>> Hi, everybody.  This is Steve.
>> Hello, Steve.
>> How are you?
>> Hi there.
>> Joe: Aaron and I were having a little discussion about, you know, who made the decision to cut out public comment from the minutes.
>> Steve: From the minutes?  That decision hasn't been made yet, Joe.  It's a topic of discussion at the November 22nd meeting.
>> Joe: Steve, the decision was already made, it was taken out of the last two meeting minutes.
>> Joe: Well ‑‑ Take a look.
>> Steve: Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I get that.  If based on what the council discussion is and what the vote is on the 22nd, those may be restored depending on what the council says.  I think the idea behind it, Joe, was that the public comment is captured in the CART transcript and the idea was to make a reference to the CART transcript in the meeting minutes.  That's a discussion for the council.  It's certainly not to hide or to pull away the content of the public comment because it's still in the CART transcript and it can be referred to.
>> Joe: Hold on, I'm upset.
>> Steve: I can finish what I'm saying?  It can be referred to as an external document.  There you develop
>> Joe: We're supposedly going to spend all kinds of money to bring in a commitment, or a ‑‑ the comments from the public and do that with the CDA and everything else.  Now we're resulting in the whole wheel ‑‑ or of taking the public comment out of these things unilaterally.  Wait a minute, look at the policy that I sent all you people.  That's an existing policy.  That is a part of our development of the SIL and the monitoring of the SIL.
>> Steve: Like I said, it's still in there in the CART transcript and those things will be referenced during the writing of the SIL.  If you look at public documents, they do not include public comment in the document of the minutes themselves.  They are in the CART.  But listen, you can definitely give your public comment on that during the business meeting at the beginning and then at the end so that the council is fully informed before they go into those discussions.
>> Joe: I've already done it in writing.  Look, that is a whole place about us getting input.  Now we're going to reinvent the wheel around soliciting input, you know, for the next.  And yet it's not taken into account or accounted for.
>> Steve: Well, it should be.  And it will.  And you know the conversation kind of started based on new councilmembers coming into the council and bringing their own experiences on being sort of a public body from the past and what they've seen in the past.  Let's have that healthy discussion on the 22nd.
>> Joe: I just ‑‑ Steve.  I'm not going to go here anymore.  It is totally absurd.  Look at what ‑‑ look at what I sent everybody yesterday about, you know, the public comment is a way of reflecting into the current ‑‑ and gathering it.  And by the way, I've never had a response to my public comment ever within 7‑10 working days.  Ever.  Public comment is also part of these emails.
>> Aaron: Who else is there?  I heard another voice.
>> Theresa Metzmaker is on the call.
>> Patricia Sterling is on the call.
>> This is Glen, I'm here.
>> Hey, Glen.  This is Steve.  Who else do we have on the call? 
>> Tracy is here.  Hey, Tracy, is Yvonne on the call?
>> Yvonne: Can you hear me?
>> Steve: Yep, there you are.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  I'm here.  I apologize.  I'm running from one meeting to the next.
>> Hi, this is Amanda, I'm your captioner, I'm on the line.
>> Joe: I'm sorry, who?
>> This is Amanda, your CART captioner for today.
>> Joe: Hi, Amanda.
>> Steve: Yvonne, one more time, ask who is on the call and have Tracy do a roll call.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  One second here.  Okay.  I was waiting for my agenda to open.  So, we can officially call the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m.  And then why don't we start, Tracy, with the roll call and we'll let anyone else add their names after the roll call of the committee members.
>> Tracy: Okay.  Aaron Andres?
>> Aaron: Present.
>> Tracy: Theresa Metzmaker?
>> Theresa: Here.
>> Tracy: Glen Ashlock?
>> Glen: I'm here.
>> Tracy: Yvonne Fleener?
>> Yvonne: Here.
>> Tracy: That is your committee.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  Are there others who would like to introduce themselves?  Let us know that you're on the line.
>> Patricia Sterling.
>> Yvonne: Hi, Patricia.
>> Joe Harcz, consumer advocate.
>> Yvonne: Hi, Joe.  All right.  I think that might be it according to the participant list.
>> Joe: Excuse me, isn't Mairead on this committee?
>> Tracy: No.
>> Yvonne: Are all the committee members here today?  Is there anyone missing?
>> Tracy: No.  Everybody's here.
