BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGON BECC REGULAR MEETING

Date: Thursday, December 6th, 2018Time: 4:00 PM-6:00 PM

OREGON COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND535 SE 12th Avenue (Portland office)

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

Agenda

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

1. Open Meeting (Introduction)

2. Adoption of Minutes

3. Public Comment

4. Sub-Committee Business

5. Legislative Committee

6. Other

7. Director’s Report

8. Objections for the Record

9. OLD BUSINESSa. Program Rulesb. Active Participationc. Communication Protocold. Bi-laws Revisionse. Other Business

10. NEW BUSINESSa. Draft Sub-Contracting Documentb. Directing Use of Set-Asidec. Outreach Letterd. Official Misconducte. Other

10. RSA Monitoring

11. RSA-15

12. Open Discussion

Verbatim

Hauth: Alright, you guys. Hey, if we can, we'll go ahead and start this meeting, and if anybody else joins in, I guess we'll...we'll deal with that when they do. So, anyway--

Miranda: OK.

Hauth: --welcome, everybody. December 6th, right?

Miranda: Yes.

Hauth: So, welcome, welcome. Thanks for joining. And we'll go ahead and start role, starting with the board. Is Art Stevenson here?

Art Stevenson: I'm here.

Hauth: Hi, Art, welcome. How about Derrick Stevenson?

Derrick Stevenson: Here.

Hauth: Hey, Derrick, welcome. How about...Lewanda Miranda?

Miranda: Here.

Hauth: Hi, Lewanda. Welcome. Steve Jackson?

Jackson: I'm right here.

Hauth: Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Hi guys.

Hauth: Hey, Steve, welcome. Thanks for joining. How--how about Steve Gordon?

Gordon: I'm here.

Hauth: Hi, Steve, welcome. Thank you for joining. Do we have Lin Jaynes?

Jaynes: Present.

Hauth: Hi, Lin, welcome. Cathy Dominique?

Colley-Dominique: I'm here.

Hauth: Hi Cathy. Welcome. Char Mckinzie? Char Mckinzie? OK. How about Carole Kinney?

Kinney: I'm here.

Hauth: Hi, Carole, welcome. Sal Barraza or Tessa Brown? OK. Gordon Smith?

Smith: Yes.

Hauth: Hey, Gordon, welcome. And we have...Harold Young.

Young: Here.

Hauth: Hey Harold. Welcome. How about Celyn Brown?

Celyn Brown: Here. Present.

Hauth: Hi, Celyn, welcome. And do we have Trevor Garcia?

[undetermined]: I'm going back [inaudible, in background]

Hauth: OK. And last but not least, how about Jerry Bird?

[undetermined]: [inaudible, in background]

Hauth: OK, well. Again, if anybody joins us, we will acknowledge them. Are there any agency staff present? Who is present from the agency?

Morris: Eric is here.

Hauth: Hey, Eric. Welcome. Thank you. Any guests that would like to be identified, please let me know who you are.

Chandler: Hi there. My name is Jen Chandler, and I'm with the State of Oregon Public Health Division.

Hauth: Hi, Jen. Welcome.

Chandler: Thank you.

Hauth: Anyone else? OK. Hearing nobody else, we'll go ahead and move ahead.

Art Stevenson: Chair.

Hauth: We have a bunch of--yes, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: OK, I'd like to request that we...have a moment in silence in recognition of the passing of President Bush. As you all know, he was the man who instrumented the Americans with Disabilities Act, and I think he did a great service for the blind community and the disability community. And so I'd like to request a moment of silence in his memory and respect for all the things he did for...people with disabilities.

Hauth: Art, you've led that very well. So we will honor a moment of silence. ...OK, thank you very much. Thank you--thank you, Art. So.

Art Stevenson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Yeah, it was a--a...just on that, it was a...it was a touching tribute that I watched. Didn't know the man, but very...appears to be a very kind, thoughtful, gentle, caring man and, you know, a leader, as well. So thank you for that. So... Hey Linda, can you turn that agenda on? My agenda just went off. Please. So, what do we have. Adoption of Minutes. Do we have an adoption--do we have a motion for the adoption of minutes? I take it everybody received the minutes and had a chance to review those. And as you all know, we have previously adopted our minutes as recorded, as a [inaudible] requirement. So if we have a motion for that, I'll entertain it.

Art Stevenson: I so move.

Hauth: A motion's been made. Do we have a second?

Miranda: Lewanda seconds.

Hauth: OK, Lewanda. OK. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson?

Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

Derrick Stevenson: Yes.

Hauth: Lewanda Miranda.

Miranda: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes, I vote yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yes.

Hauth: Alright. That motion passes. Thank you, Board. Moving forward, we have public comment. If anybody would like to make a public comment, please announce yourself and I will call on you.

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Yeah, I'd like to make a public comment. I'd like to extend an invitation to all blind licensed managers in the program to participate and attend...the ACB of Oregon legislative seminar on February--Sunday, February 10th and 11th. They will be discussing issues of the blind, including the vending program and the budget. And...going to the capitol to advocate for our program, the budgeting for blind people. And so I want to extend an invitation to any and all blind licensed managers who wish to attend and participate and go visit our legislators to promote our program....and...issues of the blind community...you are welcome to participate. It will be at--

Hauth: Alright. Go ahead.

Art Stevenson: It will be at the Holiday Inn in Salem.

Hauth: Alright. Thank you, Art. Anyone else would like to make a public comment?

Smith: This is Gordon.

Hauth: Hi, Gordon.

Smith: I'd just like to tell you, Randy, and the rest of the board, the wonderful work you guys are doing. And I haven't had a chance to say howdy to Eric, nor all the rest of the participants. Howdy.

Morris: Howdy, Gordo.

Hauth: Hey, Gordo.

[undetermined]: Howdy.

Hauth: Hey, Gordo, Gordo, thanks--thank you so much. You know, I just wanted to say on that, I was reflecting back, as many of us do during the holidays, and...you know, I was thinking back to my time in--

[undetermined]: [inaudible]

Hauth: Yes. ...I was thinking back to my time in the program, dating back some 32, 33 years, and the directors that have come and gone, and the managers that have come and gone...some on their own accord, and some...taken by death, unfortunately. And I just...was reflecting back and thinking what a great program that we have nationally, and a great program that we push so hard for to have here within our state, and just how important it is. And it's so nice to hear that. You know, we as the board are a volunteer board, as you all know. And the work that we do on the betterment of this program is sometimes tireless...sometimes thankless...and sometimes frustrating, to say the least. But inclusion of blind persons in this program, and their voice in the administration and guidance of this program through active participation, and expanding opportunities for people who are blind...House Bill 3253 is a great example of some of the things that we can do together. I'd just like to say again, Gordo, thank you so much. And thank you, everybody. You know, you can't stand on the sideline. We all--gotta all be together to keep our program alive and going and...prospering. So again, I know that was a long-winded thank-you, you but it needed to be said. And uh, thank you again.

Smith: You bet. Be sure and [inaudible] Linda howdy.

Hauth: I will do it. Anybody else on...anybody else on a public comment? OK, hearing no other public comment, we will move forward--

Garcia: Well I--um. Hey Randy. I was just going to--

Hauth: Go ahead. Go ahead.

Garcia: Trevor. Just [inaudible] joined the conference a little late.

Hauth: Trevor, welcome, welcome. Nice to hear your voice. And--

Garcia: Thank you guys. You guys are doing great. You know, I know you stopped by and [inaudible], so thank you for coming. And...you know, I'm really...I'm really excited to be in the program, and I think we're doing great. I think there's momentum building up and that's good to see.

Hauth: Awesome. Thanks so much, Trevor. It was very nice to meet you, man. You're a nice--nice young man. So I hope things are going well for you. So, um...OK, anybody else? Alright, moving ahead. We have Subcommittee Business, and I know, Lewanda, you had asked for one of the items to be on here. And that is Legislative Committee. So I will go ahead and open that up as a business topic, and then we can ask if there's any other subcommittee business that needs to be addressed, but. Would you like to have the floor, Lewanda?

Miranda: Um...well, I just think that we should have a--a committee. A legislative committee, together, so we can, you know, make some positive changes and stuff during the legislation.

Hauth: Yeah, and I would--I would agree with you. I know when you--when you said that--I think we talked about it a little bit, but...I mean at this point in time, I believe -- and correct me if I'm wrong, you guys; sometimes I forget about these things -- but I think we have a...a facility development committee. We have a training committee. We have a financial and budget committee. Do we have any other committees that I'm forgetting about? Um...I know sometimes they're active and sometimes they're not. And sometimes, you know, frankly, sometimes we become participants in those sort of issues, and sometimes, unfortunately, we don't. But...subcommittees, as you know, are really important. So if, Lewanda, if you want to volunteer to be on that committee or head that committee...you know, you're welcome. I would accept that. Or if there's anybody else that would like to consider that, please let me know.

Miranda: Yeah, I--I would love to head that committee.

