BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGON SPECIAL MEETING

Date: Thursday, March 8, 2018 Time: 4:00 pm

OREGON COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND

535 SE 12th Avenue (Portland office)

Conference line: 404-443- 6397 Participant code: 943611#

Agenda Any of the agenda items listed below may become an action item.• Any of these items may be a conflict of interest.

1. Call to Order

2. Adoption of Minutes

3. Public Comment

4. Director’s Reporta. Dispute Resolution

5. Sub-Committee Report

6. Training & Education

7. Fly-In Reports

8. Funding for Upward Mobility Training/Continuing Education Requirements

9. Financial Committee Report

10. White Paper

11. Other

12. OLD BUSINESS a. Priority/Preference language discussion/ recommendationsb. Unassigned Vending Machines and Locations Discussion & Actions To Takec. Support Previous BECC Assignments

d. Fair minimum returne. Concerns Regarding Access to Program-Relevant Informationf. Recommendations for Use of Set-aside and Other Fundsg. Other

13. NEW BUSINESS a. Assigned Locations Updateb. New By-Laws Recommendationc. Locations Updated. Implementation Plan Updatee. BEP Budget Workshopf. Strategic Priorities/Strategic Planning

i. Recruitmentii. Increase Average Income

iii. Location Development

14. Program Complaint

15. Other

16. Open Discussion

17. Schedule Meeting

18. Adjourn

Verbatim

Hauth: Okay. Well, let’s go ahead and get the meeting going. And thanks everybody for joining us. As you know, we’ve asked that this meeting begin at 4:00 so those who run live operations can actually, you know, get the floor all mopped and get the money all counted out and actually participate in the meeting, if they so choose. So let’s see how this works. And if it’s assistive I know I reached out and a couple people let me know that that would help. So we’ll deal with that through the… through the meeting. But let’s go ahead and call the meeting to order and we’ll first of all call on the Board and then the managers and any interested parties. So Derrick Stevenson, are you here?

Derrick Stevenson: I’m here.

Hauth: Hey, Derrick. Welcome. Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: I’m here, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. Jerry Bird.

Bird: Here.

Hauth: Hi, Jerry. Steve Gordon.

Gordon: I’m here.

Hauth: Hey, Steve. Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Steve Jackson’s right here. Hear me? Hey.

Hauth: Hey, Steve. And Eric, of course is here. And Lin Jaynes.

Jaynes: Present.

Hauth: Hi, Lin. Cathy Dominique.

Colley-Dominique: Here.

Morris: Cathy’s here.

Hauth: Okay. Hi, Cathy.

Colley-Dominique: Hi.

Hauth: Char McKinzie.

Hawkins: I’m here.

Hauth: Hi, Char. Do we have Carole Kinney?

Kinney: I’m here.

Hauth: Carole, was that you?

Kinney: Yes, that was me.

Hauth: Hi, Carole.

Kinney: I’ve got a bad cold.

Hauth: Yeah, if you guys could mute your phones, please. I mean, you know, obviously you can’t mute it until you’re here, but those that have already weighed in. So, Salvador Barraza? Okay. Do we have Tessa Brown? Do we have Gordon Smith?

Smith: Yes.

Hauth: Hi, Gordon. Do we have Harold Young?

Young: Here.

Hauth: Hi, Harold. Do we have Lewanda Miranda?

Miranda: Here.

Hauth: Hi, Lewanda. And Celyn Brown? Celyn? Okay. And is there anybody else out there who would like to identify themselves?

Edwards: James Edwards.

Hauth: Hey, James. Welcome. Anyone else? Okay. Let’s go ahead and move… move forward. We’ve called the meeting to order and we’ve done roll. Item two is the adoption of minutes. Do I have a motion to adopt the minutes as recorded from our previous meeting?

Art Stevenson: So moved.

Hauth: Okay. Do we have a second on that?

Derrick Stevenson: I second.

Hauth: Okay, a motion and a second. Roll call vote, yea or nay. Derrick Stevenson.

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird?

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson. Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yes. Yes. Sorry, I was on mute.

Hauth: I vote yes, as well. So those… that motion passes. Moving on to public comment, if you have a public comment please identify yourself and I’ll call on you. Is there any public comment?

Jackson: Steve Jackson.

Hauth: Hi, Steve.

Jackson: Can I make a quick comment? Hi…

Hauth: Sure.

Jackson: We’re talking about accepting the minutes and I was just thinking how I was just reviewing his… Eric’s responses to the motions we made in January. I was just really hoping that Eric would be able to give us in writing his reasoning or his logic in not assigning the unassigned vending. And I was just not happy with his response. So I just want to say that. Thank you.

Hauth: Okay. Yeah, I know we’ve… I know we’ve gone back and forth on some issues, including that one. And so I don’t know if it’s, you know, would be proper through the meeting maybe to request that… I think you’re talking about the AP responses, right? That Eric provided, that he identifies as the active participation response. So maybe that’s something that the Committee can request that our motions, you know, if, you know, if they’re supported or denied, if they’d be substantiated with legal citations. So maybe that’s something that you might want to consider later on in the meeting, Steve; you know, possibly making a motion to request that those motions be, you know, cited with legal reference. So that was something you could probably do.

So, any other public comment?

Edwards: Randy, this is James.

Hauth: Hi, James.

Edwards: Hi, there. So I just wanted to let you guys know that, thanks to Randy, I attended the Sagebrush conference in Las Vegas and then there was some talk, some discussion on the privatization of the rest areas. And then I went to Washington DC last week with Art and Marge and a few others from ACB and one of the imperatives that we were discussing with our legislators on our day on the Hill was privatization of the rest areas. So hopefully Congress will listen to all the people that it involves and scrap their idea of their rest area taking away jobs from blind people due to the rest areas. So, that’s all.

Hauth: Thank you, James. Is there any other comment?

Art Stevenson: Randy, this is Art.

Hauth: Art.

Art Stevenson: Wow. You know, it was really good to go back to Washington DC and see that not only the American Council of the Blind of Oregon but the American Council of the Blind was stepping up to the plate and letting legislators know that it was going to be very detrimental to our program. I can tell you we were well-received and I know that merchants are planning a fly-in and that we’re all working together on strengthening the program, protecting blind licensed managers and hopefully, you know, rights and creating jobs for…. Hopefully in the near future, you know, things are going to improve in the state of Oregon and we’re going to be creating even more jobs for blind licensed managers. But that’s the reason the Elected Committee exists and we will continue to strive to protect blind licensed managers’ rights, et cetera, et cetera. Thank you, Randy.

Hauth: Yep. Thank you, Art. Any other, before we move on? Okay. Before we move on to Director's Report I do want to provide a little bit of a disclaimer. I know that, Eric, when we were developing the agenda asked that dispute resolution be put on the agenda. And I just need to say, as I believe it’s my responsibility to do so, that the rules that currently the Oregon Commission for the Blind have adopted and are referencing as rules for the program have not been approved by RSA.

To the contrary, I have documents that have been provided to the agency that says, you know, when there was some discussion back and forth months back, Jesse said, “This is not approval.” So, again, they have not been approved by RSA. So for the agency to believe that they’re valid rules, every person that I’ve talked to and everything that I can see through the Code of Federal Regulations does not allow for that.

However, I felt it was proper to allow Director Morris, as he requested, to discuss this matter. And so, you know, I don’t know what the other Committee members… if it… if anybody wants to say anything on this or if that’s sufficient at this time. But let me know before we move forward. So.

Okay. Eric…

Art Stevenson: I think we can make comments as things go on, Randy.

Hauth: Sure. Okay. Eric, go ahead.

Morris: Well, good afternoon everybody on this… hopefully the last major rainy days of the March season. So on the agenda is Director's Report and it also includes a sub-category of dispute resolution, which I want to talk about. Are there any questions or – because I provided a Director's Report, it’s been, like, two weeks I think now – was there any questions on the Director's Report before I jump into the dispute resolution process?

Bird: Jerry Bird.

Hauth: Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I don’t have them in front of me but I remember me reading through them and I know something that just jumped out at me was where, Eric, you stated that you would like Gretchen Merrill to kind of head up the… the priority and preference thing. I think that’s absurd because, as you know, I think it’d be okay if was an AG that didn’t violate the laws for the last 30 years. And that this AG I thought wasn’t too impressive at my hearing. And I also believe that she’s in favor of Chemeketa. In fact, I wouldn’t doubt if she has some connections there because that’s been her main goal.

I believe that she should not be allowed to even discuss them. Because we got an email from her saying, what, that they’re already in there, what “preference” and that means. So why would we want somebody that hasn’t… that’s still was saying that we have the better offer and continued with that and has continually tried to make us not get our places, let her be the head of that is like letting the wolf into the hen house.

So I absolutely… and I’ve been embarrassed and I don’t even know what the word is that Eric would even want to put her in there, so we can get more stuff taken from us. She is not a Randolph-Sheppard person. So I’ll leave it at that, that, Eric, I don’t know why you would want her, other than she’s your lawyer. But her record is clear. Thank you.

Morris: Well, hey, Jerry, I’m looking at the Director's Report and I can’t find any reference to the AG or specifically Gretchen Merrill. So I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about.

