BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGON SPECIAL MEETING

Date: Thursday, October 5th, 2017 Time: 3:00 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. Directors Update

5. Old Business

a. Fall In-Service

b. Rules Review

c. Other

6. New Business

a. Fiscal Impact Committee

b. Implementation of HB 3253

c. Other

7. Open Discussion

8. Adjourn

Verbatim

[Starts at 00:00:00]

Hauth: All right, hey everybody. It’s Randy. I just joined back in. Let’s make sure that we have a quorum on. I… Do I hear Art, Derrick? I heard Derrick earlier. Art, are you on?

StevensonA: Yeah, I’m here, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. And Steve Jackson, I heard you. Is Jerry Bird on?

Bird: I’m here.

Hauth: Hey, Jerry. And Steve Gordon? [Silence.] Okay. Steve Gordon? [Silence.] Okay. I talked to him a few minutes ago, a half hour ago. I know he’s planning to call in. Anyway, it looks like we have a quorum, so let’s go ahead. Hey, thanks everybody for joining in on this special meeting. And I’ll go ahead and start by taking roll, start with the board. Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: I’m here.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yes.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yep.

Hauth: Steve Jackson. [Silence.] Steve Jackson?

Jackson: I’m right here.

Hauth: Okay. Steve Gordon. [Silence.] Steve Gordon. [Silence.] Okay. And I’m here, as well. Let’s go on to the managers. Lin Jaynes.

Jaynes: Present.

Hauth: Okay. Cathy Dominique. [Silence.] Char Mckinzie. [Silence.] Do we have Carole Kinney?

Kinney: Yes, I’m here.

Hauth: Hey, Carole. Sal Barraza. [Silence.] Tessa Brown. [Silence.] Okay. Who just joined in, please?

Gordon: Steve Gordon. Sorry I’m late.

Hauth: Hey, Steve Gordon. That’s okay. Welcome. Tessa Brown.

Gordon: Thank you.

Hauth: Okay. Do we have Harold Young?

Young: Here.

Hauth: Hey, Harold. Lewanda Miranda.

Miranda: Present.

Hauth: Hi, Lewanda. Celyn Brown.

Miranda: Hi.

Hauth: Do we have Celyn Brown? [Silence.] Okay. How about Gordon Smith? [Silence.] All right. Have I missed any managers? [Silence.] Okay. Any interested party… persons that would like to identify themself? I know I heard Jeanne-Marie Moore. Welcome, Jeanne-Marie. Anyone else?

Edwards: James Edwards.

Hauth: Hey, James. Welcome. Is there anybody else? [Noise from unmuted phone.] Okay. You guys make sure and mute your phones, if you can, as we go on. I know it’s sometimes difficult doing these meetings by teleconference. But just try and be conscious and mute your phone, please. So…

Haseman: Randy?

Hauth: Randy. Yeah.

Haseman: I was on mute. This is Linda Haseman, interested party.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Linda. Okay. So, let’s go ahead… let me pull this agenda up. Eric, I know you’re here or we wouldn’t be on the line, but is there anybody else from the agency here?

Morris: No, it’s just me, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Let me pull the agenda up here again real quick. Bear with me here for one split second. Open the meeting, introduction. Let’s go ahead and… these doggone phone… here, I’ll pull up… if anybody has the agenda in front of them while I’m pulling mine up again. I had it but it went away. Oh, here we go. Here we go. Okay. So, call to order, adoption of minutes. Do I have a motion to adopt the previous minutes as recorded?

StevensonD: I so move.

Hauth: Okay. A motion’s been made. Do I have a second? [Silence.] Do I have a second on that?

StevensonA: I second it, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. Any discussion around that? [Silence.] Okay. Hearing no discussion, we’ll take a roll call vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Yes.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yes.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: And myself, yea. Okay. So, moving on to public comment – just as a… just as a preface, if I may – even though there may be issues of contention or differencing of opinions, let’s make sure and just conduct ourselves politely and professionally, as I know we always strive to do. So, doesn’t mean you can’t share your… your concerns. But just let’s make sure and be as respectful as we can, going forwards. So, anyway… and that’s just for everybody; that’s not for one person, myself included. So, just to make sure everybody knows that. So, public comment. Do we have any public comment?

Moore: I have a question.

Hauth: Yes, Jeanne-Marie.

Moore: Are the minutes no longer being typed up?

Hauth: You know, I don’t… I don’t know. Eric? I believe they are. I believe the minutes are verbatim. But years back we made a motion as a reasonable accommodation to adopt the minutes as recorded. And then I believe, maybe a couple years back, the agency, on their own accord, started typing the minutes verbatim.

StevensonA: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: But… Yeah, hold on just a second, Art. Eric? I believe the minutes are still… Or, Art, I believe the minutes are still being typed up. So.

Morris: Yeah, Randy, they are. Just… It takes…

Hauth: Okay.

Morris: It takes a tremendous amount of time to get those done. So Mark has been working on them.

Hauth: Sure.

StevensonA: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: JM, are you on… are you on – I assume you are, but maybe you aren’t – on the interested parties list? ‘Cause when Mark sends out notice that the typed…

Moore: Yes.

StevensonA: … that they’re done.

Moore: That’s what made me ask, though, because I’ve seen the recorded ones but not the other ones. That’s all. I thought they were still being done. I just wanted to make sure.

StevensonA: Yeah, and when… when they’re done Mark usually…

Moore: Yeah, [inaudible].

StevensonA: … sends notice out to the interested party list that they’re done, so people…

Moore: Okay, thanks.

Hauth: Yep. Okay. Any public comment?

Colley-Dominique: Randy, this is Cathy Dominique and I just wanted to say that I’m finally online and…

Hauth: All right. Thank you for joining in, Cathy.

Colley-Dominique: Sure.

Hauth: Okay. Any public comment? [Silence.] Okay. One more time, is there any public comment?

StevensonA: Randy?

Jackson: I’d like to make a comment. Steve Jackson.

Hauth: Um…

Jackson: Is that okay?

Hauth: Art… Art asked for the floor first. Art, you want…?

StevensonA: I’ll yield to Steve first.

Hauth: Okay, Steve, go ahead.

Jackson: I just was quickly thinking, it’d be nice if Eric could reach out to some of the other managers that aren’t calling in because I think they need to be involved. And I hope they come to the in-service as well.

Hauth: Yep. Thank you, Steve. Any other public comment? [Silence.] Okay, any other… Art, go ahead.

StevensonA: Yeah, am I off mute?

Hauth: You are.

StevensonA: Okay, well, I… I just want to say that, you know, we are not – and I mean the managers and the Elected Committee – receiving all the program-relevant information that OCB is receiving. And I’m, you know, I’m really disappointed that we aren’t. Our managers, the Elected Committee deserve all the information that’s not confidential to be relayed to us on a regular basis and it’s not happening. And so, it… it needs to be addressed. I’m getting real tired of having – as a member of the Elected Committee, and also as a blind licensed manager – having to request this stuff. And so it’s a critical issue. There’s a lot of time-sensitive stuff that’s out there, that the Elected Committee is not being allowed to weigh in on because we aren’t receiving that program-relevant information and… and things have to change concerning that. Because the law mandates that we get that program-relevant information and… and… and we aren’t. And so we need to make sure that we have all the information that’s going on within our program so that we conduct a business. And we just… we got to come to a solution for this. Because, quite frankly, I get really tired of asking for things, when it should just be automatic. Okay. Thank you.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Any other public comment? [Silence.] Any other public comment? [Silence.] Well, let me…

Gordon: Yeah, Randy. Steve Gordon.

Hauth: Go ahead. Go ahead, Steve.

Gordon: Do you…?

Hauth: No, no. Go ahead.

Gordon: Okay. Yeah, I want to make a comment that, you know, we… we’re really striving to work together with the agency and… and our BE managers and the BECC board. And I would really, really like to see a lot more openness of the relationship. I know that we had invited Dacia to come to our in-service. And what a unique time and opportunity that could be, with having a lot more open communication and that we can sit down and discuss these things together and work out some of these problems and situations and also some of the frustrations, like Art has, and numerous of other situations. And it just seems like every time we get going there’s… the OCB seems to throw in a cog in the wheel to slow things down. And we all have one objection and one thing in mind and one goal in mind, is to support the program and what the intent of the program is. And that’s what all of us would love to see and have some kind of a unity and not… try not to get and allow the politics to rule and run it. And I… I don’t myself want to be ran or ran by an iron fist. And that’s all I have to say.

Hauth: Thank you, Steve. Any other public comment? [Silence.] Well, let me… let me close this out by just touching base on a couple things. First and foremost, you know that Steve Jackson had mentioned about managers getting more involved. Certainly, we can’t force managers to get involved. And really, it’s our duty, as the Elected Committee, in my opinion, it’s our duty as the Elected Committee and the managers to encourage participation. You know, there’s some people on this… on this meeting… that aren’t on this meeting that don’t attend regularly. And I don’t know what you could ever do to encourage that. The way I look at it is it’s their loss because they’re not… they’re not being caught up to speed on the program relevant… And this isn’t just my program or Art’s or Steve Jackson’s or Steve Gordon’s or, you know, the list goes on and on. It’s their program as much as it is ours. So I guess, you know, we just have to continue to try and encourage the managers to show up. The other thing is, on the program-relevant information, I know we’re kind of on a… on a cusp here where I would say, historically, information has been very hard to get. And even some of the program information has been withheld and people have been forced through public records to get program-relevant information. I do think we’re heading in the right direction but I know that Art had a recent issue with trying to get invoices from the AG expenditures and the fiscal impact committee but I don’t know that that had been provided yet. But yeah, again, I think the more we can, the more transparent the agency is in giving that information, probably the better off we’ll all be. And it will take some of the tension out of the air, I would hope. Touching base on Dacia’s response to our invitation, you know, it’s clear that Dacia attends the ACB and NFB state conventions. I’ve been in attendance at both of those when she’s been there and presented. I felt that’d be a great opportunity to reach out to her and have her be part of a panel on how are we going to roll out the new statute, okay? We have priority. How are we going to implement a plan that starts setting the future for that program and for opportunities? And so I reached out to Dacia and Dacia had, in sum, said, “Lookit, my focus is the rules right now.” I think, personally, being at a table sitting down and trying to work through a plan forward, the rules and that plan are one and the same. So, you know, in all due respect, I don’t think you can really separate those. However, I’ll respect her decision not to attend our in-service. And so, last but not least, I do hear occasionally through the grapevine that there are managers that are facing problems and are frustrated and for one reason or another maybe don’t reach out to their committee or their committee members. And I would just encourage the managers, if you’re, you know, if you’re facing problems or concerns or frustrations please feel free to reach out to any member of the committee that, you know… specifically the one that represents you, but any member of the

committee and let us see what we can assist you in doing. And so, you know, that’s my… that’s my two cents worth. And thank you very much. And so, if there’s no other public comment, I will move forward.

