BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGON SPECIAL MEETING

Date: Wednesday, January 31st, 2018Time: 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. Director's Report – Financials (Gail Stevens)

5. Committee Reports

6. Old Business

a. Operating Agreementb. BEP Rules Update/Overview – What Managers Need to Knowc. Unassigned Vending Machines and Locations – What Actions to Taked. Active Participation Concerns/Communication/

Responsivenesse. Relevant Information Concernsf. Use of Set-aside g. Assignment of Additional Vending to Managersh. Other

7. New Business

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

8. Open Discussion

9. Next Meeting

10. Adjourn

Verbatim

Hauth: Okay…

Jackson: Steve Jackson’s here. Sorry I’m late.

Hauth: Hey, Steve. It looks like five after so we’ll go ahead and start the meeting. We’ll do a roll call and we’ll start with the Board. Do we have Art Stevenson here?

Art Stevenson: I’m here.

Hauth: Do we have Derrick Stevenson? Do we have Jerry Bird here?

Bird: Here.

Hauth: Do we have Steve Gordon here? Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Here.

Hauth: And do we have Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Steve Jackson, right here.

Hauth: And I’m here, as well. Let’s go ahead and move on to the managership. Do we have Lin Jaynes here? Cathy Dominique? Char Mckinzie? Sal Barraza? Tessa Brown? Do we have Carole Kinney here?

Carole Kinney: Here.

Hauth: Thanks, Carole. Do we have Gordon Smith here?

Smith: Here.

Hauth: Gordon. Do we have…

Smith: Yes.

Hauth: … Harold Young? Okay. Harold Young? Okay, that was Gordo. Do we have Lewanda Miranda? I think Lewanda’s travelling back from her advocacy efforts. So, do we have Celyn

Brown here? Okay. Is there anybody I forgot? Okay. How about for the agency’s here, Eric, who’s… anybody with you?

Morris: So Randy, I’m here and Gail Stevens is with me.

Hauth: Okay. Okay. Welcome, Gail.

Stevens: Thank you.

Hauth: And any interested parties? Any persons that would like to be identified?

Chandler: Hi, Randy. My name’s Jennifer Chandler. I work with Theresa Cross, who often joins this call, at the Oregon Health Authority. Thank you.

Hauth: Sure. Hi, Jennifer. You bet. Thank you for joining. Anyone else? Okay. So we have the… we’re going to go ahead and do the adoption of minutes. And, Gail, I know your… I assume your time is… well, I don’t… I don’t really know. If you could tell me what would work best for your presentation, would you like to begin right after the adoption of minutes? Or what would you prefer?

Stevens: That would be most helpful for me. I still have something that I have to try and [inaudible] a deadline for today.

Hauth: Okay. Okay. We’ll do that. Adoption of minutes, do I have a motion to adopt the previously recorded minutes?

Art Stevenson: I so move, Randy.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Do we have a second?

Gordon: I second it.

Hauth: Do we have a… Okay, a motion and second. Any discussion around that? Okay, we’ll call a roll call vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson. Oh, Derrick’s not on. Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson. Steve Jackson?

Jackson: [Inaudible.]

Hauth: Yes.

Jackson: Yes. [Inaudible.]

Hauth: Okay, Steve Jackson. And yea? Is that what you said? Okay. And I vote yea as well, so that motion passes. So, anyway, Gail Stevens is, I believe you can correct me if I’m wrong on this, but the CFO or the person responsible…

Stevens: [Laughs.]

Hauth: … I believe, for a lot of the financial detail and data and budgeting for the agency. And…

Stevens: I am the Chief Financial Officer, yes.

Hauth: Got it. Okay. Thank you. And I do know… I appreciate you joining us. We’re… We’re trying to… I don’t know if you were provided that questions that we had sent to Director Morris back in November but, you know…

Stevens: Yes, I was.

Hauth: … long story short… Okay. And we’ve had a little back and forth. So the way that I’m looking at this, Gail, is we’d like to, you know, go through those and have you, if you would, try and answer the questions that we presented. I don’t think we’re going to go back and forth and try and, you know, ask a lot of questions. There may be a couple of questions that I’d like to ask if that’s, you know, appropriate at the time. But we’re looking at trying to gain some information from you and wrap our minds around the questions and the budget.

And then there may be another meeting where we can more, you know, address some of the things that maybe are still unanswered. And also understand how we can be, as the Elected Committee, more involved in the budget process. So that’s kind of my thoughts. Hopefully this will be a welcoming and information sharing sort of process. So I’ll turn that over to you, if I may, and wondered if you wouldn’t mind going through however you want and kind of, you know, address those questions or share, if it’s applicable, how we might interact through the budget process. Or maybe that will be something Eric, Director Morris, does. But anyway, the floor’s yours.

Stevens: Well, thank you very much. For ways to move through this, would you prefer that I read the preceding information that was part of your email and then my response?

Hauth: Sure.

Stevens: And then we can dialogue?

Hauth: That’d be great.

Stevens: Okay.

Hauth: That’d be great.

Stevens: So why don’t we… why don’t we work in that direction. So I will start at the beginning of the email and as we’re going along there may be sections that I read through several of your questions on specific accounts because the answer is all related.

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: So at the beginning it states that “below are some of the key discussion points for the 2015-17 closed BEP biennium budget, of which I brought up at fall 2017 in-service.” I’m going to skip to the end of that, go to “between all categories, not including the vending machine monies that were allocated later, the 15-17 biennium budget was over-expended by 611,679, of which, Services and Supplies were over-expended by 683,379 in the 15-17 biennium, which would make up the bulk of the over-expenditures. In other words, the legislatively adopted… approved budget total for s and s, or Services and Supplies, was 487,892 but 1,171,271.09 was expended.”

So, to start off with, the agency response… and let me explain what happened with… I actually will roll in the request for the vending machine reallotment funds. Because basically what happened is, when we requested those funds, there is a program called ORBITS. That’s the budgeting system for the State of Oregon. These funds were added for the vending machines in the budget category called special payments. Because of the accounting structure for the Business Enterprise Program specifically, and the way that we account for all equipment purchases for the BE Program, the actual expenditures, in order to report correctly in the RSA-15, actually run through Services and Supplies. Specifically in that account 4575, which is called Agency Program Services and Supplies, that is the account in which all the equipment maintenance, new equipment purchases, refurbishing of locations, management services, and training that are part of the BE Program and the set-aside funds, that’s where those get recorded. So even though I put it in the budget under special payments it actually recorded the actuals in Services and Supplies.

So what you’re seeing if you exclude that special payment section of the budget to actuals, you’re missing a piece of the savings that’s differenced between what was approved and what was expended. Because all the expense related to the vending machines is up in Services and Supplies. So that’s the biggest piece that… So we’re not over-expended, actually. So that was the biggest piece that would throw that off.

Hauth: Okay. And, Gail, just so I can understand, you’re saying that, even though the budget is showing… or the way that we’re reading the budget line items are showing that we’re over-expended as a program, you’re saying we’re not over-expended. In laymen’s terms and why is that? Because…

Stevens: Because the budget was put in one budget category…

Hauth: [Inaudible.]

Stevens: The budget was put in the budget category of Special Payments but it was expended and accounted for, the actual code that was used was up in Services and Supplies.

Hauth: Okay. Well, that’s something, you know, we’ll… obviously, we’re trying to wrap our mind around learning, you know, learning this. And that’s a first step. And so, thank you.

Stevens: Yep.

Hauth: You know, if we have any other questions we’ll, you know, continue to kind of…

Stevens: Right.

Hauth: [Inaudible.]

Stevens: So the other piece to understand when it comes to budgets and budget-to-actual tracking is, when the legislature approves your budget one of the pieces that all agencies do do, because you actually… the budget has a life cycle beginning 18 months before it actually is in play, right? Before we actually start spending any of it we have a year and a half that we’re ahead that we’re making all these projections of where the monies will be spent. So agencies across the board, and this occurred also when I was at DHS, we balance our budgets… budgets-to-actual, there are times where if you have saving in one category you can use them in other categories. So we’re required as an agency to balance our budget in total. So that’s why, from my perspective, I’m not as concerned as to which bucket the budget is in and the actuals are in because I look at the overall budget.

Hauth: So what you’re saying is, like, if there’s one area that underspent you can actually take that money and apply it to a different category?

Stevens: Correct.

Hauth: Is that…?

Stevens: Correct.

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: So even within Services and Supplies, you asked a lot of questions…

Hauth: Does that money have to be…? Oh, I’m sorry.

Stevens: Go ahead.

Hauth: Go ahead.

Stevens: What’s your question?

Hauth: I was going to ask, so does that money, even though it’s transferred out of there, does it have to be spent in that new category? Or are there any, like, when it’s transferred are there any special options to that money?

Stevens: No.

Hauth: Or does it have to be spent out of that category that it’s transferred to?

