Oregon



BUSINESS?ENTERPRISE?PROGRAM OF?OREGON SPECIAL MEETING?Date:?Thursday, October 19th,?2017?Time: 3:00?pm??OREGON?COMMISSION?FOR THE?BLIND?535 SE 12th?Avenue?(Portland?office)?Conference?line:?404-443-6397?Participant?code: 943611#Agenda???Any of the?agenda items?listed below?may?become?an?action?item.???Any?of these?items may?be a?conflict?of?interest.Call to OrderPublic CommentBEP RulesOtherAdjournVerbatim[Start at 00:00:00]Hauth: Let’s go ahead and call the meeting to order and we’ll call roll. So, Art Stevenson?StevensonA: Here.Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.StevensonD: Here.Hauth: Jerry Bird.Bird: Here.Hauth: Steve Gordon. Gordon: Here.Hauth: Steve Jackson. [Silence.] Okay. And I’m here as well. Eric, I know you’re here. Anybody else from the agency?Morris: Yeah, it’s… it’s just me, Randy.Hauth: Okay. I heard some background noise. I’m not sure what that’s from. Do other people here that?Hoddle: Yeah. It’s really weird.Hauth: Yeah. Anyway, so…StevensonD: Randy?Hauth: Yep.StevensonA: Randy.Hauth: Yep.StevensonA: It’s a compressor. I can’t get my phone off mute right now. So if you want me to hang up and call back in?Hauth: Sure.StevensonA: If I get a possibility of calling back in. But I’m doing my vending right now and I can’t get this dang phone on mute right now. I don’t know why but it won’t. So it’s your pleasure.Hauth: We’ll go ahead and call the rest of the roll. It didn’t sound like a compressor but it may be. It sounds like a bunch of feedback.Hoddle: It sounds like feedback.Hauth: Lin Jaynes? [Silence.] Cathy Dominique? [Silence.] Char Mckinzie? [Silence.] Carole Kinney?Kinney: I’m here.Hauth: Carole, welcome. Do we have Gordon Smith? [Silence.] Harold Young? [Silence.] Lewanda Miranda? [Silence.] Do we have Celyn Brown? [Silence.] Okay. Any other… Anybody I [inaudible] to call on? Hoddle: There’s so much feedback. Did you ask if there’s anybody on the public call?Hauth: Yeah, I’m going…Hawkins: Chair Hauth?Hauth: Any other managers?Hawkins: Chair Hauth, it’s Char.Hauth: Hi, Char. Welcome. Hawkins: Thanks.Hauth: Tessa Brown? [Silence.] Salvador Barraza? [Silence.] What if we all hang up and try to call back in? This is really hard to…StevensonA: No. Hey, I’m gonna hang up. It’ll probably go away. Hauth: Okay, bud. So, anyway… Okay, so is there any members of the public?Hoddle: Yep. Vance Hoddle with the Compass Group. Hi, everybody!Hauth: Hey… Hey, Vance. Welcome. Anybody else? [Silence.] Okay. Yeah, Art might’ve been getting some feedback. He might’ve been in a building that he was servicing or something like that. So let’s go… let’s go ahead and go into public comments. Is there any public comment at all? [Silence.] Okay. No public comment? Okay. Let me pull this agenda up here. As you know, we are calling this meeting as a follow-up to our discussion last weekend and as a follow-up to the Oregon BEP draft rule project. And so BEP rules is the number three item. If there’s no public comment… I’ll call one more time. Any public comment? Hoddle: Um…Hauth: Okay.Hoddle: I don’t really have anything. No.Hauth: Okay. So, BEP rules: I’m gonna try and recap this as I recall it. So, you know, a few months ago we knew that we had to create rules around House Bill 3253. And… Is that Steve? Steve Jackson?Smith: Gordo.Hauth: Oh, Gordo. Welcome. Okay. So, anyway, we had to build rules around House Bill 3253. And, as you recall, initially we were requesting as support for the vendors Ms. Susan Gashel and that was denied by the agency based on, I believe, a perceived conflict. And so, knowing we had to move forward with the rules, we did agree to have Terry Smith come in and facilitate the rule product, what’d they call, the rule summit. And, going forward from there, while we did make some headway there was still a lot of outstanding issues and items of concern. Now we wanted to address, also Terry did provide some feedback that, as I recall, was not built into the rules draft that was sent to the Commission for their approval having that draft go on to RSA and having that draft go on to the Secretary of State’s Office. So I know the managers, several managers, had requested that we get more clarity on these rules and get some review of the rule project. So a group of managers put together some funds and they reached out to Susan. Susan did a review on the rules and identified some of the same similar concerns that Terry had identified but she actually found some others as well. So I know there has been some disconnection with the agency’s position on these rules and the Elected Committee and managers on these rules. So we’re trying to work together and move forward on these rules. Following that up, what I will share with you is that there