StevensonD: Randy.

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonD: Yeah, this is Derrick.

Hauth: Hey, Derrick.

StevensonD: Yeah, I… I just want to bring up a few things that are bothering me. One is a lack of a definition for our preference. I don’t know why there’s… there’s some hesitation to identify what that means. I mean, we have a… we have a federal judge ruled on what the preference means and what it is. And I think it shouldn’t change from what he told us the preference is. And we should not hesitate to make sure that anybody that reads our rules or… or wants to know more should be able to go into our rules and… and read what preference means and it just makes things a lot clearer and a lot easier. It’s only gray if we don’t define it. If we define it the gray goes away. And there’s… there’s just several things that I’m not really comfortable with and I’m not feeling that the Commission’s using the right ethics to make sure that… that the rules that we’re writing are clear. I don’t think they’re being totally honest when they address the OCB board. And, you know, right at this point the trust that I have in the Oregon Commission for the Blind is… is… It’s not there. I have no trust, whatsoever. So, these things, they need to be worked in, part of – my opinion – part of Eric’s and Dacia’s responsibilities are to work with us and to make sure things are getting done. Right now, they’re… I don’t really see where they are. And then, I don’t know, there’s a lot of things that in the rules that I think they should automatically just be addressing. They’ve been told, you know. If you’re told by RSA that you can’t do administrative reviews and you can’t do… do things the way they’re supposed to, why are they just ignoring that advice? I… It’s just frustrating, for me. I think I’ll stop now.

Hauth: Yeah. Thank you, Derrick. I agree…

Bird: Randy, I got one. One quick one.

Hauth: Sure, Jerry. Just hold on a second, I’ll turn that over to you. I do want to agree with almost everything you said, Derrick, other than the judge is not a man, she’s a lady. So, okay, go ahead, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I just wanted to just bring up… 'cause what it’s actually, I think, tells us exactly what’s going on since, I believe, Eric was hired. And Suzanne made a comment in her thing, it’s called “policing us.” I think when you hire – I hate to keep using it on him, but it’s just the facts – security people, they’re police. They’re… They told us they think… they try to think what a criminal thinks. And that seems to come… that seems to have been the reason… It wasn’t if they knew any Randolph-Sheppard Act, it wasn’t if they knew how to run a business; it didn’t matter, any of that. It was all about being policed. And I thought that was a pretty good word and that’s exactly what’s happened here. They want to police us like we’re kids or… Once again,

our self-employment, doing the way you want to do, is in… I believe they’re violating our rights to be an American and to run a business as you see fit. And you think, just 'cause we’re blind that we have to have hours and we have to tell us how to do. I mean, that’s what running your own business is, you run it right or not. It’s up to you. So we got to… we got to, I think, stop them from taking away our rights as an American and not treat the blind people that we have to play by different rules and we are self-employed. Thanks.

Hauth: Thanks, Jerry. Okay, I will go ahead and move on, unless there’s anybody else. [Silence.] Okay. Well, thank you very much for the comments. And we’ll…

Haseman: Randy.

Hauth: Yes?

Haseman: Yes, it’s Linda Haseman and I’d like to make a public comment, please.

Hauth: Sure. One more. Go ahead, and then we’ll move on.

Haseman: One of the key things that I learned from watching this whole federal court case that ended up going in Mr. Bird’s favor is that one of the key conceptions is that the agencies… or state agencies have deference under… over their own rules, meaning they… they get to police their own rules, so to speak. But other agencies don’t get to police another agency’s rules. So when you leave things ambiguity level in rules you’re opening up doors for other agencies to go back to the state statute, possibly have opinion on the state statutes from the Attorney General’s Office of what it means, and that lands you back in court. So I’m in concurrence with the statements that have been made, that the rules need to be correct. It’s a statement that’s been made for a long, long time. It’s time to get it right. Whatever it takes to get it right I support getting the rules right and having the agency be able to run this program administratively by having deference over their own rules and not letting other agencies control what does or doesn’t happen or manipulate the law and force you guys into court cases. So that’s my two cents worth.

Hauth: All right. Thank you. Let’s go ahead and move on. And we have Director’s update. Eric, I know… I put that on there just in case you had, you know, anything. I know this is a special meeting, not a regular meeting, but if you have anything you’d like to update us on, please have the floor.

Morris: Yeah, Randy. I don’t have a bunch of stuff. I’ve been trying to get Capitol… I gave you guys that information last week, about the Capitol café. The Legislative… The Office of the Legislative Administrator issued an RFP last week for that Capitol café, you know, in the basement of the Capitol. So I’ve been talking with their staff and trying to figure out why they didn’t mention anything about us or the preference or the priority now. And so, if they don’t get back to me… The protest period ends tomorrow so I was gonna talk to you guys about that today. My intent, if you guys think it’s a good idea, would be to protest it based on the fact that they do not, anywhere that I could find in the RFP, and that’s the question I’d ask them is, “Where do you guys address 346.510-570?” So that’s kind of my plan with the Capitol café and that’s kind of what I’ve been working on today. So.

Hauth: All right.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

StevensonA: Okay. That does lead me into an action item, which needs to be addressed right away. I know that we have attempted to address the assigning of vending to blind licensed manager… managers, which the law specifically states the agency should do. We currently have the vending in the Capitol building. It is not assigned to a blind licensed manager and… and OCB needs to get in compliance with that. I, for one, would be a manager who would either take a temporary assignment or a permanent assignment. I’d rather not do a permanent assignment. But I… I feel it is critical right now… Because the vending is completely separate from the cafeteria. And, as a matter of fact, it was assigned to a blind licensed manager till they bid out of their location and that location ceased to exist. And so I understand Eric is doing some things with them. But I think it’s important – very, very important – right now to assign that vending to a blind licensed manager so that the Capitol cannot get away with any of these shenanigans. And I appreciate… and I’m glad to hear that Eric is moving forward on that. However, I did quote unquote send an email to him saying, “What about active participation?” And I did not receive a response. And so, in order to… in order to get this done I propose to the Elected Committee that that vending… I will volunteer to have it temporarily assigned to me and I’ll enter into a temporary agreement with OCB. Now, I don’t want that money, Randy. That money needs to go to managers. But in order to get this done today I will sign a temporary agreement with OCB that I will be the manager in charge. And that money, at the very least, should be distributed – and I’m not gonna keep it – should be distributed to every blind licensed manager in an equal amount of money…

Hauth: Well, hey… hey, Art? Let’s go ahead… If you’re gonna make a motion, let’s go ahead and make a motion. And then we can take a second and have discussion around it.

StevensonA: So, anyways, I want to make that motion, that… that I will accept a temporary assignment and I will enter into an agreement with OCB to oversee the vending – I know Canteen Vending is doing it – and… and, when I get the report from Canteen, I will turn that money over to a fund that will be distributed equally to all the blind licensed managers because that’s our money.

Hauth: Okay, so a motion has been made. I know it was… I know what you’re saying and there was a rather extensive motion but a motion has been made. Do we have a second to that? [Silence.] Do we have a second to that? [Silence.] Do we have a second to that motion? [Silence.] Well, I’ll tell you what, I’ll go ahead and second that motion and then we’ll have discussion around it. I’ll second the summary of that motion. But let’s open…

Moore: Randy, may I ask a question, as a point of order?

Hauth: Sure you may.

Moore: Thank you. What I heard Eric talk about was whether you guys wanted him to submit a protest about the Capitol cafeteria by tomorrow. And now you’re talking about a similar but quite different issue. So please don’t forget the question that he did ask you.

Hauth: You bet. Thank you, Jeanne-Marie. So a second has been made and we want to open it for discussion. Any discussion around this? And let me… let me share a couple of points. You know, this certainly, I don’t believe, is about Eric but it’s about the way that the RFP was submitted. And yes, back when I was chair previously, I was very involved in discussions with the State Capitol to encourage and to ensure that the vending went to, I believe, Char Mckinzie. Because at that time we had adopted a policy or practice where we were assigning portions of vending that was unassigned previously to managers to help stimulate their income. And I believe at that time it was Char. And I know that I was involved in at least three meetings with the State Capitol and it was agreed, and the agency, back at the time Walt Reyes was the Director, and the agency supported the assignment of that vending and so did the Capitol. So I’m concerned that the vending is now being, apparently – and you can correct me if I’m wrong, Eric – but got lumped in with the proposal itself. So, not only is there vending outside of the cafeteria and the break room there, or the vending room, but there’s also vending on every other floor in the Senate and House side. And so, yeah, I’m concerned about that. So, again, this isn’t necessarily an agency thing other than the agency has been collecting those revenues for quite some time and not… It’s not going to a vendor. Art, I don’t think you’re… You’re probably the least self-serving person that I know so I don’t take any concerns with that. I don’t think anybody else does. I do think that if a… if a vote is taken on this, you want to make sure that there’s a conflict of interest. But, you know, as far as what Jeanne-Marie said, and I know you introduced the motion so, you know, I heard it. I do, you know, personally, I think we do need to protest the RFP. So I think we’ll circle back to that and discuss that with Eric. But, Eric, I don’t know if you have anything to weigh in on or have any discussion….

Morris: Well, Randy, I guess… my… my only input on it is, I don’t think it’s a good idea to assign stuff to people when we don’t have it yet. I mean, I just don’t think that’s a good practice. So that’s my two cents.

[00:25:30]

Hauth: Okay…

Bird: Randy.

Hauth: Yes. Go ahead.