Hauth: Well, so...I would--I would like you to do that. And is there anybody else that would like to serve on that committee?

Art Stevenson: I would, Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Well, that's no surprise. You're a legislative [inaudible]. If--if...anybody else? OK. And I will participate in that committee as well. And if anybody else wants to participate in it, please--please let the committee know. Again, really, really important. I mean, you saw what happened -- even though we're still trying to get our legs with House Bill 3253. You saw what happened and what that is starting to do here in Oregon. Also this session, there will be reports provided by the Commission for the Blind to the legislative committees, and as well, it's intended that the BECC will be providing a report of their own accord. And so I think this will be a good avenue to address some of the issues. Who knows what might come down the pipe, you know, so. Anyway, so we'll...trying to get my phone. I dropped my phone the other day, so it's a little bit on the blink, but. Anyway, so thank you very much, and...so Lewanda and Art right now are on that committee, and just let me know what you guys would like to do with that and keep me in the loop. And I'll participate as I can, so.

Miranda: Perfect. Thanks.

Hauth: OK. You bet. Any other committees that...I know Art, I believe you head up a committee. I don't know if there's anything you want to talk about relative to that. And...or if Lewanda can deal with it.

Gordon: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Steve.

Celyn Brown: Celyn.

Hauth: Hold on--uh, ladies first. Celyn, go ahead.

Celyn Brown: I just have a question. I'm interested in joining the training committee, and I was just curious how...do I just put a request in, or do I need to put it in writing, or is the committee full...

Hauth: I think you ju--Celyn, you would just request of that committee to be a participant. Um...Lewanda or Art, I think you guys are both involved in that. Is that right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I'm not sure who has--

Miranda: Yeah, Art's the chair.

Hauth: Art's the chair, and you're [inaudible] participant on that. So just get...just get ahold of Art or...I'm sure Art's been very inclusive to anybody that wants to participate, so.

Celyn Brown: OK. Awesome. Thank you.

Hauth: Yep. You bet. And thanks for--thanks for joining in on that and wanting to. Steve Gordon, go ahead. I heard your voice.

Gordon: Yeah, Randy, we forgot to mention the entertainment committee. And...you remembered that--what was--remind me again of the--of the college of the girls that we did, and--and men and women, at the kar--for the karaoke for them that went really well?

Hauth: Oh, that was the American Council of the Blind. That was the convention where...

Gordon: Yeah. Right. Just--

Hauth: Yeah.

Gordon: --another outreach, but...that went well. So I didn't want you to forget about the entertainment committee.

Hauth: Sure, sure. And--and I will tell you, I appreciate you helping out on that. There's not necessarily a formal committee on that. I mean--

Gordon: No.

Hauth: --[inaudible]. I guess there could be, but...again, yeah. Thank you for--

[undetermined]: Are you gonna drive over there?

[undetermined]: Huh?

[undetermined]: Are you gonna drive over there?

[undetermined]: Drive over where?

[undetermined]: [inaudible]

Hauth: OK. Somebody...somebody's--somebody's not on mute, you guys. Just to let you know, so. OK. So any other? Any other committees?

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: OK. Um...I wanted to...talk a little bit on the Vending Facility Development Committee. Number one...is that...in...one of Director Morris's comments on our recommendations, the elected committee voted to have the Commission for the Blind exercise our priority in the establishment of a vend--the vending facility...that recently Eric sent out, I forget what building that is, is that the...Portland City Building or whatever it is. But anyways, we made a recommendation that OCB exercise our priority, not just go after it. Um, and...so I wanted to clarify that. And then I also do want to say...that there was very little active participation in, you know, working on this project. And I believe that our input obviously would be very, very valuable in figuring out, you know, just exactly what can be done in that building. Make some recommendations. I know an RFP was sent out, and the RFP had three parts to it. It had an espresso cart, a micro-market, and coffee service. And...you know, I have some concerns about all of that. The layout, the planning...if we have a micro market and we're providing coffee...to the building, and the coffee service, is there a great need for an espresso stand? None of these things were talked about, examined. There actually, as far as I know, wasn't a--a survey of the building done, which, I might say that there is no criteria in our rules, concerning surveys. You know, what due diligence we should do in figuring out what the needs of that building is, what would be feasible, what would be economical. I do know that...you know, what the competition is around the building. Is there any...espresso places close by? Et cetera, et cetera. None of this stuff seems to be getting done. And so I do believe that we do need to come up with some parameters on surveys. Definitely, you know, things be looked at in the building, and us, you know, working with the building and fulfilling the needs, but not just throwing something in the building because there's a couple people there that would like to have an espresso during the day, and there's really not going to be the business there. And so...I would like to say that we need to be more involved. We need to have some rules developed on criteria for surveys. Appropriate surveys need to be conducted in these buildings so that we can make good decisions on what kind of facilities we're going to establish, and all of those things.

Hauth: Th--thank you. Art. Anybody else?

Morris: ...Hello?

Garcia: Randy's gone silent.

Morris: OK, at least somebody else is there.

Art Stevenson: Hey Randy?

Miranda: Chair Hauth?

Jaynes: I think we lost our chair.

Miranda: Yeah, he'll--he'll be right back.

Garcia: If you lose your chair, does that mean you have to stand up?

Jaynes: Nope! Good one.

Art Stevenson: Alright, am I off mute?

Miranda: Yes.

Art Stevenson: OK. Hopefully Randy'll get back here in a quick minute or so. Uh...but anyways. I don't have--OK, there he is! We can have the meeting back.

Hauth: Hey, everybody. Here I--here I are. Can you hear--

Art Stevenson: So, Randy?

Hauth: Yeah. Yeah.

Art Stevenson: I know we're going to talk about the rules, also. And so...I don't know what the previous board is, but I most definitely do feel that, as far as vending facility development and stuff, that we need more clear and concise rules concerning vending facility development. And obviously, you know, we need things to be done in accordance with the state statute that says, you know, that we promulgate rules to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities, and for the benefit of blind licensed managers. And obviously, if we don't do appropriate surveys and stuff, and make the right decisions, and have the right conversations, then--then, you know, we're not--we're not doing what we should be doing. So, I don't know if--

Hauth: Sure. We can--we can--we can deal with that when we get there, Art. You bet. So. Hello?

Art Stevenson: Yeah. So anyways--

Hauth: OK.

Art Stevenson: I'll...I'll just go ahead and do it now. I think we...I want to make a motion that we write rules in order to cover surveys in the establishment of vending facilities. Because I don't think the appropriate steps are being made, that we're just saying, yeah, we'll do it. And we're not having the conversations with these buildings...in order to give them good business, but not setting...any managers up to fail. Or running a business like an espresso cart that isn't going to do a lot of business.

Hauth: Sure. As the chair of the sub--or the, development subcommittee, if you could make a...if you could restate a clear motion, Art, please, and then we'll--I'll entertain that for you.

Art Stevenson: Well, I--I make a motion that we adopt rules...adopt rules to cover surveying buildings, and involving the Vending Facility Development Committee in this process.

Hauth: OK.

Art Stevenson: 'Cause that's what we're supposed to do.

Hauth: Thank you. A motion's been made. Do I have a second on that?

Miranda: Lewanda seconds.

Hauth: OK. A second's been made by Lewanda. Any discussion? I--I would like to make a comment before a vote. I...just say frankly, I...even though general--even though I'm very excited and happy that there's a potential new opportunity here through the City of Portland, I was disappointed that the financial subcommittee, and--I'm sorry, that the development committee, subcommittee, and the elected committee had so limited and little information. It seemed like we had to fight to be part of that process. And even at that, if you go back to the meeting where Art Stevenson, Board Member Stevenson, made a motion, we had received no information from the agency that the agency was even going to seek that opportunity until a motion was made, which shouldn't be the case. And the agency decided they would do that. They asked for an extended period of time to submit the RFP, which clearly identifies that the agency wasn't prepared to submit any kind of...or exercise their right to seek that opportunity. And once it was...underfoot, we had to--it was like pulling teeth to try and get Dacia Johnson, in Eric's absence, to even share with the elected committee what had been submitted. So not only should the elected committee be involved in that, that's--that's ridiculous to think we shouldn't be, because that's a major program, you know, requirement. So I would support that...I will support that motion when it comes to a vote. And I just hope that in the future, instead of limited involvement, that we can have more expanded involvement and we can have the subcommittee and the committee being a integral part of--of that. So that's said by me. So...anything else? Any other comments? OK. Motion's been made. A second. We'll take a vote. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson? Art--

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson?

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: OK. Derrick Stevenson?

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Lewanda Miranda?

Miranda: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: I vote yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yes.

Hauth: OK. Motion passes. I just want to say real quickly before we move on that...I should have mentioned it earlier, but the Commission for the Blind does have a new commissioner: Lillian Goodman, I believe, was up for appointment. And if she's successfully appointed and confirmed, she'll be replacing Samrawit, I don't know how to pronounce her name, but. Representation as the student arm of the Commission for the Blind board branch. So just wanted to share that with everybody. And let's see...we have Director's Report. I guess that's you, Eric.