Hauth: Well, I think I recall, Eric… you know, I don’t have it in front of me, I do think I recall recently you had suggested that we could have Gretchen assist with the preference and priority language. I don’t know exactly what it was in, if it was in the report or not. But maybe Jerry can find that as he goes along.

But I’d just like to say – and I know we’re talking about that later in the agenda, hopefully we’ll get to it – but I would just like to say, you know, obviously I get that Merrill is the agency’s Assistant Attorney General but it certainly appears to be, you know, in my mind, it seems to be a conflict of interest, when she’s been arguing for the last three or four years she’s been arguing about, you know, even the right of the blind vendor to be in these locations and also talking about how operating agreements can just be ended. And she’s talking about other program-relevant information that is not assistive with the intent of putting blind people to work and keeping blind people in remunerative employment opportunities.

So I get what Jerry’s saying. And obviously we’ll have to, you know, talk about that a little bit further. But I know you want to, you know, you want to talk about… I don’t know if there’s any other questions of Eric or any other comments on the Director's Report, but let me know.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, Art?

Art Stevenson: I’d just like to throw something in there, a little bit about the Director's Report. I, you know, I read through it. I’ve been going on… There are some things in there that were informative. I’m very concerned that, you know, lot of things seem to fall in the cracks and get forgotten about. And we don’t receive information on… We definitely are having a real problem with committees with the agency on getting things done, like vending facility development. One of the things that hit me when I was reading through this Director's Report was. “Oh, hey, what ever happened with the vending at the Eugene Airport?”

Obviously, we don’t seem to have any committee meetings anymore because there seems to be no purpose for them, even though there are issues to be addressed. And so I might say, you know, I’m obviously concerned. We learned about a survey that went out concerning the commissaries, which is a good idea. But there was no input from the managers, the Vending Facility Development Committee. It just, you know, if we worked together we could do a so much better job. I mean, the proof is in the pudding across the country, that when Elected Committees and State Licensing Agencies work well together with their committees there’s a respect and… and… and a, you know, a lot more stuff gets done more efficiently and effectively.

And, you know, so I want to say it’s good to get a Director's Report. It would be nice if the Director's Report said, “Hey…” or, you know, the committee reports said, “Hey, we worked with the agency, we came up with these great ideas, we’re going forward, we’re making progress.” There’s, you know, instead we get things like we just got with the Capitol Café, the contract, et cetera, et cetera.

So we got a long way to go to be a successful program. And working together will end a lot of the controversy instead of making controversy everything’s… every time something happens to pop up just like, you know, the Capitol Café stuff which, you know, I have a lot of concerns about, including the contract. But, anyways, I’m going to stop there. But hopefully… hopefully, you know, we’re going to get a lot more done because we’re collaboratively working together and we’re not going to create more problems that are going to end up like I remember Susan Gashel’s evaluation said that, “Hey, these rules are going to cause problems. You need to address these issues and you’re heading down the wrong path.” But I’d just to say, it seems like the agency doesn’t listen. So I’m done now, Randy. Thanks.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Art. Anybody else before we have Eric present? Okay. Nobody else? Okay. Eric, go ahead.

Morris: Thanks, Randy. I appreciate that. So at the… at the end of the Director's Report I just put in a quick… a quick recap of the dispute resolution process, which… let me read this real quick. It is… It’s the Oregon Administrative Rule is 585-015-0035. That’s the dispute resolution process, also known as the complaint process. I just wanted to walk briefly through the steps that haven’t changed very since from the 2001 rules. But I want to make sure that everybody on the call, and I think I’ve communicated this out to everybody also, there’s some distinct steps to step through, through the dispute resolution process. Because we have a couple of complaints in the pipeline right now. But if other people wanted to file complaints or were confused about things that were being said, they kind of understand what the process is.

So the first thing is, by the rules and the statute it talks about using an agency-authorized form to fill out for the complaint. If you go on the website now, on the BE website,

within the Commission’s website, there is a form on there, a PDF you can download. It’s an accessible PDF that you can fill in yourself and then send that in. Once you submit a complaint… Once you submit a complaint it is received by the Director, which is me. The Director will acknowledge the complaint and attempt to resolve it. So that’s just basically, you know, trying to make sure that we’re solving things at the lowest possible level. I think that’s complaint resolution, no matter where you go.

If… If I can work it out and the person still wants to, you know, go forward with the complaint, then I refer it to the Executive Director. The Executive Director, Dacia Johnson, will go through and do an administrative review with the vending facility managers. And then, based on her review, if the vending facility managers is still not… is still not satisfied with the results of that review then it gets referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for the full evidentiary hearing, contested case, however you want to talk about that vernacular, for the State of Oregon. And then from there, if you’re not satisfied with the complaint… with the results of that hearing, you can… you can bump it to either Oregon District Court or to the federal arbitration process.

So those are the steps that are in place. The 585-015-0035 administrative rule is online on our website below that form. I’ve got them all posted in there so that it links directly to the state Archives Office so there’s not any confusion about what’s official and what’s not. If those rules are updated in the future they’ll be automatically updated by following those links. So I just wanted to make sure everybody was clear about the process and answer any questions if there were any questions at that… at this time.

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Yeah, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, Eric, are you talking about the new thing that’s in this handbook? New handbook?

Morris: Um…

Bird: Because we’re not recognizing… we’re not going to recognize your handbook until it’s been approved. So I don’t even know why you’re talking anything about this handbook or rules that have not been accepted. It almost makes me feel like you want to continue doing it even though you know they’re not taking effect. But then you want to say, “Well, I had active participation with them in it.” So I want to make it clear right now that them rules have not been approved so therefore they’re null and void. So why waste our time talking about rules that have not been approved? Thank you.

And also, Eric, why would… if I have a problem on a federal property, why would I want to go to a state… what they call… administrative review, when it has nothing to do with the state?

Morris: Well, Jerry, the rules we’re talking about are on the books with the State of Oregon. So that’s… that’s not disputed. The contention about whether… RSA hasn’t approved them yet, so that’s not under contention. And I agree with that, they haven’t approved them yet. But they’re

on the books for the State of Oregon. The question about federal locations versus state locations and a complaint around that, I… I don’t know what to say. I don’t have an answer for that right now.

Hauth: Anybody else?

Art Stevenson: Randy, it’s Art.

Hauth: Yeah, Art?

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, so, you know, my understanding is that federal law trumps state law, Director Morris. And so, obviously, I’d like to make a motion that you provide us with the legal… the legal fact that outweighs. In other words, you know, I do want to make a motion that you provide the Elected Committee and the licensed blind managers with legal clarification how state law trumps the federal law concerning this matter and that the blind licensed managers are bound by those rules because state law trumps federal law. And obviously we provided you with the information that, you know, the rules can’t be implemented until RSA okays them.

So would you…? Can you…? Well, I want to make a motion that you provide us with that information, how the state statutes now, and laws, trump the federal law and that obligates the blind licensed manager to follow and do what you’re telling us to do.

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

Derrick Stevenson: I second.

Hauth: Okay, a second’s been made. Open for discussion.

Morris: Can you… Can you clarify that, Randy? Because I don’t quite understand what he’s asking for, to be honest.

Hauth: Well, we’re right in the middle of a motion so let’s… yeah, let me… let me…

Morris: Okay.

Hauth: I will ask for clarity… I will ask for clarity in just a second on that. I do… I do have a couple of thoughts on this. I mean, just because these rules – I mean, in my opinion. I’m not a lawyer – but in my belief that because these rules are on the books with the State of Oregon doesn’t mean that they’re… they were done properly and doesn’t mean that they’re valid rules. That’s, you know, that’s one point of concern.

There’s been a lot of… also, there’s been a lot of discussion nationally and also from Mr. Terry Smith, who the agency engaged with to come in and facilitate, who identified… and Terry’s been called as an expert witness for the agency. He’s engaged in a subscription service. He’s a known expert across the land. So maybe he’s not spot-on right on every item but he did clearly identify that there’s numerous concerns across the land relative to administrative

reviews and Director’s reviews. I believe Terry identified that the remedy for a manager is a full evidentiary hearing. And to try and encumber or make more cumbersome the process, you know, is a concern. Also the form that was developed, you know, how was that form developed? Who developed it? I don’t know that it was developed through active participation. I don’t believe it was.

And so, those are a few things for the record that I’d like to identify. So, with that said, Eric asked for some clarification to the motion. Art, I don’t know if you want to provide that. So.

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are.

Art Stevenson: Okay, now I’m off mute. Okay. In the federal code… well, right now the Elected Committee is voting and asking for you to clarify, in accordance with the federal code, Eric, the federal code says if you’re implementing rules and regulations, you’re supposed to provide us with the information necessary for us to understand these rules and why we have to follow them. I’m making a motion that you claim because the State has adopted these rules without the federal adoption or the acceptance of them on the federal side that we’re… we need clarification that we have to follow your state rules when the federal law says you can’t implement them until RSA says you can. And so you can go to Jesse Hartle. You can talk to him. I know where the federal code says that, that you’re supposed to provide us with the understanding of why we have to do what you’re saying we’re doing.