Bird: This is Jerry. So what I take it, we’re just talking about vending, correct? And we’ll get back to the cafeteria. You’re right, the last I knew we did finally get that vending. I don’t know if we got one up on the floors but… and it went to not really Char but her unit, which she moved out of and they never put that out for bid. So I take it that vending machine income should be going into our set-aside. Now I… I really can’t see why that should change. I mean… or it should be assigned to someone else permanently. I’m kind of a little troubled – not that I don’t mind Art doing it – to me it sounds like that needs to go to someone or to a unit or something, but not to

Art, I don’t think, and then he’s gonna send it back to everybody. That’s just gonna cause problems. And I don’t think that’s how we assign vending. So…

Hawkins: Chairman Hauth?

Bird: … [inaudible] on that. Anyway, thanks.

Hauth: Hold on just a second. Are you done, Jerry?

Bird: Yeah, I’ll be done.

Hauth: Okay.

Hawkins: Chairman Hauth?

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Hold on just a second. Cathy, go ahead.

Hawkins: It’s Char. I’m…

Hauth: Oh, Char. Sorry.

Hawkins: … not sure what vending we’re talking about. What…?

Hauth: The Capitol vending.

Hawkins: I don’t have that vending and it’s not assigned to me.

Hauth: No, it was formerly assigned to you.

Hawkins: It’s not assigned to me.

Hauth: No, I know… I know that. I know that. You…

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Hold on. You must’ve just come on.

Hawkins: I’m sorry. I was kind of half… Yeah, we got on late.

Hauth: Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no.

Hawkins: But I heard my name and I don’t… I don’t have that. So.

Hauth: Yeah. Just so you know, it wasn’t about you. Just so you know, it was about the vending at the Capitol and the RFP that’s come out and it identified you as that being formerly assigned to you as a licensed blind vendor. But that was all. So.

Hawkins: Oh, I didn’t… I didn’t even know that. So.

Hauth: Okay.

Hawkins: I wasn’t aware of that, at all. So I didn’t see the RFP and I didn’t see that it was… I’d be happy to take it, but I didn’t realize that it involved me. So. Thank you.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Char. Yep. Art, go ahead. [Silence.] Art, you’re on mute.

StevensonA: Okay, am I off mute?

Hauth: Yep, you are.

StevensonA: Well, first of all, let me say that vending was assigned to Char. Then, when she left, it was reverted to set-aside and we still are receiving that vending. So, Eric, I don’t quite understand why you would say we’re talking about something we don’t have. Because Canteen Vending was doing the vending and cut… when Char had it, was cutting her a check every month for the vending at the Capitol. We fought like [inaudible] to get that assigned to us. And the only purpose I have here is to come into compliance with the law, which means that OCB can only provide for the continued operation until it’s been assigned to a manager. And I said temporary 'cause I don’t want it permanently. But we need to make a statement that it’s separate, that we are in compliance with the state statutes and I don’t care who it’s assigned to. If somebody wants… If it’s the will of the Elected Committee to make a recommendation that it be temporarily assigned to somebody else, I do not care. I just want us to be in complete compliance with our state statutes. I want to make sure that the vending is completely separate from the cafeteria, because it is separate. It doesn’t even… It doesn’t even exist in the cafeteria. And… And we have a priority for that. And… And those people cannot deny that vending to come into our program. And so, you guys, we have to take action today to make sure we’re in compliance with the law, that it is assigned to a blind licensed manager, at least on a temporary basis…

Hauth: Hey, Art? You have… You have made the point loud and clear.

StevensonA: Well, anyways…

Hauth: Okay. Any other discussion?

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Hauth: Yeah, Linda, go ahead.

Haseman: From everything I’m understanding it seems like we’re right back smack where we were, even though the law’s been changed. So I’m not sure what’s going on but the agency, in

my opinion, has to go back to what we all just said a little while ago about responsibility to draft correct rules that allow them to administrate this program and not have other agencies doing exactly what is currently happening now or other state buildings or locations or whatever. Otherwise… I’m just… I’m almost in complete shock that, here we are again and vending has been put out for bid.

Hauth: Okay, thank you. I think we’ve had ample discussion. I would like to ask, you know, Eric… again, you know, this isn’t about Eric directly, or the agency directly, other than the comments that have been made. But Eric, so what’s, you know, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but the vending was assigned previously to the route that Char had, I believe, when she was with the Lottery. And then when Char transitioned into the Lottery, that vending along with some other vending, including the Lottery, ended up being directed into set-aside. And that’s where it’s been for the last, I don’t know, year and a half or two years. It’s been awhile. And so… I mean, that’s true, right? As much as you know?

Morris: Yeah, Randy. And my… my earlier comment…

Hauth: [Inaudible.]

Morris: Sorry. My earlier comment, I thought we were talking about the RFP for the café there. So I… We kind of… It seems like maybe I wasn’t tracking the motion or misunderstood the motion but…

Hauth: Well…

Morris: … I’m talking about the RFP for the café there. And they…

Hauth: Yeah. And I think the… I think the RFP, Eric, I think why it came up is the RFP, I think, is inclusive of the vending, if I’m… I’ve… I’ve scanned through it. I think it’s pretty extensive. But I believe… I believe Lewanda brought to the attention that the vending was also being connected to the RFP for the café. Is that not right, you guys?

Morris: Well, what the… The RFP talks about vending but, from what I can tell, reading through it it’s talking about vending in the café area, which… I’m trying to look at the diagram that they have attached to it. So it’s like they’re trying to… ‘Cause I think there’s a couple vending machines, like, right in the foyer there of the café. So I’m thinking that’s what they’re referring to. But it sounds like it’s specific only to that area – [Coughs.] Excuse me. – and one of these attached rooms and that… Like, they call it the Chinook Room, which looks like some kind of conference center right there by the café. So that’s what it’s talking about for vending, not throughout the Capitol, it doesn’t appear.

Hauth: Okay. Well, and I think the main… I mean, I’ve been in that café a number of times. There’s no vending in that café. There is vending about 50 feet away from there that’s in the little, you know, foyer or hallway. And maybe that’s what they’re trying to connect. And that’s the… that’s the meat and potatoes of that whole vending within the facility. So I guess we have to get that straightened out. And, I mean, we could go round and round about it but, you know, I mean, really that vending always should have been, in my opinion, should have been going to

a blind vendor and it shouldn’t be connected at all with the café. And yes, we should be protesting that if they didn’t consider us. Like Ms. Haseman says, “Hey, so if we went through all the effort to get a priority and a preference then, you know, who’s missing the… who’s missing the message here?” So but, you know, again, a motion’s been made…

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: … a second’s been made. Yes, Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: Yeah, I know we’re on two different subjects, kind of, but my comment on this… buffet, I guess they consider that the same as the cafeteria… We need to make sure… And we’re all clear… I think what we’re saying is we understand, we have first right of refusal on vending machines. Now it’s a little [inaudible] cafeteria’s differently. We have got to make… stop them from thinking they can put vending machines inside their cafeteria and it exempts them. It don’t. All they do, if we put some outside, is they’re in competition with us. They are to run a café without any vending machines, any vending machines they do not get. And they’re trying to… They’ll have vending machines put in there [inaudible] to say, “Okay, they’re in our café and we won’t sell any out there.” And, you know, they don’t get them both. They want the café, it’s clear, the law says we have first right of refusal on vending machines. I don’t care where they’re at.

Hauth: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Jerry. So a motion’s been made, a second. There’s been a lot of discussion around this. I’ll go ahead and call for a vote on this and then we’ll move on. So, yea or nay, Art Stevenson. And remember, there could be a potential conflict of interest. So. Art.

StevensonA: Am I off mute?

Hauth: You are.

StevensonA: Okay. I have a potential conflict of interest and I vote yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: I don’t… I… I’m kind of confused about the whole motion thing. But if it means that… that we keep the vending separate from the cafeteria and assign it temporarily to a manager, I vote yes.

Hauth: Okay. Jerry Bird.

Bird: I’d be neutral 'cause I… I want it to go to a blind person but I think if it goes to Art and then he’s gonna direct it to the agency… And to me, that’s not how we do things. Thanks.

Hauth: Okay. So your vote is…?

Bird: I sustain.

Hauth: Okay. Okay. Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: And so I’ll abstain also because I’m a little bit confused. But, in all respect to Art, I wanted to accept the motion. And there is enough… there is enough votes to pass the motion. So, anyway, so the motion… motion passes. So I do concur and support what Art’s intention is, and that’s to make sure that that vending goes to a blind vendor. So let’s… let’s have more discussion around this. Again, you know, I have to, you know, I have to entertain a motion. I’m not going to try and dismiss that once it’s entered. So Eric, so…

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Hold on just a second, Art. So… Please. So, so Eric, I know you previously had talked about how we address the RFP. I haven’t read it in its entirety. I’ve read it, you know, for the most part and I’ve talked to some who’ve read it. But I think we need to understand it in its entirety. And, bottom line, if they have not identified our priority or preference, then that’s a concern. And I think we need to get some clarity on the vending. My suggestion or thought would be, obviously, to protest the RFP. But, yeah, let’s hear from…

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: … wanted to… Yes, Art?

StevensonA: Okay. So now… now we’ll address the issue that Jeanne-Marie talked about. ‘Cause Eric, is it not correct that the deadline for protest is tomorrow?

Morris: 5:00 pm tomorrow.

StevensonA: It has to be in tomorrow?

Morris: 5:00 pm tomorrow.

StevensonA: Okay. Okay. I believe that I will make a motion that the Elected Committee recommend that Eric send a letter of protest, that it is not in compliance with Oregon statutes.

Hauth: Okay. So a motion’s been made. Do I have a second?

StevensonD: I second.

Hauth: Okay, a second’s been made. Discussion around that.

Bird: This is Jerry and all I can say is that… because… Well, I’ll just leave it at that. We send back to them that vending is never involved. That’s all.

Hauth: Okay. Any other discussion?

