Letter From The Editor Dear Colleagues: The Merchants Messenger, like our organization itself, is truly a collaborative effort. This issue is no exception. From Iowa to Maryland, from Kentucky to Colorado the National Federation of the Blind Merchants Division continues our work to create more and better business opportunities for the blind. We hope you enjoy reading the accounts of our many activities on the pages of this newsletter. We hope these accounts inspire you and hope that you will share with us what you are doing. This will help us all. With great sincerity, we wish for all of you who read our newsletter a Happy and Healthy New Year! May your daily sales be great in 1995. Kevan Worley Hey Folks - It's Our Decision Too! by Alan C. Gabriel Editors Note: Alan Gabriel Chairs the elected committee of blind vendors of Colorado. The following article written by him describes the benefit of collective action and the need for all State Licensing Agencies to adopt the definition of Active Participation developed by the joint Ad Hoc Committee on the Vending Program. See also the Merchants Messenger of Spring 1994. To refer to Colorado spring weather as tumultuous might be considered a kindness. On any given day one might meet with a raging blizzard, the snow clear up to one's tail feathers (one of my favorite days for cane travel). The next day the sun might be shining brightly, with temperatures into the 70's. As I was typing those last remarks my wife quipped, "That can happen in the same day in Colorado!" and she is right. Well, this year our B.E. Program has been very much like our spring weather, tumultuous at best. As chairman of the Committee of Licensed Blind Business Operators of Colorado I wasn't too surprised when Stan Boxer, our longtime B.E. Program manager announced his retirement date of July, 1994. Stan's beginnings in our B.E. Program hark back *** to a simpler time, long before the pesky '74 Amendments, long before there was committee of blind so and so's, back when blind vendors knew their place! Back when the blind stand program manager was an autocrat, and he ruled the program with an iron fist, for he knew what was best for the unfortunate blind vendor who was under his benevolent care. It was he who placed a blind vendor in a blind stand and moved them as he saw fit. Forced partnerships were very common in those days with no choice on the part of the blind vendors involved. The blind stand supervisors would stop at every blind stand once a week to collect that week's receipts and make sure that all was under control. Ah! those were the good ol' days.(Note: the tongue in cheek beginning at the three asterisks above). But enough reminiscing! Our operators now have an active committee in Colorado and with Stan's announcement of retirement we fully expected to actively participate in the hiring process of the new B.E. Program manager. But as we know all too well, old ways die hard at the Division of Rehabilitation Services for the Blind (DOR). So even as the administration assured us that we would be actively involved in the hiring process, they were choosing a new B.E. Program manager without any input from us. Later, we were invited to attend a meeting that the Division of Rehabilitation had set up to meet our new B.E. Program manager. Meet him we did. Although the State set the meeting for midmorning on a work day, more than one third of Colorado's licensed blind vendors came to the meeting. In no uncertain terms, blind vendors at the meeting, said that regardless of how good a candidate might be, that candidate would be acceptable only if vendors had the opportunity of active participation in the selection process. The DOR administrators spent a few days regrouping and then they came back to us with a revised proposal. First they agreed to change the lateral transfer employment announcement to a promotional employment announcement. That meant that the candidate who we felt was best qualified for the position could now apply. Also we would now be involved in the development of the questions that the interview panel would ask of all the candidates. And finally, our operators would make up one half of the interview panel. This sounded great, and we accepted our responsibility and opportunity to actively participate in the hiring process of our new B.E. Program manager. Tony Frankavillia, who at that time was the director of the DOR, met with us and told us that he would make a decision before the end of August, once again reminding us that he had the right of final decision. Permit me an aside about that administrator's final decision concept. When he tells me that he makes the final decision, I laugh to myself and candidly remind him that I can always appeal his final decision. So in reality the administrators of our program do not make the final decisions unless we agree with them. Why not work with the operators on all administrative decisions as the law instructs and save yourself the grief? Well, back to our story. By the end of August, Tony was retired without making a decision and this was very good news for us, as Tony had never been a friend of our B.E. Program