And so I’ll be glad to sit in a meeting with Jesse or the whole nine yards but I want the clarification on why you can say we’re obligated to your state rules that haven’t been okayed by RSA, which is required by the federal law.

Hauth: Thank you. Thank you. Eric, does that help?

Morris: Yeah, that’s helpful. Thank you.

Bird: I got another discussion on this. Jerry.

Hauth: Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: Yeah, Eric, I’d like to ask you [inaudible] this program. Is this called the Randolph-Sheppard program? Does the Randolph-Sheppard federal program govern our program? Or does it say the State governs it and then when the State passes something we go that and then hopefully down the road the federal…? Randolph’s very clear, Eric, and you need to look at this because I think it’s going to come down to your guys’… if you shouldn’t even be there if you can’t figure that out. The Randolph-Sheppard is governed by the federal act, which is why we’re a special program; why we have our own budget, our own thing. It’s because we’re a special program. We’re a business and employment program.

And even though a lot of you new people, like you, Eric, and them that never really run any businesses or nothing about Randolph-Sheppard program, you’re just going back to

thinking it’s a state program and the federal is secondary. I want you to understand that it’s governed… even if you look at our old handbook, the first handbook, who governs this program? Randolph-Sheppard governs it. So when you keep trying to say, “Well, the State, they passed them and they done them,” you are so wrong because we’ve asked you for so many months to prove where they can do that. And it’s almost like, “because Eric says.”

Now that’s got to stop! You got to either show us where you can set this… because we’re not… we don’t think we’re obligated to do anything until they been accepted and changed and agreed on. And you keep pushing us, saying, “Well, because they’re in effect because we say so.” And you can’t show us nothing that says that. Eric, if you either… we need to have you prove that that is acceptable and you can implement something that has not been passed by the federal Randolph-Sheppard Act that governs the program or you’d better do what they tell you! Because it’s time for someone to take responsibility for their actions. Thank you.

Hauth: All right. Thanks, Jerry. I know you guys…

Carlile-Smith: Vivian Carlile-Smith.

Hauth: I know… I know… Hold on just a second. Thank you. I know everybody, let’s make sure, even though this can get kind of contentious, let’s try and make sure that we’re as polite and professional we can be. So please keep that [inaudible.]

Thanks for joining us. We’re right in the middle of a motion. So, Board members, any other comment before we move forward with the vote? Carlile-Smith: Vivian Carlile-Smith.

Hauth: You’re not…. We’re right in the middle of a motion and the Board is weighing in on a motion right now.

Carlile-Smith: I was just wondering if there’s any other managers besides you three ever on these phone calls, beating down everybody else and belittling everybody else’s behavior.

Hauth: Hey, so we’re trying to go ahead and move forward with the vote. So a motion’s been made, a second. Let’s go ahead and do a roll call vote, yea or nay. Derrick Stevenson. Derrick?

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: I say yes, please.

Hauth: And I’ll vote yes, as well. So that motion passes. Moving right along, subcommittee reports.

Jackson: This would be a good time for that lady to say something. She was…

Hauth: Vivian, do me a favor and please… the polite and professional also goes for you, as well. So if you’re going to… if you’re going to speak, please ask to be identified and keep your comments professional. Thank you. So we have Director's Reports, dispute resolution. Eric, is there anything else on dispute resolution that you want to talk about?

Morris: No, Randy. That… that was what I wanted to talk about and I appreciate the time. Thank you.

Hauth: Yep. Subcommittee reports. So, training and education. Like Art had talked about earlier, the subcommittees that are in existence… I know we’ve had some issues with getting meeting times and, you know, a fluid organizational structure to those committees. So, as most of you know, those subcommittees are very important and they assist the Elected Committee in doing the business. So one of the things that I would like to do is I’d like to consider having a subcommittee meeting the first Thursday of every month and then in turn having our Elected Committee meetings again the last Thursday of the month and only holding special or emergency meetings if we need to.

I mean, I think the subcommittee meetings could get done, you know, in a half hour to 45 minutes. But certainly we need to build a communication protocol. I do… I do agree that there are things that are slipping through the cracks, intentionally or unintentionally. I do believe there is a lot of communication breakdowns and I think that’s something that needs to be addressed and we need to work on. So I wanted to have a little bit of discussion right now with the subcommittee chairs and see if you guys would be willing to not only have a meeting every… the first Thursday of every month, but also to help build that participation for those subcommittees so we could actually… you know, we have a training and education subcommittee, we have a finance subcommittee, we have a site development, facility development subcommittee. And if I'm leaving one out I apologize.

But so what do you guys think? That… Is that…? I wanted to ask the Committee members first and then ask Eric, too. So what do you guys think about doing something like that?

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: I think it’s a great idea because then the committee chairs and committees can bring up issues of concern and things can be discussed. I don’t think it’s appropriate that the agency should be telling us that, “Well, we don’t think there’s anything to discuss so we’re not going to have a meeting.” So I think, following this protocol our issues can be put on the record, the managers’ issues can be put on the record. And, you know, obviously, if the agency wants to participate, they’re definitely welcome to participate. But at least the things, the issues and concerns, are going to be brought forward and put on the record. And then, of course, it’s up to the agency whether they want to address the issues or ignore the issues or whatever. But at least then they’re on the official record. So I’m very much in favor of that.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Is there any other Board member that would like to weigh in? Because I also want to hear from Eric on this.

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, I think… I think the lack of communication is one of the biggest problems that we have in this program; meaning, you know, when the Commission is planning on doing things and setting out some kind of agenda or whatever that they could sit down and discuss what’s going on and what we’d like to happen, what places need to be taken care of. I think if we communicate on this stuff prior to it happening it’s just going to save a lot of headaches and in the end a lot of turmoil. The more that OCB staff and chairs of these committees communicate, you know, it can only improve things.

Hauth: Sure.

Derrick Stevenson: So I think it’s real important.

Hauth: All right. Thank you, Derrick. Eric, so are you… you know, is that something…? Are you willing to, you know, carve out the first Thursday of every month, you know, 45 minutes or an hour, to have these subcommittees? Or you know it may not even take that long.

Morris: Well, Randy, I think it’s a good idea to set up some kind of a standard practice. Because, quite frankly, meetings that they’re constantly shifting the dates and stuff, it gets a little hard to keep track of. I don’t know that I’ve ever participated in a meeting at OCB that lasted half an hour or 45 minutes. So, if that was accurate, then I think yeah, it’s a good idea. But we’d have to take a look at some schedules and try to…. I don’t have my calendar right in front of me so…. But yeah, I think it’s a good idea. Are you thinking half an hour, 45 minutes for each committee? Or this is, like, subcommittee meeting…

Hauth: No. No. I think total, you know? I would propose that we carve out an hour, you know, from 4:00 to 5:00 on that day and if it gets done sooner, great. And if it doesn’t then we roll something over. But it would encompass the entirety of the committees. And, you know, obviously, what Derrick says I believe is true: communication is, you know, I think, our pathway, even if we’re going to disagree on issues, you know? I think communicating is going to help us get to where we need to be on the issues that we can at least get there on.

So my thoughts again would be the first Thursday of every month have the subcommittee meetings, which have to be a public meeting, and then the last Thursday have our Elected Committee meetings. So kind of get back on a more structured, you know, pathway. So.

Art Stevenson: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, I just would like to remind you that we are going to be fully engage in implementing the budgetary process which, as you know, is very extensive, a lot of stuff and nuts and bolts. And that particular committee being limited to 15, 20 minutes, whatever… you know, at this time, since we are going into that process I do believe that there might need to be more time carved out on that particular committee, with the upcoming events that are going on… going to be going on.

Hauth: Okay. Well, thank you. You know, Art, you may well be right. And maybe specifically with the budget there may be other special meetings that have to occur on that. But I mean, I think it may be worth at least trying right now to schedule that and go from there.

I mean, you know, if we can get Eric’s support on it… I mean, I came into this meeting thinking we were going to need to make motions, push the issue. But hopefully it’s something that Eric sees the value in, too. And we can at least start there and go from there. I mean, that’s just my thoughts.

Anybody else on that? Okay. Eric, I’ll follow up with you, if it’s okay with the Board, in the next couple of days and we’ll kind of lay out a, you know, kind of expected protocol for your consideration.

Morris: Yeah. And I would anticipate, Randy – and I’m sure you’re thinking the same thing – that I don’t know if I would be involved in all those subcommittee meetings, as you as the Chair probably wouldn’t be involved in them, either. So I’d probably staff some of that work out.

Hauth: Yeah. I mean, however you make it work. So, I mean, I think I’m an ex officio member of all the subcommittees so I more than likely will be there. But yeah, I think it just would have to fall within the structure of the, you know, public meeting, I guess is what I…. So, yeah, anyway…

Morris: Yeah. We could… We could…

Hauth: … looks like we could work…

Morris: … staff it, record it, transcribe it all. Well, I don’t know if we’ve been transcribing the subcommittee meetings we had last year. So we’d definitely record them but I don’t think we’d spend the time transcribing them.