Morris: I guess so! Well, I just wanted to make--just basically say that I'm happy that everybody made it back from BLAST. For those who didn't attend, I'm sure...well, you missed an interesting BLAST conference down in San Antonio. I made the mistake of not checking the weather immediately before I left, so I took much lighter clothing than we were required to have down there, because it was at all times...I think 50-year low temperatures when we were down there. So the temperatures overnight were in the high 20's, low 30's. So when we had a fire alarm and a--a small fire, I guess in the kitchen area, on Thursday morning at 4:30 in the morning, it made it--for a lot of entertainment, getting outside and being outside for half an hour. So that in addition to a massive power loss on Wednesday...I told Terry Smith I think it's going to be a long time before anybody forgets about having BLAST in San Antonio. So, it was a good conference. Lots of interesting things to hear and I'm just happy everybody traveled there back--and back safely. So, yeah, just, that's my first comment in my director's report. I sent out an email...I think that was today, or yesterday, talking about compliance documents. Kat Peace, Katherine Peace, my assistant, will be reaching out to everybody this month to check in on compliance documents, make sure everybody's up to date. And that email kind of recapped that process. Um, let's see. And I emailed the elected committee, I believe that was yesterday, talking about

managers. We've had some vending facility managers sending incorrect payment amounts, not enough pay, like they're shorting their check sometimes, and I just wanted to get some feedback from the elected committee and see...I know Randy had sent me an email back, but...talk about the meeting a little bit about, you know, what...I mean, obviously, we want to--we'll talk with managers and coach them through...It's important to read their statements and understand their statements. But if people are chronic about it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we should address that.

Hauth: Thanks, Eric. Can you give us any information like, is this a...you know, how many managers is this impacting? How long has this been going on? Have you talked to the managers and...and um...in question to this, and what are the managers' position, or... So we can understand a little bit more about...you know, is it one? Is it four? Has it been going on for awhile? What's the basis of it?

Morris: No, I didn't go back and pull--I saw your note yesterday, Randy. I didn't have time to go back and pull all the data on it. It's one, maybe two managers a month. And we've seen it kind of off and on throughout. And so as I sat there looking at the--some of the statements this time around, I figured I'd bring it up, because obviously people were going to be concerned about it, and try to see if there was a process...if you guys wanted to chime in on it.

Hauth: Have you talked to the managers yet about it to find out what's going on in their instance?

Morris: I've had sta--I've had staff doing that, Randy.

Hauth: So can you give us some, I mean, without breaking confidentiality, can you give us the...you know, what's going on? Like, was it an oversight? Is it poor training? Is it...you know, poor accounting? What's--you know, what's the amount?

Morris: Yeah, it's not--it's not huge amounts, but it's just...pe--I just think basically people aren't paying attention to the statements that are coming out. So I figured if anything bringing the topic up might inspire people to pay a little more attention.

Hauth: OK. Have you...like, have you asked them what the problem is?

Morris: I have not.

Hauth: OK. Well, what would be nice, Eric, I think, if you could--if you could find out...I--I mean, I'm not speaking for the other board, but--the other board members, but I'm sure everybody supports people paying their set-aside, and paying their set-aside on time. But if you could find out if it's a simple oversight or if there's a, you know, deep-rooted problem. I think that would be, for me personally, that would be helpful.

Morris: OK.

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah. I--I seem to have had a--had problem with--with...my report somehow not matching with the information that the Commission for the Blind punches in. So I don't know if there's a difference between the form that I sent you, and the form that they're now using or what, but you know, they said I was paying too much. And I went back through my books and we re-checked all the numbers and did all that, and I didn't find any problem on my end. So I don't know if it's when they're transferring it into their own system, or exactly what's happening. And I personally was contacted, but I would prefer that if there's a problem with my stuff that I actually get contacted by the accountant. So that there's no secondhand, you know. You know how information changes from one...one time it's told, and then it's told by another. I'd rather work directly with the person who says I'm having a problem. Then I can maybe figure out and understand what the real problem is.

Morris: Well, Derrick, I appreciate you paying more. That's awesome.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah.

Gordon Smith: Well then the rest of us can cut down a little, huh?

Morris: OK. Well, I'll let you guys figure that out on the side.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah. Well, I don't know if my report--

Garcia: One thing...this is Trevor. I know starting out, we've been creating a system that would allow set-aside to be calculated and paid out correctly. So I think hopefully on my end we should be good. We've finished...I think we've finished ironing out the kinks. And so as far as I know, I'm good on my commissions up to this point.

Hauth: Yeah. Thank you. Trevor, you know, it appears that maybe the invoice isn't matching up with the payment, is that what you're saying, Eric? What's been invoiced isn't being what's being paid--

Morris: Correct.

Hauth: --and maybe people are, you know, maybe people, managers in question, aren't, you know, aren't reading through that, but I think it would be very helpful if you contacted the persons in question and let them know, and find out, you know, what the problem is and resolve, you know, resolve it that way. I mean that's just my thoughts, so.

Morris: Alright. Thank you. And I just had one other thing. I know we've been kind of...we've been chatting about the budget recently in emails over the last week or so. Looking at the

budget as we head into the--the finale of...not only the biennium, but also the federal fiscal year, the money we have for vending machines, the money we got for um, oh, it's been like a year and a half, two years ago now, that we got extra federal money to purchase vending machines. We have about a million dollars left in that--in that bucket of money. So perhaps in our next -- because obviously I didn't have time to make a big presentation on this for tonight -- but we need to have a conversation with the elected committee and talk about how that money is going to be up, you know, basically...spent amongst the managers who haven't gotten any vending machines at this point. So, I just want to tee that up as a topic for our next meeting.

Hauth: OK. Thank you. I know we've been going back and forth a little bit on the emails. Can you tell me what the name of the...if there is a name, an official name, for the submission that the agency submitted on the operational budget? It's my understanding that the agency submits their request, and outside of the POPS, I don't know if they included the Policy Option Packages within the operational budget request, but if you could help me better understand that. And also, where in the world are those budget to actuals set-aside that we were supposed to receive.? And I know a couple of times you had said Gail was working on it, but I think it's been close to a year and those have never been provided. And quite honestly, Eric, I feel the committee has been left out of a big portion of that budget planning phase because of that. Certainly, we were involved in the policy option package, but the other portion of the budget...you know, I believe we were not. So can you give me the name of that proposal or the...the proposed budget that was sent to the governor's office by the agency? And also, where's that information from Gail? I'd appreciate it.

Morris: So Randy, I think you're talking about the agency request budget, I think is what you're talking about, which--

Hauth: Yeah, sure, that would be it.

Morris: Yeah. The agency request budget. That--that's...and I believe when I sent--when I sent you guys the information about the governor's...the governor's proposed budget, there was a...there was a document attached to that, that I believe is a kind of a, um, a shorthand version of the agency request budget. I'm trying to remember right this second, because I looked at that document, but I don't remember exactly what it was. I believe that was part of the agency's request budget for that. So we sent that into...that goes into DAS finances. I--I think it's the CFO office with DAS, the Department of Administrative Services. They help create the governor's request budget. And then the governor's request budget goes to the legislature. So that's--that's kind of the process. The budget to actuals for the set-aside spending was included in a tab in the third quarter financial report that I sent out. Did you guys not see that?

Hauth: I'll have to go back and review it. But that's for the higher biennium of the 17-19 biennium. And the detail behind the set-aside--

Morris: Yeah, I believe it wa--

Hauth: --and what those expenditures were [inaudible].

Morris: I believe it went clear back to the July, or June of--July of '17, yeah. It's like one, two, three...I think three or four tabs over from the left hand side on that third quarter report.

Hauth: OK. Well, I'll look at it again. Eric. I know it'd been a long time. So...you know. If you sent it, thank you very much. I'll look and see, and if not, we'll follow back up. But I guess that goes back to my question of why, in your opinion, why wasn't the elected committee involved in the operational budget, and kind of determining and working active--through active participation with the agency on that part of the budget?

Morris: Well the--like I said in the email today, Randy, the operational budget hasn't been built yet. So the agency requests funds to--at a high...like, they take currently what they call CSL which is Current Service Levels, and this is my--my layman's understanding of the budgeting process. They build all the budgets based on what we had last time. And then they'll either increase or decrease depending on, you know, specific issues, depending on...it depends on what it is. Like, labor costs actually never seem to go down, they always go up, because it costs more to pay people to work. And so the CSL, Current Service Levels, help build the agency request budget. And then included in that are the Policy Option Packages, which we talked about, I believe in May, maybe early June, which included the language about...I think it was a quarter of a million dollars for...expanding vending facilities. And also in one of the other POPS, Policy Options Packages, there was the--the realignment of taking set-aside funds away from that position that was funded partially by set-aside funds. So -- and that was at your guys's request -- so that all gets included in the agency request budget, you know, a couple of different pieces and goes into the, the DAS financial people and they help work that up for the governor's budget. So, sor--

Hauth: OK. Can you t--yes. Can you tell me where the elected committee will be involved, then?

