BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM OF OREGON SPECIAL MEETING

Date: Wednesday, November 1st, 2017 Time: 1:00 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. Public Comment

3. BEP Rules Project

4. Other

5. Adjourn

Verbatim

Hauth: Well, let’s go ahead and start… let’s go ahead and start. We’ll go by… We’ll go ahead by calling roll. And, again, thanks everybody for joining in today. Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Here.

Hauth: Hey, Art. Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Here.

Hauth: Derrick. Jerry Bird.

Bird: Here.

Hauth: Thanks. Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Here.

Hauth: Hey, Steve. Steve Jackson. [Silence.] Steve Jackson, I know…

Jackson: Steve Jackson’s here.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Lin Jaynes.

Jaynes: Present.

Hauth: Hi, Lin. Cathy Dominique. [Silence.] Char Mckinzie. [Silence.] Carole Kinney. [Silence.] Salvador Barraza. [Silence.] Tessa Brown. [Silence.] Tessa Brown. [Silence.] Gordon Smith.

Smith: Yes.

Hauth: Hi, Gordon. Harold Young. [Silence.] Lewanda Miranda. [Silence.] Celyn Brown. [Silence.] And Eric Morris is here. Did I leave any of the managers out? [Silence.] Any members of the public that would like to [inaudible].

McQuillan: Carla McQuillan.

Hauth: Hello, Carla. And if you guys would put your phone on mute that would wonderful. Thank you very much.

Edwards: James Edwards.

Hauth: Hey, James. Welcome. Anyone else? [Silence.] Okay. Well, again, thank you for joining in. I don’t know how long the meeting will last. I anticipate that this will be the first of a few more meetings to come. Very important project, the Business Enterprise Program governing our rules. And I know we’ve done a lot of work on these thus far and I think there’s quite a bit more to do. So, reached out to the agency, requesting that we have this meeting so that we could continue to work through and negotiate through the remaining hot spots and items that are of contention, not only by the Elected Committee, but also that have been identified by other in-state attorneys and out-of-state attorneys and experts. And so we’re trying to get to a place where we can hopefully during this meeting… I will say for the record, I invited Dacia Johnson to participate. You know, initially, the work… the work summit, or rules summit, I believe was supposed to get us to a transparent and communicative engagement. And in some ways it did that. And I think in some ways the ground rules that we all set during that deviated. But, you know, it is what it is right now. As you know, the agency is proposing to adopt temporary rules relative to House Bill 3253 and also, I believe, are proposing during December 2nd, the OCB Board meeting, to… to propose final rules. So hopefully we can understand a little bit more about that today with Eric in the process. That’s, again, why I wanted Dacia on the line so, as the Executive Director, she could also help step us through that and maybe answer some questions. I know there’s been some questions recently relative to, you know, why isn’t the priority being identified? Why isn’t the preference being identified? And so forth and so on. So let’s go ahead and… I just wanted to set that out. Again, thanks everybody for showing up. And I

think we’ll go ahead – Eric, unless you have anything to say – we’ll go ahead and go into public comment.

Morris: Yeah, I’m good, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. Let’s go ahead and go into public comment. Let me know if you’d like to make a comment and I’ll recognize you. [Silence.]

StevensonA: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: It’s Art.

Hauth: Hey, Art.

StevensonA: So, anyways, I hope everybody got a chance to look over Jesse Hartle’s email today. And there was some interesting things in there. Number one: nowhere in that document did I see RSA giving its blessing to the adoption of temporary rules. I also saw a comment in there from our Director that the Elected Committee actively participated in these temporary rules. And, to my recollection, I have not been a part of an Elected Committee where anything was discussed about temporary rules and therefore I do not believe that the statement that there was active participation with temporary rules occurred. Because we didn’t even learn about the possibility of adoption of temporary rules till a couple of days ago. And the Elected Committee has not had any input on that, whatsoever. So, as a blind licensed manager and a member of the Elected Committee, I am very, very concerned about, you know, that document that we received today and the fact that our Director claimed that we actively participated in temporary rules when we haven’t had a meeting since we learned that was occurring. So I wanted to put that on the record of concern as a blind licensed manager but also as a member of the Elected Committee.

Hauth: All right. Thank you. Any other comment?

McQuillan: Carla McQuillan.

Hauth: Carla.

McQuillan: Yeah, I just wanted to let you guys know that I thought I would be here on this meeting in case Jerry Bird or any of the rest of you decides to slander me and accuse me of colluding with the Attorney General’s Office like you did at your last meeting. That’s all.

Hauth: All right. Thank you. Any other comment? [Silence.] Hearing no comment, I will close it out and just say that I did receive the email strand that Art mentioned today and I have not had a chance to read through those in their entirety, nor read through those with the feedback that Jesse provided. So I’m not really prepared to speak a lot on that other than I will go through it. And so that’s one thing. And as far as a finished product and working through this, obviously

there’s some points of contention. There may be some things that we can work through, I hope, and there may be some things that we just don’t get that commonality on and we have to address those in a different venue. I hope that isn’t the case, however. You know, with that being said, let’s try and roll up our sleeves and go line, you know, go line by line or section by section and let’s get some answers from the agency as to the input that, you know, we submitted and see where we can go with this. So thank you very much. Okay, no more public comment? [Silence.] Okay. So let’s go ahead and move right into, I believe, the BEP rules project. And, you know, wondered, Eric, if you could bring those on the line up to speed on what’s going on with, you know, the temporary rules. I know Art addressed some concerns around those but I think most of us aren’t real familiar with temporary rules and even the allowances, you know. I think there was some concern around temporary rules being adopted that when a statute necessarily isn’t even enacted yet and how that plays. And I know there was some concerns around the FIAC committee response. And so if you can just bring us up to speed and let us know what the agency’s position and perspective is I think it would help answer some questions.

Morris: Well, I… Randy, I’m not… I’m not quite sure what… I mean, you just said a whole bunch of stuff but I’m not quite sure what the actual questions are. I outlined it in that email I sent out – that was Monday, right? Yeah, Monday. – that talks about the temporary rule adoption. Temporary rules are good for six months, 180 days, and um, yeah. That’s…

Hauth: Okay. Well, on the… Let me ask, Eric, so on the temporary rules I know they… they’re good for, like you stated, six months. Trying to go through it and understand it. And maybe you know more about this or correct me if I’m wrong here, but it’s my understanding that temporary rules can only be enacted if there’s a statute in place. And so I know that was a question. I don’t know if you guys have any… obviously you… you strategized around, with the AG’s Office, around adopting these rules. So were there any questions that came up with that? And how… how does that address? Also, it’s my understanding that temporary rules can only be adopted once. So these rules would only be adopted to meet, you know, in sum, to meet compliance requirement of the state statute but not necessarily would be able to be rolled automatically into a permanent project. So those are a couple of things. And then, like, the last thing is, even though they’re good for six months, and correct me if I’m wrong, it looks like the agency’s planning in December 2nd to adopt or approve a final rule package, which… would that also include these rules? So.

Morris: Yeah. So the statute, the House Bill 3253 – and I don’t have it right in front of me right this second – gave us the authority to… we’ve been working under that authority since August to do rulemaking. So that bill became effective in the sense of those, what’s the right way to phrase it?, the allowance to do that, October 6th, I believe it was, was the sine die… not sine die but the 90-day provision. So that’s what we’re working on. And it didn’t come up in conversations about, you know, whether we have the authority to do it or not; it is what it is. So, temporary rules, my understanding, you can’t roll over a temporary rule, like, to another temporary rule 'cause, you know, they don’t want agencies just doing temporary, temporary, temporary. So the agency does intend to finish up the permanent rulemaking in December after the 21-day allowance was provided to members on this call and other interested parties ‘cause that’s an extension of comments and stuff. So this allows us to meet the legislative deadline

and, you know, get that done around those five… five different provisions that they wanted us to do, you know, specific to the house bill. And then we can get the rest of the rules done by December.

Hauth: Okay. And that’s my, you know… I’m glad you brought that up because it’s my understanding, and I know the agency has taken a couple, in my opinion, has taken a couple different opinions on the enforcement or the action of this legislation. I think at times, when questions have been brought up, the agency says, “Well, it’s not law yet. It won’t be law till January.” So I’m not sure if there are just certain portions of the statute that the agency recognizes as being law or if the agency is considering the statute active right now in its entirety. So that’s… I think it does give the agency the authority to enact the statute prior to January. And so I think that’s where the question came up around, you know, on some of these opportunities out there that maybe RFPs or, you know, what you would have came up. So is it your understanding that the agency can enact this legislation prior to January 1st? In all areas, or is it just in the rules thing?

Morris: My understanding, Randy, is it’s just around the rules. The actual full force of the priority and everything kicks in January 1.

Hauth: Okay. So another thing I wanted to ask – and thank you – another thing I wanted to ask is, I would… I would have to concur with Art around, you know, the… I don’t know what you meant by the correspondence you sent to Jesse but when I read it, it alluded that the Elected Committee had actively participated in temporary rules and the adoption of. And I don’t… I don’t believe that we have. I know that we participated previously in the rule process through the rule summit. And we also submitted objections based on those. So, even though there was discussions around there and participation around there in sum, there’s still issues with that. So is there a reason that the agency didn’t actively participate with the Elected Committee on the temporary rules to address what Art’s saying? That’s one thing. And then the priority piece, I reached out to Executive Director Johnson to… apparently, there’s been a decision by the agency to address the priority piece and the preference piece in a whole different rulemaking. And, again, the Elected Committee, that I… that I can recall, was never involved in any kind of discussions around that or participation around that. And so I… I did ask the Director to please, you know, give me how that decision was made and why the committee wasn’t involved in that and I haven’t heard back answers to that. So I don’t know if you can touch base on those and kind of help step through, you know, that it would be helpful, I believe.

Morris: Well, on the temporary rulemaking, the actual, specific issue of temporary versus permanent rules, we… yeah, we didn’t talk about that. But the content of the temporary rules, the actual meat and potatoes of those rules, we spent, what?, fifty, sixty hours working on that, up until that first draft in September was created. So I think it’s pretty accurate to say that the Elected Committee and the agency actively participated on those rules. Whether you call them temporary rules or permanent rules, you know, it’s kind of semantics. Now, the actual process of saying, “Hey, we’re gonna… we’re gonna file permanent rules,” or “These are gonna be filed as temporary rules.” Yeah, we didn’t do active participation around that issue. And the bigger issue… and I would not… I would never want to speak for Dacia because I do not speak for Dacia but the… we’ve talked about it numerous times now: at the ACB convention, at the fall in-

service, I believe it was talked about at the NFB Oregon convention about the priority and preference issue being a bigger issue than just this conversation we’re having today with the Elected Committee. It has to be about the relationships we have with other agencies and municipalities. So it’s… it’s not… it’s not appropriate for this kind of a process but we have to… we have to invite a lot of other people to the table to make that work.