Stevens: It’s actually not transferred. There’s no transferring in the budget. The budget is a locked… it’s… it’s approved and then it… well, it’s adopted and then it’s approved. So there’s actually two legislatively… what they call LAB. So the Personal Services at the top of the budget is what is the… what… is what they call in the PIC system, which is the personnel inventory control system, actually generates all of the dollars that go into Personal Services for every agency across the state. So that big budget category up above, where you noted that there was a $78,000 savings and you stated, actually very correctly, why there was a savings in that bucket. Yeah, 78,049.62. So there was a savings in that budget category. Because those dollars are generated by another system. I cannot change or touch any of those in my budget planning. So those are only… those are the budgets, those are the dollars related to the positions as they’re approved by the legislature throughout the life of the budget. In Services and…

Hauth: Okay, so once they’re… once they’re generated but they’re not expended do they just absorb in somewhere? Or…?

Stevens: Yeah, they…

Hauth: And I know… Yeah, okay.

Stevens: They don’t absorb anywhere. So the budget stays where the budget is. So if I am running over in Services and Supplies as an agency I can use… I can offset my over-expenditure is Services and Supplies by savings in Personnel Services, to balance to my budget.

Hauth: Okay. Okay.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Art, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: Yeah. Gail, you don’t have to answer this right now, because it obviously wasn’t on the questions, but the money that we got from the feds for the new equipment purchases, was that all spent on time? Did we lose any of that money?

Stevens: Okay.

Art Stevenson: And also, how much money was allocated from set-aside? I know the state legislature budgeted some money, but was there any set-aside dollars that were also injected into that to get the federal match for that money? And, you know, if you can’t answer that question right now, that’s fine. But I would like to know that information.

Stevens: Okay, Art, would you like me to answer that question right now? Because I can.

Art Stevenson: Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

Stevens: So it actually rolls into… So on… So let me clarify something first, Art, before I move to that, if I can. In the area of the email that was sent, where it stated one account was over, this account was over, this account was under, I can answer any questions specifically on those if you want me to. Yet, when I look at the whole budget and what I ask my managers to do is to balance their budget in total. So from the six different accounts that were listed, from my perspective as the CFO and responsible for making sure we stay within our budgets, each program manager has to stay to the balance of their bottom line dollar amount. So if Eric had overages in Services and Supplies he can offset it with Personal Services savings.

So I’m not going to answer every single question on these specific accounts. Randy, if you want to send me specific accounts for additional information I will graciously provide that.

Hauth: Sure. Sure. And you can go ahead and continue on. And just so I… just so I understand, Gail… and like I said, we’re going to continue to have discussion around this. What…? And just so you know, what we’re most likely looking at is our program budget, right? Because that’s what we’re going to be involved in. We’re not necessarily going to be involved in the total agency budget. So what you’re maybe suggesting is, even though our program budget may or may not be overspent or underspent, it gets sometimes… you know, gets… Oh, I forget the name but, you know, it gets absorbed or modified within the total structure of the agency budget, right?

Stevens: Correct. That is… That is a very accurate statement.

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: Yes.

Hauth: Okay. So go ahead, Gail. I know you’re… you know, we’re not going to… we’ll be here all night. But…

Stevens: Right. [Laughs.]

Hauth: … go ahead and continue on. So.

Bird: Randy?

Stevens: So Art…

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Jerry.

Bird: No this is Jerry. I just had a quick question on that. Is… because that’s what I think we’re doing that. This is the Randolph-Sheppard Act Program and we’re distinct and we have our own budget which the rest of your other places don’t. That’s why I think we’re a specialized group

and a special budget to be spent specially under our program. So, if I’m not mistaken, that’s what we’re asking: just for our program stuff, right?

Hauth: Yeah, and you’re right, Jerry. She’s just kind of explaining from the agency’s perspective because it does… and, again, we’re going to continue to have discussions around this. So, anyway, go… and you’re right, Jerry. You know, that’s kind of where we’re coming from. But go ahead, Gail, if you would, please.

Stevens: Sure. And Jerry, also to answer your question or to clarify maybe a little more completely, one of the other responses that I would have to you is to understand that the 2015-17 budget was already submitted, processed, approved, all that stuff, by the time I got here. And so on a… while you have your own special budget, there are other programs that also have their special budgets. I have a budget for the center. I have a budget… now I’ll have a budget in 17-19 for Independent Living Program. Every program has a budget, just like yours does. So your… everyone’s is special when it comes to budgets; they all have to deal with it. And that was a smile on my face. [Laughs.]

Hauth: Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Gail.

Stevens: So I look at it overall and so what one of the things we do do, Jerry, is as an overall agency we will look at each other’s budgets and see how we can help each other out. Because as an agency we have to balance our budget.

So, to continue forward, Art, I’ll jump to your answer… or to your question. And we can look at the email that was sent and it was basically around another point of interest, is that 4,127,501. And it says in the email was received for vending machines from General Fund, other funds, and federal funds. However, let’s be clear, we did not receive $3.2 million in federal funds; we only received 2.7 in the reallotment. Remember, we did not get the whole reallotment request.

So, as a result of that, and it stated in here, “However, there’s a revenue adjustment made of 694,861. Is that associated with the funds we didn’t receive?” That is absolutely correct. It’s in there because it actually is a reduction of revenue because we did not receive that grant award amount. And that is made up of federal and other funds. The General Fund that was approved of 680,109 for the vending machine project was actually the first part of the match that was used in order to match against the reallotment funds that were expended for the vending machines that were purchased during the biennium of 15-17.

We did not completely expend that, Art. You’re absolutely correct. There was about $1.3 million left on the table which, when I was building the 2017-2019 budget, which we’re currently in, it was $1.6 million in federal money that was carried forward. I initially just halved it, just in case, back, oh… 18… two years ago. Two years ago, now, as a placeholder.

And when we put things like this in the budget, please understand that it is for federal funds and for other funds. The state calls it a limitation, which means that we can record revenue and expenditures within the limitation that is approved for our budget. So if we don’t have the expenditure, we don’t need the revenue. So typically we record the revenue as we record the expenditures. I do not draw federal funds unless I have the expenditure for it. It’s part of the requirement. So while… while we received 2.7 in federal funds for this there was… the match that we did for the expenditures that we did have and the vending machines that were purchased – and I don’t, Art, have off the top of my head how much was expended in

total. I would have to look that up for you. The General Fund is actually the portion that we spent.

So when I carry forward… carried forward the limitation for the vending machine purchases I actually carried forward the other fund portion of the match.

Morris: You might want to explain what a limitation is.

Stevens: I thought I just did. Sorry. The limitation is the amount the legislature has approved for us to draw down and expend in other funds and federal funds. If, when I’m creating a budget, I do not have enough federal government revenue or other fund revenue to support the expenses, then I have to submit in a revenue shortfall and remove those equivalent expenses out of the budget. So I have to have revenue…

Hauth: Gail?

Stevens: Yes.

Hauth: What are other…? If you could just explain, what are “other funds?” I mean, within the budget.

Stevens: Other funds are revenues that are generated from various programs. So there are some other funds that are generated by the Vocational Rehabilitation Program and then there are funds generated by the Business Enterprise Program. You guys… You guys understand them as “set-aside funds.” What happens with that, and I can explain that… the way that the process worked… and I’ve spent a lot of time following the threads of the dollars and the account codes all the way through the systems to ensure that everything is in alignment with the way the statutes are written and so that I clearly understand what occurs.

When the agency actually pays the expenditures we do not write a check out of the set-aside account. We actually write a check out of Oregon Commission for the Blind’s account. It comes out of our checking account. When we transfer set-aside funds we’re only reimbursing the agency for those expenditures that are allowed under the set-aside statutes. So that would include new equipment, maintenance of equipment, refurbishing of facilities, training that’s approved and authorized, and management services that are approved and authorized. Majority of that, I think all of that, goes through System 7; if not all of it, the majority of it does.

So there is nothing that is actually spent out of the set-aside account. It is transferred to. The way that the state and federal government require us to record it is in what they call “other funds,” because it’s a fund other than those funds that are created, that are held in the General Fund for general distribution to all agencies. It allows agencies to be able to generate funds from the various licenses, programs, things along the line and retain them within accounts associated with that specific agency. So it…

Bird: Randy.

Hauth: Okay. Okay. And so, in our particular program it would be levied set-aside and I believe it would be unassigned vending. Like, if the agency’s collecting unassigned vending, would that also…?

Stevens: Yes.

Hauth: … be under that…? Okay.

Stevens: Yes, absolutely.

Hauth: And what other… what other… what other funds… are there any other funds besides levied set-aside and unassigned vending that are considered in our program to be other funds?

Stevens: Not in your budget, no.

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: I do not utilize any of the other funds from the Business Enterprise Program in any other budget for the agency. That is exclusively for the Business Enterprise Program. And then the program funds that are… the other funds that are generated by Vocational Rehabilitation side, I use those other funds in their budget. I don’t cross programs at all.

Hauth: Okay. And just so people know, our other funds are matched and they’re probably most likely sometimes used in our program and some of it’s used in maybe VR or other…

Stevens: No.

Hauth: … how the agency…

Stevens: No. I don’t use…

Hauth: No? Okay.

Stevens: I do not use your funds for match in other programs. I only use your funds for match in your program.

Hauth: So the matching money, the 3.8 matching that comes back off the expenditures, that’s only used within our budget program?

Stevens: Yes. Yes, I have it all…

Hauth: Okay. Okay.