and rumor had it that his decision would not have been to our liking. In September, Ken Schmidt, the Administrator of Field Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation took charge of things and he, knowing how strongly we operators felt, worked diligently to make sure that the new administrators above him understood our position thoroughly. Ken's efforts helped hasten the appointment of a B.E. Program manager. Thank you, Ken. We are happy to announce that John Perio who was a business consultant in our B.E. Program is now our new B.E. Program manager. Throughout this entire process the NFB of Colorado and the Merchant's Division stood shoulder to shoulder with the operators, championing our right to actively participate in selecting the next B.E. Program manager. Without such support our man would not hold that position today. This is one more answer, "Why the NFB." Annual Meeting of New York Blind Vendors by Joseph Van Lent The annual meeting of the State of New York Business Enterprise Program (BEP) was held on Saturday, September 10th in Syracuse, NY. Mr. Eugene Luini, the Director for the Program for the Blind in New York and Mr. Tom Robertson, Director of the New York BEP Program, were present and participated in the conference and discussion with the blind vendors of New York. Carl Jacobsen, Chairman of the Blind Vendors Committee of New York, invited Roger Erpelding, Director of the BEP Program in Iowa, and Joseph Van Lent, Chairman of the Blind Vendors Committee in Iowa, to participate in their meeting. Roger Erpelding explained the operation of the BEP Program in Iowa. Roger said that Iowa's Program is funded by money appropriated by the Iowa legislature and does not have any set aside charges. Because of this the Iowa Program does not provide for insurance, vacation or retirement benefits. Iowa vendors choose the benefits they want and pay for them. Van Lent talked about the participation of the Blind Vendors Committee in Iowa. He said that the vendors Committee meets monthly and takes an active part in decisions that affect Iowa's blind vendors. The Committee decides which roadside vending locations will be built and the type of building and machines that will be used. The Committee decides which vendor will receive a location, if a vendor should be put on probation or suspension and participates in the making of administrative rules for the BEP Program. Carl Jacobsen talked about the BEP Program in New York and explained that it is funded by set aside fees charged to New York Vendors. The New York Program provides for insurance, vacation pay and retirement benefits. There was a general discussion about the ever increasing cost of the insurance and how the Program could continue to pay these increasing costs. Mr. Luini and Mr. Robertson explained the situation of the insurance cost and possible alternatives. The conference ended in late afternoon and was followed by an evening banquet in which the New York Vendors and the Iowa Guests exchanged views and opinions about the BEP Program in both states. Roger and Joe both felt that they have benefitted immensely from this conference and are using some of the ideas given to them by the New York participants. They both were appreciative of the invitation issued to them by Carl and the New York vendors. Fighting for the Right to Work by Charles Allen Federationist Jerry Grimes has managed the vending facility at Kentucky State University, at Frankfort, since it opened in 1983. He was required to pay the University a commission equal to 5% of his net profit, an amount he also pays to the Department for the Blind as set aside. In 1989, the University decided to end its contract with the Department and hire a private vending company. The Department negotiated with the University and agreed to pay a higher commission in order to keep the facility. The money they agreed to pay belonged to Jerry Grimes not to the Department. Since the Department did not have the authority to give away Grimes money, Grimes sued the Department and the University in August, 1989. On April 22, 1992, Grimes prevailed. The University wanted a private contractor but the court said, the KBEP was entitled to operate the facility. The University wanted the right to have Grimes replaced as manager. The court upheld Grimes right to stay, consistent with KBEP Rules. The court ordered that Grimes would pay the University only the 5% required in the original contract. The University wanted the right to set prices. The court said, that Grimes could not be forced to charge less than prevailing prices in the local area. The court ordered a contract which reflected these decisions. Though the court had spoken, the University seemed slow to learn. Unfortunately, the University still wants control not only prices, but product and wants a voice in determining Grimes' tenure. Grimes returned to court, this time with the Department as an ally, not an adversary. The University had entered into a monetary agreement with the Coca-Cola Company and therefore demanded that Grimes sell only Coca-Cola products in his can drink machines. The University also opened a food cart