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: I will be glad, because I am the chair of the Vending Facility Development Committee, to work with Eric on sending, you know, on the wording of the letter. And so I… I will do that. I think… I think it’s a part of active participation. And… And, actually, Eric, if you wouldn’t mind – well, once we pass this motion – if you wouldn’t mind pushing the letter to us quickly tomorrow so, if we have any thoughts on it, that would be good. Or I would be glad to, you know, work with you on it also, whichever you think’s best. But I do think that we should probably see, you know, what he’s saying and if we have any comments on it, you know, or suggestions… Of course, he could either do it, you know, accept our comments or not. But we should be involved in this.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Art. We’re almost an hour into this so let’s try and move forward with this. And so…

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

StevensonD: Yeah. I, you know, I think we’re instructing Eric to… to protest it and to tell them that all the vending should be kept separate from the cafeteria. I think that’s a pretty straightforward thing. And because we’re short on time, you know, that Eric could probably just handle this so that it can get done in time. 'Cause, you know, he’s not going to start on it today. He’ll probably get in tomorrow morning and start on it and stuff and we just want to make sure it gets in and it’s not delayed.

Hauth: Yeah, thank you, Derrick. Hey, Eric, so what’s your thoughts on… how do you… how do you address this by protesting it?

Morris: Well…

Hauth: I mean… Go ahead.

Morris: The important thing to remember when you’re protesting an RFP is you’re not protesting necessarily, like, the interpretation of the law. And this took me a while to understand that, too. Because I think we all know that the law says now, like Jerry was saying, first right of refusal and first right of refusal is not just vending, it’s everything but a cafeteria. And I would contend, very similar to GSA at Edith Green, that the café in the basement of the cafeteria… cafeteria… -- Now I got cafeteria on the brain. – in the bottom in the Capitol basement is not a cafeteria by the definition that’s in the new state law, nor the federal law. ‘Cause it doesn’t have a serving line. You just walk up to a counter to get your stuff, which is more of a café. So, my… my… my perspective is, we have the first right of refusal for that. So by

telling them, “Hey, you don’t address the priority or the preference in the actual RFP in the context of procurement.” That’s the way to protest a procurement: you’re addressing a procurement issue not an interpretation of a statute. That’s where, I feel, we’ll get the most traction with it and basically put them on notice to say, “Hey, you guys aren’t… you guys aren’t complying.” I mean, which is just a different way of saying, “Hey, you’re not in compliance with the state statutes.” And the problem we’re having right this second is that they’ve issued this RFP and the House Bill 3253 doesn’t go effective till January. But we all know, in conversations with legislators and stuff, that they would like to see the blind running the café in the Capitol. So, you know, I would like to think that there’s not a big conspiracy to keep us out of there before the law goes into effect. But I think they would be naïve… for them to say, “Yeah, we’re just gonna plow ahead, even though it’s gonna go into effect in January.” So my idea would be to address it as a procurement issue, which would put a monkey wrench in the procurement, to be perfectly honest, because they did not address it. So that’s my approach to it.

[00:40:36]

Hauth: Okay. So thank you, Eric.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Hey… Hold… Hold on just a second, Art. Just as… So, Eric, is it true or not true, do you know, that this procurement came out earlier than it was expected to come out? Was…? I mean, is the agreement in place good through when, do you know?

Morris: I don’t know that, Randy. We had talks with the Capitol. The new guy… The new guy that manages the facility… the Capitol facility was new, like, June or July of last year when I met with him last time. He was brand new, like couple of weeks on the job. And so he had told me… And I basically said, “Hey, when that contract comes up we want it. You know, no doubts about it, we want to be here in the Capitol.” And he said, he told me at the time that, “Hey, we’re not doing anything until after the legislative session.” So my thought was when I saw it, a) I was surprised to see it without any communication from them, and b) I’m, like, well, the big legislative session just wrapped up, you know, like, a month, month and a half before, almost two months. So I, you know, do I think that they’re intentionally trying to avoid the law? I don’t think so 'cause I… I like to think positive thoughts about people. But it is convenient. I mean, when you’re looking to award a contract, like, by mid-December, I think it is…

Hauth: Sure. Sure.

Morris: When I talked to the procurement person today I said, “Hey, how are you guys addressing the, you know, the fact that the blind should have preference or priority?” And she’s like, “Well, can you… can you email me that question?” So I’m kind of waiting for her to reply back to me today. ‘Cause I told her, I said, “You’ll get back to me today, right?” But I’m fully prepared to get a protest letter in by the end of the day tomorrow. So…

Hauth: Okay. Well, okay. Well, thank you… thank you very much. And Art, I know you want the floor and I’ll be glad to give it to you. But let’s all keep in mind we have a bunch of other stuff to do and if a motion’s been made to get a protest…

StevensonA: Okay.

Hauth: I mean, let’s… let’s get it done. ‘Cause we have the rules to talk about and we have the fiscal impact to talk about.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: Yeah, let’s go ahead and vote on this. We can obviously address it some more at the Elected Committee meeting at in-service. That’s only a week and a half off. So I’ll call the question.

Hauth: Okay. A motion’s been made, second, discussion. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yes.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yeah.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: Art Stevenson… er, I’m sorry, Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: And myself, yea. So that motion passes. And yeah, keep us in the… keep us in the know on that, Eric, if you would. So, thank you. Let’s go ahead and move on to old business, if we can, if there’s nothing else in the Director’s update.

Morris: I’m good, Randy. Thank you.

Hauth: Okay. Old Business: Fall In-service. I know… Lewanda, I don’t know if you’re still on the line. I think Art said that you were a little bit under the weather but if you and Art kind of want to bring us up to date on the in-service, I think you’ve been working on that, you guys feel free to do that. So.

Miranda: Yeah, go ahead, Art. I’m just waiting to get the information so I can get the agenda out.

StevensonA: Am I off mute?

Hauth: You are.

StevensonA: Okay. Yeah, Randy. This has been a interesting endeavor, you know, putting together the agenda for the in-service this year. There’s been a lot of stuff going on. And… And I definitely think that we can have an excellent in-service. We… We wanted to address the rules and we wanted to address budget issues. We wanted to address the vending machine income issue. Those are all things that were on the agenda. And all of a sudden, you know, this fiscal impact committee meeting came up which, as the chair of the in-service training and training and education, I am… We got a lot of business that we got to attend to. There are a lot of subjects and topics we were gonna talk about. We definitely… We just received the input from Susan Gashel on the rules and I believe it’s very, very critical that we address those issues at in-service. If we have any chance of getting these rules done, and I’m cautiously optimistic but I’m very skeptical. And so I’m… I’m… I’m gonna say that, number one, as the chair of the Training and Education Committee I am very against the change of doing the fiscal impact committee meeting during the afternoon session on Saturday. I got a question that, actually, a good and complete job can be done in that amount of time. And so I’m gonna make a recommendation, in fact, I’m gonna make a motion that the fiscal impact committee meeting does not occur during our in-service training. I don’t believe it fits in the parameters of what in-service training is supposed to be. And we have the rules and all those other things, Randy, that we know need to be addressed, issues that need to be addressed. In fact, Friday evening I wanted to have a session on how in the heck we all get on the same page – like Steve was saying, like I’ve been saying – so we can resolve some of the issues that are plaguing our program. And so, I’m gonna make that motion, Randy, as the chair. I hope we get a second. I do believe a fiscal impact committee meeting needs to occur, but not during our in-service training.

Hauth: Okay. So a motion has been made. Do we have a second on that motion? [Silence.] Do we have a second on that motion? [Silence.]

StevensonD: I’ll second.

Hauth: Okay. So a second’s been made. Any discussion?

Jackson: [Inaudible], please.

Hauth: Yeah, let me just… Hold on, Steve, just one second. Hey, Eric, so I know when you put that out you said “tentatively scheduled” and, you know, I would, you know, I don’t think it’s a capital crime but I do know that, as the chair, I received some concerns about how are we gonna get all this other stuff done if the agency’s wanting to have a fiscal impact? And I think maybe the… the concept unfolded without discussions with Lewanda and Art or myself. And so, is there a way to work around that? You know, outside of, like, conflict with each other about it? Is there a way to schedule that, you know, either early Friday or…? I mean, I’m just trying to, you know… So I just wanted to share that out there for you to think through it.

Morris: Yeah, no, Randy, I can comment on that. So, you know, you guys were aware that we were gonna need to stand one up. I mean, that’s… that’s public knowledge. So the idea that we’re in Eugene, which is centrally located, and the majority of the people who are interested in this are all gonna be in the same meeting, it makes perfect sense to me that we would have it that afternoon. Now, I… I’ve tried to do a little math behind how long that meeting will take. I mean, it’s obviously part of what we’re doing for the rulemaking so it’s kind of logical, if we were gonna work on rules in the morning, we would do the fiscal impact in the afternoon. There’s nothing saying that we have to adjourn the fall in-service training at 4:00. I mean, we could take a break and then come back in the evening for an evening session. But it’s crucial we get that done. It’s part, you know… it’s something that everybody’s vested in and wants to comment on, and not just blind managers and people within the program; there are other people, interested parties, that want to… want to chime in on that too. So…

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I’m just trying to figure it out. I, you know… So I know Steve wanted to talk about it. But the other… the other thing I was thinking about, what about having it Friday morning? What about, you know, extending, you know, extending the in-service to encompass Friday, instead of just Friday night. So, I don’t know. Just wanted to throw that out there. But, Steve Jackson, I think you were asking for the floor. Steve, was that you?

Jackson: Yeah.

Hauth: Go ahead.

Jackson: I was just… I was just curious about the motion, you know. I was unclear.

Hauth: Okay. Well, we’re in discussion right now. Is there any other discussion? So did you miss the motion, Steve? Or you want it restated?

Jackson: I just wanted to know clear… making it clear. Yeah, I was just…

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Okay. Yes, Art, go ahead.

StevensonA: Okay. I’m off mute, right?

Hauth: Yes.

Miranda: Yes.

StevensonA: Okay. I have no objections, Randy, to doing it on Friday morning, like you suggested. And so, if OCB is… or would embrace that… One of the things that I had a problem with, it happening on a Saturday, was, even though you sent, you know, you sent the notice out, you know, people value their weekends and stuff, too. And so I would… I would say, if Eric’s amicable to that, I would change my motion that we extend the in-service and… and begin it Friday morning and… and then we can go from there.

Morris: We don’t have venue space for Friday morning.

StevensonA: We don’t have what?

