[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 207 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54866-54867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26552]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of arbitration panel decision under the Randolph-
Sheppard Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that on January 25, 1995, an 
arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Robert Hill v. 
Michigan Commission for the Blind (Docket No. R-S/93-2). This panel was 
convened by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education pursuant 
to 20 U.S.C. 107d-2, upon receipt of a complaint filed by Robert Hill.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A copy of the full text of the 
arbitration panel decision may be obtained from George F. Arsnow, U.S. 
Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Room 3230, 
Switzer Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-2738. Telephone: (202) 205-
9317. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD) may call the TDD number at (202) 205-8298.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (20 
U.S.C. 107d-2(c)), the Secretary publishes a synopsis of arbitration 
panel decisions affecting the administration of vending facilities on 
Federal and other property.

Background

    The complainant, Robert Hill, was granted a license and was 
assigned to operate a vending facility at the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive 
Command (TACOM). Following his assignment, staff of the Michigan 
Commission for the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA), made 
routine visits to complainant's vending facility.
    On one of the routine visits, the staff person alleges that certain 
problems were found at the facility, which included outdated products 
being sold, lack of cleaning and upkeep of the area, and lack of timely 
filing of required reports. The SLA staff person also alleges that a 
number of complaints from officials at TACOM had been received and that 
these complaints were under investigation to confirm their validity.
    The SLA staff person provided technical assistance to the vendor, 
making numerous suggestions and attempting to assist the vendor in 
increasing his profit percentage, which was below the norm established 
by the SLA. The SLA staff person encouraged Mr. Hill to contact other 
experienced vendors in the vending program for assistance. When no 
improvement was noted by the SLA staff person and Mr. Hill rejected 
offers of assistance, the business counselor recommended to the SLA 
that Mr. Hill's license be revoked as the result of the sanitation 
problems, the sale of outdated products, the failure to meet profit 
margin standards, and the late filing of reports.
    On October 16, 1991 the SLA notified Mr. Hill that he was failing 
to comply with the vendor's operating license and agreement 
requirements and that license revocation proceedings were pending. 
Subsequently, Mr. Hill's license was revoked, and he requested and 
received a State fair hearing on April 27, 1992.
    On July 30, 1992 the hearing officer rendered an opinion sustaining 
the SLA's decision to revoke Mr. Hill's vending license. The hearing 
officer considered Mr. Hill's argument that there was a personality 
conflict between himself and the SLA staff person. Mr. Hill alleged 
that the conflict was due to his racial ethnicity and that this was the 
reason for the revocation of his license. The hearing officer ruled 
that this argument was not credible. Testimony at the hearing indicated 
that numerous attempts had been made by the SLA to provide technical 
assistance and training to Mr. Hill and to assist him in reaching the 
25 percent profit margin requirement. Mr. Hill further stated that he 
was not given sufficient opportunities to bid on other locations after 
his license revocation.
    On March 12, 1993 Mr. Hill filed a complaint requesting that the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education convene a Federal 
arbitration panel to review the hearing officer's decision, which was 
adopted as final agency action by the SLA. The complaint was heard by 
the arbitration panel on September 15 and 26, 1994.

Arbitration Panel Decision

    The arbitration panel ruled on three issues as follows: (1) Whether 
the SLA discriminated against the complainant on the basis of his race. 
(2) Whether the complainant was given sufficient notice 

[[Page 54867]]
of his violation of the rules in an appropriate media for his use. (3) 
Whether a vendor after license revocation can be required to wait a 
period of time before reapplying or be placed on a waiting list behind 
other vendors bidding on vending locations.
    Concerning the first issue, the panel ruled that, contrary to the 
complainant's claims, the charges of racial discrimination were not 
substantiated by testimony.
    With respect to the second issue, the panel ruled that the SLA was 
in compliance with the Federal statute and regulations and State rules 
concerning communications to licensees. The panel found that 
complainant had resource persons who would provide assistance in 
reviewing any communication received by him. Furthermore, the panel 
noted that the SLA staff person routinely read to the complainant the 
evaluations and reports prepared during the onsite visits.
    Finally, concerning the procedures used by the SLA for 
complainant's reapplication for a vending license, the panel ruled that 
it was appropriate to require him to be retrained and reoriented and 
that, if the complainant fulfilled these requirements, he should be 
placed on the bidding list for another vending location. If complainant 
did not complete retraining requirements, then his placement on the 
bidding list should be delayed until such time as he complied with that 
prerequisite. However, the panel ruled that, once complainant had 
completed retraining, his placement on the bidding list should be in 
accordance with his prior standing of seniority. The panel concluded 
that to deny complainant his former standing on the bidding list would 
be unreasonable and punitive.
    The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily 
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.

    Dated: October 18, 1995.
Howard R. Moses,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services.
[FR Doc. 95-26552 Filed 10-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P