service outside a building in which he had machines, thereby entering into direct competition with him. On November 18, 1994 Grimes prevailed again. The court says that needed food service contracts must be negotiated with KBEP in accordance with state and federal law. Under federal and state law, the Department has the sole right to determine the facility manager; and the University may not restrict the operation of a facility through its own exclusive brand agreements. With some financial assistance from the National Federation of the Blind of Kentucky, Grimes has himself paid the cost of his legal action. Grimes supports the University not only with the commission he is required to pay, but in other ways too. For example he underwrites the cost of the University's Easter Egg Hunt and supports other University programs as well. Even so, the University wants to get rid of him. It appears they don't like assertive blind people. They have moved his storage room to a place far harder for him physically to manage. The University has appealed the November, 1994 decision and continues to drag its feet. Jerry Grimes heard, at a National Federation of the Blind banquet address, the words, "We know who we are, and we'll never go back." These ringing words are at the core of his being; He cites them as his inspiration to keep fighting. His personal struggle for the right to work has strengthened the entire Kentucky Vending Program. Twentieth Anniversary - Ceremony December 7, 1974 was the date on which the Randolph-sheppard Act was amended. On December 8, 1994, a ceremony was held recognizing the event. The following news release announced the program. Twentieth Anniversary of the Amendments of the Randolph-Sheppard Act 1974-1994 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- DECEMBER 8, 1994, Today, the Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley announces the Twentieth Anniversary of the amendments of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. The Randolph-Sheppard Act (the Act) provides employment opportunities to persons who are blind through the operation of vending facilities on federal, state, and other property. Over 24,000 persons have been employed in this program since its inception in 1936, the date of the original legislation which was sponsored by West Virginia Representative Jennings Randolph and supported by Senator Morris Sheppard of Texas. The Act was amended in 1954 and 1974. The 1974 amendments greatly strengthen the program and specifically amended the Act to mandate a priority rather than a preference for licensed blind persons to operate vending facilities on Federal property. The Randolph-Sheppard Vending Facility program today has annual gross sales of food and other articles and services in excess of $400 million. The program is ranked among the fifty largest food service corporations in America and provides employment to others both inside and outside the disability community. The U.S. Department of Education will have a special program celebrating the Program's Achievements and those individuals and groups who have contributed to the success of the Randolph-Sheppard Act. An address given by Fredric K. Schroeder, Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, is a highlight of the ceremony. Recipients of awards included, Mr. Robert Marcus, GSA Concessions Officer. (Note- Bob Marcus started his employment with GSA on December 7, 1964, received recognition today and retires December 31, 1994). Robert Humphreys, Attorney for ACB and former Commissioner of RSA; Marc Maurer, on behalf of the NFB; Creig Slayton, Vending Committee Chairman, National Council of State Agencies for the Blind; awards were also given to postal service and Department of Defense. A posthumous award was presented to Durward K. McDaniel. Madeleine Kunin, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education made a presentation which included an acknowledgement that she was only now learning about the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program and the good work performed by blind vendors. Howard Moses, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, served as Master of Ceremonies and spoke on the worth of the program. Many feel that although progress was made as a result of the regulations and its attempt to empower blind vendors, most everyone agreed that much remains to be done to make of the vending program all that it could be. We still face negative attitudes from within and outside the program. Fred Schroeder committed RSA, himself, and his staff to helping blind vendors and administrators improve the program and seeking to achieve a commitment to its purposes by federal agencies and departments. Refreshments were catered by a licensed blind vendor from the D.C. Program and were paid for by the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America, and the Merchants Division of the NFB. - - - The Issue is Trust by Gerald Young When the Kentucky General Assembly of Blind Vendors met on October 8 in Louisville, change was an unwritten item on the agenda. The meeting began with a presentation by a Social Security Representative on