Hauth: Well, and I guess my concern is that decision was made without the Elected Committee. And my understanding, when we kicked off with the ground rules and this whole push for transparency and inclusion and, you know, encompassing rules seem to deviate. And, you know, I know that’s a concern. Also, the rules that were submitted to RSA, as you know, even though there was active participation around it I don’t think there was culmination of a final product because the…

[Loud feedback.]

Hauth: Hold on, guys. Somebody’s in the [inaudible].

Morris: That’s horrible.

Hauth: Mute your phones, please.

[Loud feedback continues.]

Hauth: Hello, everybody, mute your phones please. Someone take a latte?

[Loud feedback ceases.]

Morris: There we go.

Hauth: Thanks. Anyway, so I don’t think there was a final agreed or approved product and we actually filed official objections. So I think it would’ve been proper to have more discussions around that prior to that. But anyway, the priority piece is… you know, I think we’ve come through these rules and there’s… there’s key components of concern and then there’s more minor components of concern. I think the priority absolutely should have been a topic of the rules summit. It should’ve been hammered out through those discussions. It should not have been held hostage and this decision shouldn’t have been made outside of the Elected Committee, that this is all going to be addressed differently. And I shouldn’t have had to hear from it, nor the committee shouldn’t have had to hear from it through and email from the Executive Director and/or at the ACB convention. So, you know, I know it’s a concern but… and, again, hopefully we’re here to figure that out. But how do you think…? You know, if there’s anybody else that wanted to ask any questions or…

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: … then maybe we can suggest how we start moving forward through the rules and see where the agency is with Susan’s recommendations and, you know…. What do you guys think? What’s your pleasure?

Bird: Randy? Jerry.

Hauth: Yeah, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, I got a couple questions for Eric. I know he likes to bring up how many hours we spent doing this to show, you know, we… you guys actively participated in that. But isn’t it true the Elected Committee and the membership has to have an official meeting and approve these rules, whether they’re temporary or permanent? Get our blessing before they move on? I’ll stop right there and I got another question. Can you tell me, is that true? Or do you know, Eric?

Morris: So, Jerry, I… I… I guess you got a couple different parts to your question there. Why do I bring up how many hours we spent? Because I think it’s relevant to the fact we’ve spent a lot of time, besides just saying, “We spent a lot of time.” So I track it, so I can keep track of what we’re doing. And whether, you know, active participation, we talk a lot about active participation and there’s a lot of different spins on that. Active participation doesn’t boil down to approval. I mean, we’re supposed to work through this stuff together and come up with some kind of a, you know, mutually agreeable or disagreeable product. But nowhere in there does it say, ultimately, that you guys have to approve it. And, I mean, you guys have said multiple times you’re not going to approve it. So that’s the struggle, is trying to figure out that balance between, you know, hearing what you guys have to say and your input on the… and how we… how we fold that in. So the approval versus disapproval… I mean, we crossed that bridge a long time ago, multiple times, where people have publicly said… protested to the RSA commissioner saying, “Hey, we’re not approving this.” So, yeah.

Bird: Okay, thanks. And I’ll kind of leave it at that and I got some other questions. Also why, when I see… when I read these letters here that I guess got shortly ago and it’s true, like Art Stevenson said, you sent an email to Jesse saying that… like we… we actively participated in the… in the rules that you sent him. And, once again, I want to say that the rules you sent him was changed by you and… it’s almost the agency or whoever you want to say and then sent to him. So I question on where does the full authority come from. And I also question on when I read about your… the FICA, the fiscal impact statement, in these emails that I got today to Jesse, it almost states like you as Eric made the decision on all those and went through them and reviewed them and come up with your decision that they don’t impact anything. So I’m a little confused on where… where is the consensus of the membership that this program Randolph-Sheppard Act is? Or is it a dictatorship to where one person’s making all these calls and I’m getting confused on that. And my other question is, is on these… is on these priority and preference. That was one of our biggest things of even opening this can up, was to get that changed. And you made it even like, “Oh, it’s the greatest thing, you know. You guys are getting that changed.” And now you’re saying that, “Oh….” And we made the agreement in there that it was first right of refusal, which is what it is; we have to get refused before it moves on to public. But my thoughts there is, now it sounds like you want to let the ones that it might affect get to ring in on it. Well, isn’t that the truth, that the time for them to ring in was when it was

going… when it was being in a bill and they did not get exempt? So the bill’s been done and we have been given preference, I mean, priority. So I can’t see how they can come back and say, “We don’t want your….” They want our priority to mean a better offer now? I don’t understand. When we went to some of these, we’ve got to keep fighting with, like… we’ve got to let all the prisons that, sure they’re not gonna want us to take them from them 'cause they got it stole from us for this many years. And now you’re gonna… now they gonna stand up in legislature and come to the things and change it? Now you’re gonna give them the opportunity? I’m just… I’m amazed how it seems like it’s no longer the blind vendors’ program, it’s the agency’s and we work for you. So anyway, I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Hauth: Yeah. Hey, Eric, I don’t know if you can… I don’t know if you have any answers to that. I think Jerry did ask a couple of questions within there. So.

Morris: Yeah, there was, like, three or four questions. So the… the… the temporary rules that we worked on for August, during August and well into September, they were revised after we had active participation around them, based on the AG’s comments. And I know that August, or August and September seem like a long, long time ago. But that was the tempo. We had the five-day summit, then we worked on it some more the following week and then we had another meeting the following week. Then it was sent to the AG for legal sufficiency. We got that feedback back; we all did, everybody on the call got it. So we here at the agency took those comments and changed what needed to be changed and then pushed that out as that September draft. So it’s not like I’m behind closed doors… Well, actually, Kathy and I, when we work on this we are behind a closed door, editing the document. But the document I provided you two guys, that September draft, had highlights throughout it where there was changes so it was readily apparent what was changed. And it wasn’t like changes that I had the option to change. You know, it was based on the legal sufficiency review. So that’s that piece of it. The piece around the last piece that Jerry was talking about, the legislative piece, yeah it… What Jerry’s saying is a good recap of how the legislation process works and how they can weigh in and stuff. But, you know, I don’t think anybody out there wants somebody to come to them and say, “Hey, this is what’s happening. You don’t have any part in the process. You’re gonna do what I tell you to do.” Versus going to people and saying, “Hey, this law has changed. Obviously it’s not super important to everybody but it’s important to us as an agency.” It’s our whole bailiwick, for my program and it’s important to the people in my program. So getting their buy-in, that’s the first step in establishing relationships. ‘Cause, like, as we’ve talked about before, we… we have to work with these people even once we get in there. So I… I don’t agree with just going out and smacking people over the head with a baseball bat, which would be the bill, saying, “This is ours. Give it to us, because we said so.” Having these conversations around the priority and preference, we have to do it. Now, if somebody says, “Yeah, you’re not gonna come in here 'cause, you know, we don’t think…” for whatever reason they can make up, that’s a whole different context. And it’s about having effective relationships. Because I can tell you, in my personal relationships with people, I can tell you in my personal relationships with people, if I go… if I go down to CostCo and say, “Hey, I want to buy this at a certain price and you’re gonna give it to me,” they’re gonna tell me to get out, which is kind of the same context for… if we walk into the Sheriff’s Association and say, “We’re taking all your commissaries, you know, effective January 1st,” the immediate reaction is gonna be, “Let me introduce you to our attorney.” And that’s not where… We may get there, but that’s not how… that’s not how we

should operate in society and life. When you’re trying to promote a great program that has a lot of, you know, we… now we have the priority, which is the first right of refusal. So it’s just a longer conversation.

Hauth: Thanks, Eric. You know, I guess I would just say, that was not my understanding nor the understanding of the others in the work… rules summit when we started this off. Also, Terry Smith committed that it was his understanding, via Dacia Johnson, that these rules would not be changed. And, you know, it looks to me, as I track back through it, they were changed without coming back to us. I know you tried to come back to us initially but we were requesting more data and detail and it seemed to be a big rush to get this done and it got pushed on to RSA and it also got pushed on to the OCB board with changes that the Elected Committee did not have more communication on. So, you know, I know what Jerry’s saying. But anyway, so…

StevensonA: Randy?

Bird: Randy. Jerry. One more question.

Hauth: Jerry, one more and then we’ll go to Art. We’ll hopefully…

Bird: Okay.

Hauth: … start working on the rules here. So.

Bird: I just wanted to… 'cause I read in Jesse’s emails today that Jesse did make it very clear that this is not their approval. And he asked you some… gave you some recommendations and then you wrote back, “Okay, we’ll change this. I’ll change this. I… I will change this.” And… But you still don’t have even the approval of the RSA. So I’m still wondering how you can take it to the board without being actually approved prior to the RSA and then trying to get it as a… temporary rule when it hasn’t been approved by the… the federal agency who takes priority of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Can you explain that to me or…? That’s not even necessary. Our AG, which has worked so well with us, told us we had not rights, now seems to write our handbook and tell us what should be in there and not as we go to our thing. But I still don’t understand how you can go to our [inaudible] and want to pass some rules of the Randolph-Sheppard Act that hasn’t been approved by the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Thank you.

Hauth: Yeah. Hey… Hey, Eric, so were there any discussions around…? Like, it’s always been my understanding that RSA – I mean, this is a joint state/federal program – and clearly the federal judge in the Bird matter confirmed that it can’t be held separate to a different standard. Now, it’s clear that, you know, there’s co-mingling of the budgets and the rules have to be approved by RSA. So did you and, like, Dacia or…? Help us understand, is it okay for RSA not to approve these temporary rules and the agency to move forward with them anyway? Or what were the discussions around that?

Morris: Well, I think if you see my email to Jesse, it pretty much lines out our intent is to establish these temporary rules to meet the legislative deadline. And Jesse’s response talks about the fact that he’s providing feedback on the temporary rules, withholding… holding final

approval over the permanent rules, which is what they want to see. They want to see a package. We were hoping to get to them… I mean, it’s November 1st, so a couple months ago. So that’s my perspective.

Hauth: Okay. I think Art wanted the floor and if there’s nobody else or if there is anybody else then we’ll start stepping through this project again. Art.

StevensonA: Am I off mute?

Hauth: You are.