>> Yvonne: All right.  So, today's agenda.  Approval of the agenda, review of the year‑end financials.  Contract update.  Financial audit update and public comment.
>> Joe: Excuse me, I thought there was public comment before and after the meeting that was supposed to be amended.
>> Steve: That should be part of the discussion right now, Joe.  This is Steve.
>> I'm not opposed to having two public comments.  This is Aaron.
>> Yeah.
>> Glen: I think it's fine.
>> Yeah.
>> Yvonne: Do we have to make a motion to add it to change the agenda? or do we change it and then approve the agenda?
>> Steve: You can make the motion to amend the agenda and then and do it as revised.  My suggestion ‑‑ this is Steve ‑‑ if we could add public comment at the beginning and make sure that public comments at the beginning and end of all committee meetings and all business meetings.  And then I would also like to add an embezzlement update at the end of the agenda just before public comment.
>> Yvonne: Okay. well, why don't we just go ahead and add those two things and I'll read it as its revised and we'll go ahead and just approve it that way.  The revised agenda, public comment, approval defendant ‑‑ oh, yeah.  Approval of the agenda.  Hold on.  Approval of the agenda, public comment, review of year‑end financials, contract update, financial audit update, embezzlement update and then public comment again.  Any other additions?  Can we get a motion to approve?
>> This is Theresa.  I motion to approve the revised agenda.
>> Yvonne: Thank you and a second?
>> This is Glen, I'd second.
>> Yvonne: Okay.
>> Yvonne: Tracy, will you do a roll call vote?
>> Tracy: Sure.  Aaron Andres?
>> Aaron: Yes.
>> Tracy: Theresa Metzmaker?
>> Theresa: Yes.
>> Tracy: Glen Ashlock?
>> Glen: Yes.
>> Tracy: Yvonne Fleener?
>> Yvonne: Yes.
>> Tracy: Motion carries.
>> Yvonne: All right.  Well, let's start with public comment.  Looks like as far as I can tell there is Patricia and Joe.  Patricia, so, if you're a SILC council member but you're not on the committee, do you speak during public comment, Steve?
>> Steve: That's a good question as a council member and a non‑committee member.
>> Right.
>> I have to look for procedural support on that one.  Yeah. 
>> Yvonne: Okay.  All right.  Maybe that's worth having in our discussion.  I think ‑‑ I think Robert's Rules say you can decide that.  Maybe the SILC council needs to make a decision on that and go from there.  All right.  Any public comment?
>> Yes.  This is Joe Harcz.  And by the way, just as an aside, I think that SILC members should be at these meetings and that they should be making comments.  It's the most important stuff that we're doing.
>> Yep.
>> Joe: For years SILC has violated the open meetings act and the FOIA.  They violate the Open Meetings Act with having expenditures made on an ad hoc basis.  And this is why these things are so important.  Not only was there embezzlement, but there was misappropriation of funds over years.  Over years.  Made ad hoc and willy nilly.  I'll give you just one good example.  Last September 4th, the former treasurer made a contract with Hiring Solutions for the search for the executive director position which isn't even abandoned at the time.  At the public meeting of the SILC on September 14th, there was an authorization to create an ad hoc committee.  With also Michael.  But he had already encumbered the Michigan SILC which deals with public funds with Hiring Solutions LLC for $16,000, roughly, without any authorization.  And without a competitive bid.
Which we have in our bylaws and which we have under contract and under state and federal law.  That was going on over and over and over again and that is misappropriation of funds.  It is no different ‑‑ no different, ladies and gentlemen, then embezzlement.  I've had a flurry of email FOIAs today.  I have been going through ‑‑ as a blind person ‑‑ all kinds of back‑dated stuff.  Thank you, Steve, for sending them out, anyway.  I do appreciate that.
We have been making financial agency determinations behind closed doors.  And they are not totally reflected in what happened this fiscal year and last.  We've wasted millions ‑‑ tens of thousands of dollars.  They're supposed to be going to the advancement of people with disabilities in this state.  If you take a look at everything during the last fiscal year, man, we got professional services increases.  You know, the cleanup their garbage on the Richard Hart which was by the way a unilateral decision made by the former chair, Sara Grivetti, and Rodney Craig, the former executive director, to bring this known crook on board.