Morris: W--

Hauth: What it looked to me like, is that the agency request budget has been created by the agency without the elected committee, and now the legislative fiscal has it, much the same as what happened when that position was funded without the elected committee's knowledge. So I'm just trying to understand, where's our active participation going to be? Because the legislative fiscal isn't supposed to set the budget outside of the elected committee's voice in the process, as I understand it. Maybe you have a different take on it, but um...

Morris: Well I think--

Hauth: Where's our--where's our involvement in it? Oth--you know, other than through the Policy Option Packages.

Morris: Well, I think a couple things to remember. So we talked about Policy Option Packages, which is one of the few actual things that can be influenced within a budget. Because the budget's, you know, we're not going to sit down and have a conversation about current service levels and have active participation around that, because it's not...it just, it just doe--it's not going to happen. Because it's--that's how the budget's created. So the opportunity for further active participation is going to happen after the legislature approves a budget for the Commission for the Blind. And just so everybody's clear and everybody has a clear understanding of it, the legislature has the final word on funding for the agency, in all ways, shapes, and forms. You know, whether we're using one fund, or a different fund, or money's coming from donations, or from set-aside, they have the final word on that. Now, once they approve a budget, that would be another opportunity for us to sit down, and I think have the kind of conversations that you guys want to have around how we're spending set-aside. And I think that would have to happen...probably it's going to be...most of the time when they go through and do these budget things that are coming up in June, is when the final budget vote gets done. And then the operational budget's built on that. So I think -- somebody's dog's attacking -- as we move through the legislative process and, you know, and go through the different subcommittees and then eventually it gets to a vote, we'll have a good idea right then that, you know, our program, the BE Program, has x number of dollars. So we could have those conversations...call it April or May, and then go from there.

Hauth: OK. Well, thank you. We'll--obviously, we'll--we'll keep talking about this. You know, and nothing against you, or nothing personal. Hopefully, you don't feel bad, but my responsibility as the chair, I feel, is to make sure that we're involved and included and we're active participation--we're active participants in that process. And many times the board feels that, you know, we are "after the fact." And so I just wanted to make that part of the record and find out where our involvement would be, so. Anybody else before we move along?

Morris: And I've got--I've got several things to--

Art Stevenson: Chair Hauth.

Morris: --talk about later on in the agenda that are on the agenda, so, yeah.

Hauth: OK. Go ahead, Art. Art?

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute?

Hauth: You are. You are.

Art Stevenson: OK. I do believe that...Randy, because it is our budget and we are supposed to be involved, that we actually should be a part of the conversation or the presentation that has--is given to the legislature when OCB makes their presentation. And so therefore, you know, I do believe that...we need to be involved when that presentation...is made to the legislators, because obviously we did have a budget op--package, to invest in creating more vending

facilities. And--and we need to let the legislators know, you know, that we're in full support of that and why. Because we want to put more blind people to work in this state and invest in independence and not dependency. And that's why we should be a part of the presentation when the agency goes in front of the Human Services Ways and Means Subcommittee. So when they make their recommendations to the full...the full Ways and Means Committee, that our program is given the consideration that it should be given.

Hauth: Yeah, good point, Art. Very good point, so. And, you know, I don't know if we do that by motion, or if we do that through our legislative committee and work on...strategies around that, but...you know, I mean, bottom line, my concern is, you know, what Eric's sharing with me is already like...like, happens many times, the horse is, you know, halfway around the track. And then they tell us to run and get on the saddle, you know. And so...so we find ourselves scratching and kicking to try and have our legal--our legal voice, and the legally required voice is part of that, so. Anyway, so I don't know what you--what your thoughts are on that. I support your point of view and position on that.

Art Stevenson: Well, Randy. I would, um, yeah. It's not going to hurt to...make a motion, make that, that we approach Director Johnson and let her know that we want to be a part of the presentation that OCB gives to the Human Services Ways and Means Subcommittee. Because that's where the process begins.

Hauth: Okay. Motion has been made. Do I have a second on that?

Miranda: Lewanda seconds.

Hauth: A second by Lewanda. Any discussion around that? OK, hearing no discuss--OK, hearing no discussion. Yea or nay? Art Stevenson?

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson?

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Lewanda Miranda?

Miranda: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: And motion passes. OK. Moving right along. The next is Objections for the Record. So...just for those on the line who maybe aren't sure what this agenda topic is, as you most likely know, when motions are made by the elected committee, they become a key part of the active participation conduit. Not the only conduit to active participation, but they're a tip of the spear when the vote's made. And then it requires the agency to respond to that. Well, over the last couple of years I've seen a lot of responses that people are wondering where those responses are based in rule or regulation or law, or, you know, why is this...why is this response different than it was previously? And so what we've started to do a few meetings back, is to try and address the issues that were provided through what Director Morris identifies as the active participation motions. And so going through and...keying some of the key topics, and not just letting those stand but hope--hopefully forcing the conversation, or forcing further consideration. And so I do want to share a few things, food for thought here. Again, this program, even though it's administered by the Commission for the Blind, again, at the blind leadership and superior training, it is clear by the words from RSA, Jesse Hartle, and by experts Terry Smith and others, that we as blind vendors are supposed to have a very...very important, strong, key role in the leadership of the program. And the program's supposed to be...consistent and uniform to the best of its abilities. And so a few of the things that I do want to point out here for our consideration, hoping that this can maybe change the discretionary decisions that are made by either Director Morris or the agency, however those are made. Let me point out to you some things that I believe to be true through my research. On the job training. I know that managers have provided on the job training to potential, you know, licensees. And those managers, as I understand it, are not provided any kind of remunerative employ--remunerative or pay for providing such training. And even though a trainee can be a benefit to a facility, they can also be a detraction from the system. And so forth and so on. But bottom line, OJ training--OJT training, if it's provided by a vending facility manager, that vending facility manager should have the same right as...my research shows that Galt did or other...other businesses who have provided training to managers. So I'd just like in the future, if training is provided, OJT, that that manager have the opportunity to be paid for that the same as any other private practice business. Um, per diem. Again, we talked about this and we talked about this. I can't see any reason or rationale why...vendors are not provided per diem when they travel. The policy that Director Morris had pushed forward, the state travel policy, allows for it. There hasn't really been any detailed criteria other than the agency saying nope, we don't want to do that. So, it looks to me that if the BEP staff who travel get per diem, then certainly vendors should. And, you know, I just don't--again, I don't understand that. It goes in...contrary to what I believe the policy allows. Um, requests for vans. I know there's been a couple of people who have publicly said, look, we asked for a van to help us do our vending route, and we were denied that. So I think there needs to be, through active participation, clear guidance on what does it mean...what does a vendor need to do to get a van to help them do their job properly? If--if one or two managers received assistance in that venue, then other vendors should receive the same assistance, and it shouldn't be just an arbitrary, no, you don't serve enough, or you do serve enough. I think we need to work through building some criteria around that with the elected committee. Adoption of policies in one of the...in one or two of the AP

responses from Director Morris, Director Morris had identified through the...I think the profit improvement plan that, well, we developed it, but now you guys can activ--actively participate in. There was another...I think it was a training curriculum. I don't believe the elected committee had im--been involved in the training curriculum, which we're supposed to. And I believe the same response was, hey, you--we developed it, but you guys can now. Today, the outreach paper. Last time we talked to the agency about the outreach paper, Director Morris said, I don't know. I got nothing. And today we see it go out. And I'm not criticizing that outreach paper. Um...what I can see, it was a good, positive move for our program. But what I would be critiquing is why isn't the elected committee more involved in those types of things? So food for thought, hopefully policies and procedures aren't developed without the elected committee's voice in the process and true active participation. Again, non-uniform treatment. From records that I received, Kathy Ew--or Cathy...Colley-Dominique was denied an opportunity to manage her location from afar. However, Tessa Brown was allowed a courtesy to be able to do that. As I can tell, Tessa's been in Georgia since June and has been managing her location from afar, and Tessa Brown--or, Cathy Dominique was not provided that. So those type of things shouldn't happen. And...you know, so, again, you know, these type of things we need to have more inclusion, more communication, more involvement of the elected committee and I just hope that those things can continue and start to occur, so. Anyone else?

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art?