Morris: We haven’t made arrangements with the hotel for Friday morning.

StevensonA: Well, how about seeing if you can? And if you can’t, maybe we can find someone… somewhere else.

Morris: How about… How about… How about we hold the meeting and then work later in the evening on Saturday, where we have the venue already?

StevensonA: Eric, again, my… my concern is, I want it to be complete and I want everything done. And, quite frankly, you know, I’m not so sure that half a day is appropriate…

Morris: For what?

StevensonA: Well, I don’t… I think we’re talking… We’re gonna… This fiscal impact committee – and I don’t know if you’ve read through Susan’s stuff…

Morris: Not… Not, like, 53 pages. No.

StevensonA: I mean, this is important stuff and… and it shouldn’t just be rushed through just because it’s, you know, you guys think that there’s some kind of absolute thing that everything has to get done by November 15th, when…

Morris: Have you read the statute, Art?

StevensonA: Huh?

Morris: Have you read the House Bill?

Hauth: You guys, hold on just a second. So I think…

Moore: … have a point of order?

Hauth: Yeah, let’s… Hold on just a second. Let’s… Let’s hear from the other board members. What’re you guys thinking about…?

Moore: Wait.

Hauth: Hold on just a second.

Moore: Someone asked a question. Someone asked a question, “What was the motion?” The motion was to not have the fiscal impact committee meeting be part of the in-service training, period. That’s the motion.

Hauth: Okay. Thanks, Jeanne-Marie. Board members…?

Jackson: Thanks, Jeanne-Marie.

Hauth: …what’s your… what’s your discussions around that?

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

StevensonD: Yeah, I… Well, I have a lot of concerns. First of all, my first concern is, first we were told that the Elected Committee that sat in doing the rules was… was the fiscal impact committee. And then we’re told that we don’t have a… we don’t have a… that that wasn’t true, so we need to put together a new list so that part’s kind of concerning to me. And, actually, I don’t know why we sent a letter out to people to sign up without a date scheduled for it. I mean, people, you know, should be able to know that they’re sign… not only what they’re signing up for but what day that… those meetings were gonna occur. And I, for one, would rather it be done during the week and not at in-service because, you know, we don’t want to be… we don’t want to feel rushed and we don’t want to have it, you know, after… after the fact, when people are already tired and been working all day. I think we should just schedule it for, you know, either the following Monday or Tuesday after in-service. So that’s just my two cents.

Hauth: Okay. All right, Derrick. Any other board members want to weigh in on this?

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: Yeah, I pretty well agree with Derrick. You know, I mean, I’m struggling because I think was supposed to have been taken care of earlier when we had our… doing the rules. And it appears to be a blunder by OCB, or the State Licensing Agency. Now, they want to turn it into using up our time to do that. Once again, I don’t mind doing it during there, but they shouldn’t be able to take away our in-service to do something that I think is an OCB issue. I mean, it’s not a BEP issue to have this hearing, it’s an OCB… what they should’ve done. Now we get punished with [inaudible] and Eric goes, “Oh, we can do it. You guys can work later.” It’s always for the convenience of them. I… I don’t think we should have it on Saturday. They want us to come in on a Friday or do it on the following Monday, that’s cool. But I don’t…

Hauth: Okay.

Bird: I agree with not changing our in-service for their blunders. Thank you.

Hauth: Okay, thank you. Any other board member?

Gordon: Randy, Steve Gordon.

Hauth: Yeah, Steve?

Gordon: I… I’m in agreement with Jerry and that. I think we still need to stick to the plan and still focus on the rules making. The impact deal is something else that we can deal with next week, or I mean, pardon me, after the in-service. So that’s my opinion also. We got to stick to the plan and, like I said earlier, these little cogs in the wheel is what throws us all off. And I actually did speak to Dacia last week about part of it and that was one of her big things. ‘Cause I again cordially invited her to come to our meetings and have open discussion and be able to really, you know, sit down and iron some of these things out, but not necessarily the fiscal impact. So.

Hauth: Yeah. Okay. Okay, thank you. Hey, Eric, so, you know, I get… I get where you’re coming from, as far as, you know, everybody’s gonna be there, centrally located. But I know there’s some concerns around it. So, I mean, is it too much to ask to either hold that meeting Friday morning at the agency and then we meet later that day at convention? Or we try and see if we have the venue prior to that? ‘Cause I do think the rules and the other issues are gonna take a lot of time and I get what you’re saying about, “Gosh, we don’t have to close at 4:00 or 5:00 or whatever.” But, you know, sitting through meetings, as you know, for a long period of time is kind of wearing, too. So, you know, I know a motion’s been made, a second and there’s been discussion and I’ll take the vote on it. But I just was wondering if that’s something that the agency would entertain. So.

Morris: Well, Randy, I’d be really curious to see what the agenda is for the in-service 'cause I… I’ve seen nothing on it. So that’s, from my perspective, it…

Hauth: Okay.

Morris: … seems like we got a lots of time. So, that’s… It’d be great if I could see the agenda. Then I could wrap my head around it.

Hauth: Okay. Hey, Art… Art and Lewanda, I know that Mark had reached out and I think Mark has been provided the agenda. Is that correct?

StevensonA: Well, [chuckles] this has been very interesting, Randy. And of course you know you put forth the proposal that we, and Eric was copied on that, that Saturday – and I know you got the email, Eric – that Saturday be spent on the rules, the budget, and the vending machine income issue. I do know you received that. You may not have the end agenda. But the reason you don’t have the end agenda is because well, number one: there’s been so much controversy going on about this. And… And number two: let me tell you, things have been changing in this program almost every five minutes including… Well, I won’t go into all that. You did receive the email that we were going to spend Saturday on the rules, the budget, and the vending. And I can go back in my emails and send that to you.

Morris: Yeah, Art, I got that…

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Hey…

Morris: Basically, it was a punch list of things, topics. But it wasn’t really an agenda.

Hauth: Hey, Eric, so what do you… what do you need…?

Miranda: I can… I can have the agenda out later on this evening.

Hauth: Cool. Thanks, Lewanda. Will that help, Eric?

Morris: Yeah, I’ll take a look at it.

Hauth: Okay. Okay.

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: So… Derrick, go ahead. And then we’re gonna call for the vote. Go ahead.

StevensonD: Yeah. I just wanted to mention… you mentioned having it maybe early on Friday. I think, you know, that… that, to me, you know, people will be traveling to… to get to in-service and stuff and I don’t know if that would be a conflict. Because, you know, people can’t attend meetings… a meeting discussing the fiscal impact if… if they’re having to travel to Eugene. So I would… I would be against doing it on Friday, period.

Hauth: Okay. Yeah, I’m just trying to figure out, you know, trying to open some discussion.

StevensonD: I understand.

Hauth: A motion’s been made, a second. Let’s go ahead and call for the vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: And Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: And I’ll vote yea as well. Hopefully, we can find a way to, you know, fit this in somewhere. So, thank you. Moving right along, is there anything else on the fall in-service?Lewanda, thanks for stepping up and saying you’ll get that to Eric. I also know you need the Elected Committee meeting agenda. And I don’t know if there’s anything else we need to discuss. Is everybody identified with Mark Riesmeyer what, you know, who’s coming and lunch and all that? I know he sent a request out. So, Eric, is there anything else that we need to address on that?

Morris: Umm… I’m trying to think real quick. I don’t think… Nothing right off the top of my head.

Hauth: Okay, thanks. Okay, rules review. So I know that’s next on the agenda. This’ll be, I know, a rather hot topic. I’m just gonna try and summarize what, you know, what my thoughts are around it and then, you know, open… open up the discussion around this. So, I believe back in June, following the legislation being passed through the Senate and the House. We were anticipating starting this project and I think we even made requests to start writing the rules in July. And so, I know people were on vacation. One, you know, one thing led to another and we didn’t get started on this project until August sometime. I do know that a request was made initially that Susan Gashel be the facilitator and – because of her legal expertise and her knowledge and her respect nationally – and the agency denied that, I believe, stating that there was a potential conflict because she was sitting on a arbitration panel. However, she sat on arbitration panels for the agency as well, previously. So… But trying to get the project going and moving ahead. And we… And there was a suggestion about Terry Smith. And, you know, Terry Smith is very knowledgeable, well-versed in the Randolph-Sheppard, a great advocate. And so we had Terry come in and went through four, five, six days of discussions, talks. And I know, following that summit, Terry had made some recommendations but those recommendations either weren’t provided to the commissioners and/or they didn’t have a chance to read them, other than, I believe, Jeanne-Marie Moore. And so the Commission board… And also Gretchen Merrill was provided a copy of the rules and I believe her response prompted some rule crafting from Eric. I could be wrong on this. I’m just, you know, trying to at least keep… keep it at least close to as I recall it. And I believe there was some language crafted that was incorporated into the rules draft, which was adopted by the commissioners. And there was still a lot of concerns by the managers and by the Elected Committee. And then there was a request to have a legal review even though Terry Smith I think was identified as a legal expert, he identified numerous times during the rules summit that he’s not a legal expert. And so I know the licensed blind vendors wanted to get a review of this other than by Terry. So we asked the agency, through managerial services, to assist with that and the agency said they couldn’t do that. And so there was a coalition of managers that put funds together and engaged with Susan. And Susan provided an initial review and then a complete review. And so, the initial review highlighted a lot of concerns, similar concerns to what Terry provided and similar concerns of what the Elected Committee provided. And so the complete review we received, I believe, this morning. I haven’t even had a chance to read through it in its entirety yet. I did provide to Eric the initial review and told him I’ll send the full review on. But my… my… my thoughts are, even though it looks like there are some pretty serious concerns within the rules, that we can somehow find a way to overcome those. It’s been my position that the agency – and I could be wrong, but I’m sharing with you from what I’ve seen or fest – the agency has tried to position for a lot of

control over the vendors and the program. And I think that was identified through Terry’s, er, Susan’s review specifically. And I know Terry identified some items, too. So, with that being said, Susan did suggest that, if these rules are in conflict with RSA, they need to be addressed that way and also identified some suggested concerns on how to possibly fix them. And so, maybe I’ve left some stuff out but that’s… that’s what I remember occurring. And again, you know, I’m still hopeful that we can get this done. But my personal… my personal position is, as a steward of, you know, sitting on this board as a steward of this program I can’t put myself out in a position that’s going to negatively impact anybody without, you know… especially without all the information. But, you know, so I think it’s critical that we take this seriously and we address it to the best of our ability and we encourage the agency to come around to the suggestions and the voice of the committee. And so, with that being said, you know, I’ll open the floor for discussion. Is there anybody that wanted to comment on the rules? Eric, I don’t know, you know, if you at this point want to say anything or later on but feel… feel free to.

