am, too.

Gerlitz: Should we [inaudible] send out for pizza?

[laughter]

Brown: Cathy, I was just thinking the same thing. Between the R and R meetings, and this meeting, just in the, the first half of this week I will use, jeez, I don’t know. Like, I don’t know, five or six hundred minutes?

Colley-Dominique: I bet! I mean…

Stevenson, Art: Yeah. Well, I’ll bet you it’s kind of a boring Executive Session anyway, because Carla, could you imagine having an Executive Session of, of the Commission Board with only you, you and one other person partaking in the conversation?

McQuillan: Well, they can’t. They can’t! They don’t have a quorum.

Stevenson, Art: I, I understand.

Gerlitz: [inaudible] no quorum, but just a waste of time.

McQuillan: It, it’s, yeah, it’s not an official meeting. It’s not… Yeah.

Brown: Do they know they’re coming back?

Stevenson, Art: Well, I understand that. You know, we’ve tried to do some points of order and get clarification, and understanding of some certain aspects…

[dinging sound]

Stevenson, Art: Oh! Is somebody back? Is that the group?

Young: Yeah, this is Harold. Sorry, sorry, I, I’m leaving work right now, so I had to go to my cell phone. And then it hung up on me. Anyway…

Stevenson, Art: Well, we’re glad you’re back, Harold. You would, you would negate a, you know, 2/3 vote, so… You guys, don’t drop off the phone.

Young: [inaudible] Yeah, just tell me, just tell me if it gets too noisy, because...

Brown: How are the babies, Harold?

Gerlitz: Well, I was meaning to ask you something, since they don’t have a quorum, since they don’t have a quorum…

Young: Yeah, no they don’t.

Gerlitz: Since you guys, you guys have the majority, why do we have to wait? I mean, you got the votes. Can’t you just call for a vote?

Colley-Dominique: I wondered that, too. I wondered that, too.

Young: It’s a meeting. That’s why I did the motion.

Stevenson, Art: What’s your thoughts on that, Carla?

Colley-Dominique:[inaudible] Carla.

Gerlitz: If they would have said, we’ll be back in 10 minutes or 15 minutes, but they could…

McQuillan: I, I don’t know why you can’t call the question. It’s an official meeting. When they come back, I don’t know why you can’t call the question.

Vivian Smith: And who’s taking the minutes for their supposed Executive Session? Who’s taking the minutes?

McQuillan: Oh, there’s a good question.

Gerlitz: Well, it would have to be Eric, I guess.

Colley-Dominique: Linda!

Stevenson, Art: Who, who asked if they were taking minutes?

Vivian Smith: Vivian.

Stevenson, Art: Oh, Vivian, we didn’t know you were here!

McQuillan: Vivian!

Vivian Smith: Yeah, I, I, I said my name but I think it was muffled by somebody else.

McQuillan: You snuck in, you dog!

Vivian Smith: I didn’t sneak. I was here the whole time. You weren’t looking.

[laughter]

Stevenson, Art: Ohhhh!

Colley-Dominique: Ohhhh!

Stevenson, Art: You’re, you’re, you’re welcome. This is an open meeting.

Vivian Smith: Well, as soon as it said “open meeting”, I was quite curious, so…

Stevenson, Derrick: So, so, if we’re going to do a vote, I think it’s, I think it’s within our rights to do so. I think, you know, the four, four members who are a quorum should continue the meeting.

Vivian Smith: I, I would have to agree with that considering, you know, my position on a Board, you know. So, I don’t see why not. Go ahead! Get him out.

Stevenson, Art: Hey, Carla, what do you think about that?

McQuillan: I, honestly? I mean, I think, I think if you’ve got a majority vote and you’re requesting a, a motion, I don’t think it could be shut down.

Stevenson, Derrick: Well, either, either way, if we do it and it works, that’s good. And if someone contests it and we have to do it again, we’ll do it again. [inaudible]

McQuillan: There you go.

Stevenson, Art: Well, they wouldn’t have to do it. So, so, let’s, let’s, in my opinion…

Stevenson, Derrick: Let, let the Board members handle it, Art.

Stevenson, Art: What?

Stevenson, Derrick: Let the Board members handle it.