StevensonA: Okay. Well, we’re talking about legal sufficiency and Jesse clearly states that they are not approving any of the rules because we’re supposedly adopting them. And nowhere… nowhere in Jesse’s email does he say, “We give our blessing to the adoption of the temporary rules and… and that they’re legally sufficient.” And so I’d love to see where that says it in the email. The only thing that… that’s in your email, Eric, is you allude that we actively participated in the temporary rules stuff and we didn’t… we didn’t vote, “Yeah, we agree with these temporary rules.” In fact, we haven’t agreed and we’re still supposedly having good-faith negotiations on all the things. But, you know, we haven’t… we haven’t given our blessing to anything. And… And my understanding, and I dug it up today, that during the monitoring report RSA told the agency that you can’t adopt rules until you have our blessing. And it clearly states in Jesse’s email, “This is not our blessing, this is some suggestions for some corrections.” But we still can’t get from you, Eric, you know, any feedback at all on concerns about compliance to the federal act that Susan Gashel put forward. And so there has not been a blessing from RSA on the temporary rules. There have been some suggestions for some corrections but nothing has been okayed. So how can you adopt rules, even if they are temporary, if they haven’t got the blessing and they’re still, supposedly, good-faith negotiations going on?

Morris: Well, Art, you guys… you guys… For one thing, on the Gashel document… so we talked about this the last Elected Committee meeting that, you know, you guys were – actually, at the fall in-service – you guys were preparing a document that would be, you know, some kind of a… the position that the Elected Committee wanted to take, which is what you guys adopted at the last meeting… so that’s why we’re here today… and you said it in the last meeting, “Hey, now it’s time for good-faith negotiations,” even though I thought that’s kind of what we were doing back in August. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what we were doing. So that’s leading up to today’s conversation around… 'cause if you’re expecting a big response from me today about what the, you know, what you guys have proposed, well, I haven’t heard what you guys have actually proposed. Randy sent met this big document and I was trying to get that from everybody on Monday or Tuesday of this week saying, “Is this the final position of the Elected Committee, this document? And what specifically is the position?” Because there’s changes… and I don’t know if everybody’s read through it, but there’s changes kind of scattered through that I could find throughout the entire document. So that’s what I thought this discussion was gonna be about today is, what is the Elected Committee’s position on, based on the feedback and stuff you guys got from people, on the draft rules? So that… that’s that. And I can’t speak any more…

Hauth: Yeah, Eric?

Morris: Yeah.

Hauth: Eric? It is… Our plan is, it is going to be… that’s what we’re intending to do. Just know that, you know, when I respond to you I can’t commit to a final product yet if we don’t get there, right? So there may be others. But my plan was – and I know we’re kind of venting and airing some of the concerns – but my plan, and hopefully supported by the board, is that we’re gonna work through this and we’re going to continue to, you know, weigh in. I guess it’s disheartening, though, even previously, when Terry Smith has made suggestions and the Elected Committee have made suggestions and the agency in some instances just ignored them. So, you know, if you put yourself in our shoes and maybe, like, well, you know, the agency’s just playing a game and they don’t really want to hear what we have to say. They just want to use our participation as, you know, them meeting the benchmark. So I know, sometimes, that’s what I feel and what others feel. But the intention is to work through the document and try and, you know, come up with some of those fixes. So, go ahead.

Morris: Well, and I’ll be perfectly… if we’re venting and stuff… is three or four meetings ago we were down to, like, three issues that were still in contention. ‘Cause I made a list of them. And then when we talked at fall in-service all of a sudden it went from three issues up to nine or ten issues. So that’s…

Hauth: Well, but we didn’t have the review. Remember, we had asked for some assistance…

Morris: Sure.

Hauth: … through managerial services and the agency said no. And so we had to scramble around as managers to collect those monies and then find time that Susan had and then get the document and review it. And, I mean, I know you do a lot of work yourself but you also have, like, four other staff members that I think, in some ways, like Kathy, can probably help you. We don’t… a lot of us don’t have that. So I think that’s when you say, “Three meetings ago it was fine and now it’s not.” Well, I think a lot of that came out of the review that Susan provided and, you know…. So.

Morris: Well, and that… that’s why I’m kind of being specific about a final position. Because if we work through it… if we spend however much time we spend on it today or the next day or two that all of a sudden we’d narrow it back down and then it’s like, “Well… you know, we changed our mind” or “We want to talk about something else” and we fan back out to twelve issues. That's... you know, you have to… you know, you have to put some… some borders on, you know, what’s the playing field, basically. So that’s my perspective.

Hauth: Okay. Anybody else?

StevensonA: Randy?

Hauth: Yeah, Art. You know, Eric, just to share with you…

StevensonA: Okay, well I… I… I want to…

Hauth: Art, hold on just a second. Art, hold on just a second. I do want to share with Eric, just to answer that question. You know, you guys got… the agency got legal review and you changed it. We had to go get legal review and we had to put a lot more resources behind that to do that. And so we made recommendations… recommended changes. So that’s why… You know, you seem kind of, and maybe I’m wrong, you seem kind of like, “Gosh, you guys are just changing it all over the place.” But please know that our changes have been based on legal expert review. So go ahead, Art.

StevensonA: Well, I… I just want to say, you go back and you listen to the summit, there was a lot of those issues that were brought up and… and ignored by the agency, or issues that were put in there that then were taken out. And… And, of course, there was no explanation on that. The… The issues that expanded, Eric, were basically because you ignored them during the summit and just chose to arbitrarily and capriciously not put them in there even though the recommendations were there. I mean…

Morris: Yeah, that’s not accurate, Art.

Hauth: Yeah, let’s try and… you guys, let’s try not to keep… you know, let’s try and [inaudible].

StevensonA: Well, I just… I just want to state that the issues were there. And, of course, we were denied to have a legal expert there, even though we voted that it would be a mutually agreed upon legal expert, you ignored that. And… And so, that wasn’t our fault. It was the agency who, you know, chose not to have a legal expert in the room talking about that stuff so we could do it right the first time. And… And that wasn’t our decision. That was your decision, Eric.

Hauth: Okay. Well, and you guys, I appreciate that and you’re right. But let’s try and keep it in more of a third person, you know, maybe not necessarily, if we can, to the best of our ability. Is there anybody else that wants to make a comment before we try and start working through this document and getting some feedback from the agency? If there is, let me know.

Haseman: Linda Haseman.

Hauth: Yeah, go ahead, Linda.

Haseman: Yeah. In listening to this, unfortunately, as most of you know, I asked time and time again how were everybody going to avoid being back in the same place again that we’ve watched for seven or eight years happen with these rules. And I was told very clearly on the first day of your summit meeting, which I believe was a Saturday, at the end of that summit meeting I asked the same question. And I was told at that time by Mr. Smith that… and my big question has always been, how do you make sure a AG’s Office doesn’t come in and overtake all your work and have the veto power? And I was basically told at that time, and I can go back and get the verbatims, that he had been assured that, once the AG looked it over, that document

would come back and everybody would revisit what the AG said and talk through all of that and have active participation. What I saw happen is that, a day before a Commission board meeting, the AG document comes out, the agency wants your guys’ input. Of course, you don’t have time to give proper input so you guys decide, at some point somebody made the decision, I guess, “We don’t have enough time,” which was the correct decision by whoever made that. And then you, again, went out and got your legal sufficiency. So what… by Susan Gashel. So what’s happened now is you’ve got an AG that’s made the changes – veto power, so to speak – got thrown in front of the Commission board. They thought it was a go. It wasn’t a go. You guys had asked multiple times to get a legal expert in to help you guys. That got denied. You guys got your own… your own resources behind you and went and got it. And now all of a sudden it’s legal against legal and the agency only wants to recognize their legal and not your legal. So that, in sum, is where you are. It’s not where I was told you were gonna be, it’s not what was promised in the process during the summit. And all I can say is, [inaudible due to someone’s phone being off mute]. So the agency better start walking this way and somehow you guys are gonna have to walk toward the agency, as well. But you cannot give up the fundamental rights of the program for the licensed blind vendors. And in some of the things that are in these current rules it would give up some rights. And so somehow… and I hope it doesn’t have to go to a legal court process, but I think the whole process has been flawed. The rulemaking was checked that there was a rulemaking…

Unidentified voice: Of course. What’s new?

Haseman: And that was not accurate. And, according to the law, if you check that there was a rulemaking committee then there should’ve been. Otherwise, it should’ve been checked no and there should’ve been a “shall” that the Commission had to write why they didn’t use a rule advisory committee. So I’m gonna go back to the… the… the beginning of what has happened and, unfortunately, I just see nothing but same-old, same-old of flawed process and promises that were broken. And that’s why I think you guys are all here today. And the promises, primarily, were broken by the agency. Because I even asked the question, how do we avoid this from happening again? And what I hear now is, “The AG gave us things and we rewrote it and then we sent it out to you guys.” The agency doesn’t want to hear the reverse, that you guys went out and got legal and now you guys have questions, as well, that have to be dealt with. And somehow those two have to come together and I’m not sure that they will. But good luck.

Hauth: Thank you. Anybody else before we move on?

Edwards: Randy? Randy, this is James.

Hauth: Hey, James.

Edwards: You ready?

Hauth: Yes. Go ahead, James. James?

Edwards: Eric… Eric… Eric, do you agree with Linda that some of their, the blind licensed managers’ rights are being taken away or violated?

Morris: No, James, I don’t. But everybody has a right to their opinion. So I… I don’t.

Edwards: Okay, thanks.

Hauth: Okay, anybody else before we move forward? [Silence.] Okay. Well, thank you, everybody. So Eric, let’s… let’s try and step through this. I don’t know if you’ve given much thought to the document itself and the proposed document that the Elected Committee… and Susan Gashel’s input and Terry Smith and the Elected Committee… how we best approach it. You know, are there things in there that the agency is absolutely dead-set that they won’t budge on? Are there things that we can, you know, that Susan provided input on that you say, “Yeah, that makes sense. Let’s…” So I don’t know if we step through it section by section or what would be the best way. What do you propose?

Morris: Well, Randy, I figured you had a list of bullet points that you wanted to cover today so I’ll let you take the lead on it and just guide us through.

Hauth: Well, I do… I do have some bullet points. So, you know, the priority and the preference – clearly, you know, if we’re gonna negotiate around this, clearly the agency didn’t allow for active participation on that. It’s clear that the agency made a decision outside of the Elected Committee. So… and the rule… and the rule summit, even though it was suggested that that be part of it. So I mean, where is the agency on that? I mean, you know, does the agency think that’s fine and that gonna have any collaboration with the Elected Committee? Is there just… I don’t know. You know, is there some room here to try and re-… step back and re-think this, you know? How do we identify the priority in the rule and why shouldn’t we? How do we identify the preference in the rule and why shouldn’t we? The part about relationships, I can tell you, I think it’s a good idea. However, we’ve been hearing about relationships for years and years and years and years and years. And what you identified of, you know, an agency just doesn’t want to be told what to do and they don’t want to have this stuffed down their throat and sometimes, quite honestly, I think the blind vendors feel like that. And so, you know, is there a way that we can identify the priority? It’s pretty simple. Identify the preference, I think it can be pretty simple, a little bit more complicated. And then we take a pathway of reaching out to these agencies as the law comes into effect and we put a marketing plan together. I don’t know necessarily that… unless you’re saying that there’s a fiscal impact to these other agencies, you know, if that’s why you guys are doing it. But clearly you said no because there’s no fiscal impact. So, you know, let’s… I think… You know, let’s find a way around it. What’s your, you know, what’s the agency’s position?