were a lot of managers that were unhappy with what they agency… what they believed the agency was doing, and that was basically trying to steamroll the process and putting language into the rules that we don’t believe is compliant with the federal act and/or in, you know, a good effort, a friendly effort and a benefit of the licensed blind vendors relative to some items. So what we also did, moving forward, is I reached out to a lawyer…Jackson: Steve Jackson is here.Hauth: Hey, Steve. Thank you, bud. I reached out to Oregon licensed attorney Ronnie Heard. Ronnie actually worked on the Bird case. He worked at the time for Roger Harris who’s very knowledgeable relative to the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Stand Act and the Oregon Business Enterprise Program as he did most of the research, put together the positions for that matter. So we reached out to Ronnie because Ronnie’s very well aware of the agency’s shortcomings over the years as it relates to the program and the rules process and active participation and so forth and so on. So I on my own accord reached out to Ronnie and asked him if he would help build a… what we identified this morning as the Oregon BEP draft rule project, asked Ronnie if he would weigh in on that. So what I can tell you at this point is, the project that you received today… and, again, I’m sorry for it just coming out this morning, but that’s kind of where we are with this. So what you see there is Susan Gashel’s recommendations incorporated into the draft rules that the agency sent along to RSA. So you’ll see those and you’ll see some other revised recommendations that were items of concern over the last month and a half or two months, going forward, that were brought forward by managers and, you know, I believe, through the summit. And so, with that said, Ronnie is still working on a position and still fine-tuning the, I believe, the legal support and legal argument around why the items in, you know, the draft rules that the agency submitted aren’t necessarily compliant with what we believe are the federal act and the intent of the legislation. And so I believe that that work will be done and that work, I believe, will become part of the record going forward. I don’t know if Eric has his meeting… Eric is heading up the public meeting that will be held on Monday. And I believe that is when the last public comment will be made. So, pretty positive that the project that Ronnie’s working on will be submitted as part of the rules record. But at this point in time what I would hope and encourage is that the Elected Committee can support, at least… at least at this point, support the draft BEP Oregon rule project that was sent out today to everybody and show that that is our supported position. I don’t believe it’s the end of our active participation moving forward but this will identify and codify and solidify that we are taking a position that this is the basic grounds for what we want the rules to become. And so that’s why we’re here today. You know, it might not be a final, finished, fine-tuned product. But, again, it does encompass a lot of what we were hoping to get. And I believe that it’s still… if we take an action on it today, which I encourage we do, it still will not limit us from being able to move forward through active participation and continue to fine-tune the product. That’s what my position is on this. I wanted to bring that forward to the board for your thoughts and discussion. [Silence.] Okay. StevensonD: This is Derrick.Hauth: Yeah, DerrickStevensonD: Yeah, I… I haven’t really had a chance to go through the whole document. It’s kind of hard for me to navigate through the highlighted stuff. But I think it’s a great move forward. I do want to, you know, I do have a couple things that I’d like to discuss. I guess I could put it down in writing and send it to you and let you see what your thoughts are. But as far as continuing forward I don’t know if… if this is actually the kind of venue that we should do that in if we… if we’re gonna actively participate and we need to set a… set a time where we can have another summit meeting so that, you know, we can discuss… discuss the changes and get Eric’s feedback and the Commission’s feedback and try and get these things hammered out. I mean, 'cause doing it in one of these meetings is… we just don’t have the time. But.Hauth: Sure. Well, and I guess… And we can hear from Eric, too. Maybe we can schedule a meeting. I know the agency… I, you know, I guess my concern is, Eric, sorry, Derrick, is that the agency, unless we put something forward that we support, I believe the agency will simply try and utilize their ultimate authority. And based on a timeline requirement they