benefit eligibility which result from unincurred business expenses. More and more Kentucky vendors are utilizing this benefit. Discussion became heated when the Program Director, Stephen Johnson, gave results of a vendor survey conducted by the Department. The Committee and the Department had agreed to send out the survey to all vendors with a definite deadline for response. When less than half of the vendors had responded by the deadline, the department decided to poll the vendors by telephone. (Outside pollsters were used.) Unfortunately, some vendors expressed the opinion this was done because the Department had not received the responses they wanted and were trying to balance the results. Other vendors wanted to know how they chose who to call because the written responses were unsigned. The discussion underscored one very serious opinion expressed by the survey - that the majority of vendors do not believe that agency personnel deal honestly with them. The meeting ended with a bang. For several weeks, some of the vendors had been working to gather support for a slate of candidates who were either Federationists or friends of the Federation. The slate of candidates was typed and presented to like-minded vendors at the meeting. A vendor rose in opposition, saying that these candidates all supported Kentucky developing a single vendor plan. He nominated a second slate of candidates not committed to single vendor operations. The first slate, supporting single vendors for Kentucky, won by an overwhelming majority. Elected were Charles Allen, Chairman; James Earl Hardin, Vice-Chairman; Mac Carnes; Gerald Young; Robert Page; Bill Farris; Faye Autrey; Ray Katon; George Stokes; Jerry Grimes; and Don Pruitt. The philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind is alive and well in the Kentucky Vending Program. - - - Report on the Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Vending by Don Morris Its been nearly a year since the joint meeting of blind vendors and state administrators took place in Washington, D.C. As you may recall from the spring, 1994 Merchants Messenger, the NFB Merchants Division was well represented. At that meeting we presented ten points for consideration and discussion. These ten subjects came before each of the 17 separate discussion groups. Reports from each of the 17 discussion groups were presented and without fail each discussion group had one or more of the NFB points on their priority list. Four items came forward from the entire group as points on which consensus was achieved. Those four points involved active participation, no forced partnerships, no limitation on vendor income and national training. A fifth item which came out of the "wrap up" meeting also achieved consensus; that item called for an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of three representatives to be named by the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, three representatives named by the American Council of the Blind and three representatives named by the National Federation of the Blind. The nine members appointed, the group they represent, and their home state follow: George Abbott, ACB, MD; Charles Allen, NFB, KY; Richard Davis, NCSAB, MN; Gene Heisler, ACB, TX; Don Morris, NFB, MD; George Precourt, NCSAB, CT; LeRoy Saunders, ACB, OK; Wayne Shevlin, NFB, NC; Creig Slayton, NCSAB, IA. Durward McDaniel was originally appointed as an ACB representative. At Durward's death, LeRoy Saunders stepped in to fill that position. In July a meeting of the committee was convened by conference telephone. Each of the participants described how they thought this joint Ad Hoc Committee could best do its work. The following points were outlined for action and agreed to by the committee. 1. A report on the March meeting should be presented to the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration. The report should include details of the four consensus issues. 2. These four points should also be widely communicated to state licensing agency and other government personnel. 3. Subcommittees should be appointed, one for each of the four issues. These subcommittees were to finalize and polish the presentation of the issues. 4. A chairperson and secretary should be selected to shepherd the project. Don Morris was elected to chair the group and Dick Davis agreed to perform secretarial duties. Creig Slayton also agreed to provide support services by way of Braille reproduction, etc. Throughout the summer and early fall, the committee met several more times by conference telephone. The subcommittees each drafted and presented proposed language for their topic. The subcommittee reports were discussed, accepted or amended until consensus was achieved from the entire joint Ad Hoc Committee. Those four points and the language we accepted follow. AD HOC COMMITTEE ON RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD RECOMMENDATION ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BACKGROUND It is the belief of the Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard that it was the intent of Congress to make the Elected Committee of Blind Vendors an active partner