Morris: Well…

Hauth: Any difference in what…?

Morris: Yeah, I… that’s what I was gonna start with, Randy. I think we’ve kind of went around and around, like, the last two meetings, talking about the priority and preference and the agency’s position. So that’s… I would say that’s a… a non-starter. But the thing to remember, and I wanted to address this while we were talking, is that somebody had commented in one of

the thousand emails I read in the last week about why we were separating the rules out into different chapters, into different, you know, sub-paragraphs within the administrative rule process. And the benefit to doing that, as you guys can see, is that each significant chunk of what’s in the handbook was… is referred to as the handbook, has its own little chapter. And under administrative rules, it’s much more difficult to go in and open up the whole thing versus changing or adding different chapters. Now, you know, right now the notice that we’ve provided to everybody is, “Hey, these are the…” Excuse me. Gosh dang it! I think there’s ten different chapters that we’re establishing under this Business Enterprise rules and regulations category. But to add in the preference and priority after we’re done with permanent rulemaking wouldn’t be that heavy of a lift. We don’t have to go back in and basically rewrite the whole handbook. ‘Cause we would simple be addressing those issues within those new chapters that we would add to the list. So, you know… And can I… can, you know… Are we gonna change that conversation on the priority and preference today? No, we’re not. So, um.

Hauth: Okay. And let me share with you, Eric, you know, I know you said the last couple meetings we talked a lot about it. The decision clearly was made…. When I invited Dacia Johnson to come to a meeting and speak about how we’re going to roll out the priority. Clearly, when I review that email the decision was made back then. So there hasn’t been this discussion on the front end of that. So that’s a concern. And also about breaking out the different sections of the rule, the Elected Committee was never involved or included in that. Is that a major administrative decision or not? I don’t know. I guess that’s up to interpretation. I believe the concern… what I’m hearing is the concern is that, while it is easier to change a section of a rule, you know, to benefit the program, it may be also easier to change a rule that potentially could limit the program. And so that’s where I think people are more concerned about, which you probably already, you know, figured out. But…

Morris: Randy, I… How would it…? How would it limit…? How could you…? I mean, if anything, the rules…

Hauth: I don’t know.

Morris: Well, the way the rules sit right now, it literally says, “The Business Enterprise rules and regulations, ask the agency for a copy.” So there would…. If you wanted to repeal, like, an entire program, the way it’s set up right now is prime to do that. By establishing clear administrative rules that were best practices… if you go out and look at other agencies’ administrative rules they’re all broke down the same way we’re breaking ours down. So I don’t understand the…. And I guess the, you know, people can be concerned about whatever, but I… I haven’t seen it from that angle. It just makes it easier to administrate… administer the rules themselves, when you’re having to make changes. If all of a sudden we said, “Hey, you know, we want to change the percentage of set-aside from 11% to 2% or delete the fact that we do set-aside it would repeal one little chapter versus having to open the whole thing up and do a major change. So.

Hauth: Okay. Any other questions around… around the priority and preference and the discussions that Eric and I have had so far? Are there any comments or…

StevensonA: Well…

Hauth: questions?

StevensonA: Hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yeah, Art?

StevensonA: I’m still… I’m still trying to wrap my head around…. A change is a change, whether you’re changing a section or you’re changing the whole handbook. To say it’s gonna be easier because you got it in sections… I don’t… I don’t see that, Eric. Because you can change a part of the handbook or you can change the whole handbook. Obviously, now we’re changing the whole handbook. And that… what you just said doesn’t ring true to what I’ve experienced about changing the rules. I mean, if you want to go in and change one section, two sections, three sections, the whole handbook, you still got to go through the process. So how… how does… how does that make it easier? I’m… I’m not seeing that. It… If you want to make a change you got to go through the process, period, whether it’s part of the handbook or the whole handbook. You still got to go through the whole process.

Hauth: Any other comment or any…?

Morris: So…

Hauth: … any answers to Art’s concerns? Or…?

Morris: So, Randy, just so I can understand real quick, is it the Elected Committee’s position that we should not break them into separate chapters within the rulemaking process?

Hauth: Well, you know, I don’t know. What I would share with you, Eric, is my concern that wasn’t a discussion point during this whole process, at the beginning of it so that we could all understand it and talk through it. You know, you have… you have availability and resources of maybe the AG’s Office, you know, that helps kind of step through and maybe give you a rationale behind what the agency’s direction is. I mean, right, wrong or indifferent, at least you have those resources. You know, the Elected Committee here’s supposed to be an integral partner in these decisions sometimes I believe gets left out of the loop and maybe has concerns we’re not needed and maybe doesn’t have concerns where should be needed. So it’s always good, I think, to have that discussion at the beginning and understand. So that’s my position.

Morris: Well, and I… and I apologize 'cause I think we’ve been talking about… 'cause the… the training that Art, I and Linda went to – gosh, it’s been three or four years ago, now – I believe we’ve been talking about breaking them into chapters, 'cause that’s one of the best practices that’s talked about all the time, since then. So if I didn’t go back in August and repeat that piece of it I… it’s probably just because I thought it’s kind of, like, everybody knew at this point. So.

Hauth: Any other questions? So what do we do around the priority and preference piece? I mean, you know, honestly, Eric, to me it doesn’t make sense not to include it in. And even with

the explanation that you gave on behalf of the agency it still to me is concerning that it’s not identified in there, especially when Terry Smith has encouraged it and, you know, others have encouraged it as well. I don’t know why the resistance is there. So…

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Do you guys…? Yeah, go ahead.

StevensonD: Yeah, I don’t understand the whole thing about the preference and priority and why the hesitation. Because, you know, the law’s there. It’s in… You know, it’s written in the law that we have priority and that we have preference and it just doesn’t make sense not to take care of it when we’re taking care of everything else. The intent of the law is clear, what priority is supposed to be is clear. What preference’s supposed to be is clear. You know, we’ve… we’ve heard from federal judges on how we’re supposed, you know, to do those. And I don’t think that defining what it means to make it easier for other agencies to read the rules and understand it is slamming it down their throat. I think, you know, the law is the law and we can’t change it by bringing in other… other people; the intent’s going to remain the same. So there’s no reason to postpone it or put it off other than the fact that, you know, I don’t know, the Commission’s trying to make it so, you know, that it’s easier for them to not go out and get locations. There’s just… I just don’t understand the reason… the reason why. I mean, like I said, the intent of the law is perfectly clear and we just define it in our rules. And that way, when an agency or something… somebody has a question or objection they can go… they can read it in our rules and understand what it means. It’s not throwing it down their face and it’s not telling them that they have to do…. We’re not telling them they have to do anything, to begin with. The law tells them what they have to do. And that’s pretty much, in my opinion it’s just a simple thing. The law dictates, not us. The agency’s not gonna dictate what the law is 'cause the law is the law and we’re not slamming it down somebody’s throat.

Hauth: Yeah.

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Yeah, go ahead.

Bird: If Derrick’s done.

Hauth: Jerry, go ahead.

Bird: Yeah. And once again I find it amazing that on things that support us, our program, they want to kind of turn differently at but the things that are kind of pound on us that want to keep pushing for existence. For example, we kept saying you can only do what this… what 3253 told us you need to do. We have to do at least that part. It says right in there it was changed priority and then preference. So now, how can they tell us, when that’s such an important thing for all the blind…? I mean, we got letters and that’s a special thing and it says we’re supposed to put that in our rulemaking that now is not put in there. But then… But then… But then they say, “We want you to kind of give us an idea of what full-time employment means [inaudible]

vendor.” And what… what do they do? Instead of saying it’s, you know, taking care of our stuff that we have to do and participate and all that, they go ahead and say, “Well, let’s make it… let’s say you’re full-time employees that work hourly wages.” And so they throw that in there, you know? It just amazes me. And then they don’t want to put up priority or preference in there that does make it clear. So to me, once again, it’s the AG and the state agency that wants to… I don’t know. They don’t want to do what this bill meant; only on things that affect them and give them the hammer on us, to tell us to be… to no longer be self-employed, no longer be blind people or, “You’re blind, so you have to play differently. You can’t subcontract.” It just blows me away. And, like I say, when we have some… we give them these reasons we shouldn’t…. Sure, we want to participate in our stuff. But, you know, you can’t tell us… I don’t think you can put in there we’re employees. I mean, I don’t work for you guys. So once again, I think we need to have a problem with…. That’s why we have a problem with your AG and telling us what they think they should do when we’ve had such a problem with them, which I think they’re in with the community colleges and all that. They don’t… They want to help them. So it’s pretty clear. So once again, these main items which we need to come up with have to be worked on, you know? So…

Hauth: Yeah, thank you.

Bird: … that’s all I have to say, that it just seem like Derrick was saying. I mean, it’s in there. That should be one of our [inaudible] things, priority. Man, we’re gonna make sure we get priority. And then it’s like, these guys, “We go in there and tell them, ‘God, will you let a blind vendor run this place or have these vending machines?’” They didn’t think, “Oh, they could care less.” They grab their big old bat and knocked us right out of the office, said, “Get out of here! We said no.” They don’t care about that. But then here you want for us when we have a law to say, “Oh, we want to be tender with them.” All you do is tell them it’s the law. But if it’s not in the law, then ho ho! So I just don’t understand it. I just seems like we’re just keep getting pinned-holed. Thanks.

Hauth: Thanks, Jerry. Hey, Eric, you know, so one thing – I think Art wanted to say something, but I wanted to share with you – one thing is it’s my understanding that the agency, so the Commission for the Blind, has deference over their own rules. So over our rules we can interpret them. So we can create a package that best suits our program. If you start bringing others into and at the table and you start considering all those perspectives and views by the community colleges or the, you know, SAIF Corporation or whatever, I’m afraid it gives a lot of that ownership that we should have over our program. It seems to me like the agency is almost saying, “Well, we’re gonna actively participate with these organizations so that they don’t get mad at us and we can unfold it,” but not necessarily wanting to actively participate with the Elected Committee on this matter. So I just wanted to share that. You know, again, I don’t know how in the world having those folks at the table would benefit the program like the agency believes it will. So, Art, I don’t know if you were trying to get in there. And then let’s try and think about, you know, what do we want to do about this? Eric said earlier that, you know, that it’s not gonna happen on this phone call today, which means that I don’t think the agency is inclined to, you know, negotiate through this. They’re digging a line in the sand. So…

StevensonA: Randy?