Morris: I’ll… I’ll talk a little bit later, Randy. That’d be great.

[01:03:32]

Hauth: Sure. Yep. Okay.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Any… Yes, Art?

StevensonA: Yeah, I would like to add something to what you said. Yes, we had suggested Susan but, in the spirit of good faith negotiations, when OCB said, “Well, I don’t know about Susan,” we made a motion because we knew that this should be looked at by a legal expert. And we made a motion that we would work with the agency at choosing a legal expert in order to ensure that we didn’t have any problems and… and that was ignored. I know, also, we made a motion to get the assistance of a rulemaking expert in the state of Oregon, Mr. Chamoff, who works with agencies all across this state at helping them get rules right, and… and… and that was ignored also. And so I want to… I want to put that on the record. I still to date have not received any legal clarification or justification by the Commission that we can’t use legal resources just because we have an Attorney General’s Office. And… And… And I still… I still want that information because I believe it’s not true. And we have tried to compromise, to work with, to make sure that everything was done correctly, that all the laws and rules and regulations were complied with and actually those pleas – which, by the way, I thought was very professional on our part – good faith negotiations… And there was no negotiations. And now we’re in a situation, we have the evaluation and… and I think it’s a great evaluation. I think it’s very spot-on. And… And hopefully… There are some other issues because some things were left out… left out of the rules that she couldn’t really evaluate, like when we made the recommendation that, if a blind licensed manager was working in a cafeteria or a snack bar, they had the right to 100% of their vending machine income. Because nobody should be forced to work one and a half jobs. And the reasons vending was tied to those locations was to enhance their income. But all… all… all that stuff has been ignored and it needs to be addressed. And hopefully, now, the agency is going to address it so that we don’t end up under, you know, more litigation. And so I’m… I’m… I’ll be consciously optimistic with you too, Randy.

But, right now, the agency needs to step up to the plate and do it right, do complete rules that… that… that are complete, that comply with the law. ‘Cause the state statute still says, okay, that our rules must ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facilities and benefit the blind licensed managers, not go against their rights to make decisions that is best for their businesses.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

Moore: I have a question.

Hauth: Yes, Jeanne-Marie.

Moore: Has Eric seen this stuff?

StevensonA: From Susan?

Hauth: What do you mean, “stuff?”

Moore: Yeah.

StevensonA: From Susan?

Hauth: Oh, the review?

Moore: Yes, from Susan.

StevensonA: Yes, he’s seen the stuff from Susan.

Moore: Okay. Thanks.

Morris: Commissioner Moore? So people aren’t speaking for me, I got the stuff yesterday and I got through about the first page of 21 pages. So I have not fully absorbed all the comments that Ms. Gashel provided.

Edwards: And this is James Edwards, Randy. Can I…?

Hauth: James, go ahead.

Edwards: So I read the review by Susan Gashel and I was just wondering if, at some point, if the Attorney General, Oregon Attorney General will be reviewing that also.

Hauth: Yeah, Eric, I don’t know if you can… I’ll let you respond to that.

Morris: Well, the question that I think is relevant to that, James, is what… It depends on what the Elected Committee wants to do with the advice. If the Elected Committee’s gonna say, “We’re gonna use that advice” to make their recommendations, or the recommendation’s

gonna be, “Follow the advice,” that’s the piece that I want to hear about tonight. So that’s what I’m curious about.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Edwards: Okay. Thank you.

Hauth: Hold on just a second, Art. Is there anybody else, before I go back to Art? Okay…

Jackson: Steve Jackson.

Hauth: … go ahead, Art. Oh. Go ahead, Art.

StevensonA: Well, Steve wanted to say something real quick.

Jackson: [Inaudible] quick comment, real quick. I would like to take Susan Gashel’s advice and follow her lead. And I’d also like Eric to know that one of the things I noticed in her review was, if we accept the rules the way that they are now we’re gonna invite more litigation and it’s gonna cost more money and more people’s time and taxpayers’ money. And I really just think we need to, you know, focus on the rules at in-service and get this done.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes. Go ahead, Art.

StevensonA: Okay. Well, let me say, you know, I’ve read that. I haven’t read the finished part but I did throw in there the part about, you know, cafeterias, snack bar operators being able to have the option to run 100%. Of course, that was a recommendation of Terry Smith. He thought it was a no-brainer. And, actually, the Elected Committee thought it was a no-brainer. But it was… it was conveniently left out. And then the attitude was, you know, “Well, we’re not gonna address subcontracting anymore.” Even though we had concerns it was ignored. But, to make a long story short, Mr. Chair, obviously in her recommendation was that we notify RSA that the current rules are in violation of the law and that we do not support it. And hopefully the agency is going to allow true active participation and actually do it right so that we don’t have litigation and… and we have a good, complete, finished product. So I make a motion that we send notification to RSA, per Susan Gashel’s recommendation. And then, you know, Randy, I hope OCB will finally embrace doing complete and comprehensive rules that comply with the law and do benefit all of the blind licensed managers, allow us to be individual entrepreneurs and make good business decisions with the help of the agency, which was the intent of the Randolph-Sheppard program. So I make that motion, Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Art, if you can do me a favor and restate a clear and concise motion, that would be…

StevensonA: Okay. I make a motion that we send a letter to RSA, per Susan Gashel’s recommendation, by registered mail, that the current rules are not satisfactory and they need to get in compliance with the act and stuff…

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: … and… and then we can give our blessing to these rules. But I…

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: Yeah.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you very much. A motion’s been made. Do I have a second?

StevensonD: I second.

Hauth: A second’s been made. Discussion? So, Eric, I don’t know if you have any thoughts around this or discussion.

Morris: Well, I think… I think the one piece that I’m not sure everybody realizes but, you know, the Attorney General commented and reviewed our rules for legal sufficiency. So that… that’s not the end of the legal review. So they go to Jesse to be reviewed, which he has them. But Jesse doesn’t sign off on them. Their legal counsel goes through and vets the rules for legal sufficiency and lining up with the RSA, just like you guys are talking about for Susan Gashel to do. So I… there’s gonna be plenty of legal review when it comes to the rules. So I’m just not sure if everybody is aware that the… the internal… their version of the AG – I think it’s the Department of Justice is who the feds use – reviews them too. And Jesse can’t… Jesse just doesn’t sign off on them. Which, I thought for a long time that’s what I thought those guys did. But it has to go through legal review there, too, so just FYI.

Hauth: Thank you, Eric. So my… my position is this: is that I… you know, the rules obviously are a serious function of implementing the state statute. I guess my concerns are a number and they are not necessarily directed at you but my concerns are that there was a lot of items of concern that were brought forward during the summit that, you know, appeared to not be incorporated into the rules. And even some of Terry Smith’s suggestions and advice weren’t adopted into the rules prior to the commission board, you know, adopting those. And so, I’m not sure why that was… why, you know, I know we were all under a timeline but I’m not sure why… It appeared to my like language was incorporated that the Elected Committee didn’t even, you know, have a chance to sit at the table and go through. And even some of the information that we did have a chance to go through wasn’t, as I recall, incorporated into it. And I know, like you said, it’s not the end of the line on the rules. So we’re hoping we can get to a point where, you know, it’s… it’s… it’s rules that are going to implement this program properly and, you know, everybody’s gonna live happily ever after. I don’t see that happening right now and I haven’t really seen the process be a too fluid process. But I do value Susan’s insights and input. She is a well-recognized and respected expert in the Randolph-Sheppard and she is a legal expert when it comes to the Randolph-Sheppard and Business Enterprise. And, you know, I respect a lot of what Terry said, too. So if we can somehow find a way to forge these rules into what they should be… I mean, with Oregon being the only state that actually has a operating agreement that terms out, you know, it… it raises a lot of red flags to me. And when Susan identifies that the agency is just, in her opinion, trying to, you know, limit the rights of the blind vendors or control the blind vendors’ rights above and beyond – and I’m summarizing, I’m not

quoting – it raises concerns. So, again, I hope we can find a way to work through it. But, you know, I don’t know. So…

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Thank…

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Yeah, go ahead.

Bird: Yeah, I’d just like to make a quick comment. And, as Eric kind of stated, like, you know, you got the AG reviewing it and all that. And I think [inaudible] the problem we’ve had with our AGs here in Oregon is that the same AG that said we have… everything’s level playing field, that said we have no first right of refusal, that says… went on and on and on and why we’ve been denied for so many years. Is this the same AG’s Office that we had a federal judge say that it’s been… had it wrong for 50 years. You know, it’s… it’s not that we’re in love with this AG, even though they have an AG badge. But they seem to want to change these back to where they… we work for the… you guys. And they want to change it to where if we do anything you’ll be able to push us back. And… And that’s been… that’s been their thing. I been here for 30 years, going on 31 and I fought them for all them years. They’re not changing. They still want us to be forced and shut up and we’ll tell you how to run your businesses. So when Eric says, you know, “Gosh, the AG does this” and they send it to the AG and they say, “Well, the AG’s our boss; whatever they say go.” And now we’re trying to get people that are neutral, people that look at us, people that are knowledgeable of our program… The AG wants to make it a state program, not a federal program. So… And then when we look at Susan and it’s like, “Oh, well, Susan does this and that and that.” But Susan is just telling them how it is. And, once again, I think sending this letter to them is that we’re not gonna do what you guys want to do, especially when we have experts that’s been Attorney General, that don’t have no… mad at us or any kind of personal feeling, which this gal has. You know, she’s… with Chemeketa and all that…

Hauth: Yeah.