Hauth: Okay. Well, let’s talk about this, going forward. So anybody else on the subcommittees… let’s see, we have training and education. I do know that there is a member of the financial subcommittee that a few questions came up. And we do appreciate you bringing Gail on here I don’t know, a month or so ago. So even though that information was pretty overwhelming I think it was assistive. And I plan on meeting with her and talking with her more, I guess, as we move forward through the budget cycle and development.

But I do know there was some questions that are going to be developed and disseminated to all the managers and sent to you to seek clarity on this last quarterly report. So probably within the next week keep an eye out for that. Hopefully you can give us some answers on that.

We have the fly-in report. I think Lewanda’s still on the line. I know she had graciously offered to give us a report on the NABM fly-in, which I think happened two, three weeks ago. So, Lewanda, if you’re on the line, if you can talk about it, bring us up to date, that would be helpful.

Miranda: Hi, Randy.

Hauth: Hi.

Miranda: Thanks for the opportunity to share. So this is the NFB fly-in so it wasn’t really specific to our program, although we did discuss a lot of good things, you know, for all the blind, but not specific to our program. It was during the time of President Trump’s State of the Union speech so that was a little crazy, as far as transportation. I did get to discuss commercialization of rest areas to a couple of my senators, Merkley and Wyden, and they’re very supportive of our program.

Now, the merchants’ fly-in is in May and so I will be attending that. And that will be specific to our program, of course. So I would be glad to give you an update after that.

Hauth: Well, thank you… thank you very much, Lewanda. I know you’re very active in that. And, you know, I do know that ACB was also just recently Capitol Hill and even though there was a lot of issues that dealt with greater blind issues I know the commercialization of the rest area, because of the importance of employment for persons who are blind, I know that was a…

Miranda: Right.

Hauth: … key issue. And I know Nicky Gacos gave a great presentation on partnering and, you know, trying to navigate this water. And I know Terry Smith has been very involved in that, too.

So that’s, yeah, that’s great. And I appreciate you sharing that and we’ll look forward to hearing more. I actually am going, too. In May I’ll be there as well.

So I wanted to mention something here. I know that we addressed this to the agency previously but I’d like to… I’d like to entertain a motion. Before I do so I just wanted to lay out that these type of things, these advocacy efforts, these training seminars, I know the agency identifies them as lobbying efforts but, you know, when you’re not a registered lobbyist, when you’re not a State employee, when you are a member of a specialized program, as Jerry Bird properly identifies, you know, these are the type of things you need to be engaged in. And when advocating and addressing issues that impact negatively employment opportunities.

So it’s important for us to have representation, not only at the NABM fly-in but at the NAMA fly-in or the ACB fly-in and Sagebrush and BLAST. And, you know, a lot of times people can’t go because they need some assistance with the funding. And regardless, if people are there doing the work of the membership, you know, I think it’s appropriate. I can tell you I’ve talked with numerous states who have no issue with funding their Committee, they have no issue with funding individual managers to go and to represent this. I mean, I don’t think it’s any different than when ACB… when the Oregon Commission for the Blind, through House Bill 3253, spent countless hours lobbying at the legislature. I mean, I don’t know what you would call that if it’s not lobbying, you know.

So, with that being said, I would like to make a motion for the Board’s consideration. And that motion is that I would request that at least three managers, those who are selected by the BECC, be afforded travel and lodging to attend the NABM fly-in in May out of set-aside. So that would be travel, lodging and meal per diem. So do I have a second for that?

Art Stevenson: I second it.

Hauth: A second’s been made. Any discussion around that from the Board? Okay, hearing none, I’d like to do a yea or nay vote. Derrick Stevenson.

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Absolutely.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Gordon. Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yea. I think it’s a great idea.

Hauth: And [inaudible.] That motion passed. So, moving right along, I talked about the financial committee, subcommittee report. I don’t know, Eric, if you have anything you want to talk about on the financial committee report or not. But again, we’re going to follow up with some questions, which maybe will lead to future, you know, conversations. But if you have anything, feel free. So.

Morris: Yeah, I don’t, Randy. If you can send those questions along that’d be helpful because I… yeah, I’m not… I don’t have that in front of me.

Hauth: Okay. I want to talk a little bit about the white paper. So I believe Terry Smith put out a position paper, which they call a white paper, and I think everybody received that. Went into detail on quite a few things but one of the things that it identified is that – and I don’t have it in front of me, so I’m paraphrasing – but it’s believed that federal funds used to litigate against facility managers, blind facility managers, is an inappropriate use of those funds.

I have talked to former staff members of Rehabilitation Services Administration. They concur that those are improper uses of funds, to use against vending facility managers. So matching federal dollars that are provided to provide support for the program… I mean, what irony when a state is using those funds to litigate against a manager who raises a complaint. When you look at the Rehab Act, not one of the purposes of the Rehab Act. And that’s where the money comes from and the allowance for that federal money. So it’s an improper use of that money. It’s been identified as such. I know there’s been some other things that were identified within that white paper. I thought it was very assistive and educational.

But what I would like to do at this time is I would like to make a motion that no federal monies provided to the Oregon Commission for the Blind by RSA be utilized to litigate against or argue legally against a vending facility manager. Do I have a second on that motion?

Art Stevenson: You got it.

Hauth: A second’s been made, a motion. Any discussion around that?

Morris: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

Morris: When did Terry send that out?

Hauth: I’ll find… You know what? I’ll get it to you, okay?

Morris: Because I’ve heard chatter about that. But I don’t remember reading a white paper about it.

Hauth: Yeah, and there’s been others. There’s been other people I’ve talked to that are in the know that identify that it’s not proper. So.

Morris: Okay. So you talked…

Miranda: November 17th.

Carlile-Smith: Prove it!

Morris: November 17th.

Hauth: Hey, Vivian, is that you? That’s interrupting.

Bird: Yeah, we can’t do it on her…. If she thinks…

Hauth: Please. No, hold on, Jerry. Vivian, please refrain from outbursts. Thank you. So…

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: … a motion’s been made, a second’s been made. We’re going to go ahead and call a yea or nay. So, yea or nay, Derrick Stevenson. Derrick? Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Art Stevenson?

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Oh, Derrick. Yea or…? Yea?

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Okay, thank you. Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yes.

Hauth: And Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: I vote yes, as well. The motion passes. Okay.

Art Stevenson: Lewanda? Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, Art?

Art Stevenson: Lewanda, would you mind getting ahold of Terry Smith for us and finding out if that white paper was presented to NCSAB? I do know that Director Johnson is a member of that and… and I’m kind of in suspicion that that has been presented to NCSAB. But it would be helpful if you let us know if it had.

Miranda: Sure. I’ll give him a call.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you.

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Jerry?

Bird: I got one quick question because we never did put this out for discussion. But the way Eric acted like, “Never heard of that,” and it sounds like, to me, Eric saying he believes, “What’s so wrong about spending your guys’ money on litigation when… against you guys?” That’s what I got from him, instead of, like, “Yeah, that’s a dumb thing to do.” But I’m hoping that they’ll understand when they get slapped for that three-quarters of a million right now, that they’ll learn that they can’t do this; it’s going to cost them. So it’s kind of like, “We get our free lawyer! We get it paid for by risk management! It don’t cost us nothing! We can just say them rules were wrong” and we’re wrong and all that. So I just wonder…

Hauth: Yeah.

Bird: … where Eric might think that it’d be proper. Thank you.

Hauth: Yeah.

Morris: Well, Randy? Hey, Randy, can I respond to that? Or are we just going to ramble on?

Hauth: Hold on just a second, guys. Yes, you can, Eric.

Morris: So, my question was, I do not remember seeing a quote white paper about this topic. I’ve heard the topic discussed. Now, the fact that they’re talking about federal matching funds,

they’re not Business Enterprise funds, they’re VR funds. So, the question that I’d be asking myself if I was on this call, and the question I ask myself, is, if we’re not using federal matching funds to pay for legal fees or legal costs, then what other funds are available to be spent on that? There’s only a couple.

Hauth: Exactly.

Morris: So…

Hauth: Yeah, exactly. That’s the point, you know. So.

Morris: Well, the only money that I have to really work with within the program, to support the program, is the money we collect into set-aside. So that’s where my thoughts are going. So, you know, Jerry’s contention about…

Hauth: And [inaudible]. Go ahead, Eric.

Morris: I was just going to say, Jerry’s contention about his case and whether risk management’s covering it or not, which they are not covering his case, is inaccurate. So it’s not like I’m grasping at straws about the white paper. If it was in November I don’t remember, if I saw it. I remember the discussion about it. So I’d be curious to know who at RSA said, “Hey, it’s improper.” Because I’ve heard the chatter but I haven’t seen anything from RSA or, frankly, from Terry. So…

Hauth: Yeah, and just… just so you know, Eric, it doesn’t meet the purpose of the Rehab Act. And, I mean, you know, I’ve even heard it be immoral. I mean, put yourself in a position where you have a state agency that has countless, endless resources to litigate and they’re using these federal VR Title I monies to do so. And if you track back over the years, I think what it tended to do, when you say, “Gosh, we don’t have any money to litigate against you guys?” Well, that’s exactly why that is a concern. Because, really, it should be more of an inclusive, fast forward [?] relationship, right? And if an agency says, “Gosh, we don’t have money to litigate,” then maybe it will force the leadership to do something different and find a different way for resolution.