They didn't have authorization of the entire SILC body.  It never went before them.  And this is why the Open Meetings Act and the FOIA are so important.  It's to protect the public trust.  And I'm sorry.  I am very upset.  Very, very upset.  Because many of these things are continuing.  This year ‑‑ this fiscal year ‑‑ we got very little done.  Very little.  We made un‑authorized operations relative to the Michigan Council on Rehabilitation Services.  They were not approved.  We have lost records and contracts and you name it.  Because we allowed miss Sara Grivetti and other people to, you know, act unilaterally in a self‑serving basis.
They were funding ‑‑
>> Yvonne: how long does a person get for public comment?  I don't know when we have to stop.
>> Five minutes
>> Yvonne: Okay.  You've got about a minute and a half left.
>> Joe: You can't even cover this stuff in a minute and a half.  But you're going to see all my writing.  And I've written this before.  You know, I have sent out to ACL and IRA.  I've sent out to the former SILC and everything else the requirements to follow the Open Meetings Act and the requirements to follow the FOIA under both state and federal law.  They are in our assurances.  Period.  And then I have you, miss Fleener, you know, writing in August, well, we are part of a non‑profit.  We aren't under FOIA or the Open Meetings Act.  After you were advised in May and you were given a publicly‑funded iPad and a public account and advised upon that.
Do not reinvent the wheel on me, madam. 
>> Yvonne: 30 seconds left.
>> Joe: Pardon?
>> Yvonne: 30 seconds.
>> Joe: Wonderful.  Thank you for interrupting.  Yeah.  Look, things have to move aboveboard.  The DSE is supposed to be accountable.  The SILC is accountable.  The Centers for Independent Living are accountable.  Or supposed to be.  But they aren't.  And I would like to see your conflict of interest statement, Miss Fleener.
>> Yvonne: All right.  That's 5 minutes and 10 seconds.  You want to have just a wrap up sentence or is that a food stopping point?
>> Joe: That's it right now.  We're going to go over all the garbage that this mess has created.
>> Yvonne: All right.  Any other public comment?  All right.  So, Steve.  Year-end financials.  You want to run us through that?
>> Steve:  Yes.  Let's start with the budget versus actuals document first which is a PDF that was sent out.  The budget versus actual covers the last fiscal year of October 1st of 2018 to September 30th of 2019.  Because we are on a reimbursement grant basis with both MRS and BFBP, at the end of the year, our budget should come as close to zero as possible.  As you know, we were ‑‑ you can see based on the budget versus actual financial statement, that we ended up $64,380 under budget from what we had projected.  That was due to the departure of several staff and the expenditure ‑‑ well, two staff, and the associated expenditures that did not occur with their departures.  There was a vacancy in the executive director position and then an advocacy position that was vacated prior to my arrival.
So, our original contracted budget was $354 918 combined between MRS and BSBP.  And we received an extended $294,438.  Most the line items tracked right on according to the expenditures that we had.  The one-line item that I would like to point out is down under the audit.  Which is the 6200-line item.  Originally SILC had budgeted $3900 for that.  And the audit came in at $5500 for a difference of $1600 over budget.  Most of the other line items except for ‑‑ communications was also ones that over budget.  We had budgeted $5686 and expended $10,000.  Most of that was due to the SILC office move and the transferring of the phone lines and moving to a different carrier.
In addition, the rent expense ‑‑ it looks like it was budgeted at $5,112.  But we expended $10,254.  I'm not sure if that was a miss‑budgeting line item.  Because our rent only went up like $79 from the previous place.  So, I would have to take a look at why that was either under‑funded or if there are other items that are in the rent expense.  But that should just be associated costs with rent.
So, another line item is down in the 7100-line items which is council meetings.  We had budgeted almost $10,000 for council meetings and came in at $17,033.  That has to do with having CART at our committee meetings.  Prior to our arrival, I don't believe that was happening.  And I don't believe those committee meetings were open to the public.  Where we are open to the public now for those committee meetings.
Under SIL support, we were under‑expended by almost $20,447.  We had budgeted $29,000 and expended $18, 613.  The total expenditures, which left us the positive of $248.67.  So, we got very close to having a zeroed-out budget.  So, that's where we stand for the fiscal year.  Are there any questions on the budget versus actual?  We think that our current budget, the revised budget that the council approved is going to be more on target except for the support line item.  We're still looking at ‑‑ we're going monitor that over the next year to see if we're coming close to that amount.  Including the town hall meetings that we're going to be hosting the first and second weekend of December, the virtual town hall.  And then also the different activities of the council as laid out in the STIL.  Any questions on the budget versus actual financial statement?