in the decision processes relative to rules, policies, and practices under which the State Licensing agency, or designee, guides the activities of the Randolph-Sheppard Program. Definition Active participation means an ongoing process of negotiation between the State Licensing agency and the Elected Committee of Blind Vendors to achieve joint planning and approval of rules, policies, and practices prior to implementation by the State Licensing Agency. - - - RECOMMENDATION LIMITATIONS ON EARNINGS Background It is the position of the Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard that there should be no policies developed by State Licensing Agencies for the express purpose of limiting earnings of blind vendors. The Ad Hoc Committee believes that it is in the best interest of the Randolph- Sheppard Program that individual operators be permitted to earn as much as their initiatives and facility locations will permit. The Ad Hoc Committee adopts this position in full realization that there is a need to expand the Randolph-Sheppard Program and that a primary objective is to create more and better facilities for licensed vendors. Statement The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard believes that the Rehabilitation Services Administration, other federal agencies or the State Licensing Agencies, or their designees, shall not develop any rules, policies, or practices which are specifically designed to limit the income of licensed blind vendors. In the event that a secondary effect of such rules, policies, or practices is to limit such income, said rules, policies, or practices must be ratified by the Elected Committee of Blind Vendors. - - - RECOMMENDATION FORCED PARTNERSHIPS AND DIRECT COMPETITION Background The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard believes that it is not in the best interest of the Randolph-Sheppard Program to permit forced partnerships whether that be in the form of two managers for one location or two (2) facilities so located as to be in direct competition with each other. Factors which need to be considered when determining whether competition is occurring include: type of operation, location, and size. Statement The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard believes that the Rehabilitation Services Administration, other federal agencies or the State Licensing Agencies, or their designees, shall not develop any rules, policies, or practices which are specifically designed to create forced partnerships, i.e. co-managers or develop facilities that are in direct competition with another Randolph-Sheppard facility. In the event that a secondary effect of such rules, policies, or practices is to create forced partnerships, said rules, policies, or practices must be ratified by the elected Committee of Blind Vendors. - - - RECOMMENDATION NATIONAL TRAINING Background The Ad Hoc Committee on Randolph-Sheppard concurs with the March 1994 Conference on the Randolph-Sheppard Program on the need for a national training effort. It is felt that this national training should be for both State Licensing Agency Staff and Randolph-Sheppard Facility Operators. Statement The Rehabilitation Services Administration should conduct an adequate needs assessment so as to determine the training needs for both State Licensing Agency Staff and Randolph-Sheppard Facility Operators. This assessment data should then be used to establish a comprehensive national training program. - - - On October 11, 1994, we met with RSA Commissioner, Fred Schroeder in his office. Also present were members of the Commissioner's staff. The four points were presented and discussed and were well received by the Commissioner. Commissioner Schroeder wondered aloud if there would be difficulty getting acceptance from the larger groups (NCSAB, ACB and NFB). Charles Allen, president of the NFB Merchants Division stated that he, Wayne Shevlin and Don Morris were elected and appointed to speak for NFB Vendors and stated that the NFB supported these points. LeRoy Saunders, ACB President, Gene Heisler and George Abbott said they represented and spoke for the Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America and that they too supported these points. The NCSAB representatives indicated that the three of them support these points and advocate for them and even though they were the official authorized representatives of the NCSAB to our joint Ad Hoc Committee, they must present these positions to a national NCSAB meeting which will be held in Florida later in the year. They acknowledged the possibility of resistance from some SLA Directors who might believe that empowering blind vendors diminishes SLA authority. Regarding the balance between vendor empowerment and SLA authority, it is generally recognized that communication and cooperation between the parties is best in those states where committees are well organized and rules are current and well defined. It was generally accepted that blind vendors have accepted responsibility along with their empowerment. Instead of diminishing SLA authority, but has lessened the need for such authority since "both sides" are working