But I can tell you, I’ve talked to representatives who have worked at RSA. They’ve identified clearly it’s inappropriate to use federal Title I or set-aside money to litigate. And tracking back, you know, without having a forensic accountant do it, it’s pretty clear that that’s what’s been going on.

But, you know, we’ll… you know, we’ve made a motion, and we passed it and we’ll…

Morris: Yeah, I got you. That’s fine.

Hauth: … with that. So.

Celyn Brown: Chairman Hauth?

Hauth: Yes?

Celyn Brown: This is Celyn Brown and I just wanted to let you know I’m joining the meeting.

Hauth: Thank you. Thanks for joining us. Hey, Celyn, let me ask you real quick, will this… will having the meetings a little later help you? At all?

Celyn Brown: Yes.

Hauth: Okay. Great, great. Glad to hear it. Okay. So, what else do we have, guys, here? Do we have…? Old business, right? So.

Smith: Randy? This is Gordon.

Hauth: Yes, Gordo.

Smith: Just quickly, I have read through the white paper. Where did this originate from?

Hauth: I believe it’s from NFBEI. The National Federation of Blind Entrepreneurs Initiative, which is comprised and supported by NABM. Terry Smith heads that organization up, so.

Smith: Thank you.

Hauth: Yep. You bet. So, old business: we have priority/preference language, discussion, recommendations. So, you know, Eric, lookit, I know you had mentioned about putting this on the agenda a while back. And I know the agency had, you know, talked about bringing in all kinds of stakeholders and you and I had some back and forth about active participation and how this should work and, you know….

What I did through research here last week or so was, I found an email from Gretchen Merrill that clearly identifies that when we were in the rulemaking process and trying to work through that we identified the priority and preference. And she identified in writing her position was that these were already identified in the state statute so there’s no need to clarify those. So it was kind of like in your ap response, where we had made a motion to… the Elected Committee had made a motion to add the active participation definition to the bylaws, I believe you identified, no, there’s no need to do that because it’s in the state statute.

Well, I mean, we can’t have it both ways, right? The agency can’t say, “Nope, can’t do it because it’s in the state statute.” But now preference and priority are in the state statute and the agency’s saying, “Gosh, we’re going to do it.” So I just need to say, for the record, I’m concerned, especially when I’m having a document in my possession that clearly identifies from the representative of the agency that it’s not… it’s not proper. So I don’t know what your thoughts are on that or if you have that document, but I’d be glad to provide it to you if you don’t have it. So.

Morris: Well, Randy, I obviously don’t have the document in front of me right this second. You know, the discussions around priority and preference… I guess the thing that… you guys are the ones that wanted priority and preference further defined within rules and we’re happy to have that conversation. And we’re kind of, “Here we are to have the conversation.” So, if you guys are comfortable with where it’s at in state statute, then I’m going to kind of have to rethink, you know, do we need to break it down in rule? I mean, I put the language in the Director's Report that you referred back to from August, with Terry and… if I’m looking at it right, kind of what the house bill said and what you guys proposed and then what Terry said. So, you know, that’s… that’s kind of where I’m at. But if you’re, like, “Hey, I’m good because Gretchen said it was good in the state statute,” then I’m not sure where we go from there. I still think we need to be able to…

Hauth: Yeah, well…

Morris: … explain to other agencies – Excuse me. Sorry. – that, you know, here’s how we interpret this statute. I think that’s kind of the, you know, the purpose of rules is to say, “Here’s the state statute. Here’s how we’re going to operationalize it.” So I still think it’s important.

Hauth: Yeah, and Eric, I think the agency… I think the agency went one… if and when rules are finally… I mean, from my position, if and when rules are finally adopted and approved… even though they’ve been adopted they haven’t been approved, so I…

Morris: I got you.

Hauth: You know. But once that happens I do think the agency has deference over…. The priority section in the law’s clear. It’s identified. The preference, maybe there could be some sideboards put around that. However, I can tell you there’s people that are concerned that, especially after we, you know, when you talk about having Gretchen involved and when you talk about bringing other entities involved… and when I read what Gretchen said, where it’s already defined, it might be best to work with the Elected Committee on how we’re going to roll this out and how we’re going to market this and how we’re going to go to task.

I mean, that would be my thoughts. I don’t know what the Committee, you know, I mean, but, you know, I did want to share with you, I personally have concerns around that right now. So.

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, and I’d like to say that what troubles me the most on this… because we did get the… preference actually was priority. It was found that way. And then we try to do this new route to try to make it a little clearer. And then I believe now the AG wants to foggy it up. But it’s pretty clear. I’m okay with preference being as long as we’re equal to price, quality and price [sic] and we can match it, we get the go-ahead. Now from what I’m trying to see on some emails or

some other things, is they want to maybe say “and commissions.” As long as we match whatever Joe Blow would give them commissions, we have to match that also. And then I get out of Gretchen the thing that she tells the judge that blind people do not pay commissions. That’s in our statutes, we don’t pay commissions. So, Eric, have you heard that? Because I don’t have too much of a problem, as long as we’re equal with the same quality, same quantity of product and we price it the same as Joe Blow that we get the nod. Do you believe that it means that we have to match commissions? Eric.

Morris: Well, Jerry… Yeah, no, I’ll answer you’re question. I’m just trying to remember now because the thing that does get a little confusing, at least for me it does, is we, you know, we just had your arbitration hearing recently, which is dealing with the 2001 law. And now we’re in the new law, the revised statutes around House Bill 3253. It is very clear in there that vending facility managers don’t pay rent. And I believe it says commissions under… in there, about the… when it talks about the program in general. But I don’t have it memorized. I apologize for that. But it’s very… I mean, it got down very granular, about rent, utilities. And I believe commissions are in there.

But to break it down even farther under the preference, I… I don’t think it spoke to that. I don’t remember it saying that. My interpretation – and like Randy always says, I’m not a lawyer, either – is that, you know, that idea that we would not pay commissions, I think that’s for the whole statute, not just for priority or preference. Because I think in here and as it… as we continue talking I’ll try to get through the statute because I have a copy sitting here. It speaks to that very, very specifically. And I’m going to look through here real quick, as soon as we get done talking, to see if I can find that piece and I’ll hop back into the conversation.

Hauth: Okay. Anybody else?

Bird: Okay, thank you. That was my… That was my point, Eric. Is because I read it in something that they were thinking we got to be equal to everything like that. And I agree with you; it don’t say on preference because it don’t need to. It says we don’t pay commissions, period. So I think you’re right. I just… I just wanted to make sure it’s… Gretchen wasn’t trying to think it was the other way. Thank you.

Hauth: Thank you, Jerry. Derrick, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: No, it was Art.

Derrick Stevenson: I think it’s just… to me, I don’t think preference, the meaning of preference has changed from what it was before. And I think, you know, we had a federal judge weigh in on preference and I think we’re bound to use his recommendations, I guess you can put it. But I don’t think that preference, the meaning of preference has changed from… whether it was in the 2001 or whether it’s in the current one. I think, you know, that preference is preference and quantity, quality and price, as Jerry said, is the deciding factor.

Hauth: Thank you, Derrick. Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay.

Hauth: Art?

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Okay. I believe, Randy, obviously preference and priority are synonyms. You can check that in the dictionary, you know, what a synonym is and that kind of stuff. But the thing that needs to be done is… you know, and it says right in the state statutes that the agency is supposed to promulgate rules to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities and, you know, to benefit the blind licensed managers. It also says, as you know, it still says that any contract or agreement in violation or non-compliance is still null and void. And… And that what needs to be done with the rules, which we tried to do but the agency said, “No, no. That has to be separate because we got to ask permission from all these other agencies,” which is absolutely ridiculous.

What we need is rules on how the agency is going to move forward to not only ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities and to benefit the blind licensed managers but how they are going to administer the program and enforce the state statutes and enforce compliance. That’s what needs to be put in these rules. That, you know, that the agency is going to make sure that these agencies who are not in compliance with the priority or the preference, you know, that we obtain these facilities and the agency goes after them if they have to.

What… What has transpired is, you know, complacency. And complacency and lack of complete rules does not implement the state statutes. And that’s what needs to be put in the rules, not a definition. It… you know, the agency has to be proactive at ensuring compliance and that we are given the priority and preference if we can supply the needs and the requirements of the vending facility. And that’s what we’re lacking. And we don’t have to ask anybody’s permission to do it. It’s actually the obligation of the agency and the Elected Committee to make sure that these rules are written and they’re followed and that we procure these locations that are creating jobs for blind people and enhancing our income, which, you know, the commissary program’s going to do that, et cetera, et cetera. So that’s what needs to be done.

Hauth: Okay. You know, I agree. Thank you, Art. So we have 45 minutes left. I think we’re making pretty good progress. But, again, I think that comes down to the rules and, you know, the deference of those rules, which means with the agency and the Elected Committee, you know, having a mindset on how to… how to establish these locations and, you know, how to… how to put blind people to work, at the end of the day.