>> Yvonne: I just have a comment, maybe it's fixed in the new budget.  But under 7100, council is misspelled.
>> Steve: Yeah, that was pointed out last time 
>> Yvonne: Okay.
>> Steve: Tracy, if you could get with Brad on that and have him change it to C‑i‑l instead of S‑e‑l.  Otherwise it looks like we're all in therapy.
>> Yvonne: Other than that, I don't have any questions.  Any other committee members have questions?  All right.  Done here.
>> Steve: And the next one we would like to go over is the statement of financial position.  Which is essentially our balance sheet.  What this shows is the assets that we have should equal the total liabilities in equity.  A couple of things that I want to point out on the balance sheet is under other current assets you will see a 1270-line item that says refund or credit due from vendor for $39,000 ‑‑ $39,700.20.  We had something happen to us this past summer that it was an event where SILC's phone system got hacked over about a month and a half period as we were setting up our Bill.com autopay.  What happens was somebody got into the SILC phone systems and ended up racking up international phone calls June 14th ‑‑ let’s see.  Let me get my dates right.  June 14th‑July 13th for $24, 354.29.  And July 14th to August 13th.  When we discovered this, it was when we were setting up our new accounting system with Hubdocs and Bill.com.  And some of our reoccurring bills, there's a feature on there that's called autopay.  When the bill comes into the system, and when it's set up on autopay, then Bill.com automatically pulls the bill from Hubdocs and automatically pays that.  When we have reoccurring bills like rent and the phone, they get automatically paid.
Tracy noticed this, the bill after autopay had happened and contacted AT&T to open up a fraud complaint.  It happened a second time the following month.  And at that point, we contacted AT&T and had international calling services turned off on our account.  We also had Tadd, our phone specialist, come in and look at the phone lines for SILC and secured those phone lines to prevent outside people from getting into the system.  We had a similar thing happen when I was at director the at disability network Michigan.  And over one weekend some hackers had called into our voice mail system and were able to access an employee extension and made about $23,000 worth of international calls in one weekend.
What we found out from AT&T is that this is a technique that international drug traffickers will use to keep from being detected.  And so, I'm not sure ‑‑ hey, are you able to mute your phone?  Because I'm getting a lot of static coming through?  There it goes.  Thank you so much.  That's what ‑‑
>> Joe: Excuse me, Steve.  I was getting a lot of static too.
>> Steve: I'm sorry.  Maybe it's somebody else.  If folks could mute their fine if they're not talking.  Maybe clear the lineup for us.
>> Joe: How do you mute the phone?
>>> Steve: Joe, I think for yours it might be ‑‑ you're not the stated icky one.  It's gone away.
>> Joe: I have static on my end.  That's all I'm telling you.
>> Steve: Are you still?
>> Joe: Yeah.  I don't know.
>> Steve: Yeah, I'm still getting a little popping.  But it's a little bit better.
>> Okay.
>> Steve: So, Tracy contacted AT&T and we opened up a fraud complaint.  And it takes about 4‑6 weeks to process the reimbursement.  Currently that amount is showing up as a credit on our AT&T bill.  But we don't want to wait to spend that money down.  So, we anticipate within the next 4‑6 weeks we will have a check from AT&T to deposit back into our bank for the full amount.  So, I wanted the council to be aware that happened to us.  That it does appear on our balance sheet and that's the reason why.  As a credit owed back to us.  And we will be made whole by AT&T for that fraudulent activity.
I do have a timeline of events.  And the actions that we took to rectify this situation including the documentation between SILC and AT&T to show what we've done and what we are going to receive back from them if anyone would like a copy of that, I would be happy to email that out.  Other than that, the only other thing that I wanted to point out was ‑‑ pull this back up here.  Just bear with me for a second.  Was the under equity, the 32000-line item, unrestricted net assets of $66,232.  That is money ‑‑ that is income that SILC has that is unrestricted.  The history of that, I'm uncertain of.  But Brad and I are going to go back and look tat.
Because we're on a reimbursement basis, SILC shouldn't necessarily have so much in unrestricted net assets.  But I do recall back when Valerie was the director that SILC held a joint fundraiser, I believe, with Michigan Disability Rights Coalition and was the beneficiary of just over 30 ‑‑ I think it was like $33,000.  So, that's a portion of this.  We have to look and find out what the rest of that represents.  And I'll be working with Brad, our accountant, to ferret that out so you have a full understanding of what that amount represents.