Hauth: Go ahead. Yeah. Go ahead.

StevensonA: Am I off mute?

Hauth: You are.

StevensonA: So. Okay. So obviously the legislature said that OCB had to promulgate rules around 3253 and had to be done by November 15th. Well, priority was put in there and preference was left in there and… and, therefore, promulgating the rules around that most definitely has to do with House Bill 3253. And the agency is supposed to write complete rules. And obviously those two issues are definitely in the legislation and OCB refusing to write rules around it is not complying to the mandate of the legislature. They clearly said that those rules should be written and OCB refusing to do so is kind of interesting there. Obviously, they said you’re supposed to promulgate rules around the new legislation and if you aren’t defining it and putting forth the actions you’re going to take to ensure compliance is definitely not doing what the legislature said. And so, Randy, I think we need to point that out to the legislature and the Governor’s Office that OCB, in my opinion, is shirking their responsibility and the mandate to write rules around the new legislation.

Hauth: Yeah. Thank you, Art. Hey, Eric, so when did the Oregon Commission for the Blind board, who are the rule makers, make that decision to open up the rulemaking process for the priority? And the preference, separate?

Morris: I don’t think they did, Randy.

Hauth: Yeah, 'cause I don’t recall it. And I don’t…

Morris: Just…

Hauth: … believe that…

Morris: Just real quick, when Art was talking about House Bill 3253 I think it’s important for people to know… 'cause the bill’s kind of long and complicated, but the sections that deal specifically about rulemaking by the 15th of November do not deal with priority and preference. And for people to insinuate that priority and preference need to be, like, we’ve got to put them in the rules for them to be effective is not accurate. ‘Cause, effective January 1st, we have the priority, first right of refusal. Now, we can duplicate that in a rule and maybe talk some more about the infrastructure around that but it doesn’t change the fact that the priority and preference are effective January 1st. So that… I just wanted to make that clear.

Hauth: Yeah, I think we’ve tossed around a lot of things during that process that weren’t necessarily a mandate. You know, they were superficially connected to it. But, bottom line, you know, instead of… It looked to me like the agency isn’t actively participating with us on this issue. They’ve made a decision, that’s pretty clear of the documents. And you’ve even stated today that, you know, it’s not your belief that that’s gonna change. So how are we good faith

negotiating around that? You know, that’s my concern. And I think, Eric, people have concerns; if they go back the agency hasn’t necessarily been great on securing locations and enforcing locations. And so I think the concern is, unless we put… we put some language in our rules, with the Elected Committee and the agency actively participating and coming up, because the agency does have deference over the rules then we’re gonna get a milked-down version of the… of that. And so I… I don’t know… I know you mentioned it in kind of a bigger picture like a… But how in the world is it going to be beneficial to have a priority and preference rulemaking outside of this process that includes all these other people at the table? Other than them just feeling good about it, how is that actually going to benefit the managers of the program?

Morris: Well, I think to… and we’ve talked about it and I’ll step back one question prior to what you just asked too is that, once we get this piece of the rulemaking done then we can have… and I think Dacia’s already teed that up, I believe, at ACB and NFB and in a recent email. Once this piece is done, the permanent rules are done, then we’ll move on to the rules around priority and preference. So I think from a negotiating standpoint, that… that’s what the agency’s prepared to do. Oh my gosh, I just forgot your last question. I had it right in my head. Can you repeat it real quick?

Hauth: Yeah, I don’t remember it either.

Morris: Let me think about it just for a second 'cause I had a good response.

Hauth: How’s it… How’s it gonna benefit the managers…

Morris: Oh…

Hauth: … to have these other agencies at the table?

Morris: Well, and I think that’s the piece, too that I… I’ll answer the benefit to the managers question. But I also want to ask a question in return. I… The piece… When you’re dealing with other agencies… and, you know, I know the whole baseball bat’s a bad metaphor, but it’s not just the agency people… it’s not just the heads of the agencies that we really need to deal with, it’s the procurement side of it. And that’s… Because all of this stuff back in the day I don’t know how it was done. You know, how they went out and what the processes were. But nowadays most of these different solicitations and stuff or when they have to go out for, like, a cafeteria or whatever, they want to do a procurement because procurement law dictates all… you know, the people doing the… the contracts are driven by procurement. So those discussions around educating people and getting their points of view on how best to address that, that’s a conversation that I haven’t had yet. But I know it’s imperative because, you know, most of the time we’re not dealing with people at the highest levels so way down the road, it’s the procurement people that tune this stuff up out of nowhere and say, “We’re doing an RFP!” So that’s where we need to kind of insert ourselves in the process and say, “Here’s the new law. Procurement people, if it deals with this, this, and this, come see us. Don’t issue an RFP because this is the priority and preference conversation.” Now the piece that I’ve struggled with 'cause you guys, and Randy specifically, you mentioned it pretty consistently is… is how are the rules…? How did you phrase it? Complimentary to the managers?

Hauth Benefit. Created to benefit the licensed blind…

Morris: Well, no, “manager-friendly.” That… That’s the phrase you’d used a couple different times and I couldn’t… I couldn’t quite wrap my head around what that looks like when a rule is manager- or anybody-friendly. I mean a rule is just a rule. Like, speed limit: don’t drive faster than 55 miles an hour. It’s… It’s kind of neutral. So that’s one of the things I wanted to hear a little more about today too as you’re talking about your recommendations is, you know, I’m not sure how to create something that’s more friendly in the rules without them just being black and white. So.

Hauth: Well, I think, Eric, when you look at the state statute it clearly identifies that these rules are supposed to benefit the managers. And if you have an Elected Committee that taking a position that says, “Gosh, we object to these,” then it’s pretty clear that it’s our position that they’re not benefitting the managers. And for the agency just to plow ahead with those raises concerns. So, you know, again, I think it goes back to, how do we find… how do we find where we’re all happy, you know? And I think, you know, unfortunately I think that, you know, the agency sometimes just takes a position, “This is where we’re going.” And like the agency identifying by the 2nd we’re going to adopt or propose adoption of a final rule. Well, if we’re dealing with the priority and preference section and another rule then maybe we should just deal with the requirements of the House Bill 3253 and I guess we can take all the other dynamics out of the rules that we’ve been working through and include those in there too. So, you know, I don’t know… I don’t know why… why we couldn’t. So, you know…

Bird: Randy.

Hauth: … I’d like to hear from a few of the managers on what your thoughts are. We have…

Bird: Randy, if I might say, while you’re… they’re thinking of who.

Hauth: Sure.

Bird: Thanks. I think bottom line is okay you… we… you sent Eric a copy of the… of our recommendations, correct? At that time that we got from Suzanne? Right? [Silence.] Hello? Do you guys hear me?

Hauth: Yeah, I can hear you, Jerry. So what was your question, Jerry?

Bird: Okay, is… and I’ve seen that Eric says, “Well, it’s kind of hard to go through… it’s hard to pick which word,” which, sure it is. But he’s had ample time. Can he not give a… us response on each of those changes and what their position is? Because that’s the main ones. I don’t think we’re [inaudible] waiting for something special from Ronnie or not. But these are the ones you sent in and we haven’t even got our response from them, other than he’s not sure if these are ours or not. So isn’t that kind of where we’re at? Don’t we need their response off of them? Or am I missing something?

Hauth: No, I would think… I would think so. You know, and Eric, I know… I know it was tough for you to go through the document and I know you’ve said you spent, like, quite a bit time going through it. Were you able to identify the changes? And I know you said you wanted to hear from me and us about the changes and I can go through and identify a few others, you know, as we go through. But have you been able to put a package together that identifies the changes? And have you been able to submit those to the AG? Or to…? Is there a response to those?

Morris: Well, Randy, you told me that, like… I mean, that’s kind of why I was trying to get down to brass tacks on Monday to say, is this the final…? ‘Cause I go through and try to… ‘Cause, basically, what I’m gonna do is go through and chop out all of the things you put in so I have a consecutive list. Because right now it’s kind of like, you know, a treasure hunt to go through and see where the verbiage doesn’t match the draft versus the original.

Hauth: Well, I get it. You know, I did it. You know, I did it. I got up early about four in the morning a couple of mornings and I did it. And so I know it’s not the simplest, especially for a visually-impaired person, but it can be done. And I thought that’s what you were doing. So that was… I was wondering if you had completed that yet or if you want me to continue to go through and identify, you know…

Morris: Well, I think… I think that’s what we need to do. ‘Cause I… I think I went through and found most of it but I don’t want to… I don’t want to come back to you guys and say, “I found 23 issues and there was 23 ½ or 25 issues that, you know, and I missed one somewhere. So…

Hauth: Well, clearly, you know, clearly the priority and preference identifiers are our concern. And, again, those have been shared by our rules facilitator Terry Smith. And, you know, when I reached out to Gretchen a couple of times early on she didn’t necessarily respond with any substance to it. So I felt that maybe even at that time that the agency was taking a different direction. But, well, I guess we’ll have to consider how to address that. So if I can, I’ll step through…. So teaming partners, is definition of teaming partner, which I believe you created off of I think what you said was feedback from the AG’s Office, which the Elected Committee didn’t have the chance to actively participate in at that time. And I think that the definition of “teaming partner” is a concern, as it puts the relationship between the agency and the teaming partner. And I know Susan Gashel during – you probably remember it, too – but during the arbitration when, the Bird arbitration, I think basically kind of lecture the agency from the… from the board… from her position that, “Lookit, no, no, no, you don’t have agreement between the agency and the teaming partner; you have it between the vendor and the teaming partner. Because if you don’t have it that way, how’s the manager controlling, directing, supervising, blah, blah, blah?” So that was a concern and I know we shared that. So I don’t know if you’ve made note of that or if you had any feedback on that. And we also wanted to put in a identifier for subcontractors. So subcontracting or subcontractors clearly identified in the law and we wanted that to be similar to what a teaming partner would be. So I know those were a couple of the suggestions that were brought forward.

StevensonD: Randy?

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead. And then we’ll hear from Eric.

StevensonD: Yeah, I don’t want to discount what you’re saying… anything that you’re saying right now, but my main concern right now is dealing with… with these temporary rules. And I think that we need to discuss those until we come up with something that we can all live with. You know, the 30 hours is in there and everything else. And I just wanted…

Hauth: Well, that’s fine. That’s fine. That’s… I mean, that’s fine with me. I mean…

StevensonD: Yeah…

Hauth: … whatever the board wants to do. So.