toward a common objective. Commissioner Schoreder indicated his willingness to help us advocate for these consensus issues. At the meeting he also pledged to seek a satisfactory resolution in the several Veterans Administration issues (Minnesota and Maryland) which are currently pending. The joint Ad Hoc Committee has not met since October. Although we have not received any "official" acceptance or rejection from NCSAB officials, the rumor mill has it that these four points were rejected by the larger body of the NCSAB, even though their representatives participated in developing the consensus issues and developing the final language for their presentation. Contact your State Licensing Agency and ask how they voted at the Florida, NCSAB meeting. If they admit they voted no, talk with them about their problem with the four points or the rationale for their vote. If they voted to accept the four points, enlist their assistance in helping to sway their colleagues from other states. These four points are fundamental to building a cooperative effort or a joint venture between blind vendors and SLA's. If it is true that NCSAB has rejected these issues, then blind vendors must take the steps necessary to drag these reluctant administrators into the present. Once they join us here, perhaps together we can explore the future of the Randolph-Sheppard Vending Program. - - - Monetary Musings by Charles Allen New from Blue diamond is a SmokeHouse Almond Mix which is 30% almonds and peanuts. It comes in a 1.5 oz bag and has a nine month shelf life. Frito-Lay has four new vend items: Doritos Zesty Salsa Tortilla chips; Rold Gold Fat Free Thins Pretzels; Golden Toast Cream Cheese and Chives Cracker Snacks: and Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip Grandma's Big Cookies. They have added Wavy Lay's Regular to their Large Single Serve Chips. A fun addition is the No Nut Chocolate Chip cookie (36 ct/2 oz) from the Uncle No Name Cookie Company. Bon Appetit has two fat free 4 oz muffins --lemon and blueberry, packed frozen in a 24 count case. Cloverhill Fresh on Arrival Pastry has a new item--the 5 oz. Iddy Biddy Honey Bun, packed in a 32 count case. O'Brien's has a 24 count/3.4 oz Snack Magic Pack. It needs no refrigeration, has a six month shelf life and fits chip or pastry vending machine slots. It contains beef summer sausage, crackers and cheese spread and one starlight mint candy. Snyders of Hanover is distributing Louise's Fat Free Snacks in vend size. Included are caramel corn, regular potato chips and BBQ potato chips. Our colleagues in cafeterias might be interested in the following information based on "Hot Trends of '94" written by Terri Stone-Conrath and Nancy Cooper and appearing in the November/December, 1994 issue of Midwest Foodservice News. Barbecue consumption seems to be a national trend with regional differences. Look for beef west of the Mississippi River with pork in the East. The South wants a barbecue sauce with a vinegar base; a tomato-based sauce with a tang is in the Midwest. Our friends in the Southwest use regional spices - especially red and black peppers. We Americans are using more herbs and spices in our cooking. Especially popular are basil, oregano, thyme, bay leaves and sage. (I am reminded of the bay leaves I found in sauerkraut baked in beer when dining out recently.) Watch out for peppers, chilies and hot pepper sauce. Ever popular are the so-called "comfort foods," including mashed potatoes and hot rolls. It sounds to me that good old country cooking is a strong contender in the food market. Becoming more popular is the sweet potato which is actually good for us with its high level of beta carotene, a component of Vitamin A. Of course, once we add toppings to it, as we do to our familiar baked potato (a fine source of Vitamin C) we offset its food value. Stone-Conrath and Cooper discuss our long-time friend, coffee. Our customers 55 years of age and older bought almost half of the coffee purchased away from home. The real growth in the industry, which is rebounding after a 20 year downward trend, is on the gourmet end. There may be 10,000 specialty coffee shops by the end of the century. Cappuccino is coming on strong. Serve Mocha Java, Chocolate Raspberry Creme, Hazelnut, Irish Creme, Vanilla Almond, etc. Bagels continue to be a strong item in the bread industry. (What happened to croissants?) Increasing in popularity are unusually flavored breads--ricotta, polenta, potato dill, sun-dried tomato, red pepper, etc. Recently, in a "comfort food" establishment, I found sweet blueberry cornbread. Red peppers are not only appearing in bread, they are becoming more popular than the traditional green bell pepper. They do add a touch of color to a dish. At one end of the food industry, the movement continues to be toward a lower fat content in entrees and appetizers. Leaner cuts of meat are used with more meat being grilled. Stone-Conrath and Cooper report the appearance of fast-food outlets in non-traditional locations, such as airports, discount department stores and service stations. It seems to me that the Business enterprise Program should take note and compete!