Other than that, our total assets sit at $188,625.  And our total liabilities and equity sits at the same amount.  As of the end of our last fiscal year.  So, are there any questions on our balance sheet?  Also known as our statement of financial position?
>> This is Yvonne.  The unrestricted net assets.  Can you ‑‑ can you and the council, once you verify that that money is actually there and available, like, can we decide what to do with it?  Or does it still have to go through the regular budget process that you go through?
>> Steve: Yeah.  It's an unencumbered amount.  And currently it sits as a rainy-day fund.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  Do you have ideas for that?  Or is it your preference that's a rainy-day fund?
>> Steve: I don't at this point.  So, I think that in order to make any decisions on that ‑‑ those assets and that amount of money, we need to know what its origin is and where it came from.
>> Right.
>> Steve: And what the intent of that was.  And so, that the council can make an informed decision on what to do with that.  Whether to put it in a money market.  Whether to use it for an awareness event.  I mean, there's a lot of things that can be done with that.  So, let me gather that information so that the council can have an informed discussion about it.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  Any other questions?
>> Yeah.  This is Glen.  I guess I'm still a little, you know, catching up on this.  So, with this kind of budget where you said we're reimbursed for expenses.  So, that doesn't really give us opportunity to have any reserve other than things we're doing like the fundraiser you mentioned?
>> Steve, Well, you know, WIOA now allows SILCs to engage with resource development.  So, if we write this in the SIL, we want to talk about whether or not SILC wants to engage in resource development.  We don't call it fundraising, but its resource development based on the federal regulations.  There are new opportunities for SILC to engage in those types of activities where previously we could not.
>> Glen: So, what happens in a situation where we have a large unexpected expense that comes up?  Do we go back and say we need more money because of this?  And is that automatically granted?  What happens in that situation?
>> Steve: We would have to go back to our funding sources, MRS and BSBP if a large unexpected expenditure came up.  I've not seen that happen in the past.  But in the world of possibilities, anything is possible.  But with good budgeting practices and forecasting based on your previous 3‑5 years of activity, you should be right on the dot based on what our mission is and what we are tasked with doing.  We should always ‑‑ be able to predict the budget within a few ten thousand dollars, plus or minus.
But if something like that did happen, we would need to go back to MRS, BSBP and make our case for that anticipated expense and negotiate with them.
>> Glen: Okay.  Thank you.
>> Steve: You're welcome.
>> Yvonne: Any other questions about the statement of financial expenses?  Okay.  Contract updates.
>> Steve: I'm sorry, Yvonne.  Just the last thing is the check register.  We’re going to send out a new version of the check register.  This is in our policies that with the finance committee that we share the check register.  This particular check register does not include the expenses and the checks that were cut for payroll.  And so, we want to make sure that all of the checks are on there so that you have a clear view of exactly what checks SILC has cut in between finance committee meetings.
I was working with Brad this morning as 15 minutes before the meeting trying to figure out why payroll wasn't showing up.  He's working on that now.  And when 100% of the checks are included in the report, we will get that re‑sent out to the finance committee and get that posted on the SILC web site as well.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  So, contract update.  That's you again, Steve, right?
>> Steve: Yes.  So, I'm happy to report that the revised SILC budget that the council approved has been accepted by MRS and BSBP.  I have signed both contracts.  Those are back for countersignatures and we have our revised budget approved by both funding sources.  So, that's the update.  And that's good news all the way around.
>> Yvonne: Good.  Which takes us to our financial audit update.
>> Steve: Yeah, financial audit.  We are under contract.  We did bid out financial audit services and the council approved a contract ‑‑ a three‑year contract.  We accepted the second- and third-year option because the pricing looked good on it.  The audit is under way.  And we are providing the auditor with all the items they need to conduct the audit.  On I believe it's November 12th, Brad, our accountant, Tracy, Yvonne, our treasurer and myself will be meeting with the auditor to have a face‑to‑face conversation.  Go over any information, additional information that they might need from us.
The plan is to have the audit wrapped up by December and then to have it presented to the council in January.  When we meet with the auditor ‑‑ I'm going to forward this information to them prior to that.  But when we meet with them on the 12th, we are going to go over all the details of the embezzlement that occurred and make sure to look at that.  And whatever they do with the report, make sure that is part of their discovery process.