And so, you know, I am more comfortable, personally. I mean, lookit, we’re right in the middle of a mess with the previous rules. And so, until all that gets resolved – which, you know, may take some time – I personally would hang my hat on what the language in the state statute

is and not trying to re-open and re-invent a new rule writing project at this time and just work on how, like Art was saying, how we enforce that and roll that out.

I mean, you know, we’re not going to resolve it here this evening but I did want to… did want to say that. And, you know, if there’s nothing else from any of the Board members, we’ll move forward.

Morris: Randy, I…

Hauth: Or if, Eric, you wanted to…

Morris: Yeah, I had just a couple follow-up things, Randy, if you can give me just a sec. Hello?

Hauth: Sure.

Morris: Oh, sorry. I’m on a new phone so I’m not sure… it’s supposed to work better; it’s a bigger, fancier phone, so hopefully you can hear me better, too. The part that Jerry and I were talking about is… it’s under 346-520 and it talks about what agencies may not do. So the last part in here, it says – and it qualifies it by saying “may not require that the Commission or the vending facility manager pay to the agency, department or political subdivision any portion of a commission, gratuity or revenue earned by vending facility managers for the operation of a vending facility.” So that… that’s in the statute 346-520 saying, hey, they can’t charge for that. So, tying that over to the preference conversation, I need to do some more digging here to see that, because I don’t think there’s a correlation, is my point.

Hauth: Okay.

Morris: But I just want to make sure I understand what the Elected Committee’s thinking right this second. Because, you know, I was prepared to kind of start working on these once we had this discussion. So you’re thinking now we should just kind of wait for the… wait for the dust to settle and then revisit in the future? Or just rely on the statute? Or…?

Hauth: Well, I mean, I don’t… you know, I think we’re having the discussion right now. And, I mean, my personal position is that, after reviewing the position by the Assistant Attorney General, you know, I think we’d be better off working together on how to enforce the preference and priority instead of, as the agency was intending to do, you know, open it up. And I mean, clearly, she identifies that can’t do it, it’s not proper; it’s already identified in the state statutes. Do.

Morris: Okay. I… I think I understand.

Hauth: Yeah, maybe it can be… maybe it can be one of our strategic goals, you know. I mean, we’re going to talk about that later in the thing but…

Morris: Okay.

Hauth: … obviously, we’re not going to get it worked out tonight. So.

Morris: Okay. Thank you.

Hauth: Yep. So I think, moving on if I can, unassigned vending machines and locations. I know this has been a continuous discussion. I’m going to backtrack for a while. When Linda Mock was the Administrator of the agency I think at one time there was about $80,000 that the agency was stockpiling in unassigned vending. And so when the Elected Committee and the managership got together and motioned and encouraged that those opportunities go to licensed blind vendors, as the intent of the Act and the program is, it’s not to fund an agency. If it’s the Oregon Commission for the Blind or the Idaho Commission for the Blind, that’s not the intent.

And as you look through the white paper, while there are some states that do that, again, I believe it was identified as not being the most proper way to administer a program that’s supposed to be putting blind people to work. How do you justify bringing in funds that could be going to a blind vendor or developing a facility? And, you know… So, again, that’s a question. So, you know, my thoughts are, I know we revisited… we visited this motion quite some time ago and we made recommendations that these unassigned revenues go to blind vendors.

So, you know, I’ll be open and honest right up front. There is a complaint dealing with this matter and it’s going to work it’s way out somehow. That’s one of the key items that’s been of contention for quite some time. But, so, you know, we could either, again, request the agency to support the motion previously made on this. We could, you know, Eric, I mean, even though we don’t believe… many of us don’t believe that these rules are valid rules… I mean, I believe the agency could use the fair minimum return.

The agency uses the managers’ earning, I mean, you know, I forget what exactly the agency calls it, but the managers’ average earning income sheet. I mean, they even used it in the recent arbitration case. But I believe, you know, if that’s what the agency hangs their hat on, as far as identifying accuracy of earning, why in the world couldn’t the agency take those monies and work with the agency on getting those lower performers assigned that money?

So I think there’s… personally, I think there’s a few ways that the agency could remedy this. And it really concerns me that, you know, Ken Gerlitz’s former route hasn’t… I mean, the agency’s just been stockpiling the money and it hasn’t gone out for bid, as is required. You know, the former facility or route that, you know, Char had and Joe Bassett had and, you know, the list goes on and on.

So, I know that we’ve talked and talked and talked about it and I still don’t quite understand why the agency is so reluctant to do that, other than they’re using those monies as a funding mechanism.

But, you know, again, when you see the white paper, you know, look at it. And, you know, it does say that, you know, it’s… some states do it, but that’s not… that’s not really the ethical way to do business. And so, you know, there’s only five managers above the average. So, clearly, the agency could work to distribute and disburse those monies. If you don’t want to accept the motion that the Elected Committee made a while back, you know, then let’s find

some other way… other ways to do it while we move forward, you know, through the other… addressing it another way.

But so, you know, Board members, I don’t know, you know, I’m talking about this….

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: … till I’m blue in the face. But go ahead, Art.

Art Stevenson: Again, you know, managers have requested… we have requested for the agency to assign this stuff to managers, either on a permanent basis or a temporary contract. And it’s been ignored. I know the agency has tools to get into compliance. They just aren’t doing it. And, you know, it’s… as you say, it’s really frustrating that we say, “Hey, if you’re in compliance then show us how you are.” And then we got this thing back from Eric this time that didn’t provide us what we requested, which was program-relevant information, and… and we got his, you know, it was just… it wasn’t complete. It wasn’t what we asked for. It was just another attempt to kick the can down the street.

And you’re right it’s definitely frustrating because we know what the rules say, we know what the laws say. We know what the agency can do but are refusing to do. And… and the money, you know, a hundred percent rolls into the agency and they use it instead of what, you know, they’re entitled to, which is the 11% set-aside, which I’m sure, every manager who is down on the lower rung will be very happy to receive $89 and give the agency the $11 that they’re entitled to under the law. Because then it brings up their income, their averages. They’re able to support their families, their able to pay their bills. Their isn’t going to be complaints because it’s in compliance with the law.

But, again, you know, the agency kicks the can down the road and doesn’t take action and do any… any of the recommendations of the Elected Committee.

Jackson: Can I say something, too, Art?

Art Stevenson: Well, in a second, Steve. It’s just amazing…

Jackson: Yeah, go ahead. I want to continue what you’re saying. Go ahead.

Art Stevenson: … and… and so, you know, instead of the agency jumping up to the plate and say, “Yeah, this is a problem, we need to do something about it. And this is how we’re going to address it, in compliance with the laws and the rules and regulations of our program,” they just… we get what we got in this last response from Eric, was that, you know… And I kind of didn’t understand it. It was kind of laying blame on the Elected Committee. Well, we have given the agency at least three alternative to become in compliance with the law and they’ve just ignored it. So I would like the agency to just do what they’re supposed to. I mean, they can pick any of those alternatives…

Morris: What were those, Art? Can you go over those real quick for me, Art?

Art Stevenson: Say that again?

Morris: Can you review those three for me really quick?

Art Stevenson: 1. Could assign it to a blind licensed manager with a temporary contract. And that’s a possibility because the law says you can do that. You can assign it to them permanently, like you have done to many vending facilities. I can tell you some managers get more vending than others, but you could’ve assigned it to them permanently. Or you could just funnel the money to them for assistance. You know, I mean there’s tons of ways, Eric.

Jackson: Fair minimum...

Art Stevenson: We’ve gone over and over them again. And it’s just been completely ignored. And…

Hauth: Hey, Art? Thank you. Let’s hear from Steve, if we can. And thank you. You made some good… made some good points.

Jackson: Thank you, Art. Thank you, Randy.

Hauth: Yep.

Jackson: Thank you, guys. Thank you. I just want to say, also, just like Art said, it’s been a year now. Because I remember when managers were requesting assistance and we made motions and all the motions didn’t pass; every single motion that we tried to help a manager didn’t pass. And then we talked for a year about fair minimum return and stuff.

And so, you know, just… I’d like Eric to consider this: if you want to try to resolve things at the lowest possible, you know, point without going to complaints, then I think that you should consider helping some of these managers. Because like Art said, it’s just going to help… it’s just going to help the business. My business is struggling right now because of all the competition. I can’t buy soda and pay my employee on the same week. You know, like, I’m just being honest, Eric. Like, if you could just, you know, give some assistance to these managers, they just want to work. And I don’t think that’s too much to ask. So I’d like you to consider one of those three possibilities. And I thought it was: assign the manager, temporary or whatever, permanent; it was fair minimum return; and it was also a vacation or retirement fund. Those are all allowed in the rules.

And so, why are you dragging your feet? And why did you not give us the written explanation where it says in the law you can withhold those jobs from the managers? I really don’t understand.

Smith: This is Gordon.

Hauth: Gordon.

Smith: We’re talking about federal vending income?

Hauth: Gordo, just so you know, we’re talking about the locations that… unassigned vending, state and federal. So, like Ken Gerlitz’s facility. After Ken passed away, that location never went out to bid.

Smith: Okay.

Hauth: Char Mckinzie, when she left the lottery and the vending and went to the Department of Motor Vehicles, that location never went out to bid.