Stevens: … budgeted only in your program.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you.

Stevens: And when you… if you… if you look at the biennium 15-17 budget in total and you pull out the amount that was for the vending machine project, the total $4.1 million, of the remaining funds that… or revenues that support the expenditures, only 17% of the total budget of the Business Enterprise Program is made up of other funds. Or the set-aside transfer… the

transfers out of set-aside only based on actual expenses. The rest of it is Vocational Rehabilitation grant and state funds. So it doesn’t cover…

Hauth: Right. The one… The one…

Stevens: Yeah. So it doesn’t cover the whole…

Hauth: The one…

Stevens: … amount of the match that would be required in order to meet all… to utilize all the VR funds that are budgeted for the Business Enterprise Program.

Hauth: Okay. And just so I understand, again, so those 110 matching monies I guess is what they call them when they’re matched they do come back into our program and they’re used, like, to pay staff, employees and…

Stevens: Yep.

Hauth: … I guess those type of things.

Stevens: Yep.

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: Hundred percent.

Hauth: Sure. Okay.

Stevens: So the only place within your budget that you would actually see other funds being recorded are typically in Services and Supplies. You’ll see in the 15-17, because I budgeted it in Special Pay, that was the funds that were budgeted for the vending program. So the other funds that are generated by your program are used within your program only.

All right. So, Art…

Bird: Question.

Stevens: … does that answer your questions on the vending funds? So there is still money available and it is budgeted for this biennium, 17-19, to purchase vending machines.

Art Stevenson: Yeah, that… Am I off mute?

Hauth: You are.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Okay. Yeah, that’s mostly answered it. I was just also, and you can tell me later, wondering how much of the set… of our set-aside was actually used? I know that the legislature allocated money for the project. But, from my understanding, we also contributed

set-aside funds to receive that one-time amount of money and I was kind of curious on how much of our set-aside was used to get that.

Stevens: Actually, none of your set-aside was used….

Hauth: And… Okay.

Stevens: … was actually expended, because we haven’t expended all those funds. There was…

Hauth: Okay. Hey, Gail?

Stevens: Yeah?

Hauth: No, go ahead. I’m sorry.

Stevens: So there was only… so when we hit the reallotment, Art, we did not get the full 3.2 million, correct?

Art Stevenson: Right.

Stevens: We only got 2.7. So the state contribution of 680,000 was used in full, as match. And only…

Art Stevenson: Okay.

Stevens: … I believe it’s 51,000 or 41,000. Maybe… I think it was 51,000 was left of what was available in other funds. Of those other funds, there wasn’t anything that was required to come out of set-aside if I had other fund balances. And we haven’t expended that yet so I don’t know which bucket it’s coming out of yet. Because we haven’t expended the full federal dollars received.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Gail. I know Jerry had a quick question, if you’ll…

Stevens: Sure.

Hauth: … deal that and then you can go ahead and continue on if you would, please. Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, my… I’m a little confused because I’m not, you know, that up on all this stuff. My question is, is… I don’t know if I got it right or not with…. Are you saying, let’s say we got, okay, I’m talking about the vending machine grant we got to buy vending machines. Isn’t that…? Wasn’t that grant supposed to be, what’d you say, 4 million and then it got down to this but we only received a little under 3 million, whatever that may be. But my question is, that 3 million, or 2 something, it… it can’t be spent for anything other than vending machines, can it? It almost sounded like to me like you’re saying, “Well, this was in a bucket here and we have a deficit over in this other program so we’re going to remove your bucket of money to

help this one out.” So my point being, we was told that they can’t by even… even in a facility or nothing, it’s for vending machines only. Is that… Is that true or am I missing something?

Stevens: Yeah, I haven’t used… you still have your bucket of money. So there may be some confusion as… because we’ve gone through various phases of the grant. I am still accounting for your funds separately. Understand, please, that the VR grants are used for multiple programs and so I track them from a budget perspective and from a draw perspective which portions are for which programs, projects. So your vending funds, that were already provided to us from the federal government in the grant award for 2.7 million are still your funds to spend on vending machines. It is not to cover somebody else’s overages or unders. I have to…

Hauth: Thank… Thank you.

Stevens: … balance the budget on an overall basis, in total. So if you went over in spending these federal funds somebody else would have to make it up. Because on an agency-wide basis we have to balance our budget.

Bird: Okay. Well, thank you. And I think that’s… the only other thing is agency kind of figured how many machines for us all to have to go fill all our own in this whole state we was going to need that much. And it sounds like we only got half of it. So how do they expect to fund this all fill machines theirself, I wonder.

Hauth: Yeah. Yeah, and that’s kind of… we’ll address that. That’s not what Gail’s here for. But of course I understand your concerns. So, hey, Gail?

Stevens: Yes.

Hauth: Go ahead and continue on, if you would. But just so I understand, is there a deadline on this expenditure? Does that grant cease after, you know, if it’s not fulfilled? Or how does that work on that vending machine project money?

Stevens: Well, the vending machine project money came… Yes, who’s that? Okay, I thought there was another question related to that. The answer is a combination of yes and no. It’s 50/50. I still have to draw an award within a specific time frame from the federal government. So for this… for these funds, they were awarded to us as part of the phase 2016. I have until… had until September 30th, 2017 to expend and draw that grant award down in full, including these funds. That is why I track it separately in these buckets in your budget, to ensure that the revenue is still correlated with these purchases. It will now come out of either 2017 funds, which some of it has already, or 2018 phase funds.

The tracking… the funds are not required to be spent, other than in alignment with the grant award in that year and period of time. I do have a limited time in order to draw funds down. If I did not draw those funds down, then I would not have had the money to then cover the $1.6 million in federal money still in your budget for this biennium for vending machines. Does that make sense?

Hauth: Kind of. [Laughs.] You know…

Stevens: So it’s kind of… I know… It’s kind of in this big bucket… It’s kind of in this big bucket. But I have allotments and awards and draws that have to meet specific timelines. So I track…

Hauth: And we’re trying to… we’re trying to wrap our head around it as you’re explaining it.

Stevens: I know. It’s a lot of moving pieces.

Hauth: Go ahead.

Stevens: It’s an awful lot of moving pieces.

Hauth: Yeah, this is our first stab at it.

Stevens: Right. So, by me having it in your budget for 17-19 it means I have the revenue assigned for that project. Does that make sense? That’s how you know…

Hauth: Yes.

Stevens: … I have it tucked away for you.

Hauth: Okay. Well, if you can continue on with a few more of these…. And, you know, like you said, you had a project that you needed to take care of. So I don’t know when you need to get off the line. We’ve been on this for about 40 minutes. And maybe this is something we can follow up in writing with some of these other. But…

Stevens: Sure.

Hauth: … whatever your, you know, whatever your pleasure. So.

Stevens: I have… I have some responses I can supply to Eric that he can forward on to you all. And hopefully I’ve touched on each one of these. So the other pieces that you asked about was in… related to total Personal Services or the staffing and that there was a savings, I was underspent, by $78,000. And you are absolutely correct that it was based on the new BE positions that, while they were approved to start on July 1st, 2015, the hire dates were in September 2015. And then Eva’s position was vacant from April through June of that biennium. So there was savings as well in that area.

Hauth: Okay, somebody’s off of mute. If you could make sure and mute, please. So what…

Hoddle: This is Vance. I’m on the call now.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. One other thing I was going to ask you before you, you know, go that… so the $70 charge that’s being charged to managers to operate the ODOT rest areas. It, you know, it’s a little confusing when I look through this and see how it is all unfolding. It looks to me like the $70 that… even though there was a commitment made, and I believe there was language from RSA that told the agency that they could not pay for these sort of, as I recall,

these sorts of rents or charges out of set-aside. It looks to me like some of this is still coming out of set-aside. So I don’t know if you can kind of walk us through that, just real quickly…

Stevens: Well, actually, none of that should be coming out of set-aside. And if it is, it’s inaccurate and that would have to be corrected. It would’ve been a miscoding. The way that the $70 works is, it actually is coded into Management Services and paid out of VR-110 funds. So it does not…

Art Stevenson: Hey, Randy?

Stevens: … come through. There… if the $70…

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: … if I’m understanding it, the way that it works on the accounting side is that it is… the $70 co-pay is basically put out in the receivable to collect directly from you and reimburse the set-aside account. So it never even… it’s not a part of the transfers. It’s not part of the other funds, quote unquote other funds, that come out of set-aside to the agency. We never see that set… the co-pays, the agency never sees anything related to that in the other funds totals.

Hauth: Okay. I’ll send you a… I’ll send you kind of a snapshot of what…

Stevens: Sure.

Hauth: … what rose this to our attention, you know. And…

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Stevens: And understand that those…

Hauth: Hold on just a sec, Art.

Stevens: … that recording comes from the System 7 side. And it depends on which bucket of money that the authorization recorded it from. However, on the financial side, I… if it was recorded incorrectly in set-aside, I have already transferred it out to Vocational Rehabilitation and corrected it on the actual account side. So Eric and I…

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: … were reviewing where you get that… where that information comes from. And the System 7 side of it is not the final financials related to any of those expenditures.

Hauth: Okay. Art, I know you had a question.