Art Stevenson: OK. Yeah, I would especially like to comment on the van situation. We made a motion that...in the last meeting, that OCB provide a van for...for Jerry. Obviously he has a vending route. And I know also that another manager, Harold Young, had requested assistance in getting a van. And...you know, hasn't received any kind of closure in that--that we talked about in the last meeting. But the bottom line is, as--as you said, Randy, number one, the federal code says that our rules are supposed to treat managers as uniformly and fairly and... You know, as members of the elective committee, we absolutely, if we're seeing that managers aren't being treated uniformly, have the right to point that out, and make re--recommendations to OCB that we feel our managers aren't being treated uniformly. And for the agency to say that we don't have that right, is absolutely incorrect. 'Cause we have an obligation to [inaudible] convince the agency not to do things in violation of the law. And--and so, hopefully we don't have litigation, which is quite expensive. So we definitely do have that right. And I might point out, in the state statute, if a manager requests equipment for their facility, the agency, you know, is supposed to provide that equipment, because that's, you know, what the program does. That's why we pay set-aside, and--and--and all of those things. And so, you know, the agency needs to, in compliance, treat managers fairly and equitably. If they need a van to run their facility or to do the things that they need to do. I know, y'know, like Harold spends every weekend going around to--to Cash and Carry and to...other places to pick up product and stuff for his location. He needs the vehicle to be able to do that. And the agency needs to provide the equipment one way or the other. If it can't afford to buy it, then it clearly says that, you know,

the manager can purchase it and deduct it off their set-aside until it's paid for. I mean, that's what the law says. And [inaudible]--

Hauth: Well, let me--let me--let me ask Art, if I can, let me ask Eric to weigh in, and...unless you have something that you want to do by way of motion or something. But I did want to hear from Eric and see, you know, what his position on that is, or what we're missing here, you know.

Art Stevenson: Yeah, that's fine. That's fine, Randy. I'm just--I'm just stating what the law says, and I...as a member of the elected committee, I don't like to be told that...that I don't have the right to make a motion and a recommendation to the agency to comply with the law. I mean, that's absolutely my right as a member of the elected committee and as a representative of the blind licensed managers. And--and so...you know? Uh...

Hauth: Sure. No, I--I--I hear ya. Let's--so, Eric, obviously Er--Art is talking about, I believe, your response in one of the AP responses when the motion was made, I believe, on behalf of Jerry Bird to get the van. And I think your response was about it can't be relative to a single matter. I know that's one of the things we've talked about, but. So how do we...how do we work together on understanding in instances like who can have a van, who can't have a van, and let...you know, and so it just doesn't come down to your shoulders and your discretion deciding that. Shouldn't there be some kind of criteria around, developed through, active participation around, you know, what that, you know, what a manager can expect, or...I mean, help me out here. Help--help out by providing some of the agency's position. That'd be great, so.

Morris: Well, I don't think--I think we talked about this at--in San Antonio. I don't think it's a bad idea to develop a criteria, but I think it's also short-sighted to basically say, hey, if a person has four vending machines, we're going to buy you a van. I don't--I don't think that's...that doesn't make any sense at all. But developing some criteria that we can all agree on, I think that's the piece that--that gets people all twisted up, is, when we don't agree, you know, decisions have to be made anyway. So, you know, is there a process we can work through? I mean, you know, Art--Art seems pretty bent sideways about it, so--about my responses. So, I...you know.

Hauth: Well, and I think that's the problem when, you know, if it's you or whoever that's making a decision, if there isn't any process on how that decision's made, then I think people get a little concerned about it. And I know, you know, Harold was, you know, not speaking for Harold, but I believe he was one of the first ones that took on self-service. And I know he had asked for a van to assist him in that. And my understanding, the agency didn't even respond to it, so, um...

Morris: Well--

Hauth: You know, there needs to be--there needs to be some kind of process in place, you know, developed through the elected committee, that people can follow or adhere to.

Morris: Or understand. I think that's probably a good way to put it too.

Hauth: Anybody else?

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Yeah, there's absolutely criteria that is the law. You know, if a manager needs a piece of equipment and the agency hasn't got the money, then they're supposed to work out a deal with the manager that they purchased the ma--the van, and they're allowed to deduct it off their set-aside till it's paid for. Then the van becomes vested through the agency. And--and so, you know, the law is there. The agency just needs to follow the law and implement...you know, the process. I mean if Jerr--if Jerry requests a van and the agency says, we haven't got the money, and obviously he needs a van to service, whether it's 10 machines or 20 machines, he still needs a van to service those machines. And so if they ain't got the money, then they're supposed to work out a deal that--and then the manager deducts it off their set-aside payments. Till it's [inaudible]. I mean, that's what the law says. I mean...and--and so...just like, you know, it says we're supposed to be provided program-relevant information, unless it's confidential.

Hauth: Hey Art, we have -- just so you know, and you're making a good point; I'm--I support what you're saying. I know it is true. You know, I don't know exactly how we can get the agency...I'm trying to get the agency's position on that. Eric, so, what Art's saying, you don't necessarily adhere to that position? It's dependent on what--what the--what you or the agency decides they need, or...?

Morris: Well, Art was quoting the statute tonight. I--I don't have the statutes in front of me, so I don'--I'm--I'm not positive what he's talking about, because I don't have it memorized. So I'll go back and take a look at the statutes. I don't remember any, "Hey, they just work out a deal" kind of conversations in the state statute, but I'll go back and take a look at it.

Hauth: OK. Well, we have 55 minutes left in this, you guys, and we have some other business to move ahead to. You know, I don't like to just talk about this and nothing come from it. So I know we need, you know, Eric, if you could address the issues that were brought up by Art, I think that would be helpful. And if we could put some kind of plan in place to develop, you know, with the elected committee, some expected parameters around it. You stated earlier, I believe, that there's like only a million dollars left out of the reallocated money and the state money that was put together for this self-operation fund. And clearly, in following the Commission for the Blind budget, they look like, you know, things are...nationally, things are being hurt because of WIOA and how the case closures can't capture the kind of money as I--as they used to, as I understand. But, you know, it was my understanding that when the agency went after this money, it was supposed to be inclusive of being able to buy the machines, and,

you know, the vans, and the infrastructure, and all the things that were necessary to fulfill this self-operation initiative. But clearly it looks like that's not the case. Um...

Morris: Well, Randy, I--I--

Hauth: So, as we move forward--

Morris: That--that wasn't the intent of the--when we went out for the money. We went out for the money for specifically vending machines.

Hauth: But in all of our conversations prior to that, there were discussions around the need of, you know, managers to need...racking and need...you know, extra training and need...forklifts and pallet jacks and vans and...you know, coin counters and money counters and all that. And I know that was made clear from the get-go. And so now I'm understanding that VR necessarily might not have the money to be able to support that too. I mean, I don't know, but that's what it's looking like: the agency's four percent overspent, and, you know, VR had told Jerry Bird in the recording that, you know, money's tight. So that was part of their, you know, part of their concern too, but--

Morris: Well--

Hauth: --with that said--

Morris: Yeah, just--just real quick, Randy, before we move on to a new topic. So, when we start talking about developing plans and, you know, trying to work through stuff through active participation, I get the distinct impression when I draft up stuff, that nobody likes that, as a starting point. So if one of the elected committee members or a couple of you want to get together and draft up some criteria that we could have a conversation about, that might be a better workflow. 'Cause I--I can do it. But it seems like every time I put a document out there, like, "why wasn't their active participation around this?" Because literally we have to start somewhere. So that would be my recommendation, is that...like Art, he talks eloquently about...what he was talking about. So maybe he could put something together that we can all consider and have a conversation about.

Hauth: Yeah, and I think that's how it's supposed to happen. And I think that's honestly, that's part of the problem, I believe, has--you and/or the agency has developed these practices or policies, and then have, you know, tooken them to us, and then you don't like our input. You know, you're saying, well, you don't like what we created. Well, then you guys don't like our input. So it becomes, you know, loggerheads. So it would be best, I believe, to sit down and work in the--work through the--through a work group. I mean, that's what Terry Smith said: it's supposed to be that way. And I know he's not an RSA official...you know...providing a...official position, but is an expert relative to the understanding of how it's...to work. So maybe that would alleviate a lot of the...contention, you know, like when we're developing locations like through the City of Portland, maybe the subcommittee should be involved. Or where we're

developing subcontracting...draft criteria, maybe the subcommittee should be involved. So I think you're on to something. I think that would really be helpful for everybody, so. I mean, that's my--my point of view, so. OK. Anybody else?

Smith: Randy, where are we at on the agenda? Gordon.

Hauth: We are Old Business. Going into Old Business: Program Rules.

Smith: OK. Thank you.

Hauth: OK. Old Business: Program Rules. OK, I believe, Art, you asked this to be the agenda?