Smith: Mm hm.

Hauth: Joe Bassett’s vending. So we’re talking about the unassigned vending that the agency’s receiving and that’s not going to…

Smith: Okay.

Hauth: … managers. So, Labor & Industries… Yeah. So. Anyway, so… hey, Eric? So…

Morris: Yeah?

Hauth: You know, I don’t know…

Morris: I’m ready.

Hauth: I know we’ve talked about… You know, I don’t know if you have anything to say or want to say.

Morris: Yeah. For sure. So, in my response on the active participation thing that everybody’s referencing back to – and it seems to be kind of the topic I bring up each time each time we talk about this – I understand the three tools that Art outlined here in today’s meeting. Yeah, we’ve talked about that. But, from an objective point of view, I think everybody in their mind goes, “Hey, I would be entitled to X,” when we’re talking about this subject. But even during Jerry’s hearing the other day we talked about it.

There’s been all these votes over the years and people kind of have the feeling that they have a territory or this is their neck of the woods. But there’s no… there’s nothing in writing about that. There’s nothing documented that provides a clear…. Because I’m happy to go through and make decisions. I’ve got no problem doing that. But if I don’t do it by a process that everybody can agree with, then Steve Jackson’s not going to be happy versus somebody else versus a third person. So that’s… we need an objective process, either based on territory or wage earnings, that kind of thing.

And the fair minimum return, that’s already on the books. Granted, we had that little conversation about what’s on the books and what’s not, but there’s a process in place for fair minimum return right this second, which we’re going to…

Hauth: Yeah, and Eric?

Morris: Eric, thank… thank you. So I just want to say a couple of things. The objective process would probably be what the agency identifies as the average earners and not the average earners. And, you know, just tongue in cheek here, the agency and you haven’t seemed to be too concerned about people not being happy. I mean, look at what’s going on with the operating agreement and look what’s going on with the rules and look what’s going on with other items. So for you to say, “Gosh, I can’t do anything because you guys’ll be mad,” I think that doesn’t pass the sniff test.

I think if you – and I think you’re smart enough to know this – if you worked with the Elected Committee and…

Morris: That’s what we’re doing right now, Randy.

Hauth: Well, I know. But we’ve been at this for a long time, right?

Morris: Yeah.

Hauth: So if you work… if you work here forward or if you would’ve worked previously, we were identifying the low-wage earners, okay? So there should be a way… I mean, convince me that the agency just isn’t stockpiling money because they want the money. I mean, I haven’t seen anything that says that the agency’s following the intent of what the Randolph-Sheppard Act is. So if we could back up and figure that out, and if we could figure out how to get these low earners money, that’d be great. And, again, you guys make an identifiable income earning chart. That should be justification, because you guys use it in court hearings. So you should be able to use that for the low earners, shouldn’t you? I mean…

Morris: We could. But you realize that everybody can’t be at the average, because the averages don’t work that way, right? I mean, mathematically speaking. But we could use it as a tool. But my point is, it has to be… I mean, we’ve tried… I tried personally, back in the day when I first got here, a process to try to figure out ways to assign specific vending to specific people and I believe you filed a complaint about it. Because, for whatever reason, it wasn’t… it wasn’t good, for whatever reason.

So, yeah, I like to think I’m halfway bright enough to figure out, we got to work on a process that everybody can kind of come to agreement on. Nobody’s going to be happy all the time. I don’t live in that kind of dream world. But we need to…. And every time we start talking about things, the Elected Committee and the agency need to work together. So that’s why I figure we’re booking these couple hours at a shot to do is to work together and have these kind of discussions.

But when we’re going to be talking about people’s income that gets really sensitive. And I totally understand that. So it’s got to be objective, it has to be transparent and it also has to be backed up by data. And the average income kind of thing is… is a great tool but I think we all have a realization that everybody kind of, you know, works hard to run their business efficiently. And so not everybody has the same opportunities to have the same net incomes. You know, some places are busier, some places aren’t. So that’s the kind of discussions we have to have. And then, if you’re talking about locations, just like live operations versus vending routes. I mean…

Hauth: Well…

Morris: Yeah, that’s…

Hauth: Well, I think, Eric, I think if you come to an agreement with the Elected Committee, I think if we could… It looks to me like you’re getting down in the weeds and you’re making excuses why not to do it, you know? You’re… and maybe I’m wrong, and please don’t take this as a personal thing, but when I’m listening to it, it’s like all these reasons why you can’t do it and these are the same reasons that have been going on for the last year. And so how about working with the Elected Committee and working with us on, you know, putting some proposals together that make sense. And, hey, if you guys are using that data, that’s valid data. So I don’t buy that you’re saying, “Oh, gosh, it’s not really valid.” Because if you can use it in a court proceeding, you can use it to assign managers.

So let’s… let’s think about it and let’s find a way to get back to what the intended purpose of this program is; and that’s… that’s, you know, bringing those lower ones up to the average. If we have an average right now, let’s bring those lower ones up to the average. Okay, the average will raise, but still those people will be making more money. So…

Morris: So just…

Hauth: … you know, and I… I…. Go ahead.

Morris: Just real quick. So what’s…? What’s…? Do you want me to draft up some things, some ideas, some concepts? Or do you guys want to bring that back? I mean, what’s…? You know, that’s… I’m willing to do the work around it, as long as I’m not spinning my wheels and you guys are just saying, “Hey, that’s not going to work. That’s not effective.” I mean, I need some guidance here. That’s kind of what this whole active participation thing is. If you guys want to bring ideas forward, I’m happy to hear them because I spent a lot of time trying to figure it out.

Hauth: Yeah. And I know we’re going to be doing some strategic priorities. Maybe that’s something we could develop in that. I don’t know. I know that doesn’t help people right this minute, but…. I mean, obviously, this is…

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: … something that needs to get resolved, you know? Yeah, Art, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: Okay. And I…

Hauth: We have 20 minutes, guys. Just so you know.

Art Stevenson: … I like what I’m hearing here, okay? But I also know that you could do some things right now, Eric, to resolve some issues. And I’m going to use Derrick as an example. He said, “I will enter into a temporary contract for the vending.” And you can do that. I mean, the law allows you to do that right now, Eric. Not tomorrow, not developing a new policy. And… And, as a matter of fact, the state statutes actually require you… that you can only, you know, provide for the continued operation of a vending facility if a blind licensed manager isn’t available for assignment.

So, you know, do a temporary contract and… on… on all these guys on the stuff. And then develop the thing and then we can implement it. But let’s not waste any more time in not being in compliance with the law and just do it. And… And so, that is my encouragement. The law already gives you the tools to do it temporarily. And then, when we establish a permanent criteria, then you can go ahead and implement it as soon as the temporary contracts run out.

So let’s, you know, I want to make a motion that you go ahead and do that and that we do develop whatever criteria you want… not whatever criteria. You’ve got to be…

Hauth: Yeah, I think you need to…. If you’re going to make a motion, Art, especially on this – and I know you’re doing it on the spur – but I think it needs to be well… well-identified, crafted…

Art Stevenson: I make a motion that you go ahead and assign to all the people that we’ve done – I mean, it’s on the record – a temporary contract for the next six months. And then that will give us plenty of time to draft whatever, you know, the Elected Committee and the managers definitely would think is fair.

Hauth: So a motion’s been made. Do I have a second on that? Do I have a second on that? Do I hear no second?

Gordon: I second.

Hauth: Okay, a second’s been made. Any discussion around that?

Bird: Jerry.

Colley-Dominique: I have a question.

Hauth: Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: I was just going to say, I’m cool with that except I think Eric’s next question is going to be, “At what amount?” So do we come up with a one thousand, two thousand, fifteen hundred. I think you need to come up with an amount to give everybody. Or is it you’ve already assigned the places? I’m a little lost on the amount of vending machines or the…. That’s all, my only concern.

Hauth: Art, I don’t know if you have an answer for that.

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yeah.

Art Stevenson: We made a motion that things be assigned to blind licensed managers and… and we obviously can go back there and do that. But…

Hauth: So you’re stating that… you’re stating that the motions that were previously made during the Elected Committee meeting be assigned on a 6-month temporary agreement? Is that correct?

Art Stevenson: Yes.

Hauth: Okay. And so a second was made on that. Any more discussion on that? I just want to remind anybody who might vote on this and might benefit from that, you may want to state a conflict of interest. So I’ll go ahead and take a vote of yea or nay. Derrick Stevenson. Derrick Stevenson. We’ll come back to him. Art Stevenson. Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yes.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yeah. But I think Cathy wanted to make a comment on this ruling.

Hauth: Oh, yeah.

Bird: Yes for me.

Hauth: Sorry about that. Yep. Steve Gordon.

Gordon: No contest.

Hauth: What’s that? Steve Gordon?

Gordon: No contest.

Art Stevenson: Steve Gordon, did you say conflict of interest, yes?

Gordon: Conflict of interest, yeah. My phone cut…

Hauth: Okay.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Just to verify…

Hauth: [Inaudible.] I know you’ve stated a conflict of interest. Are you voting yea?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yeah, there is conflict of interest, possibly. But I vote yes.