So, the audit is ongoing.  And the auditor will be at the council meeting to present the audit in person and answer any questions that the council members may have.
>> On the ‑‑ in our November meeting?
>> Steve: No.  Is that scheduled for January or February, Tracy?
>> Tracy: I don't think we have that one scheduled yet.  I know we had talked about one in April.
>> Steve: Yeah.  We'll need to ‑‑ we'll need to have a council meeting either in January or February because we need to get the council's approval to have the auditor submit our 990 form to the IRS.
>> Yvonne: Right.  Okay.  I thought that November would be a really fast turnaround for the auditor.
>> Steve: Yeah.  It won't be on the agenda because it will still be ongoing.
>> Sure.
>> Steve: More than likely in January or February.  Prior to the 990 being due to the IRS which I believe is in April.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  Any questions from anyone about the audit?  And you mentioned the embezzlement.  You have any new information about the embezzlement for us?
>> Steve: I wanted to revisit the email they sent out to the council on October 1st.  I hope to have a final report once the council discusses this at the November 22nd meeting.  I'm referencing the email they received from the county assistant prosecutor, John Dewayne, regarding the prosecuting attorney's office's position on the embezzlement from SILC.  And if you'll indulge me, I want to read into the record his email to me forwarded to the full council for their consideration and response.
I've only had a response from I think two council members on this.  But we need to have a discussion and probably a motion to decide what direction to go in with this.  Because let me just read this to you.  Mr. Locke, and this is from the assistant prosecuting attorney, John Dewayne dated September 30th, 2019.
Mr. Locke, this email is a follow‑up from the discussion today regarding the warrant request made to my office regarding embezzlement charges from Mr. Hartwick for embezzling approximately $10,000 from SILC.  And has embezzlement charges and currently serving 10‑30 years in Chippewa Peninsula in the upper ‑‑ he is 71 years old and will not be eligible for parole until age 81 and may not be eligible due to his extensive criminal history.  In my opinion, he is most likely going to die in prison.  He has been ordered to pay approximately $1.5 million to the blue water center for independent living, the company he embezzled from in St. Claire.  It would be my recommendation that my office not seek prosecution for the following reasons.
Number one, we will not get any more prison time out of our case as any prison imposed would not exceed the 10‑30 years he is currently doing and would run concurrent to his time and not consecutive.  Two, he will never pay back the money he owes SILC since he is unemployable at age 81 and will have to pay restitution back to the other company first.  Three, the cost of transporting him back and forth to the upper peninsula for court dates would not be beneficial to the state.  And four, it is possible that your loss would be covered by insurance.
My goal in these types of cases is to try to get the victim's money back along with the appropriate punishment.  Unfortunately, in most, if not all embezzlement cases, the defendant steals because they have no money or assets.  This is the case with Mr. Hartwick, and I can guarantee that SILC will never see a penny embezzled even if you proceeded with charges.  Again, he would not get any more prison time.  Therefore, it is my recommendation that we do not pursue criminal charges.  Please let me know your thoughts on the matter.  I asked Mr. Dewayne to send that email so I can could share it with the council so the council can have an informed discussion and let me know whether they want the prosecutes to move forward or accept their recommendation.
I don't know that a council vote to move forward with it would move them to pursue the charges.  I think they look at it on a cost‑benefit ‑‑ from a cost‑benefit perspective.  And they clearly don't see a benefit in doing it because it's not going to result in SILC being made whole, it's not going to result in him paying us back, and it's not going to result in any additional time for Mr. Hartwick.  I wanted to refresh the finance committee member's memories about where this currently stands in the prosecuting attorney's offices stance on this and then to have this discussion with the full council on November 22nd and see if the council would entertain a motion in one direction or another.
>> Steve, this is Aaron.  Was there any follow‑up about getting refunded by insurance?
>> Steve: Yes.  I talked to our insurance company.  And this type of activity was not covered under the policy that SILC had in place at the time.
>> Okay.
>> Steve: In addition, during our discovery, I looked for any evidence that Mr. Hartwick had insurance ‑‑ professional liability insurance ‑‑ and, of course, he didn’t, and I'm not surprised by that because his professional license and CPA was revoked back in 2000.  So, he would have been uninsurable.
