2014 Spring In-Service Meeting: NOTES
Location: Oregon Commission for the Blind
535 SE 12th Ave
Portland, OR 97214
Friday meeting attendance: Ken Gerlitz (Kathy Gerlitz), Randy Hauth, Derrick Stevenson, Carla McQuillan (Commissioner), Art Stevenson, Ann Wright (Artie Wright), Lewanda Miranda (Oscar Miranda), Jerry Hoffman, Char Mckinzie, Cathy Colley-Dominique, Gordon Smith (Karen Smith), Harold Young, Lynn Rosik (Attorney General’s office), Eric Morris (OCB), Tessa Brown, Kathy Ewing (OCB), Art Marshall (OCB), Terry Smith (presenter).
Absent: Steve Jackson, Steve Gordon, Sal Barraza.
On Phone: Lin Jaynes, Jerry Bird.
Saturday meeting attendance: Eric Morris (OCB), Dacia Johnson (OCB), Harold Young, Gordon Smith (Karen Smith), Char Mckinzie, Tessa Brown, Cathy Colley-Dominique, Sal Barraza, Art Stevenson, Lewanda Miranda (Oscar Miranda), Carla McQuillan (Commissioner), Steve Gordon, Randy Hauth, Derrick Stevenson, Steve Jackson, Ken Gerlitz (Kathy Gerlitz), Kathy Ewing (OCB), Art Marshall (OCB), Terry Smith (presenter). Afternoon session: Lynn Rosik, Linda Haseman.
Absent: Ann Wright
On Phone: Lin Jaynes, Jerry Bird.
May 30th (Friday):
3pm – 6pm Terry Smith - Elected committee training.
Presentations topics:
Role of the Elected Committee.
Terry Smith introduced himself and talked about his background. For several years he ran the BE Program for Tennessee. He retired from that position 2 ½ years ago. When he worked there, he developed an orientation package for new committee members—he said that he could send it to us after the meeting if we think it would be helpful. He commented that committee meetings in Tennessee were very long and the minutes were very detailed.
He also said that he tells committee members when they’re elected that they’re now politicians, whether they like it or not. The committee members answer to their constituents. In Tennessee they had 11 committee reps to represent about 125 vendors. They were all elected by district, depending on the size of the district. He said that most states around the country elect members according to geography.
The committee is a form of representative democracy. Smith asked the team if representing vendors just meant polling the vendors on issues and then voting the way they wanted you to. Or does it mean that the vendors elect someone that they trust and have confidence in, and that the committee rep will use their best judgment to vote on issues that will better the program? Smith believes that reps should make decisions based on how vendors feel, but the rep needs to use their own judgment. If the vendors end up not liking your decisions, you’ll be voted out, but that’s the way that representative democracies work. Smith encouraged people to vote their consciences instead of trying to be liked by vendors. Gerlitz agreed and added that reps should educate their constituents in what they can and can’t do and why. Smith said that communication between reps and constituents is also crucial. Bird added that he thinks that people who are in the committee should be in good standing and that they should be held to certain higher standards. Smith said that reps should lead by example. However, he said that the state can control through their rules and regulations whether or not someone has to be in good standing before they become reps. Federal law does not dictate those requirements, but federal law does say that there cannot be a financial requirement (like dues) in order to be a rep.
Wright asked how the other states that don’t go by geographical reason elect reps. She mentioned that we have 16 members and 6 reps, which could be considered a high number. Smith said there are states that do it statewide. The law says that the committee needs to be representative of the vendors in terms of the type of property they’re on or the type of facilities they’re in, etc. When voting by district, you run the risk of someone not being represented, Smith says. Some states do statewide elections and some states do a combination of district reps and statewide reps, for example, one would be state property, the other federal property.
Smith then talked about active participation. He said that in the Randolph-Sheppard Act, the words “active participation” are not in there. The Act only talks about participation; it says that “the committee shall participate”. When they promulgated the rule, RSA, going by the intent of Congress, made it a little stronger and they changed it and referred to it as “active participation”. This is also in the Code of Federal Regulations. Even though this is in the Code of Federal Regulations, they don’t strongly define it. They also have not issued a meaningful policy directive on what active participation means. At one point, RSA developed a task force to develop a policy directive. After some work, they drafted a definition of active participation and shared drafts of the directive. At the end, it fell apart because at the end of the directive, the person from RSA wrote in that if it’s a stalemate, then nothing happens. When this draft went out, there were threats from some states of taking the RSA to federal court because it went beyond what the law said. That’s when the RSA said they weren’t going to issue a policy directive.
Smith said that active participation is limited to the Committee of Blind Vendors. Active participation in major administrative decisions begins and ends with the Committee of Blind Vendors. There’s no requirement for there to be active participation for individual vendors, or with separate consumer groups. Once the committee approves something, there’s no need to go to consumer groups and get their approval, too.
Regarding active participation, federal law lists five different areas where the committee should be actively participating:
1. Major administrative decisions affecting the overall operation of the program. Smith says that he’s seen plenty of committees that micromanage state agencies, and he’s also seen state agencies that don’t interact well with their committees. Major administrative decisions has never been defined, however. We have to come with our own definition. Rules and Regulations would be an example of a major administrative decision. Any policies that impose on a vendor would need active participation. Development of a budget would be a major administrative decision, especially if it uses any set-aside funding or unassigned vending funds. In Tennessee, they defined the major administrative decisions in their state manual. He suggests that they be written into policies.