Hauth: Okay…

Jackson: If anything ever happens.

Hauth: I’ll refrain from voting at this time. That is four, the motion passes. Derrick is not on the line. And Cathy? I’m sorry. I forgot to go back to you. Have the floor. What can I do for you? What can we do for you?

Colley-Dominique: Well, I was just going to comment that, if you assign things on a temporary basis and then the person gets used to having it and then you pull it away, that’s kind of not… you can’t count on it. So I’m not… I don’t see how…

Jackson: What about when something’s assigned permanent?

Colley-Dominique: … how a temporary assignment isn’t… I don’t know.

Hauth: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Cathy. I think… I think we understand what you’re saying, certainly.

Morris: Randy, I’m going to step out for just a second to get Cathy out by the door. I’ll be right back. Maybe 30 seconds.

Hauth: Okay. Yep. I’ll wait for you. We’ll wait for you. The next item that will be coming up as soon as Eric gets back is the concerns regarding access to program…

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Can we address the issue about the Capitol Building because it’s supposed to close on the 12th and…

Hauth: Let me see… Let me see what time it is, Art. It’s 4:47. Yes, I think under Old Business we have two more items. So…

Morris: I’m back!

Hauth: … I think we can address that under Other, once Eric’s back. Morris: I’m back.

Hauth: Okay.

Jackson: Fast.

Hauth: 5:47. So I’m going to touch on this for just a second, Art, if you don’t have a lot to say about it right now, that’s fine. We can come back to it. But concerns regarding access to program-relevant [inaudible]. You want to move forward? Is there anybody that wants to comment on that on this point?

Art Stevenson: Bring it up later.

Hauth: Okay. Under f) Recommendations for Use of Set-aside and Other Funds. Motion, you know. So set-aside… clearly, the Elected Committee – as you look through the Code of Federal Regulations, as you look through the Federal Registry – clearly identifies that the Elected Committee’s motions and voice are very important. And even though the Elected Committee is not the ultimate authority, their motions and positions are… clearly become part of the legal record. And the agencies across the land need to justify why they’ve denied those or why they haven’t considered those, you know, in cases where they haven’t.

I know that there’s been concerns with set-aside and the way that set-aside is used. I know most specifically the use of set-aside to pay for one of the staff members. It looks like set-aside is being paid for state travel of state employees. So, you know, I’m personally concerned about that. I don’t believe that that is a proper use of funds. You know, the set-aside should not be funding our program, nor should the unassigned vending… shouldn’t be funding our program. I mean, that’s my position and that’s what… conversations I’ve had with others across the land feel the same. It shouldn’t be administering the program on the backs of the blind vendors.

So, you know, I’d like to discuss this. I mean, I know… I don’t know if we need to make a motion at this time or not. I know it’s clearly identified within the program complaint, the use

of set-aside and the concerns with that. So I just wanted to bring it to the attention for discussion. I don’t know if there’s any discussion at this point in time. But do know that the Elected Committee does have more control over set-aside and directing how set-aside is to be used. The agency actually has to justify the way they’re using it. So I don’t know what your guys’ thoughts are before we move on, if you have any.

Bird: Jerry Bird.

Hauth: Yeah, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I’ll just be quick. Yeah, I always thought that was crazy. I mean, here we’re trying to fight to get blind vendors some money and, you know, out of our set-aside that we pay, but they just flipped out 40,000 for Art Marshall that does our surveys. And then we have asked for copies of his 60 surveys that he claims he’s done and Eric hasn’t produced any. I’m really concerned with… I believe we could only use him half-time and we want our 40,000 back. Thanks.

Hauth: Thanks, Jerry. Any other conversation?

Morris: Yeah, I think we sent those surveys out a while ago.

Hauth: Okay. Well, clearly we’re going to be involved in the… work to be involved in the budget process and setting parameters. And I know that this is, again, one of the items that’s addressed through the program complaint. So, moving… moving on to Other, is there any other business under Old Business?

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, I do have a serious problem with what’s been going on with the State Capitol Building. Sent out a request from Eric on where it says in the new rules that they’re following, that have not been blessed by RSA, and he sent me back a statement that says that he’s supposed to notify the managers where, if they could keep their existing facility or not. And then we get this bid announcement that says, “You may,” and “may” means you may or may not, depending on some kind of criteria, which I have no idea of or anything, be able to keep your existing facility.

Now, the law that OCB has implemented, of course, I don’t believe is valid. But, you know, throwing out there that you may or may not, under some sort of criteria, be able to keep your existing vending facility is not treating all blind licensed managers uniformly. And… And, therefore, you know, to arbitrarily and capriciously – which is what I stated in my email to Eric that I copied all the blind licensed managers – he doesn’t have the authority to do under the new rules. He’s supposed to treat all of our managers uniformly. And if he wants to put in the bid announcement that any manager who bids on this that wins the bid can keep their vending

facility, then that’s treating the managers uniformly. And… And then the manager can make a [inaudible] decision on whether they’re going to bid on this.

But just to say that, “Hey, I may decide that you can keep your existing facility or I may not decide that you can keep your existing facility” is definitely a violation and needs to be remedied. And… And whatever Eric decides, I guess that’s his right and prerogative. But he can’t just say – and that rule doesn’t say he can say – it says he has to tell all the managers that they can keep or they have to give up their facility.

And so, I’m lodging a protest. I would like to make a motion that Eric clarify that statement, in accordance with whatever rules he’s dealing. But he has to… he has to treat all managers fairly. And if he’s going to allow one manager to keep their existing facility, then he has to allow all managers that particular right under the federal codes. So I want to make a motion that the bid announcement be re-sent out with clarity so there is no… there is no misunderstanding or anything that’s going to cause a complaint over this situation.

Hauth: Art? So we have about four minutes before 6:00. And I do understand what you’re saying. It says, “whether or not.” So I think… I think to say “may” may be a little bit misleading or ambiguous. So, Eric, I don’t know if, you know, you can make a position at this time or if you want to discuss it. But Art is, you know… So, Art, you’ve made a motion…

Jackson: Discussion? I’ll second it.

Hauth: We need to get a second on the motion.

Jackson: I’ll second it. Steve Jackson.

Hauth: Okay. So, discussion? It’s almost…

Jackson: Steve Jackson.

Hauth: Do we have any discussion around…?

Jackson: Sorry, can I just…?

Hauth: Hold on just a second, Steve. Eric, I don’t know if you have any discussion around that.

Morris: Randy, I don’t. I’ve got a hard deadline at 6:00 to catch the bus on time.

Hauth: Okay. So I do… I do want to say, it also looks kind of concerning that the continued education guidelines may not be possible for those to meet at this point in time in the process. So, Steve, go ahead before we call for a vote.

Jackson: I don’t… Okay, I don’t mean to point the finger but I would like also an explanation. Because this strikes a nerve with me, losing the State Building. Because I remember him telling me I had to choose. And he said it’s either a federal building or a state building. So I’d just like

more clarification. Because I still don’t understand why the State Building was taken away from me. And the woman that works there says she didn’t really want a cafeteria. So for me I’m really confused. She said she wanted vending. And so, you know, like, why did that all have to happen? You know?

Hauth: Yeah. Yeah, I think… I think the other thing, too, is I know it identifies that there’s no subcontracting and some other issues. So I think there’s issues of concern, Eric. Nobody’s concerned about the opportunity for somebody to expand their, you know, livelihood. I think everybody thinks that’s great but we wanted to make sure it’s right. So a motion’s been made, a second. We’re going to call for the vote. If there’s any other comment…. So, hearing no other comment, yea or nay. Derrick.

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Yea or nay, Art.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird?

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Gordon?

Steve Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yea.

Hauth: And I vote yea, as well. That motions passes.

Morris: All right, Randy. I’ve got to go.

Hauth: Okay. Well, thanks for doing this. Thanks for extending your time. Let’s go ahead and adjourn the meeting.

Morris: Good night.

Hauth: Thanks, everybody. And we’ll be back. Bye.

Motions Passed During March 8   th   BECC Special Meeting   

1. That minutes for the January 31st BECC Special Meeting be approved.  

Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.2. That Director Morris provide justification for how the new BE rules can be in effect at the 

state level even though they have not been approved at the federal level.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

3. That at least three managers, selected by the BECC, be funded out of set-aside for travel, lodging and meal per diem in order to attend the NABM fly-in in May. Proposed: Randy Hauth. Seconded: Art Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

4. That no federal monies from RSA be utilized by the Oregon Commission for the Blind to litigate against or argue legally against a vending facility manager.Proposed: Randy Hauth. Seconded: Art Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

5. That Director Morris assign “to all the people that we’ve done” a temporary contract for the next six months. Or, as rephrased by Chair Hauth: “That the motions that were previously made during the Elected Committee meeting be assigned on a 6-month temporary agreement.”Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Steve Gordon. Passed (with Derrick Stevenson absent and Chair Hauth abstaining).

6. That Director Morris re-send the Capitol Café bid announcement with clarification about whether a bidder can keep their existing facility if they win the bid for the Capitol Café.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Steve Jackson. Passed unanimously.

Transcription: Mark Riesmeyer