Art Stevenson: Yeah, I did. And one of the main reasons--am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: OK. One of my reasons was because of what occurred at BLAST about rules and imple--implementing rules. The simple fact of the matter is that...you know, we're obviously more than advisory. Um...and...obviously, the elected committee has rejected current rules, which haven't even been okay'd by RSA yet. And...so, we...number one, as we discussed, definitely do have some things that need to be tightened up in the rules, like I mentioned earlier: writing rules about surveys and what's to be included in surveys, and those kind of things. So that things are done appropriately, so there's less controversy, and...you know, the program...and the managers...are protected. In the state statutes, it says the rules are supposed to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities and to be beneficial to the blind license managers. That's what our state statutes say that the rules are supposed to include. Obviously, if the whole elected committee isn't happy with the current rules, then...they definitely don't seem to be beneficial for the blind licensed managers. Mostly...you know, just pushing for OCB's agenda and not...not doing what the rules are supposed to be doing according to the federal code, and according to our state statutes. And so we most definitely need to get...get 'em done, get 'em done correctly, make sure they do comply with the law, make sure that they do treat managers in a uniform manner, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And...it just has to be done. And--and I want to be able to vote, OK: I'm happy with the rules and--and they truly do what the federal code says they're supposed to do, what the la--federal law says, plus what the state statutes say. Because right now...you know? We got vending facilities, vending that OCB is collecting money on, and the state statutes still clearly state that the only time that the agency can be doing what they're doing is if there isn't a manager available for assignment. And so...we got to get there, we got to get it done. And we got to get in compliance with the law. Because...you know, the agency has rights, the managers have rights, and the law needs to be respected. And...you know, everybody needs to be treated uniformly and concisely. But there's guys...I mean, the agency is collecting money on vending facilities...you know, and they're supposed to be assigned to managers. And--

Hauth: So Art, what would you--what would you like--what would you pro--what would you propose? I mean, I think we all, we all hear what you're saying and we support that position, because nobody believes that locations should not be going out to bid and those moneys should be going in the agency, or vending machine income should be going into the agency and kept away from the managers. So, I was at BLAST, too, and I heard the presentation made by Jesse Hartle. And, you know, when I brought it to the agency's attention, they said, gosh, that's not official. That's not an official position. But I know Eric received that information as well, along with everybody. So what would you think would be helpful in this instance?

Art Stevenson: Well, I mean, there's two roads we can go here. Obviously, Randy, we have the complaint that--about the rules, and eventually that's going to be addressed...one way or the other. But I also think, you know, that--that we need to take our message...to the state legislature and let them hear our concerns, show exactly what's going on... how we feel about things, and...ask for their assistance. Because they're the ones who make the laws. They're the ones that should be helping us make sure that they're being followed and--and done like they're supposed to be doing.

Hauth: OK. Well, I mean that's, you know, we--we can do that. I don't know if you want to make a motion that we address it, or if we just, you know, I...I mean, you've made your--you've made your point, so--

Art Stevenson: Well, I make a motion--I make--I make a motion that the elected committee is--is ready to write appropriate rules...that adhere to the law...and--and that...that do the intent. I...you know, I stand ready to work with the agency through good faith negotiations, et cetera, to write appropriate rules to make sure this program is administered...like the federal government and the state government intended it to do.

Hauth: So a motion's been made. Do I have a second to that?

Miranda: Lewanda seconds.

Hauth: Second's been made. Discussion? I just want to say, if I may. So...the program rules, it clearly identifies they have to be approved prior to implementation. So RSA would be in a tough position if they came back and tried to improve the rules, now that they've already been enacted by the agency. I think it's a real--it's a real cluster...and shouldn't have had to been that way, didn't have to be that way, but ended up becoming that way. And it clearly...as I recall, just recently was identified by RSA that that's not [inaudible]. Another thing is that I clearly believe that...you know, rules have to be supported and supportive of the elected committee, and they cannot just--the agency can't just use their ultimate authority to push those through. That's becoming pretty clear. But one thing that I did here at BLAST, which was a great--great training conference, is that RSA is looking at doing some -- and I know we're dealing with this later in the agenda --looking at doing some monitoring. Before Deanna Jones, RS specialist left, Oregon was on the top of the heap for a monitoring. As you probably know, I reached out to Jesse Hartle, reminded him that when they get to that point, again, that Oregon is still available

for a monitoring. And I also hope the state agency supports that as well. So, clearly the program rules are an important piece of the puzzle. They need to be done right and they need to be done for the benefit of the managers and to help grow the program, and not simply to control it or restrict it. So that's my two cents' worth. So a motion's been made. There's been a second. Any other discussion before we vote? OK. Yea or nay, Art Stevenson?

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Art Stevenson, yea o--Derrick Stevenson, yea or nay?

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Lewanda Miranda, yea or nay?

Miranda: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson, yea or nay?

Jackson: I'm sorry, I got disconnected. What i--what is the motion again, quickly?

Hauth: Um...Steve Gordon, yea or nay?

Gordon: Yea.

Jackson: You can't hear me?

Hauth: OK.

Jackson: [inaudible] I'm sorry, I got disconnected. I'd vote, but I didn't hear what the motion is.

Hauth: Uh...yes, Art, do you want to res--do you want to repeat the motion? Art?

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are.

Art Stevenson: OK. Steve, we made a motion that the elected committee stands ready to write the rules and get it done right. And urges the agency to work with us. That's paraphrasing, but--

Jackson: OK. Yeah.

Art Stevenson: That's what we're making, the motion that we're ready to write the rules right so they're in compliance with the law.

Jackson: OK. Well, I would vote yes.

Hauth: OK. And I vote yes, also. That motion passes. And just as a reminder, guys, we only have about a half hour and I know we want to get to a few of these items. So let's try and be...as...as quick as we can on those, please. Active Participation. Number B. I know, Art, that was something you had asked me to put on as well, so. Art?

Art Stevenson: Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are.

Art Stevenson: OK. Again, Randy, you know...at BLAST, obviously, Mr. Hartle stated again that we're a lot more than advisory. And it seems like the agency and the attorney general's office seems to think, you know, that's, you know, the appropriate way to do it. And...you know, we all...we all know that it isn't. We're supposed to be engaged. We're supposed to be a part of the conversation. And...as--as Terry Smith said, you know, we're supposed to work together, and this ultimate authority stuff...you know, needs to go by the wayside. And we need to come up with rules and all this other stuff that comply with the law. Because some of this stuff just doesn't. And so...

Hauth: Yeah.

Art Stevenson: [inaudible] is part of the rules that we know are incomplete and we're not getting. And so...I think the fact that we're ready to write rules, including making sure that active participation is addressed appropriately. So I think it goes along with what we're planning to do [inaudible] and the agency finally wants to get 'em done, and get 'em done right, and do it collaboratively instead of, you know, take it or leave it.

Hauth: OK. Alright. Um...yeah, one o--one of the things that you had just mentioned, ultimate authority, we've always heard for like ever ever that agencies have the ultimate authority. Some don't ever use it, some use it all the time. It was interesting to understand that through the federal act, ultimate authority is not -- or, through the code of federal regulations, also -- not identified as a right of an agency other than through the right of ultimate authority over a nominee agency. So I haven't taken the time to dig into that, but the point was made and received that, lookit. This is supposed to be a pretty equal program. Even though the agency has the responsibility to administer it, it's not supposed to be the heaven-handed--heavy-handed, authoritarian administration that sometimes occurs in some states. So...it was interesting to--interesting to see that. So ultimate authority only is contained, as to I hear it, under the conditions of a nominee agency and the relationship between the agency and that nominee agency. Um, communication--

Derrick Stevenson: Derrick.

Hauth: Yes. Derrick, go ahead.

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah. I just wanted to touch a little bit on ultimate authority. I don't think ultimate authority was--was--was to give employees of--of the commission final authority. I think final authority should be always brought in front of the OCB board, and they have final authority, not an individual. I mean it just doesn't make sense to--to let Eric or Dacia have final authority, because nothing's ever going to get done and it's never going to end. Final authority needs to rest in the hand of the commission board when there's a problem.

Hauth: Yeah. Thank you, Derrick. And as you know, I think you already did, It has to be based and founded in [inaudible] and--and sensibility and law and rule and regulation, as well, so. Thank you. Let's move on, if we may, to Communication Protocol. Oh gosh, a few months back, you know, obviously there's been times where the agency said, you guys send too many emails, and there's been times where you said, you guys don't respond enough, and there's been a lack of information at times, or maybe from the agency perspective there's been too much information. So what I tried to do is...and what I did do, is send out a communication protocol kind of expectation. And back when Dan Fry was the RS specialist, when he visited Oregon, that was part of the thing. He said, you guys need to improve your communication and process. And so when I followed back up on that, I had set some criteria like, hey, if somebody sends...if--if a board member sends a request to the director...you know, it's expected that a response be given within two days. It's expected that the email be...notified that it's been received, and if the information isn't ready, you know, an expected time when the information will be ready. And so I'm just going by memory here, but in sum, that was what I had put together. And so I sent it to Director Morris, and I know Director Morris has said, well, maybe it would be helpful if just you and I met. And...you know, thinking about it and...I mean, I know there had been times where I have met personally with Eric Morris, Director Morris, you know, years ago, and tried to work out some of the kinks in the program. But thinking about it, I...you know, clearly the...maybe I'm the chair, but the board has the voice, right? It's not just me. And so I was a little reluctant to be the communication...spear--tip of the spear for the elected committee. 'Cause sometimes if Eric and I talked, maybe I'm taking things differently than he is, or vice versa. So I know that was brought to a meeting, a few meetings ago. And then there was a motion made by, I believe, Board Member Stevenson, that the communication protocol be put into the rules. And Eric had...responded and said, no, it's not a proper place for it, or...I don't have that in front of me. But denied--denied the motion. And so, you know, Eric, I'm--I'm asking you right now if you would, as the director, accept that protocol just as practice or if we, you know, if we made a motion to accept it...you know, not taking away anything from the request to have that included in the rules, but if we made that a part of practice, if that would be something that you would be supportive of

Morris: Well, Randy, I--I have to apologize, because of all the things that I studied up on for this agenda. I didn't go back and pull up all the details around the comms protocol thing that you'd sent. I do remember the email, they're talking...vaguely about the email, about meeting in person. Um...but yeah, I mean, hey, a whole list of comms protocol--communication protocols, and responding within time periods and stuff, is not appropriate for the rules. We're talking about communication. So...you know, if you're not comfortable meeting in person representing the board as the chair, that--that's fine. I--it would be an easier, more effective way of

communicating, especially because a lot of the emails that get sent out are like, "hey, I heard something from somebody that might have happened," or, "I heard a rumor about," or, "there's some chatter about," you know, those kinds of things are pretty easily addressed if you--if we just have routine meetings, which, you know, if you don't want to do that, that's fine. But you know, tonight I'm not going to agree to anything because I don't remember what everything I--you've mentioned a couple of points that I jotted down, but I have to go back and pull that piece of it up.