And that is why when we do contracts with professional services, we now conduct full background checks including iChat checks, federal debarment list checks.  And we require a certificate of liability insurance naming SILC as additionally insured by any contracting agency so that we have covered for this type of activity where we could go back on the contractor's insurance.
>> Yvonne: Would it be helpful for this ‑‑ the finance committee to vote on a recommendation to the full council?  Or is this just for discussion purposes and you want to wait for the full council?
>> Steve: Yeah, I think ‑‑ that's a good question.  I think at this point it's more informational.  Because I think that this is really something for the full body to discuss and decide if they wanted to act on it.
>> Yvonne: Okay.  Yep.  Okay.  Does anybody have any other questions about it?  Okay.  Last item on the agenda is public comment.
>> Excuse me, this is Glen again.  I guess this isn't on the agenda, but can I ask a question?
>> Yeah.
>> Glen: Is there ‑‑ are the accounting policies available somewhere?  Did I get them and miss them?  I looked on the website.  And the things that I had, and I couldn't find them.
>> Steve: Let me ‑‑ let me pull this up.  I have been collecting the policies that I could find on the OneDrive.  And we do have a corporation financial policy.  Pull it up here, Glen, real quick.  It is not very extensive.  It's certainly not as extensive or detailed as I would like to see it.  But it covers accounting methods, purchasing and purchasing limits and who has authorization for purchases up to a certain amount.  Check signage, a statement of expenditures, financial statement, audit, annual budget and required documentation for time management and accountability.  I would be happy to have Tracy send that out to the full council today.
>> Glen: Yeah.  That would be great.  I think maybe at some future meeting we should kind of review those together and think about, you know, whether they need to be updated, reviewed.  Maybe just start a process for that of taking a look at all of them.
>> Yeah.
>> Yvonne: Based on that there have been some problems in the past.  And that we're all new on this committee.  And it would just be good to review them, I think.
>> Steve: I think one other thing that SILC really needs is not just these policies.  Because policies are a statement of what is it that we're going to do?  We need procedures that support those policies, that speak to how we're going to do what it is that we're going to do.  And I've not seen procedures really fleshed out.  And those are vitally important.  Particularly around finances and accounting procedures for staff.
>> Glen: Yeah.  That's actually what I intended to be asking about.  So, thank you.
>> Steve: Yeah.  I will have Tracy send out the financial management policies to all the council members today.
>> Glen: Great.
>> Yvonne: Great.  Thank you.  Any other questions before we move to public comment?  All right.  Back to public comment.  Has anyone joined us on the phone or the other people who have been with us the whole time, anyone have public comment?
>> This is Patricia Sterling.  When will I know whether I'm allowed to speak or not?
>> Steve: Go ahead and speak, Patricia.  We're not going to trip ourselves up.
>> Yvonne: Yeah.  Did you have something you wanted to add now?  Or you just wanted to answer that question?
>> Patricia: Well, you know, you want the council members to be a part of this.  But if you're not going to allow them to speak at least during public comment, what's the point?  Number two, I had questions regarding what some of these ‑‑ like what is Q and A Reporting?
>> Steve: Q and A Reporting is our CART service which is our transcriptionist who live‑types the entire meeting and then preserves that in a record.  So, if we were in a room together, you would see it up on the big screen and she would be typing in real‑time what each person is saying to assist people who are deaf in participating in the meeting.
>> Patricia: What is supporting strategies?
>> Steve: Supporting strategies is our new accounting firm.
>> Patricia: Accounting firm.
>> Steve: Yeah.
>> Patricia: Network solutions?
>> Steve: Network Solutions I believe Tracy, is that our web hosting? 
>> Tracy: Sorry.  I had you on mute.  Network Solutions.  We use Zoom and we used to use go to Meeting.
>> Steve: I think that Network Solutions is our web hosting for our website.
>> Tracy: Oh, yes. Sorry.
>> Yeah.
>> Yep.
>> Steve: Any other questions, Patricia?
>> Patricia: Robert Hodges?
>> Steve: Robert Hodges is a personal assistant for one of our council members in order for them to participate in SILC activities as an accommodation.
>> Patricia: Hartford?
>> Steve: Hartford is our liability insurance.
>> Patricia: UNUM?
>> Steve: UNUM.  That is life insurance policy for employees.
>> Patricia: Okay.  Thank you very much.