Stevenson, Art: Well, before they call the meeting, the official meeting, in my opinion, they have to designate somebody to be the Chairperson.

Miranda: I, Lewanda Miranda, would like to designate Harold Young to be the Chairperson.

Young: I’ll accept that.

Colley-Dominique: I would second that.

McQuillan: And you know, you guys, technically you’re all on a call. You know, the public meeting laws say that if there are four of you all gathered together discussing business, it becomes a public meeting.

Stevenson, Art: That’s right. So, so…

McQuillan: That’s the public meeting laws. So…

Young: That’s, that’s, see… Carla, that’s true. Carla, they, they chose to go in an Executive Session. We didn’t.

McQuillan: Yeah.

Stevenson, Art: Okay.

Colley-Dominique: They left.

McQuillan: Technically, I think you could take a vote right now.

Stevenson, Art: Okay. So, so…

McQuillan: Art!

Stevenson, Art: Huh?

Young: Could you…

McQuillan: You’re, you’re not on the Board.

Stevenson, Art: No, I understand that.

Young: Okay.

Stevenson, Art: They do have to have somebody to entertain a motion and stuff.

Miranda: That would be Harold.

McQuillan: Yep.

Young: Okay, here goes. I make a motion that we remove Chairman Hauth with cause, which was stated in the certified letter sent.

Stevenson, Derrick: I just have a point of order.

Brown: I, Tessa, second.

Stevenson, Derrick: Sorry to interrupt. I don’t think the Chairman can make the motion. I think someone else has to.

Stevenson, Art: No, no, no, no. According to our by-laws, the Chairman can make a motion.

Young: [inaudible]

Stevenson, Derrick: All right.

McQuillan: Really?

Stevenson, Art: Yes.

Young: It’s… Randy has before.

Stevenson, Art: Yes.

McQuillan: Well… [laughter]

Stevenson, Art: No, but, but Carla?

Vivian Smith: Do you want to just cover yourself?

Stevenson, Art: Carla, it is, it is part of our, our man--, our, our, our…

McQuillan: I, I do not disagree. You know your, you know your rules better than I do. I’m not going to argue with you.

Stevenson, Derrick: I would just say err in caution. That’s all I’m saying.

Female voice: Yeah.

Stevenson, Art: Okay, so, just, just to, to do that, would you, would somebody else make the motion?

Stevenson, Derrick: [inaudible]

Miranda: I, Lewanda Miranda, makes, makes motion that Chairman Hauth be removed from his chairmanship position of the BECC, with cause as written in his certified letter.

Young: I second it.

Brown: I, Tessa, second it.

Colley-Dominque: I second the motion.

Miranda: All in favor?

Stevenson, Art: Nope, nope! Let, let, let Harold say.

Young: [inaudible] Okay, Tessa, do you vote yes or no?

Stevenson, Derrick: Wait, open for discussion.

Young: Oh, whoops, sorry. Getting ahead of myself. Open for discussion.

Stevenson, Art: Call the question.

Brown: No discussion. Call the question.

Young: Sorry, I’m having a little trouble... I’m having, what was that? I’m having a little trouble with my cellphone, sorry.

Miranda: Repeat the question, Harold.

Young: Do I… Oh, wait a second. Ooops.

McQuillan: I’d do the roll call. It’s cleaner.

Brown: There’s no discussion.

Young: Sorry.

Colley-Dominique: I think you should do an individual [inaudible].

McQuillan: Yep, I agree.

Young: Let’s do the roll call.

Stevenson, Derrick: State the question and then we’ll roll call.

Young: Cathy Domini—

[background noise]

Miranda: Harold, state the question and then take a poll.

Young: Okay. Lewanda Miranda made a motion to remove Randy Hauth from his Chairmanship at the BECC with cause, which was stated in the certified letter sent to him. Cathy Dominique, do you vote yes or no?

Colley-Dominique: Yes.

Young: Tessa Brown, do you vote yes or no?

Brown: I’m in favor.

Young: Pardon?

Brown: Yes.

Young: Thank you. Lewanda Miranda, do you vote yes or no?

Miranda: Yes.

Young: And, and I, Harold Young, vote yes. So it’s, passes.

Stevenson, Art: Mr. Chairman?