might be successful in at least initially doing that. And I haven’t seen anything from the administration that leads me otherwise. And I know that we’ve been kind of hung out that, “Oh, gosh, you guys aren’t… want to talk about it, haven’t taken a position on it.” So I’m pretty sure all that will be [inaudible] against us. So…Bird: Jerry.Hauth: … I know the project and the product is not fine-tuned. But I believe, if we could at least take a vote of support on this project at this point in time, pending further participation, that may be a good… may be a good option, you know. Go ahead, Jerry.Bird: Was… Was you done, Derrick?StevensonD: Yeah.Bird: Okay. I have read it, twice, and I believe it is kind of sews up or straightens out the issues I had in the previous one, that kind of gives it back a little bit, it’s not as far as the policing part. And the… It’s more like it’s our program and I think straightens the few parts out that [inaudible]. I know it’s not the perfect one but I agree with Randy that it’s pretty well based off of Suzanne’s [sic] and Terry’s feedback. And I believe it’s very true that we’ve heard nothing about… except we’re on a time limit. And we’ve even wondered about could we get it extended. But I believe it’s getting close and this is… this, I believe, is one that I would support as at least our… bring back from theirs that clears up the issues and it actually makes it more Randolph-Sheppard-friendly, more federal friendly and…. So I don’t know for the rest of you who haven’t read it, read it. But I for one read these stuff and I recommend that we vote on this and pass this as our… as our draft from their draft. Thanks.Hauth: Yeah, and I think… Thank you, Jerry. And I think, if we at least show some support behind it, it doesn’t mean it’s the final product. I don’t think it’s the final product. You know, there may be items in this that the agency certainly has issue with. And there’s still other items within the draft that we need to address because of the time constraint and the lack of resources that we’ve been allowed to have has been… We’re trying to make the best of kind of, you know, what I would consider a bad situation. So, just… just know… And I, you know, I hear what you’re saying, Derrick. And maybe, you know, let’s have some more discussion around it. But maybe we could hold another meeting, you know, like, Monday morning. But is there any other comment on this? Haseman: Linda Haseman.StevensonA: Randy?Hauth: Linda, go ahead. StevensonA: Randy?Hauth: Yes. Hello?StevensonA: Randy, this is Art.Hauth: Hey, Art.StevensonA: Okay. I’m back [inaudible]. If you guys get a lot of feedback I’ll have to get back off. But I… This is a draft. OCB has not entered into good faith negotiations with us. And so I believe that we should put this forward as a draft to start negotiations. Because, actually, we didn’t go back and forth on any of the changed language that Eric turned into the AG’s Office, leaving stuff out. And so I would make a motion that this be our proposed draft and a start for good faith negotiations. Hauth: Okay. So a motion’s been made. Do we have a second?Gordon: I second it.Hauth: Steve Gordon has seconded it. Okay. Discussion or comments?Haseman: Linda Haseman.Hauth: Linda, go ahead.Haseman: I just want to make you guys aware, based off the administrative rulemaking process training that I attended back in October of 2014, I’m hearing a lot of [garbled due to feedback] with the timeline. And what I can tell you is there is a little-known Oregon Revised Statute that does allow a person to request [garbled due to feedback] 20 days that would extend the rulemaking for you guys to actually be able to have, what I’m hearing, the time you need to try and put together the rest of the product hopefully with the agency through good faith active participation to come up with [garbled due to feedback]. So, if need be, I’m not averse to being the one to file for that 20-day extension if you guys aren’t able to come up with what you need in the timeframe that you’re in. So I just want to make you guys aware of that, that I could do that. I believe it’s something that the agency must honor. Hauth: Thank you, Linda. Any other discussion around that?StevensonA: Hey, Randy?Hauth: Yes, Art.