Art Stevenson: Am I… Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes. Yes.

Art Stevenson: Oh, okay. Hey, Gail, real quick, I haven’t seen it yet and I was just wondering, are we going to get our form concerning oh, whatever it’s called, the 1099 for the vending machine income that we recently received for our tax purposes?

Stevens: The 1099s, I believe, were just sent out by the state one week ago. If I remember…

Art Stevenson: They were mailed out a week ago?

Stevens: I think were just…

Art Stevenson: Okay. But… But…

Stevens: … printed last week by the State.

Art Stevenson: Okay. So we will be receiving those, though? I was… That was the only thing I was concerned about.

Stevens: Yes, you should be receiving those, I believe the State… and it’s printed on a State level; we don’t print them here. And they’re mailed by the State of Oregon.

Art Stevenson: Okay.

Hauth: Gail, is there… is there anything else on that list? I don’t have it pulled up in front of me, but is there anything else on that list that you can address before you leave? Or…?

Stevens: There wasn’t anything else, I believe. Because basically what was on there was that the BEP budget was over budget, over-expended in total, which is not the case if you… because of the off-setting in savings in Special Pay. Is the total savings in Personal Services, which I answered, with the position. There was a question on capital outlay. This was… the capital outlay was a specific dollar amount for the whole agency and it’s one of the areas of the budget that, if you look at my 17-19 budget and you look at it at a program level, I didn’t even put capital outlay for any one of the budgets because if we have any capital expenditures for the agency I’m rolling it all into Administrative Services.

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: So that’s why the budgets are zero. In the budget it did not get moved back over, which it should have. And that is part of the clean-up pieces that I’ve been doing and watching the accounts. Understand that 15… please note that 15-17 was my watch, to see how the things flow through and then start tightening things down, if that makes sense.

Hauth: Yeah, I mean, in a, you know, in a… I know you’re thinking globally, obviously, because that’s how your position is. And we’re all going to be…

Stevens: Absolutely.

Hauth: … more so in the weeds and program-relevant.

Stevens: Mm hm.

Hauth: Because when we see our program being over-expended I, you know, we believe it truly is over-expended. And just because it can be somehow reconciled, you know, through moving monies around, our position is, well…

Stevens: [Inaudible.]

Hauth: …as we move forward and working with the agency, you know, things like in-state travel, we’re going to want to know how is that authorized? And why, you know, why is it this amount? Or why is it showing over-expended? Or Managerial Services, I think going forward, we’re going to seek the detail behind that so that we can make a good analysis of what, you know, what we can do or how we can be involved in it. So the, you know, the home, like some of the things, the home installation expenditure. I have no idea what that is. I don’t know…

Stevens: That was a capital expenditure that should have been rolled into the administrative budget and it was coded incorrectly. And that was…

Hauth: Okay.

Stevens: … at the very beginning…

Hauth: And those are some of the… Thank… Thank you.

Stevens: So…

Hauth: And those are some of the things we’re going to look at, you know.

Stevens: Oh, yes. And those are things… please… please note that those are things I’m looking for, too. And while I look at the whole overall OCB, I also spend a lot of time looking at the details within your program and all other programs. I ensure…

Hauth: Well, and I’m sure… I’m sure you do.

Stevens: I actually do. [Laughs.]

Hauth: I do know we’ll talk… No, I know… I’m sure you do! I’m not dismissing that whatsoever. I do know that there was something on Professional Services that seemed a little bit high and I don’t know if you can answer what that went for or if…

Stevens: Let me look.

Hauth: … we can follow up with a question on that. But I know that kind of caught our attention. And, again, some of these things we’re going to work with Eric on. But, you know, he’s our, you know, he’s our point of contact and sometimes when we ask these questions, you

know, Eric doesn’t necessarily have all the answers either. So that’s why we’re trying to, you know, raise the bar on ourselves and our understanding.

Stevens: Sure.

Hauth: And we need to, I believe, you know, raise our level of knowledge so that when we’re sitting down at the table with the agency developing this budget we’ll do so with a well-informed understanding. So.

Stevens: Sure. And I understand that.

Hauth: But…

Stevens: I’m going to look up really quick what that… what your question is on that Professional Services momentarily, if you can bear with me.

Hauth: Sure. Sure. Yeah.

Stevens: But let me explain one thing to you because there’s, you know, this is something that will evolve with each… with each budget that I do. The 17-19 budget is the first budget that I built from beginning to end. The 15-17 budget was here when I arrived. So working towards an understanding myself of what should be in which account, what should be budgeted for each program in each account is something I am trying to improve, which I did with the 17-19. I did spend time getting the budgets redistributed to the accounts based closer to actuals from 15-17. So really trying to take a look at where the monies within Services and Supplies should be placed in order for Eric to be able to better manage his budget. Did I get it a hundred percent? I doubt it. Because it was my first budget.

So each budget season this is something that I will be looking at and looking at is it tied to FTE, is it tied to just distribute equally through the agency, what is the basis for the expenditure category or expenditure account. And that’s the pieces that I also am looking at. So I appreciate, you know, the questions. I completely understand the questions.

Hauth: Sure. Sure.

Stevens: Most of the expenditures for… in the Professional Services category was actually related to the procurement services that we received for the vending machine project. And those contracts that were established for purchasing the vending machines, the price agreements, the majority of that 25,000 was for the services provided by Procurement, to create those contracts. And that had not been budgeted before because you guys did not actually utilize in the past Procurement Services for these types of contracts.

Hauth: Sure. Okay. Hey, let me cut… let me go ahead and cut you loose. And just… I do want to share in closing just, again, a couple of things. So a few years back I was in Tennessee and I was studying their program. I travelled around. Just so you know, I’ve been to three or four different states’ programs that have been cutting edge, progressive, successful programs and I tried to understand how they did things. Now, I’ll just share with you, in Tennessee I sat in on a meeting where the Elected Committee actually approved the budget for their program. And so I know

there’s a lot of different models. Here in Oregon it hasn’t necessarily been, in my opinion, as interactive and inclusive and, you know, there haven’t been those efforts. Again, in my opinion, it’s been kind of all this work being done and then rolled out. And so we’re trying to get more… and I’m not saying you, I’m just saying historically that’s what I’ve personally see. And so we’re trying to get a lot more involved in that.

And there’s some other things too that I just want to mention and I’m trying to figure out exactly how to address it. I don’t know what kind of interactions you have with Rehabilitation Services Administration but relative to, I believe, Title I or the 110 matching grants there’s some question nationally about those federal monies being used for AGs or litigation against, you know, complaints and managers. And I’m not trying to ask you, you know, just sharing with you, those are some of the things that we need to understand as a program so where we’re going through and looking at the AG’s costs and we’re saying, “Are these being paid with federal monies and is that an appropriate use of these monies?”

And from our position we’re saying, “Gosh, we, you know, we don’t… we need to better understand that.” So, not trying to be an adversarial, you know, relationship when we’re asking these questions. But there may be times where we’re obviously on a different side of the fence, right? So we’ll certainly try and be professional and respectful, just trying to communicate with you and get your assistance.

Stevens: Sure. And… And, Randy, let me answer your question on the budget and the budget process. The budget process for the State is very specific and there’s limitations on what you can and cannot touch in each step along the way. So, actually, I have already… even though the budget for 19-21 has not technically been kicked off because… had its kick-off yet because it has not provided us our… the budget guidelines. And that will not be provided until March so I do not know what our directive will be from the Governor’s Office, as far as, will there be revenue… state revenue available for anything additional or if we have to come back with reductions. We always have to provide some reductions, which are not… are not always taken and sometimes are.

But the budget cycle basically begins right now with me balancing actuals, actual expenditures, for 15-17, which we’re discussing your budget… your program’s portion of it. Then I have to roll the… the… basically, that’s considered current service levels. Where we currently… how we’re servicing all of our clients, including the BE Program, in relation to the amount of expenditures we have for repairing your equipment and all the other appropriate expenditures, as well as in-state travel, all that stuff.

Then the State gives us our first round of state rates and we roll and calculate what they call current service levels. So we basically take the current services being provided and we roll it to the same… to the cost, unit cost for 19-21.

Then, after that, once that part is done, then I have to analyze if I have enough revenue from my federal grants, from the other funds, and from the current level of General Funds I have available to determine if I have to report to them a revenue shortfall or not.

At that point in time we can create what’s called Policy Option Packages. Policy Option Packages are what the agencies use to request additional funds or to move existing funds around for other… for other purposes. So if for Vocational a Policy Option Package that was approved for this current biennium moved Special Pay funds in the Vocational Rehabilitation funds from Special Pay to Personal Services for seasonal… to seasonal positions to work with the Summer Work Experience Program, that was Package 102.

Those are the types of things that have to go through Policy Option Packages. So if, like, you wanted to put in another request for additional state funds for vending machines, that’s a Policy Option Package. In order to get the three additional BE positions that were approved for the 15-17 budget, that was part of a Policy Option Package. That’s what the agency builds in on top of current service levels to create what’s called the Agency Requested Budget.

Then the Governor’s Office decided what from our Agency Requested Budget is then compiled together and submitted to the legislature. And then the legislature takes over in the long session to review and decide what each agency will get in the Agency Adopted Budget. And then in the short session all the changes that come through become the Legislatively Approved Budget. So…

Hauth: Well, that sounds pretty simple.