Young: Yes.

Stevenson, Art: I mean, Mr. Designated Chairman? Is it necessary for you, now that Vice Chair has, vice, Vice Chair Bird has been made the official Chairman because he does have the role of Vice Chair, do you need to appoint another Board member until the special election occurs?

Gerlitz: No…

Young: Probably…

McQuillan: I don’t think so.

Stevenson, Art: Okay.

Young: I, I…

McQuillan: Yeah, I don’t think you want to mess with that. I think it [inaudible].

Stevenson, Art: Yeah. So do you want to set a time for the election? So that you don’t have to have another Board meeting to do so?

Stevenson, Derrick: Well, I think we just sort of wait for them to come back. I don’t know.

McQuillan: Sure. So, I’m a little bit, I wasn’t at the last BE In-Service, but who was elected the Vice Chair?

Stevenson, Art: It, it didn’t happen, Carla. And then Randy designated Jerry Bird with…

McQuillan: Well, I gathered that, but the one I was at a year and a half ago, Harold was elected at the meeting, right?

Stevenson, Art: No, he was. And it has to occur, it has to occur every year, a Vice Chairman is voted on by the Elected Committee. The Vice Chair isn’t a two-year term according to our…

McQuillan: Okay.

Stevenson, Art: And, and, and it didn’t happen.

Brown: [inaudible] Art, so…

Stevenson, Art: Yeah. It didn’t happen, but at the last BECC meeting there was a vote to make Bird the Vice Chair.

Gerlitz: [inaudible] ladies and gentleman, my phone is dying out. I just think that, you know, they could call forever and hope we all go home and then there wouldn’t be any vote. Like we gave them a [inaudible]

Stevenson, Art: Well, you know, that’s, that’s really true. You can notify Mr. Bird that a vote was taken and Mr. Hauth was removed. And, and then a Elected Committee can work on setting the time and date for these special election. So, you know…

Miranda: Can Harold Young as designated chairperson at this time adjourn the meeting?

Young: Well, I think we should talk about a date for the election though, because it has to be within 30 days?

Miranda: Yes.

Young: So, why don’t we set it for next Tuesday? Tuesdays seem to be a lot of fun.

Stevenson, Art: Next Tuesday, a week from today?

Young: Yep.

Stevenson, Art: All right, you guys make, make… You have to have nominations and stuff.

Stevenson, Derrick: Well, you have to have nominations.

Young: Oh yeah, yep, you do.

Stevenson, Art: So, so, I would say…

Young: That’s going to be probably two weeks.

Stevenson, Art: I, I would say nominations, you’re, you’re going to have to schedule a meeting, schedule a meeting next week on Tuesday for nominations.

Young: And then do the elections the following Tuesday.

Stevenson, Art: Yeah.

Miranda: No, excuse me. In the by-laws, you have the elections in a meeting and they come from the floor. And then the, the ballots, the votes go into Director Morris via electronic.

McQuillan: Oh, right!

Stevenson, Art: Okay, so you can set it for next Tuesday.

Young: Okay, for the nominations, yep, okay. Okay. We’ll make that happen.

Stevenson, Art: Well, no, no, you make the nominations on Tuesday and you vote on Tuesday.

Young: Okay.

Stevenson, Derrick: No, no… [inaudible]

Voices: No.

Miranda: No, that’s not usua—Art, no. You, you make the nominations next Tuesday, the nominations come from the floor, and then we will set a time then that the, that the electronic ballots need to be in for it.

Gerlitz: [inaudible]

McQuillan: Deadline.

Miranda: Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Okay. Okay. So next Tuesday at 4:30 we’re having a meeting for nominations?

Young: Yep, that works.

Brown: On the same conference line?

Young: Same line. Same conference line, same code.

Colley-Dominique: Are we using this line?

Miranda: Yes.

Stevenson, Art: Okay?

Young: All right. Well, as Chairman, I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting.

Brown: I second.

Miranda: Aye!

[laughter]

Stevenson, Art: Have to say, “All in favor, say aye.”

McQuillan: You’ve, you’ve got to get into this, Harold, come on, dude!

Young: All in favor, say aye. I know. It’s been an interesting day to say the least.

Voices: Bye!