StevensonD: And I just want to state, you know, we pretty much emphatically, before we even went to the summit, suggested that we just write temporary rules concerning those things and we were told, “No, no, no, we can’t do that. You know, it’s just impossible for us to do it so we’re gonna work on the whole rules.” And then here we are now, exactly what we asked them to do months ago and now they want to write temporary rules and now for some reason it’s doable. I don’t… I don’t understand it but that’s just the way it seems to be doing. Every time that we hit a little speed bump and the agency feels they’re not getting their way then they change… change what we’re doing. So these temporary rules I don’t think should be written. And if they are, you know, I don’t have a whole lot of problems, you know, with the set-aside stuff and things. But we definitely got to pound out this 30-hour thing because I don’t think it’s doable.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you, Derrick. So Eric, what do you… what do you think about that? Is that maybe the best way to address it? I know the temporary rules did enacted [sic], but it sounds like the agency’s going to propose final rules December 2nd, which, if those rules can’t be just simply rolled over, what’s the agency’s strategy behind that? Have you guys talked about it?

Morris: Well, you can’t roll them over in another temporary rule. You can roll them over to a permanent rule.

Hauth: So I would guess the agency’s position is they’re just going to roll those over into the permanent rule.

Morris: [Inaudible.]

Hauth: So, I mean, are you guys willing to negotiate around those or are those, now that we’ve gotten feedback from Susan Gashel and the Elected Committee has had a chance to think through it more, is the agency willing to negotiate through those?

Morris: I thought that’s kind of what we’re doing today.

Bird: Randy, isn’t…?

Hauth: Hold on. Jerry, hold on just a second. But those specific ones? I was thinking we were going to go through the entire document. But like Eric, er, Derrick just stated, maybe we should go through those ones that are included in the temporary rules. So.

StevensonA: Randy?

Hauth: Hold on. Let me see… Let me see what Eric’s thoughts on that and then we’ll have Jerry and then Art.

Morris: Well, Randy, I thought we were gonna go through this document today, or try to get through it today, to hear your guys’ point of view and hear your suggestions. Because we’ve literally had this conversation three times now. So I thought we were gonna go through the document. The pieces of… the temporary rules that are gonna go into effect are part of this, I believe they’re part of this document, 'cause that’s where they came from, was from the draft language we worked on.

Hauth: Yep, they are.

Morris: Yeah. So I think we’re on our way.

StevensonD: Randy, this is Derrick.

Hauth: One of the things… One of the things I thought, Eric, is that you were gonna go through the changes that Susan submitted and identify those and also come back with the agency’s position on those. I mean, it’s clear that you guys were provided the separate document that Susan submitted and then you were provided the document that I incorporated Susan’s suggestions within the language and also some others. But… So if you’re frustrated about it maybe not being clear, you know, maybe you had expectations of how it was going to go from our end.

Morris: Well I…

Hauth: I think we had expectations how it was gonna go from your end, too. So.

Morris: Well, I… Randy, I’m not frustrated. I think the thing we talked about at the fall in-service was that the Elected Committee needed to come up with an actual position. I mean, I can’t take legal advice from anybody but the Attorney General’s Office. I can read it and go, “Hey, that sounds cool.” But you guys need to take and make recommendations to the agency that we can actively participate about. So, you know…

Hauth: Sure. Sure.

Morris: … did I read through…? I tried to read through Susan’s stuff. I mean, it was a legal dissertation is what it was and I’ve tried to go through this document you sent me. And, you know, that’s kind of where we’re at today, is talk about this document that you guys adopted the last meeting. So.

Hauth: Okay, I think Art… I think Art…

Bird: Jerry first.

Hauth: Jerry did… Jerry, Art…

Bird: I just want to know, when they say these temporary rules will just roll over into permanent rules does that mean that these temporary rules that get approved cannot be changed? That you can roll over as they’re written? Or can these temporary rules be altered before they become a permanent rule? [Silence.] Do you understand the question?

Morris: Are you asking me, Jerry?

Bird: Yeah. You’d be the…

Morris: Oh. My understanding is, Jerry, they can change once they become permanent. Because the idea behind temporary is that you’re… you’re creating a temporary rule to have something in place, either because, like, Fish and Wildlife have to have temporary rules around fish and game every hunting season. And for us we need to hit the legislative deadline. But to have an open process for like what we’re doing today, or if you were just a regular agency getting information from the public, you could make changes while you’re getting information from the public before you go permanent on them.

Bird: All right. Thanks.

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

StevensonA: No. No. My turn.

Hauth: Hey, Art and then Derrick. Art, go ahead.

StevensonA: Okay. First of all, I find it very interesting that Eric says, you know, I can only go by what the AG says. But nowhere have I ever seen that the agency can’t question the legal sufficiency of what they’re saying and ask them to provide legal documentation that it does reach that criteria. And… And, again, here we are at the point that the agency says, “Oh, we can only do what the AG says.” But nowhere does it say you can’t question it and you can’t ask for legal sufficiency and what they’re basing that on. And I believe the main reason that they don’t want to do that is because it’s fulfilling exactly what the agency wants, which, of course, you know, leads to problems and litigation, etc. etc. And so, again, you know, we’re… Yeah? So, you know, we keep… we keep going over this only we don’t get any legal sufficiency or any of that stuff. And all of the stuff we’re doing obviously has to fit in the parameters of what the state statute says and that’s the agency’s supposed to promulgate rules to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facilities and for the benefit of the blind licensed managers. And therefore, you know, it has to fit that criteria. Only, you know, I would like the answers of how does it benefit the managers if we don’t have choice to do what’s best for our

business and what’s, you know, best for our customers. Because that… it definitely doesn’t fit the parameters of what the state statute says and so we need to… we need to make sure that, you know, these rules fit the criteria of what the state statute says it’s supposed to do. And if it ensures the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facility and it does benefit [inaudible] then it should be adopted as a rule. If it doesn’t, then we should find a rule that does do that. And, you know, this stuff about, you know, the temporary rules and 3253, no matter what [inaudible] rules that have to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facilities and for the blind managers’ benefit. That’s what the agency is supposed to do and if it isn’t it should be. Because that’s what the law dictates the agency to do.

Hauth: Derrick, go ahead. And then let’s try and come up with a strategy on how we move forward with this. A lot of…

StevensonD: Okay…

Hauth: … you know.

StevensonD: That’s kind of what I’m saying here. Okay, so we’re gonna write temporary rules that are good for six months and it… and we can change and go back when we go into the whole rules. So I kind of suggested, since the main objection to the temporary rules or the 30-hour requirement that that… for the purpose of the temporary rules we get rid of the 30 hour requirement and keep just the, you know… none of us have the objections on what we need to do to make sure that all our locations are getting quality service and stuff. Nobody’s debating that. The main debate is the 30 hours. So why can’t we just write temporary rules without the 30-hour limit and then address it when we’re addressing the rules as a whole?

Bird: I second it.

StevensonD: I so motion.

Hauth: [Inaudible.] So, Eric… does that make sense to you, Eric?

Morris: On what level, Randy?

Hauth: Well, so the temporary rules right now…

Morris: Yeah.

Hauth: … are dealing with… dealing with, what, the subcontracting piece, they’re dealing with the healthy vending and local sustainable food piece, they’re dealing with the full-time employment piece. And is there another piece I’m missing?

Morris: I… Let me look real quick. Definitions, set-aside funds, responsibilities of the agency, statement of full-time employment and subcontracting are the five things that we were mandated to do.

Hauth: So what Derrick is suggesting is we deal right now with the full-time employment and we negotiate in good faith with the agency on that because there are concerns around that. And see if we can get anything there. You know, see where we can get with that. I think some of the other ones, obviously, we’re gonna need more than one meeting to… And I hear what you’re saying, you want a position by the Elected Committee and I think to… in some sense you got that at our last meeting even though it wasn’t a final… final version. It’s probably pretty close. But anyway, so… that’s what the desire of the board is, I believe, to do. So.

Morris: Well, two things…

Bird: Randy?

Morris: Sorry.

Hauth: I don’t… Yeah, go ahead, Jer.

Bird: Yeah, and I think… I don’t know if Eric’s gonna say that because the full-time employment was part of that bill. We’re not saying we want that completely removed and then we’re not following that bill. What we’re saying is we don’t believe that they set it… intended it to be an hourly figure. We believe they meant as you’re out, you’re doing some work, full-time work, you’re running your business. How it became an hourly thing where we went around and around about that, like I say, I think it encroaches on my self-employment opportunities even as an American, forget that I’m blind, and even twice as much 'cause I’m blind. And I should be have… so I should be able to be told… that’s why I, you know, become self-employed, so I could work when I need to, do this, do that and then use my… mine… I might sit in my bedroom or my office and think of things I need to do, you know? I’m working for my business; I’m self-employed. So as long as we… I’m willing to have it in there but it needs to have parameters around… that’s like things you need to attend to, things you need to make sure are occurring, not actually an hourly thing, that you need to go take a picture, which is a waste of your time and not even necessary. A good businessman don’t work when he don’t need to. So, once again, that definitely needs to be changed in these temporary rules. Thank you.

Hauth: Well, I’m trying to search through the document here. Eric, I don’t know if you have it on your end, to deal with the full-time employment. I’m on my phone right now so it’s taking me a little bit but…

Morris: Are you talking… Are you talking about the document you sent to me?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonD: No, the temporary rules.

Hauth: If maybe… If, Eric, you could pull up the…

Morris: I’m trying to find it.

Hauth: … full-time employment…

Morris: Yeah, I’m trying to find it, Randy.