Stevens: Yeah, it sounds simple. [Laughs.] It’s a lot of detail.

Hauth: No, I’m just teasing! I’m just teasing.

Stevens: I know! So it’s not that there isn’t a lot of input. There’s not… the only areas that we actually can make any changes is in what they call Policy Option Packages. Depending on what we get from the state on what the budget guidelines will be for 19-21. We do not know at this point if they’re predicting revenues to go up high enough for the state in order to cover this… the current state expenditures from the General Fund itself.

Hauth: Sure.

Stevens: So until we get those guidelines in March I couldn’t even tell you where to start. I won’t even…

Hauth: Right.

Stevens: … be hypothesizing what Policy Option Package we would be putting.

Hauth: And, Gail, you probably already know this, I mean, I know you… I know it’s certainly a complicated and complex… and a lot of things are set already in motion and in a process. Just, again, just to step back into the weeds, our… our concern, again, is okay, these other funds. If, for instance, the agency is collecting unassigned vending and using that to build the budget…

Stevens: No.

Hauth: … and we believe that those monies should be going to a manager or levied set-aside. You know, we… we… we want to have – and this is something we’ll work with Eric on, not you, you know, for the most part – but we want you to understand, which you maybe already do, that those are the… those are the pieces that we’re going to want involvement in and…

Stevens: Sure.

Hauth: … more…

Stevens: And the only… And so, Randy, let me be really clear about one thing: other than how we get directed by the legislature, the legislature did direct us in 17-19 to utilize other funds for half of one of the BE positions for the BE Program. Other than that, other than getting directive from the legislature, the only place that I utilize the other funds is in the agency-related program Services and Supplies for the expenditures related to the five things that you can utilize other funds for.

Hauth: Sure. And I mean those are… those are discussions that the Elected Committee will have with Eric…

Stevens: Okay.

Hauth: … about how we can, you know… so…. work through that. But I certainly appreciate your time. I think you did a great job and, you know, I appreciate you showing up. I don’t know if anybody else, you know, has anything in closing. But those are my two cents’ worth.

Art Stevenson: Well, thanks, Gail. We need to move on, Randy.

Bird: Yeah, thank you for your time.

Stevens: You’re welcome. Yeah, we can talk about the next round. We’ll send some of these responses in writing to Eric directly, that he can then distribute. Thank you, all.

Hauth: Thank you, Gail.

Hoddle: Great job.

Smith: You bet.

Morris: Thanks, Gail.

Stevens: You’re welcome.

Hauth: Okay. Public comment. Any public comment?

Bird: Yeah, Randy. Would you repeat what she just said?

[Laughter.]

Hauth: Yeah. No, I don’t think I can.

Stevens: Good luck!

Hauth: Yeah. I’m going to try and pull the agenda up again here. Any public comment? Okay, hearing no public comment…

Hoddle: Hi, guys! It’s Vance. I’m on the call here. Just letting you know.

Hauth: Hey, Vance. Hey. Welcome. Yeah, thank you.

Hoddle: I’ve actually been on for 45 minutes, FYI, or a little bit longer, so I got to hear most of what you [inaudible.]

Hauth: Well, thank you. Yeah. So I think the next thing on there is maybe Director's Report. I’m not looking at it right now but…. Oh, here we go. So adoption of minutes, public comment, no public comment. What do we have? Does anybody have the agenda pulled up? I think it is Director's Report.

Hoddle: I do.

Hauth: What do we have on there, guys?

Hoddle: It says committee reports is next.

Hauth: Well, is…

Morris: Yeah, Randy, I think the Director's Report was basically Gail’s report.

Hauth: Okay.

Bird: Oh, okay. Then committee.

Hauth: You have it pulled up. Is that the one for today or is that the one from last week?

Morris: Today.

Bird: It’s Jerry. It’s committee reports, number five.

Hoddle: Yep. Yes, it is.

Hauth: Okay. Are there any committee reports? Okay.

Bird: Six is Old Business.

Hauth: Okay. And what’s under that, Jerry?

Bird: Operating agreement.

Hauth: Okay. So I know we left off the last meeting on the operating agreement and I don’t know if anybody has any comments to follow up, if they got their answers that they needed, relative to that. But, hey, Art, I’m going to let you lead this while I… while I find the agenda on my phone, if you don’t mind.

Art Stevenson: On the operating agreement?

Hauth: Yep.

Art Stevenson: All right. Anyways, as far as the operating agreement goes, obviously there have been some concerns over the new operating agreement. Also, actually, the implementation of rules that have not been okayed by RSA yet. So is there…? Obviously, there was great concern. And, as a matter of fact, several of the managers put forth an addendum because they weren’t… they were really concerned about the operating agreement so the put forth an amendment, an addendum, you know, that they were signing the new operating agreement under duress.

And I was one of those managers and was also told that that was not going to be a part of the agreement. And that concerned me a lot. In fact, as you all know, it prompted myself… helped prompt myself and Randy to file a complaint against the agency concerning the rules, concerning the new operating agreement, et cetera, et cetera.

So I know that there were several managers that wanted that addendum put onto their agreement. Because obviously it’s an agreement and, in my opinion, when a manager has problems with an agreement that… that they’re signing there should be some kind of negotiation and talk about it. But it seems that the agency really didn’t have any concerns about our concerns and just kind of basically put out there that, “Hey, you’re going to sign this agreement, or else,” which, you know, I find quite disturbing also.

So is there… you know, those are my comments on the agreement. Obviously, you know, the laws and rules and regulations of the program are supposed to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facility and benefit the blind licensed managers. And it’s very concerning to me that the, you know, OCB doesn’t seem to care about that.

But anyway, that’s my comments on the operating agreement. Are you back, Randy?

Hauth: I… I’m back. Yeah. Thanks. So, you know, Jerry, if you wouldn’t mind keeping it pulled up and you can help me step through this, I’d sure appreciate it. So, hey, Eric, so obviously you know that there’s been concerns shared about the operating agreement and there’s been documentation that had been submitted to the agency, relative to the operating agreement. Have you had any communication relative to the operating agreement or the BEP rules with RSA, as of late?

Morris: No.

Hauth: None? Okay. Have you provided…

Morris: Have you guys heard… have you heard anything from him, Randy?

Hauth: No.

Morris: Okay.

Hauth: Yep. Have you shared the concerns with the Commissioners or do you plan to share the concerns with the Commissioners, relative to the operating agreement?

Morris: I have not and I didn’t plan to.

Hauth: You plan on doing so?

Morris: No.

Art Stevenson: Okay, Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yeah, I would just… I would just encourage you to please identify that there have been a number of managers that have submitted, like, an addendum to the operating agreement. But certainly I can’t make you do it. But I would ask and encourage you to do that. So, anybody have any comment on this, before we…?

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Yeah, I do. I’m glad you pointed out that any… maybe an action item. So I’m going to make a motion, because I think it’s very important, that we, as the Elected Committee, send a letter to RSA – because I’m very, very concerned about all this stuff going on – that we send a letter to RSA requesting that they conduct a complete monitoring of the agency, which they were planning on doing and it fell by the wayside. But I think things like this operating agreement and stuff necessitate, you know, our program going through a full monitoring for RSA and… and just putting down, you know, the laws that, hey, you don’t adopt things until they’ve been blessed by RSA, et cetera.

So I make a motion that we do that, that we as an Elected Committee request for a monitoring of the BE Program.

Hauth: Okay, so a motion’s been made. Do we have a second on that? Do we have a second on that? Hello? A motion’s been made. Is there a second on that?

Gordon: I second it.

Hauth: Okay. Steve Jackson seconded. Any discussion around it? Okay, hearing discussion we’ll take a yea or nay vote.

Gordon: Actually, Randy, if I could correct you…

Hauth: Yes.

Gordon: That was Steve Gordon.

Hauth: Go ahead. Steve Gordon. I’m sorry. Okay, hearing no discussion we’ll take a yea or nay vote. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson. Art Stevenson. Art Stevenson. You must be on mute.

Art Stevenson: Yea!

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson. Steve Jackson. Steve Jackson. Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yes.

Hauth: And I’ll vote yes as well. So that motion passes. Moving right along, BEP Rules Update. I finally got my agenda on here. Update, overview, what managers need to know. As Art mentioned earlier, there has been a complaint filed. Both Art and I filed an official complaint on behalf of the BEP Rules. So, you know, I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to discuss these any more than I had previously. I think my thoughts have not only been articulated previously, but also I’ve been identified, with the assistance of counsel, through a complaint. But I’ve received some questions about the rules and so, even though it’s our position that these rules aren’t valid, it’s the position of the agency that they are. So there’s some concern about the rules. There’s concern about the operating agreement and, you know, if the 15th as a due date falls on a Monday, why are people penalized for the 13th? You know, I mean, however that works. I know there was some questions about…

You know, so I don’t know if, Eric, it would be best or if you have any desire to…. I don’t know how you’d like to field questions; if you’ve received any questions around the rules. If you want to try and schedule and hold, for the managers who choose to, you know, a training or if there’s any managers on the phone that at this point have any questions relative to the rules, please go ahead and identify yourself and I’ll call on you.