[00:15:50]StevensonA: I do know that, as long as we’re in negotiations, RSA has said that they will give some feedback on some stuff. But they definitely aren’t gonna give their blessings of the rules until the good faith negotiations are… You know, we got some final language and obviously the Elected Committee is not going to vote to support this unless, you know, some of the language is changed to become in compliance with the state statutes, the federal statutes… I mean, the federal rules. And so I think this is what we should do. We should say this is our draft of the good faith negotiations and see what the agency says about it. And by no means do I believe the Elected [inaudible] giving this its stamp of approval. In fact, there are a couple issues that we still need to probably work on. But, given the fact that OCB put us in the situation where we didn’t have a legal expert, you know, guiding us and stuff; that they created this situation and not us. So, on that, I’d like to call the question and let’s vote on this thing before you guys...Hauth: Okay.StevensonA: … get too much feedback and we can’t vote.Hauth: So a motion’s been made, a second and ample discussion. I’ll call for a roll call vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson.StevensonA: Yea.Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.StevensonD: I still had some things to say. I don’t know why we’re kind of rushing to get to the… to the vote at this point. Jackson: Go ahead and say it, Derrick.StevensonD: Okay. Well, one of my big problems, I’ll just throw this out, is well, they call it progressive discipline, I call it code of conduct. There’s serious problems with it. It’s pretty non-specific and the way it’s written right now is ridiculous. I don’t think the word “conduct” should even be used. I think the word “compliance” should take the place of “conduct.” So it would be performance and compliance and it should be based on… on what our rules say, what the laws say that we must do. They can’t just come in and say, “Hey, you know, you said this to what’s her name and so we’re writing you up.” And the next thing you turn around you say, “Well, someone else said something and pretty soon you got three strikes against you and you’re out of the program and not based because of poor performance. It’s not based because you violated any rules or anything, just… You know, the way… I would just as soon get rid of the whole thing. But if we’re gonna have it we need to make it specific and it needs to be detailed on what performance is gonna… what performance things are gonna be based on and what… and the compliance. So those are the type of things I think we still need to discuss. And if we’re gonna continue to change things and this is not gonna actually be the final draft then I’ll probably say yea…Hauth: Okay. Yep. Thank you, Derrick. Jerry Bird.Bird: Yes.Hauth: Steve Jackson. [Silence.] Steve Gordon. Gordon: Yes.Hauth: Steve Jackson. [Silence.] And I vote yes as well. Steve, you might be on mute.Jackson: Yes. I vote yes.Hauth: So we’ll go ahead…. Yes? Okay. So the motion passes. We’ll go ahead and…Jackson: [Garbled.]Hauth: … move on to… Thank you. Go ahead and move on to, I believe, other business. Is there any other business? Eric, you have any comments? You know, feel free. And I know you probably know this because you sit on other public boards, but feel free when discussion is… has to… weigh in, if you so choose to, you know. So. StevensonA: Hey, Randy?Hauth: Yes.StevensonA: This is Art. Yeah, because I’m in the van here and I’m still going home and I apologize for that… we had some doctors’ appointments today that we had to do with my son before we could go to Portland. So I apologize to everybody for that. But I do have other business, Randy. But I don’t want to discuss it right now because of where I’m at.Hauth: Okay.StevensonA: So I do believe that we probably should let OCB react to what we just did. And of course we can call a meeting, like you said, whenever they want to either talk or submit us some proposal, you know, some comments on it. You know, I was disappointed and then…. So we’re going to have another meeting here in the next week or so to address what’s going on. And so I will… I will save that other business until then.Hauth: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for joining in, Art. I know it was tough for you today. Any other business?Morris: Hey, Randy?Bird: This is Jerry.Morris: Sorry.Hauth: Eric, go ahead.Morris: Hey, just… just so I understand correctly… so, on this document you sent me there… there’s highlighted portions, things in different colors. I was trying to find the scheme of what… what was changed and what wasn’t. Was there a process you used when you were editing it, to…?Hauth: Yeah. Actually, that’s what we’re trying to get… That’s what hopefully the next… the next document you get will clearly identify that. The highlighted areas, I believe none of that was changed. I believe that was original and I believe that came highlighted from…Morris: From us.Hauth: … your document.Morris: Okay. That makes sense, then. Hauth: Okay.Morris: So the version that Ronnie Heard’s working on, is that gonna be the