Hauth: Well if--the--from my point of view, if you would go back and review that and I mean, you know, if you could in good conscience make an a--make an agreement, you know, to...for us to, you know, practice that...then, you know, please let us know. And if not then I guess we can try and address it a different way.

Morris: So--

Hauth: But you know, honestly, I'm not trying to point a finger at anybody. There's been times where, again, that, you know, I felt, and I know other board members have felt that they're not getting the information or not getting responses, and sometimes they've had to follow up a couple of times. I think it's gotten better lately and...just, you know, for whatever that's worth, but um...

Morris: So--

Hauth: You know, I don't know what the board, you know, what the rest of the board thinks. But I'm fine with waiting to see what Eric says about that, and then move forward with that, so.

Art Stevenson: Um...Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Um...OK, well. I don't think there's anything wrong with having communications protocol in the rules. If...a representative o' the chair sends an email concerning, you know, business...then it should be addressed, not ignored. I don't know why Eric seems to think it's not appropriate for the rules. Things...you know, timelines on other things is OK. I don't understand why timelines on answering...issues from the chair...representative isn't appropriate to the rules. So I--I would--I would request a full explanation. Why isn't that appropriate for the rules? I don't...obviously...

Morris: Hey, Art?

Art Stevenson: ...obviously the state statute says that, you know, the rules are supposed to...ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities and for the benefit of the blind licensed managers. If we're addressing those issues, then--then it should be appropriate. I mean, obviously it's a benefit if we get our answers to our questions in a timely manner. So it's

a benefit. Plus, could deal with the proper and satisfactory operation of vending facilities. So I don't understand why you don't think it's appropriate to--

Hauth: Hey Art, let's uh...Art?

Art Stevenson: Anyways, that's it.

Hauth: Let Eric--Eric was gonna answer that.

Morris: So, just real quick, Randy, I talked to Art, I think it was...it must have been...I think that was last week. And we talked about negotiation. So is this one of those things you guys are looking for some kind of a counter-proposal? Is that what you're thinking?

Hauth: On the communication protocol?

Morris: That's what we're talking about.

Hauth: Yeah, well, just so you'll know this to be clear, is...there's been a motion that was made and you denied it. Um, you know, I think that stands on its own accord. And I'm trying to make a reasonable request that...in good faith, that the agency would agree to communicate...through this protocol that I sent to you. But every time I ask you anything, it seems that you don't know, you don't remember, you haven't reviewed it. So when you say we're supposed to be [inaudible]

Morris: OK, hang on, hang on one second. So we're--

Hauth: I'm--Well, hold on, hold on, hold on--

Morris: So we're knee-deep in the agenda--

Hauth: Just a second--So--[inaudible]--

Morris: I mean, I can pull it up if you want me to.

Hauth: Hold on--hold on just a second, hold on just a second. I'm running the meeting. So--

Morris: Sure.

Hauth: Hold on just a second.

Morris: Go ahead.

Hauth: Whenever we--whenever we ask you questions, most the time you don't have answers to 'em and you're going to get back to us. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. But the

thing is we're trying to improve how we can receive information and how we can get responses from the agency, so.

Morris: Got it.

[undetermined]: [inaudible, in the background]

Hauth: And you don't have to be sarcastic.

Morris: I wasn't being sarcastic. I understand what you said.

Hauth: [inaudible] It appeared you were, so.

Morris: I'm sorry that it appeared I was.

Hauth: Anybody else?

Art Stevenson: So, Randy?

Hauth: Yeah.

Art Stevenson: Randy, it's Art.

Hauth: Yeah, go ahead Art.

Art Stevenson: Well, so anyways...um, yeah. I--I agree that we need to come up with a communications protocol, 'cause I think it's important. Because then...you know, we can conduct our business, you know, in a timely manner and professionally. So...if Eric wants to come up with a counter-proposal, a negotiation to the original paper, I would definitely look at it and see if it accomplishes what we want to accomplish. And that's, you know, doing our business in a timely manner and professionally. So yeah, go ahead, Eric, send us a counter-proposal. You know, and we can...we can de--definitely negotiate, because we, you know, threw out there that we want to have complete rules and stuff like that. And so let's work together and come up with a mutually satisfying communications protocol.

Hauth: OK, thank you. Art.

Morris: So--

Hauth: Uh...

Morris: So, Randy?

Hauth: You interested in doing that, Eric?

Morris: Well, is that the will of the board?

Hauth: What's the board think? I guess we could entertain a motion, you know, that we...I mean that's what this discussion and negotiation's been around, outside of just the formal motion. We've been trying to see if that's something you're interested in doing, but you had told me earlier that you hadn't prepared and reviewed for that. So if you want us now to enter a motion...if that's how you want it to be, we could do that too. Or...

Morris: I--

Hauth: Does the board want to make a motion?

Art Stevenson: Randy, it's Art.

Hauth: Yeah, go ahead.

Art Stevenson: OK. I make a motion that we come up with a communications protocol rule.

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

Jackson: I second. Steve.

Hauth: OK. Second's been. Any discussion around that?

Derrick Stevenson: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Derrick?

Derrick Stevenson: Yeah, am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are.

Derrick Stevenson: I hate--I hate to sound like my brother, but I got confused. Well anyways, I--

Hauth: It's alright.

Derrick Stevenson: I--I think that there's definite room for improvement. I kinda like the idea and I wouldn't be against the fact that--that the chairman meet with Eric on a weekly basis just to give a quick, you know, update what's going on, so we know what to look forward to and...and what--and--and understand what they're--what they're doing on a weekly basis. Because, you know, right now trust is...trust is not happening. So I think the only way to get trust is--is to communicate better. And to actually show that we're--we're willing just to get this work done. Wheth--whether or not we put time limits or restraints on--on certain things. I don't know if that's really fair...fair to Eric. I mean sometimes, you know, we ask him stuff, and he's

already knee-deep buried in other stuff, and we can't ask him just to drop everything just to...just to reply on something that could actually, you know, wait. I think, you know, when we ask him a question or whatever, he should be willing to give us some kind of time frame when he--when he--when he thinks it would get done, and I think that would work--work better, so.

Hauth: OK, thank you. Any other discussion?

Art Stevenson: Uh, Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes.

Art Stevenson: Um, yeah, and...well, I was the one that brought up the point that...you know, the elected committee works as the body, and then you discussing it and then bringing it back to the committee...you know, we have to conduct a meeting and stuff like that. And so...actually...you know, having you address the issues when we're supposed to be doing this work as an elected committee, as I stated before, I think is...you know...not the appropriate way to conduct business. I mean, obviously, that's just the way I feel. You know. Because you can't speak for us, Randy. You're--you're supposed to--

Hauth: No, I--I--I--you know. I got it. Hey, you guys, just so you know, we have 15 minutes and we have other things to do, and there's a motion on the floor, and a second, so. And there's been discussion. So let's go ahead and...and...take a vote on that motion. So yea or nay, Art?

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Yea or nay, Derrick? ...I'll come back to Derrick. Yea or nay, Lewanda?

Miranda: Yea.

Hauth: Yea or nay, Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yea.

Hauth: Yea or nay, Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: OK. Yea or nay, Derrick?

Derrick Stevenson: Um...yeah. But I just want to put in there that I agree with Art that the chairman should not be making decisions, but not...but he's allowed to pass information on to us without making a decision. So by that--saying that, I say yea.

Hauth: OK. Thank you. OK. And I...I vote yea as well. OK, so we're moving on. I know Lewanda asked for the bylaws revisions...and I think we wanna get to the draft subcontracting thing, so, Lewanda, have the floor, if you can.

Miranda: OK, I'll just run through this really quick, but. The bylaws for many years have needed some work on it and so...I think that we should put together a committee, or do it through the training and education, and work on the bylaws section by section until we have a--a full revision. And then we could bring it to the membership to vote on.