Morris: Did… Did you want me to go, Randy?

Hauth: Sure.

Morris: So, that’s a good question. Because if people have questions, I would encourage people, if you have specific questions to… you can obviously shoot me an email and ask those questions. Everybody was provided and got a copy in their preferred format of the rules. So if there’s a better format for people to receive them in, they should let us know, that’s easier for them to read, if things have changed in their preferred format or they just said, “Hey, I don’t want to… I don’t want to deal with large format. I’d rather have a digital copy,” they should let me know.

I think, literally, we could probably spend, I don’t know, what, a couple meetings going through the rules. Because, you know, it’s a pretty comprehensive document. I printed out a copy just so I’d have it with me because I’m not sitting at my computer this afternoon. But, you know, I don’t know what the best process is because everybody learns differently. So I would encourage everybody to read through it. But the tough thing about just reading through the rules is, if you don’t have context, you know, if you don’t have an issue that you’re specifically researching it is very dry reading. So I don’t know, you know, this wasn’t really my agenda item so I’d be happy to hear what people’s thoughts are, from the Committee.

Hauth: All right. Anybody want to comment? Or do we move on? Yeah, I guess I could… I guess I could send out a feeler, you know, without going in and identifying by name I have received

questions from a couple of managers. So maybe I’ll just send out a generic, you know, communication and if people feel they need to have clarification on some items, maybe they can identify those or… I don’t know. But, yeah…

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, a couple things. As you all… As you know, I reached out to Jesse to say, “Hey, we do want to talk to you about our concerns” and haven’t received a response back concerning that. And obviously, you know, I do remember a… an email from him giving a little input on some of the rules. But he specifically stated in that email we have not given… this is not a blessing of the complete rules. And so, therefore, obviously, you know, there’s a great void here, right at this point in time.

Obviously, OCB’s stance is the rules are the rules, even though, you know, RSA specifically stated, “We are not, you know, we are not giving the blessing of these rules.” And obviously the federal law says that you can’t implement rules until you have the blessing of RSA. But the State of Oregon and the Commission for the Blind seem to be not doing that.

So I believe, you know, that we do need some kind of response from RSA on how they’re progressing on giving their blessing. Because obviously the law says they have to give their blessing before things are adopted and implemented.

So, Randy, I guess we… either you or I need to reach out to him and find out just exactly where we’re at on that. I…

Hauth: Art.

Art Stevenson: I find it very difficult, as a blind licensed manager, because I know what the law says, you know, having to comply to these rules that have no… not gotten the blessing. Now, I know Director Johnson has said, “Well, we’ll make changes to them if RSA tells us to.” But, you know, I still… I don’t know if the agency has reached out and said, “Hey, we got to have your blessing because the law says we have to have your blessing.” You know, make a statement on some of this stuff.

Hauth: Okay. Art, yeah, I mean, point well taken. I will say that, you know, I believe I speak here for Art as well, the last thing that Art and I as managers wanted to do was to be what we feel forced to file an official complaint. We both worked long, tirelessly, diligently trying to good faith negotiate with the agency. We addressed numerous program concerns that have been impactful negatively to the managers, to our program that are also contained within this complaint. It identifies several items, most importantly, the rules that are being adopted not being approved by RSA. It talks about some other items as well.

But what I will say, again, last thing I or Art wanted to do. However, it is something that we will do to protect the integrity of the Randolph-Sheppard Act, the integrity of the Business Enterprise Program. And as managers we will be seeking legal counsel to move through the function of this, hoping to be able to resolve these at ground level but not expecting to be able to do that. So we’ll also be possibly seeking the advocacy of the Elected Committee, going forward. But I and he will keep you in the loop as we go forward. Because just because this

complaint is named by Art and I it’s impactful of our program and impactful of you on the phone and those who aren’t on the phone.

So, that being said, I’ll go ahead and move along, if I may. So. Okay, next item on the agenda is unassigned vending. This has been something that has been a serious concern to me. I know that there’s been managers, again, I’ll reiterate this, there’s locations that have been, my perspective, and I know many of yours, that have been closed down, that the vending has been directed into the agency. And, you know, there’s locations that haven’t been put out to bid.

And so, I know we’ve been addressing this for a while but, you know, I’d like to turn it over to Eric to see if you could update us on this, particularly why the agency believes in bringing in unassigned vending, keeping it away from managers, as it continues to grow and grow and grow, what legal authority that the agency has to do that, as I don’t believe it’s the intent of the program. And, you know, so whatever you can share with the Elected Committee, I believe will be insightful.

Morris: Well, Randy, we… like you said, we’ve talked about this repeatedly, jeez, probably, well, as far back as I can remember. One of the things we talked about extensively last spring was, you know, the concerns about the agency bringing in unassigned vending and why it wasn’t going to managers. And probably the… the core of that conversation was around managers who were saying that they were struggling. So we did all of the work around a fair minimum return, which monies like this will go to pay for a fair minimum return. So… and I don’t have the legal authority to quote right this second off the top of my head, so I can definitely… I’m writing that down to send that to you guys. But that’s my recollection of the process so far.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: I will say, yeah, Art, before I turn it over, I can tell you that whole facilities, without the active participation of the Elected Committee, were closed down, those vendings were redirected. A facility like White City has not been put out to bid. So, also, the fair minimum return, you know, even though it’s identified within the rules, it was not, again, blessed by or approved by the Elected Committee. And so all those monies that the agency has been collecting for the last, I don’t know, couple of years, that continue to grow is certainly a serious concern. And it doesn’t look like the agency has been proactive in trying to assist managers with that, from my perspective. But go ahead, Art.

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute, Randy?

Hauth: Yeah. Yeah.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Well, first let me say that, even though I voted against the new rules, the law still states… and even under the new rules it requires the agency to either assign vending locations to blind licensed managers on a permanent basis or a temporary basis. And… And that has not changed. And it’s… it’s just baffling to me, even though we supposedly have new rules, the rules do state that the agency temporarily can assign or permanently can assign. And, you know, the law still states, I believe, that the agency can only provide for the operation if a manager is not available. And the rules state what they state.

And we still… the managers aren’t receiving the income from those vending facilities. The agency is receiving the income, the total income from these vending facilities when, in essence, the agency only has the right to collect 11% of the net proceeds from those vending facilities, not 100% of the revenues. And, therefore, of course, you know, that deals with part of, you know, what we’re concerned about. The agency, I mean, the agency has said, “We only have so many hours in a day to do certain things so you have to prioritize and let us know.” But the simple fact of the matter is, okay, that blind licensed managers who have families to support, who should be receiving this income aren’t. And the agency is receiving 100% of the net proceeds of vending facilities instead of 11% of the net proceeds, which is the amount that they’re entitled to.

And so, I’m going to leave it at that. The agency, I mean, even though we got new rules now, it seems like the agency can’t comply and do, you know, what they’re supposed to do under the laws and rules and regulations of our program.

Bird: Randy.

Hauth: Yeah…

Steve Jackson: I’d like to say something, too, Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Was that Jerry or Steve Jackson?

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Go ahead, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I just want to say, it’s even more than that, folks. It’s… we’re being denied the opportunities. You know, I think they look like, “Oh, well there’s… we don’t have new trainees in here. There’s not people that can run those so we don’t… we don’t put them out there.” But ever since I been in this program, especially usually when you’re new, you got… when a place comes out for bid it’s an opportunity for every licensed blind person to bid on that, whether they have a cafeteria now and want to scale down, that’s their opportunity to bid on something. They also… if you take our bidding away and our opportunities, you don’t get to move up.

And what we should have… if no one bids on them, then you’re down to “Okay, no one wants these so now how do we deal with them? We deal with them differently.” But for you just to take our opportunities away from us as a program… to have opportunities, it’s a right. We have the right to bid on places that are open, that are available, as long as we are available and can do it. So I think them just by denying giving them out, by keeping them to theirself… exactly denying us the rights of our program. I just… I can’t see why they think they can deny us. But that’s just my opinion. Thank you.

Hauth: Thank you, Jerry. Steve? Steve Jackson?

Steve Jackson: Hi. Hi, guys. I’d like to go back to what Eric said when he said that he doesn’t know off the top of his head what law, you know, dictates that he can take in unassigned vending that’s not only federal but also, you know, other kinds of vending. So I’d like the

Committee to ponder a motion to have Eric give us in writing the law that defines that he can take in unassigned vending and… and do what with. I don’t know what he’s doing but I’d like to have an answer to where is it all going and why is it okay that other managers aren’t given the chance to be promoted.

Because that’s exactly right, Jerry – I’ve done really well and had opportunities and I’ve help make opportunities. I reached out to European Restaurants. Randy told me a guy’s name, I emailed him, Eric helped write the contract. So I helped start it, too. So I’d like a chance to be promoted to make some money. That’s all I’m really asking is, can someone please make this more fair so that other managers, like the new managers can also have assigned vending added to their… to their facilities and we can all work hard? You know, that’s all I’m really asking, is to work harder. So.

Hauth: Steve, thank you. Steve, you can always introduce a motion, if you so choose.

