BUSINESSENTERPRISEPROGRAM OFOREGON

SPECIAL MEETING

Date:Thursday, October 19th,2017

Time: 3:00pm

OREGONCOMMISSIONFOR THEBLIND

535 SE 12thAvenue(Portlandoffice)

Conferenceline:404-443-6397

Participantcode: 943611#

Agenda

•Any of theagenda itemslisted belowmaybecomeanactionitem.

•Anyof theseitems maybe aconflictofinterest.

  1. Call to Order
  1. Public Comment
  1. BEP Rules
  1. Other
  1. Adjourn

Verbatim

[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, Derrick

StevensonD: 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…