new… is that gonna be the Elected Committee’s new position that you guys are gonna adopt? Or what’s that…?Hauth: Well, you know, I haven’t seen it… I haven’t seen it yet and I can’t speak on behalf of the, you know, the board. But obviously you heard there’s still concerns. I think the draft that was sent to you today gets us going on some of the major things and gives you our position on some of those major things. But, like Derrick had mentioned, you know, there’s still concerns and so… So I don’t know.StevensonA: Hey, Randy?Morris: Okay.StevensonA: Randy?Hauth: Yes.StevensonA: Yeah, I might want to say also that, you know, OCB never really came back after Terry Smith made proposals which we felt we agreed with and they actually never commented on that stuff, especially the definition of compliance and preference. And also, you know, there was never any response from OCB on the active participation definition, which, you know, I know Eric said the other day when we were at in-service that there’s a definition in the law itself, which, you know, of course we disagree with. And there’s completely nothing wrong with making the definition, you know, the Tennessee definition… And I believe that’s what we incorporated in the draft that you sent Eric. And so, you know, there are some things that OCB could respond to us on:-- the Terry Smith stuff, the Susan Gashel stuff – with some proposed language. And in my opinion, you know, if… if OCB is unwilling to go there then, you know, with either a counterproposal or a yea or nay, you know, and why, it’s really hard to do negotiations. So, anyways…Hauth: Yeah.StevensonA: … on that, I’m…Hauth: Well, Art… Art, let me say something before you get off the line. I was told by somebody that, “Lookit, there’s really two documents right now: there’s OCB’s document that is going through the official rulemaking process and there’s our document, most recent document, that’s still… we’re hearing needs some work but addresses some of the major concerns.” So the agency, I believe, will continue to move forward and try and force these rules that they have through the process without much change. I hope I’m wrong, but… So just consider that. I mean, we do have to… I think today was a good step; we took our official position at this point in supporting the draft but not closing the door on future participation with that. So just, you know… let’s all consider that. StevensonA: And I agree and hopefully Eric’s had a conversation with Jesse. And… And, you know, as long as we feel that, you know, the document isn’t done and stuff like that and there’s still controversy, it’s really hard for them to weigh in on the rules that they sent in. And I, you know… Obviously, they’ve seen the Susan Gashel evaluation and they’ve seen the Terry Smith document. And so, hopefully there’ll be good faith negotiations. So anyways, Randy, I’m…Hauth: Thanks.StevensonA: I’m gonna jump off of here. And I hope… I hope OCB…StevensonD: One minute.StevensonA: Yeah?StevensonD: One minute, Art.StevensonA: Okay.StevensonD: Could I have the floor, please?Hauth: Yes.StevensonD: Okay. I would like to make a motion that we take Linda Haseman up on her suggestion that we seek for a 20-day extension. I think that’s something we ought to get taken care of now so that we don’t have to, like, stress about it later. So I would like to make that motion. Hauth: Okay. A motion’s been made, do we have a second?StevensonA: I second that, Randy. Good job there, Derrick.Hauth: Okay. Any discussion around that? [Silence.] Hearing no discussion around that, I’ll take a roll call vote, yea or nay. Art. Stevenson.StevensonA: Yea.Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.StevensonD: Yea.Hauth: Jerry Bird.Bird: Yea.Hauth: Steve Jackson.Jackson: Yes.Hauth: And Steve Gordon.Jackson: Did you hear me?Gordon: Yes.Hauth: Yes. Steve Gordon?Gordon: Yes.Hauth: And I would concur, yes. So. Okay. So, any other business? [Silence.] Okay. Hey, Eric, do you know when the report on the fiscal impact advisory committee will be ready? Any idea around that? Morris: I don’t, Randy. We’re trying to get it transcribed and get it analyzed. So I don’t have a firm date for you right this second. Hauth: Okay. Well, I don’t think I have anything else. You guys have anything else before we adjourn the meeting? StevensonA: Hey, now I got a question. Eric, is… Gretchen’s the one that’s doing the analyzing of it? Morris: Yeah, I’m talking to Gretchen about it. Yes. StevensonA: Okay. Uh…Bird: Jerry Bird. Sorry. Go ahead, Art.StevensonA: Well, as part of active participation I’d like to make a motion to encour… Well, I’d like to make a motion that OCB also seek input from the Oregon State Legislative Counsel on… on… on this