Steve Jackson: Okay. Well, let me… yeah, Chair, can I interrupt you.

Hauth: Sure.

Steve Jackson: I’d like to make a motion that Eric Morris gives us in writing the definition and the ORSs that explain why it’s okay to collect unassigned vending.

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

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Steve… Art.

Art Stevenson: I appreciate your motion there, Steve, I really do. I would like to make kind of a friendly amendment…

Steve Jackson: Mm hm.

Art Stevenson: … that, you know, concerning all the vending in the vending facilities that are out there, that the agency currently is collecting all the revenues for that they get in compliance with the law and assign it to a blind licensed manager, either on a temporary basis or a permanent basis. But they’re, you know, only under rare… rare circumstances should OCB be collecting net proceeds. They’re only entitled to 11% set-aside. And so, I would like…

Hauth: Hey, Art? I don’t know if you want to make a friendly amendment to that.

Art Stevenson: I’d like to… like to just, you know, make a friendly amendment, Steve, that, you know, OCB get in compliance with the law and assign these locations. And we’ve made recommendations and blind licensed managers have made theirselves available. But these locations need to go to our managers, especially the ones who are interested and need the income.

Hauth: Okay, so what’s your friendly amendment, sir?

Art Stevenson: Okay. I would like to change it to… that we want OCB to get in compliance with the laws and rules and regulations of our program and assign vending facilities to blind licensed managers on either a temporary or permanent basis.

Hauth: Okay. Do you accept that friendly amendment, Steve? Steve?

Bird: Randy?

Steve Jackson: I do. I accept it.

Hauth: Okay.

Steve Jackson: But… I accept it but I really think that proof would be a good way for Eric to explain his actions. Because I feel like we’ve been tiptoeing around this and I just… I’d like to know if it’s okay or not. Because this has never really happened before in the past, that I know of. So it’s kind of, you know, like, I’m okay with the amendment, but…

Hauth: Okay. Well, let me get a second and I’ll… then I’ll hear discussion. Do I have a second on that?

Steve Gordon: You’ve got a second.

Hauth: Okay, a second’s been made. Discussion. Go ahead, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I understand both… what they said, and even Art. But the thing is, Art, is we… how many times have we said that exact same thing and made a motion and passed it and then we… some strange force from somewhere says it… denies it, you know?

And so I don’t think that’s actually the question that Steve wants asked. Steve wants this agency to provide some kind of legal proof what gives them the legal authority to take our unassigned vending machines over a blind person’s receiving it, I think is what he’s after. We want to see where you say you can do it. I know you say you want to do it and that. But I think Steve wants to know. We don’t want you to say, “I think it is” or “I’ll have to look it up next time” or “I don’t remember that law.” Because it’s one of the most important things you’ve only asked about it. We want to see written proof to do it and if you do not have it then follow the law and… and assign them.

Art Stevenson: Jerry?

Bird: But that’s my thoughts.

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Okay. Jerry, we actually did request that information from Director Morris. We asked him to show us why he believes he’s in compliance with the law in not assigning the

vending facilities to the blind licensed managers, either on a temporary or a permanent basis. And we haven’t received that information. That’s why I said, hey, we need to make the motion for OCB to get in compliance with the laws and rules and regulations of our program, to quit collecting 100% of the net proceeds from vending facilities and only start collecting the 11%, which is the only right that they have under the law.

Hauth: Okay. Any other discussion? There’s been a motion and a friendly amendment, accepted and second. Any other discussion? So, Eric…

Steve Jackson: Can I ask quick, Chair, real fast? Let me…

Hauth: Yeah, go ahead.

Steve Jackson: Go ahead. Well, I just wanted to put together what Jerry said with what I said in the motion. Maybe if we could word it like this: If Eric cannot prove that it is legal and lawful to do what he’s doing then, in turn, he will promise to do exactly what Art said and start assigning the sites. And if there’s nobody that can take it, then 11% of the net sales – or revenue, I mean – will go to the Commission.

Hauth: Thank you, Steve.

Steve Jackson: Or for set-aside, or whatever. Right?

Hauth: There’s been a motion and a second on the table. Obviously, this is confusing. And, obviously, it’s emotionally impactful because it deals with people’s livelihoods and nobody can understand why an agency that’s stewarded with administering the program that’s supposed to provide remunerative employment opportunities to persons who are blind and maximize their vocational potential and enlarge their economic opportunities would simply direct, without even active participation in many cases, direct those vending locations in house and use those however they’re used. So I think that’s why people aren’t sure exactly how to address this. And, like Jerry said, we tried to address it before, you know, and basically get nothing. But, you know, there is a motion and there’s a second made.

I do have discussion… I will share that over the last year, when this was brought up to the agency, they said, “Well, we’re keeping them right now because of the… until the legislation passes, right? Because if people are allowed to subcontract or continue to subcontract, then that’s one thing, but if they’re not, then we’re not going to be able to have people self-service these and it’s going to take us a long time to roll these out.” But, you know, now it’s changed. Now it’s, as I hear it, supposed to comply with the fair minimum return. And so, you know, Eric, I guess one simple question: why in the world hasn’t White City, the location formerly operated by Ken Gerlitz – who passed away, gosh, a year and a half ago – why hasn’t that ever gone out for bid? That’s, like, amazing to me why it hasn’t, you know?

Morris: So, Randy, White… you know, Ken Gerlitz’s route is more than just White City, right? I mean, it’s… there’s several locations…

Hauth: What are they identified…?

Morris: I’m sorry?

Hauth: I think I identified White City. I’m…

Morris: Yeah. I mean, that’s, like, one little piece of his route. But I think…

Hauth: [Inaudible] vending route.

Morris: I’m sorry?

Hauth: Yeah, the vending route operated by Ken Gerlitz.

Morris: Well, I think the point you made and the recap you made of the discussions we’ve had about this is, yeah, before the legislation and through that whole process we were trying to figure out what it was going to look like on the back side. Now we’re here on the back side. So I’m waiting for this motion to go through and I’ll provide a response.

Hauth: But why… I mean, just simply, why, as Director, why haven’t you put that out for bid?

Morris: I think…

Hauth: I’m perplexed as why you wouldn’t do that, you know. And I don’t know. I’m just kind of… at a loss to understand that. So I don’t know if you have, you know, other than just waiting for a motion to be passed and then addressing it, as a human being, do you have, and as the Director of this Program do you have a response to why that hasn’t occurred?

Morris: Well, I think no matter what I say it’s not going to… it’s not going to make anybody happy. But I think what it boils down to, as we’ve processed through the new legislation, worked tireless hours, as you described it, doing the rules and trying to get those ready to go the… it hasn’t been a priority. Obviously… Obviously, based on tonight’s conversation and prior conversations, I know it’s a priority for a lot of people on the call.

But I think the other piece of it, too, is that unassigned vending, there are a couple facilities out there – Ken Gerlitz’s old facility, which was considered a facility, a vending facility, and maybe Char’s old facility, which was, you know, part of that kind of got decommissioned. So there was some vending attached to that.

But the rest of it are single sites out there that aren’t established facilities. So, you know… and I remember when I first came here that, you know, being lectured repeatedly that a vending facility was different than a site. So, you know, are there some opportunities, I think, to stand up some vending routes out there? I think there is. Because there is some vending out there that could be aggregated together. And taking a look at Ken’s route and getting that out for bid is something we need to put some thought behind. Because, as you pointed out, the legislation’s in place now so… effective for January. But there’s been a few things going on. I know that’s not an acceptable answer because everybody wants everything done immediately, irrespective of, you know, priorities, but that… that’s my perspective on it.

Hauth: Well, and thank you. Thank you for that answer. I guess I would just say that, you know, one of the key components, even if you don’t identify it as a priority, which I think is inarguable,

that providing remunerative financial remuneration to the intended recipients of this program is key, right? I mean, so we should be, and should’ve been, putting those locations out for bid. We should’ve been sitting down and working on developing these facilities. We should’ve been doing those type of things and being we haven’t, it’s certainly been a concern. And, you know, we’re going to continue to encourage that to happen. So, anyway, a motion – and thank you – a motion’s been made, a second’s been made. Any more discussion before we take a vote? Okay, hearing none, yea or nay, Art Stevenson.

Art Stevenson: Yes.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yeah.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Steve Jackson: Yes. Can you hear me?

Hauth: Yes. Steve Gordon.

Steve Gordon: Yes.

Hauth: And I vote yes as well. So that motion passes. Thank you. Moving along…

Steve Jackson: Thank you, guys, very much.

Hauth: Moving along, let’s see, active participation, concerns, communication, responsiveness. I don’t know who asked for this but is there anybody that wants to talk about this?

Hoddle: Hold the line, boys! Hold the line.

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Okay. This is Art.

Hauth: Art.

Art Stevenson: Obviously, I sent out to all the blind licensed managers, you know, a copy of this complaint. Obviously, in my opinion – and we’re going to find out real soon, I guarantee it – we’re not getting true active participation. There is not good faith negotiation and… and, you know, OCB is… is actually going… not taking the good advice of Terry Smith, who is a nationally recognized, renowned expert on the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program.