Bird: That’s my personal opinion, that said that Chemeketa… we didn’t have rights on them and the judge said no, we do. So, once again, people, that’s our problem. And Eric, you got to understand, when we get experts like Susan that are telling us, “Wait a minute, you guys are kind of, I mean, you guys are moving so fast with us.” You left the room and then now we don’t get no important things done and oh, we got to pressure us. Well, we’re not… We can’t get it done by then, you know? And I think in her thing, you need our blessing. You may think you can have the last say but it don’t work that way, you know. Once again…

Hauth: Thank you.

Bird: … I hope you can work with us. Thank you.

Hauth: Thank you, Jerry. Any other… Any other discussion around this before we call the vote?

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

StevensonD: Yeah, you know, I agree with what a lot of people are saying and I just wanted to add in that when we send… sent the rules to RSA, you know, a lot of times they base whether or not they’ll allow things to do is based on the fact that the Elected Committees of those states that got certain things passed didn’t really have objections to… to some of those rules. And if… and the way I understand it, if the Elected Committees in the state aren’t against things that are written, they’re just… they’re just gonna basically pass them. They don’t… They don’t go through all the hassle. It’s very clear that we’ll be sending a letter to RSA stating our problems with stuff and they’re gonna… they’re gonna address them. And, you know, if… if we are right, they’re gonna… they’re gonna deny it. And I just don’t understand… We’re not… We’re not writing rules that… that are illegal. We’re trying to write rules that benefit our program and the managers in the program like we’re supposed to. And, you know, I… until OCB gets on that playing field, that we… that we write rules that’s best for the program and the managers and not just the whims of OCB staff, the sooner we’ll get these rules done properly.

Hauth: Yeah.

StevensonD: We’re pretty much at risk right now that if… if we proceed, you know, I doubt if they’re gonna get passed by November 15. And OCB has an obligation to work with us, to make sure that gets done.

Hauth: Thank you, Derrick. Any other discussion? [Silence.] Okay, hearing no more discussion, a motion’s been made…

[Inaudible]

Hauth: Go ahead, Steve.

StevensonA: No, this is Art. I…

Hauth: Go ahead.

StevensonA: … you know, Randy? And I… I hear what Eric’s saying about legal reviews and… and… and we’ve seen a lot of legal reviews. We know what is legal and illegal in a lot of things. And, as a matter of fact, Susan quoted several times… several times what it states in the law and other cases that were similar that could crop up or affirmed what she was saying. And so the agency really does need to embrace it. And… And loved exactly what she said on the permit thing. I’ve been telling you guys that for years and you’ve ignored it, said, “Oh, we’ve got to do IGAs.” Well, no the state statute even says we can do permits. And we actually can write rules on what those permits are and how long they exist and… and… and that they can be amended, just like in the federal act. But the agency has refused to do those things and that’s why we’ve had these problems. Now, what has to happen is the agency needs to finally say, “Hey, we’re gonna do the rules right. We’re gonna do them in the spirit and the intent and what the RSA act intends them to be, and also our state statutes and we’ll… and we’ll be fine, you know? But I

hope the agency doesn’t continue to ignore legal experts who have won litigation after litigation against the state licensing agencies because they don’t do their job right. And that includes…

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: … the last one that we did, with Brown, Goldstein and Levy. You guys ignored that and… and if you hadn’t… if you hadn’t ignored it and done what you should, we wouldn’t have been in…

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: … the problems we’re in. Okay, I’m shutting up now, Randy. Let’s vote.

Hauth: Yeah, let’s keep it, you know… Okay. So, any other discussion?

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Hauth: Yeah, Linda, go ahead.

Haseman: I just want to reiterate or re-support what Mr. Stevenson said. But I want to start by saying not only have legal experts been ignored in the past, and perhaps again in the present, but you guys are being ignored. So it first starts out with you and sitting through those days of five to six days of listening. A lot of what a legal expert has now brought up and raised as concerns, you guys already brought up and raised as concerns and it was ignored. And now a legal expert independently has raised the same concerns. So your knowledge base is there as the BECC and as licensed blind vendors in Oregon. At some point the Commission for the Blind has to decide to stop ignoring you and give you guys your wings and stop clipping them. And when you look at the rules currently as written, exactly like what Susan Gashel has indicated and you guys said in your six-day summit at times, you guys… they’re clipping your wings, they’re not giving them. This program is supposed to give you guys wings, not clip them. And until the Commission for the Blind stops trying to clip wings of blind vendors and let you guys fly and be blind entrepreneurs and listen to your knowledge that you all have and have gained and have for a number of years, it’s… it’s not gonna change. So I’m certainly hoping that the Commission for the Blind is listening; that you guys do know what you’re talking about. You did know what you were talking about for five, six days during the summit and a legal expert has reiterated it.

Hauth: Thank you. Any other discussion? [Silence.] Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to say something here real quick. You know, you can put a lot of value in Susan Gashel, as she was a former Assistant Attorney General in Hawaii and she sat on numerous arbitration panels, including ones for, you know, one for the Oregon Commission for the Blind. You can put a lot of stock in Terry Smith, as he was an administrator of the state agency in Tennessee and also very well recognized and respected Randolph-Sheppard expert. But, with that being said, when you go back through the federal registry and you look at what counts is the voice of the committee, is the voice of the Elected Committee who are representing the managers. Somehow we get dismissed. Actually, Susan and Terry get dismissed too, unfortunately. But, at the end of the

day, even though their advice is something that we can use as a strengthening position to support our position, at the end of the day it’s the voice of the Elected Committee that matters. It matters in the arbitrations and it matters in the court cases. So I hope we don’t have to go there and I hope the agency respects and acknowledges and supports the experience and the knowledge of the managers and the Elected Committee. So, with that being said, a motion’s been made, a second’s made, there’s been ample discussion. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yes.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yeah.

Hauth: And I vote yes as well. Okay. So, we’ll go ahead and move along and we’ll take care of that business here in the next several days. And so, again, all those who were involved in this and participated in this, both in time and financially, thank you so much. Again, this program is all of ours, it’s not just six or seven of ours. So if you can… if you can step up and help out it would be greatly appreciated. So the next item or topic, I believe, is other business. So I don’t know if there’s any other business under new business or not but if there is let me hear from you.

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

Bird: I just got a quick comment. There is the… I was thinking back to where Eric said when we was talking about the State Capitol and how that person was saying, “Well, your new laws haven’t taken effect.” I would like Eric to tell me where old ones don’t give us the same rights, the ones that are in effect. It still don’t say they can do the vending. It still don’t say that. It still… So I don’t even know why what they’re saying is the difference and the new ones from the old ones that gives them some other power. So, once again, and I say I think the present ones also tell them. I’m a little lost on why our old ones have no [inaudible]. Thanks.

Hauth: Yeah. You know, Eric, if you know…

Morris: No, I can answer it, Randy, real quick. Maybe Jerry didn’t quite understand what I was talking… I think the thing to… I agree with what he’s saying, 'cause they can’t use the excuse that, you know, we don’t have preference, at a minimum, and more likely priority as the new law goes into effect. I mean, if they want to get into the, you know, splitting hairs about December versus January or the legal basis for dates of implementation… But they’re hard-pressed to make any argument that they didn’t include anything in there. If they just said, “Hey, it’s a preference at this point,” they… you know, I would say, “Well, you know, we got to really think about, you know, how that applies to cafeterias and the new law.” But I don’t think it’s a cafeteria anyway. So I agree with what Jerry’s saying. And they didn’t make that comment, I just made that as I was trying to walk through the, you know, the potential conspiracy theories about when they released it and that kind of thing.

Hauth: Thanks, Eric. Do you know why – and I know this… we’ve reached out to Gretchen and I think Terry reached out to her and I know, you know, I reached out to her – do you know why the AG’s Office is apparently resistant to identify what a preference means and what a priority means and/or why the agency isn’t encouraging that that language be there? Do you… Do you have any insight on that? ‘Cause pretty clear that they’re running from them.

Morris: I… I don’t know, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. Okay…

StevensonA: Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: Okay. I’m just gonna throw out a little reminder here to Eric. And everybody else knows it’s true that there is a little language in the current state statutes and the upcoming state statutes even if they don’t take… take in effect till January 1 and that’s the fact that the state law says that any contract or agreement in violation or in non-compliance of this law is null and void. And, quite frankly, that’s gonna be… that’s true today, Eric, when you work on your discussion to the people at the State Capitol and it’s gonna be true on January 1. And I guarantee you… I guarantee you that the minute… if we don’t have that location I, as a blind licensed manager on the Elected Committee, am going to vote that the agency declare their contract null and void because they’re in non-compliance with the state law. And so, as you move forward, hopefully it will be with the active participation of the Vending Facility Development Committee and the Elected Committee and then… and we quit making our [inaudible] and start making them stronger. Because we have the authority still. We get the state statute when it goes into effect January to promulgate rules and ensure the proper and satisfactory operations of vending facilities and for the benefit of the blind licensed managers. And, you know, I embrace that language. I hope that OCB and our Attorney General’s Office starts embracing that more. And then we’re gonna be doing what we should be doing and that’s creating more jobs for more blind people and… and having facilities that make a good, decent living for all the blind licensed managers. So thanks for me… allowing me to get on my soapbox, Mr. Chair. But those are the facts.

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: And we…

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Yep, Jerry, go ahead.

[01:28:10]

Bird: I thought he was done. Sorry, Art. You done?

StevensonA: Yeah, that’s good enough. I mean, the facts are the facts. And… And, you know, we got to start being proactive and pro-program and… and embracing the current law and the law that we worked so dang hard to change to create more jobs for blind licensed managers and more opportunities for the blind licensed managers that are in this program. And… And that includes commissaries, which… because all of this stuff we’re probably not going to have on the agenda at our in-service training and we should have. And those are the kinds of things we should be doing, etc. Okay, Jerry, I’m off my soapbox.

Hauth: Jerry, go…

Bird: Yeah, I’d just like to break it down to, I think, the bottom line. Here we’ve got this Gretchen, which is the agency’s AG, that’s been all this and done all this and worked us through these new laws and all that. Why…? And how much money, I mean, we spent on her and here we are. Why isn’t she sending the letter to them, you know? Tell them, “Hey, I’m the Blind Commission’s AG and this is the law now and you guys got to start doing this.” It comes from Eric. Why don’t we pay her to send the letter? I mean, that’s a value and retain her to do something that would advantage us. I’m really wondering why she’s taking our bat turning it into a toothpick. ‘Cause she’s the one that has the say. She… An Attorney General sends it to them and says, “Hey, as an Attorney General with the Commission for the Blind, I’m telling you, you’re in violation of these statutes.” She’s not doing that. She don’t think it’s important.