matter. Hauth: Okay, a motion’s been made. Do we have a second on it? [Silence.] Jackson: Steve Jackson…Hauth: Do we have a second on it?StevensonA: Steve Jackson just seconded it. Hauth: Okay. So any discussion around that? StevensonA: Randy?Hauth: Yes.StevensonA: Of course, that encourages the agency not to, in my opinion, the agency not just to rely on the AG’s Office but actually Legislative Counsel for the State of Oregon and… and get their take on the fiscal impact committee’s input. So obviously, you know, now we’ve put our two cents worth in on that. And… And hopefully OCB will, you know, follow our words of wisdom and make sure the only thing… you know, that they’re dotting their Is and crossing their Ts and actually getting some information, in order to make a good decision. Hauth: Okay. So…Bird: Randy.Hauth: Yeah. Go ahead, Jerry.Bird: Yeah, since we’re discussing this I would like to make a concern I [inaudible] at our in-service. It was just before the FICA or the fiscal impact… [Inaudible] gonna meet… I happened to go out… out the main door and there was the AG, Gretchen, and Carla McQuillan and a few other managers, a few other people all huddled around in a discussion. And when I stopped, kind of [inaudible] stopped. Gretchen made the comment, “Hi, Jerry.” Wondering why they was standing there. But what concerns me is why we had Carla McQuillan, who was on this committee, why was she huddling up with the AG? And I even concerned… you know, I don’t know if it matters where you sit, but she sat right next to her. So I was a little concerned if the AG’s being neutral or…. It just was an observation that I… I wanted to bring out.Hauth: Okay. Any other discussion? [Silence.] Yeah, I do want to say that this motion has a second and I do want to say, honestly, I think Eric did a good job at running the meeting in that sort of venue. But I also shared concerns at some comments that were made during the meeting, not necessarily… felt like more of an attack against the program and the managers, than necessarily about a fiscal advisory meeting. So I will share with those on the line, I know not everybody’s on the line, but just… you guys know, you can be proud that you are business persons, contrary to what you heard. Because even the agency denoted in their fiscal… that we are licensed blind vendors and small business, you know, owners. So I don’t know where that came from. But anyway, the motion and a second’s been made. I’ll go a roll call vote, yea or nay. Art Stevenson.StevensonA: Yea.Hauth: Derrick Stevenson.StevensonD: Yea.Hauth: Jerry Bird.Bird: Yea.Hauth: Steve Jackson.Jackson: Yes.Hauth: Steve Gordon.Gordon: Yea.Hauth: And I’ll vote yea as well. I will say, before we go off the meeting, there’s also some other ways… Bottom line, what I said… what I said is what I believe and that’s we would be so much more appreciative of, you know, not having to be at odds with the agency. So, again, there… if we are because we don’t feel our voice is being listened to, then we have to take measures to address that, right? So the rules are a serious, important piece of this program. So we can’t let down our guard relative to the rules. We have to take all measures to make sure that they get done properly. So… But there are ways or other avenues… I know Linda Haseman had mentioned earlier, which it was a motionable item, that a request can made to extend that. There’s some other avenues, as well. Hopefully, we won’t have to take those. Hopefully, the administration of the agency, specifically Executive Director Johnson and the Commissioners, Board of Commissioners, will come to the table to what I believe is a more friendly manner and we can get these rules done properly. So I hope that happens. But if there’s nothing else we’ll go ahead and adjourn the meeting, let everybody get back to their… their lives. Is there anything else? [Silence.] Eric, do you have anything?Morris: I don’t, Randy. Have a good night everybody.Hauth: Okay. Yep. Good night. Let’s adjourn the meeting. Okay.[Ended at 00:32:01]Motions Passed During October 19 BECC Special MeetingThat the BE rules incorporating Susan Gashel’s recommendations be the vending facility managers’ proposed draft, to serve as the basis for good faith negotiations with the agency. Proposed: Art Stevenson. Seconded: Steve Gordon. Passed unanimously.That Linda Haseman seek a 20-day extension for the rulemaking process.Proposed: Derrick Stevenson. Seconded: Art Stevenson. Passed unanimously.That OCB seek input on the draft rules from the Oregon State Legislative Counsel.Proposed: Derrick Stevenson. Seconded: Art Stevenson. Passed unanimously.Transcription: Mark Riesmeyer ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download