And at the very beginning of our attempt to really put together complete, comprehensive rules that comply with the law, that do what the law intended it to do, hasn’t occurred. OCB is not allowing true active participation, good faith negotiations, and it needs to

occur. There’s stuff going on in this program that we’re not aware of. And the attitude, in my opinion, of the agency is, “Well, we have ultimate authority, so we’re going to exercise it all the time” instead of really working with the blind licensed managers and having good faith negotiations and… and, you know, coming up with real good solutions to have rules that, you know, do what the state statutes say, and that’s ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities and for the benefit of the blind licensed managers. And so, you know, quite frankly, I’m dedicated to that. I’m dedicated to the laws and rules and regulations benefitting the blind licensed managers.

And, for an example, Eric saying, “Hey, you’re going to have your check in our office on Friday,” even though it’s a three-day weekend, it’s Martin Luther King and Monday and the quote unquote there isn’t going to be postal deliveries, that if it isn’t in the office on Friday, you’re going to get zapped 50 bucks. 50 bucks for me, you know, is money I could spend on other things. I was penalized this time. But the simple fact of the matter is that I don’t think – and I’ve talked to a few blind licensed managers – that anybody thought that that rule was fair and equitable for the blind licensed managers or it benefitted the blind licensed managers. But it was mandated upon us without true active participation.

And… And, therefore… and I’ll be quite frank with you, well, with everybody, in most instances I probably could’ve sent the money in couple days in most months. But December is not necessarily the best month for me. My cash flow is down because some of my locations are off for the two weeks. And, you know, just to force, you know, “I’m going to do this. If you don’t like it, tough” and not for the benefit of the managers. So, active participation has to occur. The laws and rules and regulations need to be, to grow the program, to benefit the blind licensed managers, to maximize their maximum vocational potential, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I believe the Elected Committee is dedicated to that. I’m not so sure about the agency.

And… And so, we need active participation, we need input, we need to be involved in contract negotiations, and… and, quite frankly, I don’t ever want to see another no-cause clause in a dang contract that is put forth by the agency because it’s inexcusable. You shouldn’t be removing a blind licensed manager from a facility with no cause, unless the facility is going to cease to exist. And so I’m dedicated to that. I know other states get it. They get active participation, they create rules that are beneficial to the managers, that grow the program. But it ain’t happening here in Oregon and it needs to. Thanks, Randy.

Hauth: Thanks. Anybody else? Okay, well…

Morris: Randy, it’s about five to five. Just so you know.

Hauth: Okay. Yep. Thank you. Relevant information. Moving right along, relevant information. I know we could sit on active participation for a million years but, you know, honestly, until… until some kind of finding ensuring that that happens occurs I don’t know that we’ll ever get there through other ways, I don’t know. Unfortunately. Relevant information. Art, this was something you asked to have on the agenda. So there you go, sir.

Art Stevenson: Well, hey, Randy, I’ll just say it quick. Here’s another example of incomplete rules, the agency taking advantage of not providing us information or having excuses or stuff like that on why they can’t provide it to us. So I can just say that the managers in this program, if we knew what was going on, we could actually help the agency do a better job and… And also, you know, get more work done. And I know that’s what happens in other successful

states. But our agency doesn’t want to embrace the Elected Committee and the managers of this program; they want to exclude the managers and the Elected Committee from this program on participation.

And one of those things is, we could make some good decisions, you know, on what’s going on, if we were provided the program-relevant information, like the surveys like we talked about. That’s another thing that, of course, we’re going to be addressing in our complaint. Because we deserve that information. It doesn’t need to be, you know, after the thought. And, like I said, I’m going to, if I can, make sure there’s never going to be another contract signed with a no-cause clause because it’s inappropriate. It should be, “Hey, if the blind licensed manager isn’t doing his work or it jeopardizes the loss…”

Bird: Come on.

Art Stevenson: Okay, I’m done.

Hauth: Okay. Anybody else on relevant information? I’ll just say I hope for more what I believe to be needed, a more open, willing and transparent agency as a steward of [inaudible]. Many times it’s been very difficult to get requested information. It always seems to be, “Well, that’s not relevant. That doesn’t matter. That falls outside your program. That falls on a Sunday. That falls on a Tuesday.” And so hopefully, as we continue to push forward, I see a little bit of change occurring. Gail was on this evening. And even though it took a lot of battling, unfortunately, to get her on, at least the agency is having her on. So I think we really need to focus on inclusion and integration. Those are the buzzwords nowadays, gentlemen, so that means being part of the conversation. It doesn’t mean being in the corner and only provided what the agency [inaudible]. So hopefully that will continue on.

Use of set-aside, under…

Morris: Hey, Randy, it’s 5:00.

Hauth: Okay. We’ll go ahead… We’ll go ahead and wind this down. I know you’re running for the bus. But let me share with you, use of set-aside, I think many of us have been concerned about the uses of set-aside. And we’re going to try and get, you know, the devil’s in the details, so we’re going to try and get behind the details. Set-aside, what I’ve seen in federal arbitration is the Elected Committee’s voice and their vote on set-aside and uses of set-aside is very important and impactful. So we could utilize our vote to ensure that no staff are paid out of our set-aside; that, you know, no in-state travel of state employ…. So that’s something we’ll probably want to consider, going forward. But we need to be more engaged in directing the use of our set-aside. So does anybody have any comments before we end up, you know, moving on down the road, adjourning the meeting?

Steve Jackson: Hey, Randy? Could I say something, Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes, please. Please.

Steve Jackson: I’d like to talk about the penalty fee. Because I just got dinged for two fees on two checks that arrived on the same date and it was the following day after MLK Day, the 16th. I put it in, I put my checks in the mail I think on Wednesday, maybe. I can’t even remember. But

it only has to go, like, a couple miles but it didn’t get there! So I got charged a hundred bucks and that‘s a lot of money to me. And I don’t remember anybody voting on the penalty fee and, you know, like maybe turn it in by the 15th and have to be received by the 20th. But it’s not fair because…

Hauth: Well, you know…

Steve Jackson: It’s not fair. Nobody voted on it and it’s not fair.

Hauth: Yeah. I mean, I’ll tell you what, I agree with you. I think there’s a lot of concerns. I don’t think there’s a state authorization to allow for the penalty in the state statutes.

Steve Jackson: Right. Right.

Hauth: And I’m not sure that money going into set-aside is even actually, I mean, you know, somebody could entertain a motion that those fees be waived, I mean, if they so choose to. But, you know, obviously…

Steve Jackson: That’s a good idea.

Hauth: … the agency would… I would hope the agency would be courteous enough to say, “Hey, lookit, there might be some issues around this. Let’s sit down and figure it out.”

Steve Jackson: Yeah. If Eric’s on the line. I’m not paying that hundred bucks.

Hauth: [Inaudible.] I don’t know, whatever you Board members want to do. But.

Art Stevenson: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yeah.

Steve Jackson: [Inaudible] make a motion. I can’t do it. [Inaudible.]

Art Stevenson: Yeah, obviously, you know, that’s very concerning, Steve. And I agree with you on that fact. One thing, we got to continue and finish this agenda. We got some more work to do; definitely the priority thing, you know, and some other stuff. So let’s… let’s… let’s adjourn and get another meeting scheduled, Mr. Chair. Because until, you know, the issues that need to be addressed in this program are addressed we’re not going to get anywhere. And we got to establish the priorities and stuff.

So, Steve, I agree with you and as soon as… obviously, you got a little time so [inaudible]. So let’s schedule a meeting and address this issue and the others.

Hauth: We’ll go ahead and adjourn, Eric, so you can make it to the bus.

Morris: Thank you.

Hauth: Anybody else have a word before we leave?

Bird: Jerry. I got one word that…

Hoddle: I really do have something…

Hauth: Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: I’ll just say we quickly… Art, I hate to say it, but you repeat yourself too much to our meetings and you’re spending too much time that…. This is our third time we can’t get through a meeting. And, bless your heart. I mean, you’re… I’m not saying you don’t have stuff that are good to say; it just kind of rambles and rambles on. So we’re spending too much time, we need to tighten that up, is all I need… I’m kind of concerned with. Sorry. Thank you.

Hauth: Okay. Anybody else before we go?

Morris: Good night, guys.

Hoddle: I just want to… just to… I just want to say, I think you’re taking your program participants down the right path here and not rolling over and playing dead with some of this not-so-active participation. Thank you.

Hauth: Thank you, Art. Let’s go ahead and… er, I mean, Vance. Sorry. Let’s go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you.

Motions Passed During January 31st    BECC Special Meeting   

1. That minutes for the January 26th BECC Special Meeting be approved.  Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Steve Gordon. Passed (with Derrick Stevenson absent).

2. That the Elected Committee send a request to RSA to conduct a complete monitoring of the Oregon BE Program.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Steve Gordon. Passed (with Steve Jackson and Derrick Stevenson absent).

3. That if Director Morris cannot provide legal justification for the withholding of unassigned vending, then he will start assigning those sites to vending facility managers. And if there are no managers willing to take a site, then 11% of the net proceeds for that site will go to the Commission.Proposed: Steve Jackson. Seconded: Steve Gordon. Passed (with Derrick Stevenson absent).

Transcription: Mark Riesmeyer