Hauth: … statement of full-time… Okay. I have it here. But I think it’s… yeah. I’ll read… I’ll read this here, the part that I have. And then as you can try and find it in your temporary rules, I believe it’s the same but I could be wrong. Make… Let’s see… “Full-time employment for a vending facility manager is considered to be a vending facility manager fulfilling the following responsibilities: ensuring that the facility is operated according to permit or contract; contract with and supervision of scheduled employees; maintaining supervisory and direct control of the subcontractor; weekly contract with subcontractors; weekly contact with teaming partners; preparing and reporting paperwork; inventory control and purchasing; sales and profit and loss revenues, er, reviews; site visits to inspect vending facility for quality… site visits to inspect vending facilities for quality, cleanliness and proper function of equipment; stocking and…” it goes through and identifies the things. So I think the part that most people are concerned with here, and I’ll read you… I’ll read you here what Ronnie… Ronnie provided. And I’ll share everybody… I’ll send out Ronnie’s review of this. What I told Eric, and I think I cc’d you all on, Ronnie’s review of Susan’s review of the rules were pretty spot-on with what she found. But he also made some notes of his concerns. But… so when we sent the statement of full-time employment, what I… what we suggested, from what was heard by the managership, is change the, you know, remove the 30-hour requirement, as we do not want to blur the lines as employees of OCB as they, you know, there was some concern there about identifying 30 hour and does that maybe cross the lines. And so Ronnie said, “Agreed. That is highly problematic to use average minimum of 30 hours per week. In the first instance, much less if a vendor is on vacation or sick or simply has his or her vending facility so dialed-in they don’t need to average that many minimum hours per week to average the many minimum….” So I think the 30-hour thing was a concern. I know during the legislation, when we had a couple of sidebar caucuses in the Representative’s office, that was something that Dacia really pushed for and I don’t quite get that, why the agency can’t accept that full-time employment responsibility… or full-time responsibilities means these items listed below. And I’m not speaking for Derrick. Derrick, I know, brought some concerns of his own up about, you know, maybe not having the time to meet that 30 hours. So is the agency willing to negotiate around, you know, removing the 30-hour requirement and just making sure that we stipulate that these will be the responsibilities of a manager? So Derrick, I know this has been your… your one… you know, one of your hot topics. And others too. But did I summarize that properly or do you have some other things?

StevensonD: Well… Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonD: I don’t want to sound like my brother, but there it was. Anyway…

Hauth: [Laughs.]

StevensonD: My main dealing is, I mean, we… since we’re just writing temporary rules that there’s no need to have those 30 hours in there because that is a discussion that we’re going to

continue to have, you know, clear to December, I’m sure. So, you know, I would like that removed at least for the temporary rules and then, you know, we can continue negotiating on that at a later time. That make sense to you, Eric?

Morris: It makes… I understand what you’re saying, Derrick. Yeah.

StevensonD: Is that a doable thing?

Morris: So are you guys done talking amongst yourselves or…? Where are we at?

StevensonD: Well…

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Hold on. Hold on, Jerry. Just a sec. Let’s see what Eric has to…

Morris: No, I’d like to hear what all the board members have to say before… 'cause, literally, this becomes, like, during the summit, it’s six against one in the conversations. So once you guys coalesce your guys’ thought process as an Elected Committee, then we can have some talks about, you know, what direction we want to go.

Hauth: Right. And I think, Eric, I think in that proposed… I think in that proposed, you know, rules draft project that we adopted at the last meeting I believe also removed the 30-hour requirement. So I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to look at that. But I think that was a position of the board at that time. So. Derrick…

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: … go ahead.

Bird: Yeah, I just…

StevensonD: Yeah, I’d like to make a motion that the 30-hour work week be removed from the temporary rules that are being submitted by OCB.

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

Bird: Second.

Hauth: Any discussion around that? So now, Eric, that you’ve heard that, what’s your position on that before we vote?

Morris: Well, so a couple different thoughts on that, is that we went through this… How many hours did we spend talking about this specific issue, like the second day of the rules conference? So…

Hauth: But hey, Eric, prior… but prior to legal review. So go ahead.

Morris: Okay. So RSA’s told me that many states, or several different states, have an hour requirement in their… in their rules. And the piece that Jesse’s specific about – and I don’t know if I have it in writing or I talked to him about it at BLAST – but the hour requirement can’t be, like, on-site. You can’t… We can’t require people to be on site for x number of hours type of thing. But in the totality of your work around your vending facility, that’s what we’re talking about on this… in this piece of work here. And I think, you know, what the legislature’s… If we go back to the legislators and say, “Hey, this is our definition of full-time employment; they’re gonna do all this stuff.” People are gonna say, “Well, how’re you gonna… how’re you gonna evaluate that?” You know, what… 'cause it does look different for everybody else. So at this point I’m not all fired up to go back and relive… what, did we have eight hours of conversation about that? And negotiations about it.

Bird: Jerry.

Hauth: Go ahead, Jerry.

Bird: Yeah, now see, once again, that… I think the… I actually think the intent is as the legislature was, they want us to run our businesses full-time. They… I don’t think they want us to be like maybe some of them are or other people, you have other businesses and so you got this program, you just get checks but you’re, you know, you’re a dentist also so you’re not spending your full time… your time and your business, your self-employed business. That could be that too. I don’t think they really think the blind person should actually have to be out physically working. I think our program is a business program and how you’ll know if we’re doing it by our monthly reports and if we are successful and if you don’t… if you don’t get any complaints. That means we are running our businesses properly. It’s just… I think it’s against everything… You may say a couple states maybe do it. Well, that means most of them don’t. In Oregon the blind vendors don’t want to.

Hauth: Yeah.

Bird: So, once again, I hate that when they use other states, you know, when there’s a couple of them that do. But, you know, the idea is to run your own business successfully without being told… You know, you guys even had in there you wanted us to take a picture of us standing by the machine. I mean, once again, what is your problem? We’re not criminals. So, once again, I… I think that it definitely has to be…

Hauth: Let’s… Let’s try and keep it… Let’s try and keep it, you know, as non…

Bird: Okay. Well, that’s my thought, is it’s… it’s if we run our business, it’s not making sure you’re clocking in each day, you know. You can clock in… People can clock in and go sit in the bathroom at their… at the state office building. I mean, I’m not saying they do, but the idea is they’re getting their work done. So I think it should be getting your work done, not how many hours you spend at work. Thank you.

Hauth: Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. So hey, Eric…

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: … let me… let me share something with you. You know, and I know you were involved in it, I was involved in this legislation and I believe it was Director Johnson that tried to incorporate 30 hours within the state statute because it was based off of the Tennessee rules. So… but that was inserted into one of the drafts and then it was actually deleted from the draft. So clearly the legislators aren’t concerned about the identifier at 30 hours or they would’ve made sure it stayed in there. They removed it from the legislation; it doesn’t say 30 hours. Also, a lot of stuff that’s out there, and Jesse’s clearly identified, there’s a lot of rules out there that have things in them that aren’t necessarily copacetic, right? They got… They got pushed through somehow or they got overlooked somehow. And, like Jerry said, if it’s only in a couple of states, come on. You know, best practices probably it’s not in there because blind vendors aren’t employees. And to try and blur the lines on that, for whatever reason that may be, is kind of nonsensical. Wouldn’t it make sense to make sure that a vendor is fulfilling their responsibilities and they’re making sure they’re locations are run right. So, you know, I think this is something that could lead to a lot of, you know, lead to a lot of concern around it. But I just wanted to throw that in there. So.

StevensonD: This is Derrick.

Hauth: Yeah, Derrick.

StevensonD: Yeah, and I just want to… I just wanted to point out that, you know, I don’t have a problem with keeping a log or informing the Commission for the Blind on whether or not I’m actually taking care of my business. You know, we have to write a log and that should cover any questions. It's just the 30 hours doesn’t need to be there. Yeah. So I want to be held accountable for what we have in the rules that I’m supposed to be taking care of and that should be submitted in the log, just like it says we will. So… But the 30 hours doesn’t need to be there.

Hauth: Eric, do you have any more comment on this? Or any more thoughts on this?

[Silence.]

Morris: Randy, did you say Derrick or Eric?

Hauth: No. No. Eric.

Morris: Oh. I… I don’t, Randy.

Hauth: Okay. So what’s… what do you…? I mean, are you the decision maker on this or do you need to take this back? Or how does this all work?

Morris: ‘Cause we’re talking about the temporary rules, right?

StevensonD: Right.

Morris: Yeah.

StevensonD: It won’t affect… It won’t affect the permanent. We can put it back in if we have to during the permanent. This is just for the temporary.

Morris: Well, I… I… I think that’s disingenuous, to be honest, Derrick. I mean, either it’s in there or it’s not, either we go back and have the conversation or we don’t. And, you know, I… I… I thought we were talking about permanent rules today. Didn’t think we were talking about temporary stuff. So…

StevensonD: Well, this is a program… this is a program rule. And you’re… And you’re gonna do a temporary rule that forces us to do things. So, you know, we can’t forget that.

Hauth: Hey, also, before we take the vote, it’s my understanding that this… this wouldn’t be in effect until ’21 anyway, right? Er, I mean, 2000… two years from now?

Morris: Are you asking me, Randy?

Hauth: Yes.

Morris: Um, no, I don’t think that’s accurate.

Hauth: Well, the agency… I don’t think the agency has ever come out on a position on that. I think there’s been a lot of confusion around that, so…

Morris: Well, I think…

Hauth: … it would be nice for…

Morris: Yeah, and I can definitely… ‘Cause what I’m thinking is, we’re… as we’re working through this, and it’s almost 3:00, is that what you guys are expecting to hear from me is different from what I was expecting to hear from you guys today. So what I need to do, and I’ll answer your question in just a second, is go through, take out your guys’ comments from this thing you sent me and respond back to it, either we’re accepting the condition… the suggestions you guys have made or we’re not accepting them and then we can go from there. Now, my understanding is, the law goes effective in January. The… I think the thing you’re thinking of for 2020 is around subcontracting and kind of, like, you know, the changes there. So… yeah.

Hauth: Yeah. Okay, let’s go ahead and call…

StevensonD: I don’t think… I don’t think it’s disingenuous but we should have the vote.

Hauth: Let’s go ahead and call for a vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson. [Silence.] Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yes.

Hauth: And I vote yes as well. Okay. So that’s one item of concern so hopefully we can work through…

StevensonD: Randy?

Hauth: So… Yeah, Derrick.

StevensonD: Well, I… based on Eric’s last comment I think that we should just adjourn this meeting and set a time for another meeting after we get Eric’s responses to our proposal.

Hauth: Derrick, er, Eric, what do you think? Do you think that would be…?

Morris: Yeah, I… Randy, I think that’s a good idea.

Hauth: … better… better to…

Morris: As long as…

Hauth: Okay.

Morris: As long as we’re all in agreement that the recommendations that you guys have provided here are, you know, it’s as final as it’s gonna get, in the sense of you guys aren’t gonna circle back around and say, “Hey, you know, Ronnie said we should really consider this.” ‘Cause you’re basically saying, “Hey, Ronnie matches up with Susan,” right? So… yeah.

Hauth: There’s a couple… There’s a couple of items that, you know, are a little different. But I don’t think they were…. I’ll send it out to the group.

Morris: Okay.

Hauth: I’ve had trouble with my computer but I’ll send it out to the group and you as well. So.

StevensonA: Randy.

Hauth: Yes. Yes, Art.