Hauth: Let’s…

Bird: Thank you.

Hauth: Let’s see if Eric… I don’t know, Eric, what your thoughts are around that or if you can answer that. But before I forget also, it’s my understanding that the law becomes effective, like, October 6, which is, like, whatever… 90 days.

Morris: Sine die.

Hauth: Yeah. So, how does that… how does that come into play versus January 1st? Do you know?

Morris: Well, January 1st it’s effective but my understanding is the sine die makes it… there’s provisions in there that says, “Hey, you can take what actions are necessary to implement the

statute.” And then the statutes are effective January 1st. But to… to answer the question about having the lawyer send a letter versus me sending a letter, you know, the thing we have to keep in mind is that we want to run these facilities and, just like any other facility, if you walk in the door and you send… you have your lawyer as your opening salvo to say, “Hey, lawyer, go get these people!” That’s not the way you establish relationships. I called this lady this morning that’s the procurement officer and I said, “Hey, have you considered this piece of it?” and asked her the question. So she’s researching that as I explained. But if my first thing is to have the Attorney General of Oregon… and that’s a big deal within state agencies when the Attorney General’s… when you fire up your lawyer… the first thing we do is say, “Lawyer, go get this person!” That’s not an effective strategy. Now, if we go through the steps and they don’t listen to us then, yeah, we’ll tune them up and have their lawyer talk to their lawyer… my lawyer talk to their lawyer. So, that… that’s my point of view on that. Is it the best strategy? I… I’ve seen a lot of reliving history with different things around here where we had the lawyers go after them and it didn’t do any good. So that’s my strategy: build the relationships with these people. Maybe they didn’t know. I kind of doubt it 'cause it’s the Capitol. But I’m gonna give them the benefit of the doubt. So that’s the strategy that I’m gonna use. Because we ultimately have to live with these people when we get it. So that’s my perspective. And it’s about…

Hauth: All right. Thank you.

Morris: … it’s about four minutes to five, just keeping track.

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: Do we…?

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: Is there a motion on the floor?

Hauth: No.

StevensonA: Okay.

Hauth: That was just under other business. And we’re gonna go ahead and move on to the fiscal impact, if we can.

StevensonA: Let’s do it.

Hauth: Fiscal Impact Committee, that was under new business. We just finished out other business under old business. Er… yeah. So. So new business is A. Fiscal Impact Committee. I know we talked about it earlier. There was a motion made. I don’t know if there’s any other discussion around that or not.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yeah, as far as the Fiscal Impact Committee goes, I know… sent an email to Director Johnson stating that we, the Elected Committee, we wanted to actively participate in this process. She did not respond to us. And, actually, I know that Eric saw that email too and didn’t reach out to us, have any input or anything. And we haven’t got a lot of time left, which is unfortunate. But, again, true active participation, we’re supposed to actively participate in major administrative decisions, program policy development that affect the overall administration of the program. This committee was requested by, you know, a lot of stakeholders, including members of the Elected Committee. But, you know, on the record, I want to say that we should’ve been consulted. We were not. There is… OCB arbitrarily and capriciously decided that there was gonna be six managers… six people on this board. They arbitrarily and capriciously decided it was gonna be two members of the Elected Committee, two blind licensed managers and two stakeholders from a very extensive list. And… And all the power seems to have been given to Director Morris to make the ultimate decision on who, what, when, where, how and why without any of our input, the Elected Committee’s input. In my opinion it’s clearly in violation of the law, clearly in violation of what active participation is supposed to be. And we’re not gonna have time and Eric probably, I don’t know, he may or he may not give us an explanation why he chose six, why he chose only two members from the huge community that tends to be fiscally… may be fiscally impacted on here. And I just… I find it objectionable, Mr. Chairman. I find it, again, disrespect to our rights, ignore… well, Dacia ignored the question when I sent it to her. “Are we gonna…? We want our active participation.” And, of course, we all know we didn’t get it. And so, you know, I’m gonna leave it at that. I still think that six people may be too few. I do believe that [inaudible] members from the Elected Committee is good, a blind licensed manager possibly also…

StevensonD: Wind it up, Art.

StevensonA: Okay. But anyways, there should be more stakeholders and I went through that list, Mr. Chair, and there are people on that list that, you know, aren’t as knowledgeable as they could be, aren’t really going to be fiscally impacted like others may be and there’s also people left off that I think might be helpful, like legal persons on contract law or… or experts in the program. So anyways, I’m gonna leave it at that. But I’m really disappointed in what…

Hauth: Okay.

StevensonA: … transpired in this.

Hauth: Yep. Okay. Hey, Eric, so I know there’s concerns about the fiscal impact advisory committee, feeling that maybe it was a major administrative decision. I don’t know if you can kind of help step us through what your thoughts were on it or what they are on it.

Morris: Yeah, Randy, I’m trying to think of how to preface that conversation. The APA talks about having a fiscal impact committee 'cause… when it’s requested, obviously. It doesn’t provide parameters around how many people. And so, you know, I tried to use some just basic common sense of what would be reflective: a couple members of the Elected Committee, a couple blind managers, vending facility managers, and a couple other people. So, you know, quite frankly, if it was 60 people or six or 26 I… I think somebody would be unhappy about that,

no matter what. But we have to… we have to create the committee and there’s not a lot of guidance in the APA about how that’s done. So that’s the way we prefaced it.

Hauth: Okay.

Bird: What’s this “we?”

Hauth: Any other…

Morris: Me.

StevensonD: Derrick.

Hauth: Yes, Derrick.

StevensonA: Randy? Randy?

Hauth: Yes. Hold on just… Hold on just a second. I think Derrick asked for the floor.

Morris: And Randy, it’s almost five after.

Hauth: Hey, Eric, I think we’re getting ready to finish up here, just a little bit. What time do you… What time are you needing to leave by?

Morris: Five o’clock.

Hauth: Okay, you guys, so what do you want to do?

StevensonA: Well, let… let… let me… Randy?

Hauth: Yep.

StevensonA: Am I off mute? Okay…

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: … let me say, you know, our request was ignored which, in my opinion… I know what… I know what the state statute says but the federal law also says that we’re supposed to actively participate in all of this stuff and you just completely ignored it again. And… And so, again, that… it’s disrespectful and… and… and it’s a violation of the law and we got to quit violating the law. We need to embrace each other’s expertise. And when you finish Susan’s thing…

StevensonD: Okay, Art.

StevensonA: All right.

StevensonD: All right. This is Derrick. I just wanted to…

Hauth: Derrick.

StevensonD: I just wanted to bring up the fact that other people are allowed to speak during this meeting, right?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonD: To give their… To give their input?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonD: So anybody’s gonna… anybody that wants to attend is gonna be allowed to voice their opinion. It’s just the committee members who will be giving the Commission their opinions on whether or not something needs to happen or not?

Hauth: How about this? You know, Eric’s got to catch a bus so, I mean, it’s up to the committee what your decision is, but if… Eric, if I could summarize what this fiscal impact committee’s gonna look like… Like, is there gonna be public comment allowed? And is there gonna be, you know…? Then we can try and carry the rest of this over to our in-service. Whatever you guys think. So.

StevensonA: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

StevensonA: Okay. I would like to ask Eric to send the Elected Committee an overall… a overall view on how this fiscal impact committee is going to function, what it is actually going to do. If you would send… actually, you need to send all the blind licensed managers all of that and an explanation…

Morris: So, Art, are you asking me or telling me? ‘Cause that sounds a lot like you’re telling me to do it. I’d be happy to do it if that’s a request.

[Silence.]

StevensonD: Please do.

Morris: Thank you. I will.

Hauth: Okay, guys, so if you guys are good…

Bird: I got one…

Hauth: Go ahead.

Bird: I just want to say, 'cause I’m blind and I was able to read all 21 pages within about 30 minutes. Thank you.

StevensonD: This is Derrick. Got one more thing to say.

Hauth: Yeah, Derrick. Derrick, go ahead.

StevensonD: This… This involves the letters to… to our representatives in protest of commercializing the rest areas. I put it on Facebook and in four hours I got 61 other people to do it and send it in. So I suggest if you have a Facebook page that you can ask for help. People forward it to their friends and everything and it’s really getting a good… really getting a good, positive response. So.

Hauth: Yeah. Good. Good job.

StevensonD: Follow through, guys.

Hauth: So you guys, if we can go ahead and adjourn the meeting, unless there’s anything else. I’m open either way but I know Eric needs [inaudible] the bus. So.

Haseman: I have a comment, Chairman Hauth.

Hauth: Go ahead.

Haseman: I just wanted to pick up on what Derrick was saying and say that’s a fantastic idea, on Facebook. And for those who don’t… don’t use Facebook, you can do it on your Twitter account.

Hauth: Thank you, Lin. Okay. Anything else before we adjourn?

StevensonA: I move we adjourn.

Hauth: Okay, let’s go ahead and adjourn. Thank you everybody. Thank you, Eric. Hope you catch your bus.

[Ended at 01:40:15]

Motions Passed During October 5 BECC Special Meeting

1. That the minutes from the previous BECC Special Meeting (September 21) be adopted. Proposed: Derrick Stevenson. Seconded: Art Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

2. That the Capitol building vending be assigned to Art Stevenson on a temporary basis, with the funds to be equally divided among all licensed blind managers. Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Randy Hauth. Passed (with Randy Hauth and Jerry Bird abstaining).

3. That the Elected Committee recommend that Director Morris send a letter of protest to the Legislative Administrator regarding the Capitol Café RFP by the October 6 deadline. 

Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.4. That the fiscal impact committee meeting not occur during the fall in-service training. 

Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.5. That the Elected Committee send a letter to RSA, per Susan Gashel’s recommendation, by 

registered mail, stating that the current rules are not satisfactory and that they need to get in compliance with the Randolph-Sheppard Act.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

Transcription: Mark Riesmeyer