Smith thinks that through active participation, the Committee’s role is to develop the framework by which the program is going to be operated. Then it’s up to the Agency to administer the daily operations. The role of the Committee at that point is to be a watchdog to be sure that the decisions the Agency makes are consistent with the rules and policies the Committee agreed to. Smith doesn’t think that the Committee needs to be involved in the minutiae of daily Agency operations.
2. Receiving and Transmitting of Grievances of Blind Vendors. Smith says that some states have interpreted this, incorrectly, he thinks, to mean that if a vendor has a grievance, it has to be filed with a committee rep. He doesn’t think that’s what that means. Smith said that if a vendor has a complaint, they should come to you as a committee rep if they can’t get it resolved on their own, and you can transmit that complaint to the Agency and try to get it worked out. Gerlitz asked about whether or not you have to advocate for a blind vendor if you disagree with what they’re doing. Smith said, you are an advocate for the vendors, but it’s not like the vendors are always right and the agency is always wrong or vice versa. The Committee is not like a “union” where the reps are union stewards. Advocacy is more of a global advocacy for the vendors at large, not just individual vendors.
3. Committee must be involved in the development of a promotion and transfer system. The law doesn’t require the Committee to be involved in the actual promotion and transfer process, just the development of the system.
4. Participate in the development of training and retraining programs, including upward mobility training. The reps are knowledgeable about what training would most benefit the vendors.
5. Charged with sponsoring vendor meetings, with the assistance of the Agency.
Those are the only five things the law requires for active participation. Gerlitz wondered if the Committee should be involved with determining staffing needs. Smith said, yes, but in most cases the vendors think the Agency is overstaffed. However, that’s not the case in Oregon. Smith said that staffing all goes back to budgeting.
Smith then explained how you go about having active participation. Smith said that it’s a foreign concept to state government to have an outside entity participate in joint decisions. He said that active participation is a process of ongoing information sharing between the committee and the Agency. He emphasized that there has to be discussion, not just sending information about an issue and then voting on it. Smith’s tactic in Tennessee was to have some Committee and Agency staff members go off-site and have a meeting to work out issues. After those discussions, they usually had something they could all support because they arrived at it through a process of joint decision making. Active participation is really just a process to get you where you need to be.
Regarding “final authority,” Smith said that the Agency maintains final authority for the administration of the program. If a vendor files a grievance and sues the Agency for damages, they’re not going to file it against the Committee; they’re going to file it against the Agency. Similarly, if the RSA determines that the Committee is doing illegal things, they’re not going to hold the Committee accountable, but rather the Agency. Smith interprets final authority as this: If there’s a decision that has to be made and you’re at an impasse, the Agency is legally obligated to make the decision and move forward. Smith said that active participation is like an insurance policy—if the director is challenged on anything, then the director knows that the Committee has weighed in on decisions.
[break]
Smith said that at one point, they had agreed on a definition of active participation and NCSAB had adopted this definition. They used the Tennessee definition, and that was the first state to put a definition of it in their rules and regulations. Smith read the definition to the group. He summarized active participation as being a commitment to partnership between the Agency and the Committee. There has to be mutual trust and respect between the two.
Conducting effective meetings.
Smith then addressed how to conduct meetings and how to ensure that the meetings are reaching the goals of the attendees. First, develop some rules of engagement which define how they’re going to conduct themselves as Committee members in a meeting environment.
1. Confidentiality: Members shouldn’t be discussing a vendor’s business after the meeting. There needs to be an environment of safety to talk about issues without consequences of expressing their opinions.
2. Honesty: Committee members should be honest at all times and should be truthful with reps, the agency, etc.
3. Respect: Must have trust and respect for your fellow committee members, as well as the Agency staff.
4. Be nonpersonal: Don’t make issues personal, even if you disagree with each other. You can disagree professionally, but you don’t have to make it personal.
5. Be constructive: Move the process and decision making forward. It’s not constructive to be critical and complain all the time. You can disagree and still be constructive.
In Tennessee, they required their members to sign a pledge to agree to these tenets of conduct. These are common sense, “Golden Rule” concepts that everyone should follow, Smith said.
Smith said that it’s critical that you be prepared when you come to a meeting. You’re there to conduct business. The Chair especially needs to be prepared. Part of being prepared is that the agenda is sent out in advance so everyone has a chance to review it before the meeting. Smith also said that meetings should start and finish on time. He said that using active, working, subcommittees is important. With a small committee, it’s not as important, but using them is still a good idea. At every meeting, those groups should report out on their activities.
Smith advised that we should structure the agenda so that it controls the public comment that is being made. It’s a committee meeting, and they’re there to conduct business. The elected members need to conduct the business, not the entire public. Of course, you do need to build time into the agenda for people to speak, but they don’t need to be part of the general debate.
Also, the Chair needs to make sure that all Committee members participate. There are some committee members who never speak and some who dominate the conversation. The Chair has an obligation to draw the reps into the conversation to get their input. Smith said that minutes are also critically important because they’re a record of the actions of the Committee. Ideally the secretary should write the minutes, and then at the next meeting the Committee approves the minutes. The minutes should be shared with all of the stakeholders and the managers.
Regarding Robert’s Rules of Order, Smith says that most people have no idea of the intricacies of those rules. If your committee does adopt these, then Committee members need to have a working knowledge of them, and you should probably have a refresher training about them.