Hauth: You know, and I'll tell you what, Lewanda I'm 100 percent behind you on that. And also at RSA it was clear, at BLAST it was clear, that bylaws are the responsibility of the elected committee to create and develop. And so, you know, that's an important piece of our rights and responsibilities to do, so. And they do need to be updated, as well, so.

Miranda: Yeah, big time.

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair?

Miranda: So should we do that through the training and education, or have a different division--

Hauth: You know what, I don't--I don't necessarily think we need to have a specific separate...

Miranda: Sure.

Hauth: ...subcommittee. I don't know why, you know--

Miranda: OK.

Hauth: --if you can do that through their training and education subcommittee, why not? So.

Miranda: OK, sounds good.

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art?

Art Stevenson: I might have add, you know, 'cause...Jesse did talk about this, that as long as it doesn't violate the law, and, you know, he was very specific on that, and so the only reason the agency at all should have any weigh-in is if they tell us that it's against the law, and give us the specific law that states that. And this was pretty...I mean...that...

Hauth: Sure.

Art Stevenson: ...was his words. As long as it doesn't violate--

Hauth: Yep.

Art Stevenson: --the law. And...and so the agency does have to provide us with program-relevant information that makes it specifically against the law. So...

Hauth: OK.

Art Stevenson: I just wanted to throw that in.

Hauth: You're right. Thank you. Moving along...Other Business. OK, hearing no other business, we'll go on to New Business. Under A is the Draft Sub-Contracting Document, and Eric, you know, you--you'll have a chance to weigh in on this as well, but those were, in my opinion, that's one of the documents that was created, and the agency submits for our review. And y--you know, the agency's saying, well, you guys don't like anything we do. And then we're saying, well, you guys don't like our input. But quite honestly the...my opinion is that document was very custodial in nature, very limiting...very overarching through the intended purpose of the state statute and the house bill that was created. And it appeared to tie a nexus between the subcontractor, the Commission for the Blind, and the vending facility manager. Don't believe that was ever in the discussions that I was in through this legislative process. That was never intended the intended version. It was to vet subcontractors and then the vending facility manager had a list of those to choose from. If you're getting direction from the agency or if you're taking it on your own accord to do something different, um, I personally can't support that. I would encourage that we, like you talked about earlier, sit down and try and work this out together, you know. So, I don't know if you have anything to say on it, but...you know, in talking, you know, with a few other managers who have shared their concerns, I do want to express that, so.

Morris: Well thanks, Randy. I--I think the piece that would be helpful, 'cause I went back and reviewed the string of emails regarding this and your response to it, and I didn't--the piece that's helpful for me, 'cause I know you're saying there's like a nexus of, you know, tying things together and stuff. It--it would be helpful for me if you could say, "hey, this specific part," not because I'm trying to be, like, not smart about it. I just...I'm not sure which part you're talking about that I can go back and actually reference and say, OK, I can see where you see this as being tied together. I mean, it's a pretty big document, but if you could -- especially the point you just talked about -- maybe point to a specific place where I could go back and look at and go, oh, right here is where I need to take a look and see how that either is consistent with the state statute, or... And the other piece of this, too: the state statute also discusses that this process, ha--in the subcontracting process, has to be consistent with state procurement law, too, which is a massive chapter of the ORS. So if you could give me some specifics on it, I'd be happy to go back and take a look at it. I just--I kinda need to know where to start. I can--I can take a shot at it on my own, but I also don't want to waste a lot of time looking at the wrong thing.

Hauth: OK. Well, thank you. Anybody else?

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: Um, so...I'm--I'm trying to wrap my head around what Eric just said, that it has to be in compliance with the procurement law. Um...and...ob--obviously the state statute says that the agency is to come up with a list of qualified subcontractors. And--and so...how does the statement that you just made, that it has to coincide with procurement laws, when all you're doing is putting together a list of qualified subcontractors?

Morris: Art, I'm--I--I--

Art Stevenson: So...

Morris: I'm just telling you what the state statute says. 'Cause it references -- I don't remember the specific ORS -- it doesn't state--say state procurement laws in the statute. It references the ORS as the go to those statutes. It's like two lines down from where it says, "establish a list of approved subcontractors."

Hauth: So we have five--we have five minutes left, and I know there's some things on here that will take more then five minutes to address, so...

Art Stevenson: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

Art Stevenson: OK, well, I--you know, I went through the--the statutes again the other day, and I--and I will again...to see that particular part. And--and--and so...yeah, that--that may need to be an issue that does need to be addressed. And so...I...I would like to get further clarification on that. You know, that--that...probably could be from our AG's office or whatever. I'm--I'm not sure, but we need to review that, Randy, and also...yeah, we should run that across some people that we know, too, to get a full interpretation of that. Because I don't, I--I--I'm trying to wrap my head around what's being procured. There's--there's a list that's being e--established. OCB is not procuring anything. They're just establishing a qualified subcontractors list. So--

Hauth: Yeah. Well, let's--look, let's certainly look into this, Art. There's a--if the wi--with the will of the board, there's a few items here that I believe we need to carry over to the next agenda. Um...[inaudible] B, C, D, and E. I do want to ask Eric...in closing, I do want to make a--a statement of concern about...um, I know Eric said he won't talk about it, but the attorney general being paid to review elected committee meetings, have no idea what that's about or even if that's proper, but clearly the AG works for the agency. So it was either Eric or Dacia that directed them to do that. And you know, it's concerning if there's issues of concern relative to elected committee meetings. The agency should have the...you know...should have the diligence to be able to share that and bring that forward. So that's one thing that I want to

share that's concerning, and we flushed that out. We weren't told about that, and flushed that out through the AG payments. And the other thing is RSA-15 report. Eric, are we--is the elected committee going to be involved in the submission of that RSA-15 report? Where are you with it? Can you give us a quick update on that?

Morris: We started collecting the data for it, Randy. I'm--I'm not quite sure how they elected committee would be involved in it.

Hauth: I didn't hear you. I'm sorry.

Morris: Oh, yeah, we've started--we've started collecting the data for it and I think we're going to wrap it up probably next week. Ho--how's the elected committee going to be involved in the...I mean, you'll obviously get a copy, but...I--I'm not quite sure how you want to be involved.

Hauth: Well--well I do know we asked previously questions on the previous RSA-15 that were never answered. So we were trying to get clarity around how the agency put that RSA-15 together. And there were some discrepancies in the information, and think we asked the agency twice for information and clarity on that. And that--that was not involved. And I know that Jesse Hartle, RSA specialist, said that moving forward, they're planning to have the elected committee chair and the director go over the RSA-15 report. So clearly they feel there's a value in involvement in that. So we should probably figure out how...the value of involvement with, you know, the--the committee and the agency can exist. That'd be my thoughts, so.

Morris: Well I--I--I hadn't heard--Jesse didn't mention that during our staff training, so I hadn't heard that. But if you want to come in--

Hauth: Yeah.

Morris: --and we can go over it when we get it done. That's fine.

Hauth: OK. Anybody else? Any other closing comments? Open discussion, closing comments?

Morris: Thanks guys.

Art Stevenson: Mr. Chair.

Hauth: Hey, Eric? Eric, just--go ahead, Art.

Art Stevenson: I move that we...move the remaining agenda items forward to a [inaudible] within the next week on when we would pick this up from where we left off.

Hauth: OK. Motion's been made. Do I have a second?

Derrick Stevenson: I second.

[undetermined]: I second.

Hauth: Second's been made by Derrick. Any discussion? Hearing no discussion, yea or nay, Art Stevenson?

Art Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson?

Derrick Stevenson: Yea.

Hauth: Lewanda Miranda?

Miranda: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson?

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon?

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: And I vote yes as well. Closing out. Eric, did you ever research about the vacation pay? Do we need to take any additional action on that?

Morris: When I looked through the regs, Randy, I didn't see anything that said, hey, you have to make it an annual vote.

Hauth: Yeah, I didn't think so either, so.

Morris: Very good.

Hauth: OK. OK, have a good night. Thanks everybody. Bye.

Motions Passed During the December 6 th BECC Regular Meeting

1. That the previous meeting’s minutes be adopted.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Lewanda Miranda. Passed unanimously.

2. That rules be adopted for how surveys are performed in the establishment of vending facilities, and that the Vending Facility Development Committee be involved in the process. Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Lewanda Miranda. Passed unanimously.

3. That the BECC be part of the presentation that OCB gives to the Human Services Ways and Means Subcommittee. Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Lewanda Miranda. Passed unanimously.

4. That the BECC stands ready to write the rules so that they are in compliance with the law, and so that the BEP is administered as intended by the federal and state governments; and that the BECC urges OCB to work with them on that.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Lewanda Miranda. Passed unanimously.

5. That the BECC create a communications protocol rule for communication with OCB and Director Morris.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Steve Jackson. Passed unanimously.

6. That the undiscussed agenda items be moved to the next meeting, and discussion on this occur within the next week following the 12/6 meeting.Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

Transcription: Katherine Peace