StevensonA: Well, before we adjourn I do want to make it perfectly clear that we need to… this temporary rule has not been okayed by RSA. RSA was led to believe that we had actively participated in some kind of agreement on this temporary rule and there was no such agreement. I… I still question whether these temporary rules fit the parameters of the state statute that says, you know, we’re supposed to promulgate rules to ensure the proper and satisfactory operation for vending facilities and for the benefit of the blind licensed managers. Well, I’m not absolutely sure that this temporary rule benefits the blind licensed manager. And I kind of feel the same way about some of the proposed rules, that they don’t benefit the blind licensed manager, like choice, etc. etc. And so I don’t want to walk away from here, you know, rubber stamping these temporary rules or going under the assumption that we think this is all right. Because I don’t think it’s all right. We were not consulted. The rules… The proposed rules, like Jerry says, they’re part of the… I mean temporary rules are part of the proposed rules and we haven’t… we haven’t done a final vote on that. You know, I’m a firm believer that the managers should have choice, what’s best for business, and a lot of these rules don’t do that. It specifically states, the agency has the final authority to decide what’s best for us. And it’s an independent business decision. So we… I want to make that clear that I’m not [drowned out by someone’s unmuted phone] temporary rules [inaudible] RSA hasn’t said, “Yeah, it’s okay to adopt these temporary rules,” 'cause they haven’t.

Bird: Do you think we need to… cause Eric stated [inaudible]… Do we need to make a motion, you think, and say that we as a board want to make a motion, yea or nay, that we accept these temporary rules as written or we don’t accept them as written? I think, we done that, at least it’s clear we don’t accept them as they’re written.

StevensonA: Well, board members… Okay, number one, like I said, I don’t think this temporary rule fits the criteria of the state statutes. And, number two, until RSA says, “Yeah, it’s okay to go ahead and adopt these temporary rules for six months,” even though we have questions about them, you know, that we absolutely can’t support it. Because, as you all know, in the monitoring report it specifically stated that the agency could not adopt rules without the blessing of RSA. And they haven’t got the blessing of RSA. You know, I read that whole document and Jesse was talking about the proposed rules. He made no mention at all of the temporary rules at all.

Hauth: Well, we should probably do something about it. I mean, it… I don’t know if you guys… you know, we’ve already filed objections to RSA on the draft rules. I mean, if Jerry wants to submit a motion we can entertain that. Certainly, I don’t…

Bird: All right.

Hauth: You know. So.

Bird: I’d like to make a motion. I make a motion that these temporary rules that I think we received earlier today or something, that we really haven’t reviewed, that was never reviewed… Well, okay, I’m gonna start over. Okay, I make a motion that the proposed temporary rules that we have discussed today be not accepted by this board and… board because of…. I guess I’ll just leave it at that. [Inaudible.]

Hauth: Okay. So do I have a second?

Bird: As written.

Hauth: Okay. Do I have a second?

StevensonD: I second.

Hauth: Okay, Derrick seconds. Any discussion around it?

StevensonA: Mr. Chair?

Hauth: Yes, Art.

StevensonA: Okay. I’d like to make a friendly amendment, okay, that the main reason is, they haven’t been accepted by RSA as… as rules.

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

Bird: I do.

Hauth: How about you, Derrick? Second it?

StevensonD: Yes.

Hauth: Okay. So, any discussion around that? [Silence.] Okay, hearing no discussion I’ll call for a vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson. [Silence.] Art Stevenson.

StevensonA: Yea.

Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.

StevensonD: Yea.

Hauth: Jerry Bird.

Bird: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Gordon.

Gordon: Yea.

Hauth: Steve Jackson.

Jackson: Yes. Yea.

Hauth: And I vote yes as well. Okay. So…

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: Chair Hauth?

Hauth: Yes.

StevensonA: I would like to request that OCB also give us, you know, reasoning on the proposed rules that they put forth, re-wrote after the summit, how they ensure the proper and satisfactory operation of the vending facilities and they also benefit the blind licensed managers. 'Cause, like I said, you know, a lot of these rules don’t fit the criteria where the state statute says OCB is supposed to promulgate rules to happen. And I think we deserve an explanation on how not allowing us choice is benefit [inaudible], etc.

Hauth: Okay.

Bird: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, Jerry.

Bird: So I’d just like… I’d just like to recommend that… I don’t know if we can do this or not, but I believe Eric will be at a Commissioners’ Meeting tomorrow and they’re gonna be discussing these issues. But it seems like none of our thoughts or reasonings ever get talked about. So could we recommend that he tell the board that we made this motion and the concerns that we have about hourly wages and stuff? Would that be appropriate?

Hauth: Well, I don’t know why it wouldn’t be.

Bird: All right. Thank you.

StevensonD: Yeah, this is Derrick. I got to go, so…

Hauth: Okay, Derrick. Thanks. Thanks for joining in.

StevensonD: Yep.

Hauth: Hey, so it sounds like Eric is going to get back with…

StevensonA: Randy?

Hauth: Yes, go ahead.

StevensonA: Will you… Will you send a request to the OCB Board of Commissioners and Dacia Johnson that we be allowed active participation during this meeting? I know they don’t like to allow it but I think we need to put on the record that we should be allowed to speak on what’s going on. Many times, you know, OCB gets to put in their… their fifty cents worth and we get to say nothing. And I still believe that we have the right to voice our concerns to the Commissioners, tell them what’s going on, etc. etc. And so…

Hauth: Yep…

StevensonA: … I’d sure like to request that.

Hauth: Yeah. Being you requested it, I sure will. You know, so… I do know that, you know… So Eric, the plan is, you’re going to respond to us on Susan’s input, I guess, on the draft project… rules project, that the board, the Elected Committee adopted during our last meeting, I believe it was. So. And I will send out… I’ll try and find Ronnie’s response and send that along as well. But again, a lot of it was just basically, “I agree with this.” So, you know, there was a few things that popped up. But… yeah, so…

Morris: So…

Hauth: Is there anything else? Yes.

Morris: So, Randy, I’ll be providing a response based on that rules project document you sent me. That’s what I’ll base it on.

Hauth: Yeah, that’s fine.

Morris: All right.

Hauth: Yep. Yep. Anything else? We do have other business. I don’t know if anybody has anything under that or if we just move to adjourn.

StevensonA: Well, hey, Randy?

Hauth: Yep. Art.

StevensonA: Well, I’d just like to say that… Am I off mute?

Hauth: Yes, you are.

StevensonA: Okay. I’d just like to say that, you know, the federal act and our handbook’s very specific that vending machine income is supposed to be disbursed on at least a quarterly basis and that at the last meeting… and I think everybody saw, you know, the email from Eric when I asked him, “When are we gonna get our money?” You know, he said, “Well, you guys didn’t decide how we were gonna do this or anything. So the law says how the agency is supposed to disburse vending machine income and that’s on at least a quarterly basis. They have not been doing that and… and they need to get in compliance with the law. They need to disburse vending machine income either by giving it to licensed blind managers or deducting it off our set-aside, like it says. And they’ve done neither. To use the excuse that I’m writing rules and so it’s not my priority, well, complying with our federal law and the administrative rules of our program don’t take a vacation or the agency doesn’t lose the responsibility of administering the program if they’re right in the middle of writing rules. And so hopefully Eric will comply with the law, disburse the money on a quarterly basis, as mandated by the law, and that money is sent out to the managers post haste. Because it’s required by the law. Anyways, I’m done with that little tat-a-tay [sic], but the law… it is in writing and that’s why the Elected Committee didn’t address it further, was because the law tells the agency what they’re supposed to do with vending machine income.

Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

Jackson: Steve Jackson.

Hauth: Steve.

Jackson: Can I say something?

Hauth: Yeah. Sure.

Jackson: I would just like to ask Eric, actually, what would be the next best step to help that federal vending income get disbursed? Because I believe that’s what Art’s talking about, the federal unassigned vending income. So can you direct us, Eric, on what we could do next?

Morris: I don’t understand your question, Steve. I think when I responded back to Art, that it’s not a priority right this second because my time’s being eaten up by doing all this rules stuff. So, you know, I talked extensively about that, about priorities and stuff, during the fall in-service weekend. You know, and I asked you guys, “Hey, what’s the…?”

Jackson: Can I interrupt you, though?

Morris: Sure.

Jackson: We’ve been talking about this… We’ve been talking about this for a year, Eric.

Morris: Yep.

Jackson: First it was, you know… and so I think that the managers also have a priority. So maybe if you could try to somehow pencil it in and budget time for it, I think that you would win a lot of good new friends. I think a lot of managers would really appreciate it, especially since Christmas is coming up. You know, I just really think that would be a good move for you guys at the Commission for the Blind to do for the managers. Thank you.

Morris: Thanks, Steve.

StevensonA: Randy, I want to say one… one more thing on that 'cause, you know, Eric said, “Well, this is eating up my time,” and we all understand that. This is eating up our time, too. But if we turn in a late report, we’re in trouble. If we don’t pay our set-aside, we’re in trouble. And administrating the program is the responsibility of the state licensing agency and the law specifically says that. And… And so administering the program is part of the job. And we want our money. We need our money. I’m sure that the state of Oregon and the federal government appreciate the taxes that we have to pay on it. But this needs to be done and, you know, that’s… that’s it. You know, it’s mandated by laws so let’s make sure we get the money that is due us and that it is also distributed on a quarterly basis, like the law says it’s supposed to be. Okay, I’m finished.

Hauth: All right. Well, I do want to say, again, thanks everybody for joining us. And Eric, thanks for joining in as well. I do want to say one thing, that when I read through all the rules and the rules draft and… Even though there’s a lot of things that concern me in there I think one of the things that really is kind of telling the story is when the AG came back and altered the active participation definition and how it simply really was to understand and not necessarily be an integral part of it. I think you can take that and you can lay that across the line of why there have been so many problems and why there continue to be so many problems. Because, you know, the AG apparently doesn’t understand it the way that a national expert does and Terry Smith and Susan Gashel and an Oregon attorney, Ronnie Heard. So, you know, that’s probably, in my opinion, why there’s so much disconnect and why there’s so much stumbling…

Jaynes: [On unmuted phone, addressing someone else.] Come on!

Hauth: … over the process. So anyway, did want to throw that out there. And if there’s nothing else I’ll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Anything else?

Morris: [Inaudible]

Hauth: Okay, let’s go ahead and adjourn the… [recording ends].

Motions Passed During November 1 BECC Special Meeting

1. That the 30-hour work week requirement for vending facility managers be removed from the temporary rules. Proposed: Derrick Stevenson. Seconded: Jerry Bird. Passed unanimously.

2. That the board not accept the proposed temporary rules since they have not yet been approved by the Rehabilitation Services Administration.Proposed: Jerry Bird. Seconded: Derrick Stevenson. Passed unanimously.

Transcription: Mark Riesmeyer