>> Steve: Oh, you're very welcome.
>> Steve: Yeah.  And I think the conversation, Patricia, wouldn't be that you wouldn't be allowed to speak during public comment.  But doesn't it make sense to let council members ask questions during committee meetings because they're council members.  That was the question.  Not whether you can talk during public comment.  But I think since you're on the council, I think having as much input as you have makes sense.  And it's possible that motivates council members to attend committee meetings.
>> Yeah.
>> Yvonne: I think we're going to talk about that and figure out, okay, then ‑‑ do you have to ‑‑ to actually vote or make a motion for members to talk.  I want to do it by the book and make clear.
>> This is Steve.  I think it makes total sense, for council members, whether a member of the committee not just to participate and talk.  But the actual committee members do out votes and the formal things like that.
>> Yeah.
>> Steve: Because it's an educational process too.  Because, you know, that's great that Patricia was looking at these things and wanting clarity on what they are.  Because they're not obvious on their face with this particular report.  And so, the more information the council members have, the more informed their decisions are going forward.
>> Yvonne: Yep.  Okay.  Now I think we're ready for public comments.  Additional public comment.
>> This is Joe Harcz.
>> Yvonne: Go ahead, Joe.
>> Joe: I totally agree that all members of the SILC should be able to participate on every committee.  It's very important.  But there's very disturbing thing in what happened, you know, with this year's budget.  Our primary mission is to develop, monitor and implement the state plan for independent living.  Most of our money last year went to crap.  Crap that was started by other people, you know, increases in accounting services.  You know, these aforementioned Hiring Solutions, blah, blah, blah.
And, you know, we get 21,000 for SIL support?  What the heck?  Isn't that clear on its face where the priorities are?  The second thing is the SILC is a public body.  Required by federal law.  And funded primarily ‑‑ the bulk of it ‑‑ with public funds.  The funds that were embezzled, and there were more than $10,000, more than $10,000, because there were inappropriate expenditures or additional ‑‑ additional payments that were unauthorized and can't be accounted for to Mr. Hartwick were public funds.
Both from the Federal Government and from the State of Michigan.  We are stewards of those public funds.  Secondly ‑‑ thirdly, the SILC is not a company.  It's the county prosecutor presented, nor was the Blue Water Center for Independent Living which receives copious state and federal funding as well.  Those were state and federal funds that were stolen.
And they weren't stolen just from the SILC or the Blue Water Center for Independent Living, they were stolen from people with disabilities.  And our priorities are totally out of whack, ladies and gentlemen.  With these public bodies.  And that includes the GSEs and we're only supposed to have one, by the way.  And that includes the oversight and accountability.
Now, I also wonder why none of this stuff ‑‑ and I've asked this before ‑‑ has been sent to the ‑‑ to the general ‑‑ or the accountant general, which it should be done.  And under executive director of Governor Whitmer, any ‑‑ any suspicion, let alone documentation of any theft of public funds should be reported to the compliance office and to the Attorney General's office.
Why wasn't that done?  Why wasn't that done by the DSE?  Tina Forte who knew about this.  Why wasn't that done by Mr. Hawk?  Why wasn't that done by other entities?  Why wasn't that done by BSBP?  Second ‑‑ we have to go and do the contracts as well.  Glen asked some very good questions as well as Patricia and whatnot.  But we were supposed to have financial procedures in place.
Part of that, and part of the violations that were done over year and which are encumbered and been misappropriated were the requirements for competitive bids even under the contracts ‑‑ even under the contracts with BSBP and with MRS.  Anything over $5,000 is supposed to be approved by the entire SILC.
Now Steve, to his credit, has been starting to do with, you know, with the new auditor and with the new accountant and with the move to the capital area center for independent living or whatever it's called now.  In the move on that office.  And the reason that office was moved, by the way, is there were dereliction of duty and no competitive bid.  And the other office location which wasn't even accessible to people with disabilities and which the required audit wasn't done.  ADA audit.  It was just done unilaterally.  These are things that have to be stopped and have to be made to the public.  To the taxpayers, of which I'm one, ladies and gentlemen, and we're full of time on this, without pay.
And two, the citizens with disabilities of the state.  We're continually having ad hock interventions bizarre roadway Grivetti and other people into the operations of the SILC.  And they were part of the problem.  Ms. Grivetti when she was in conflict of interest and the chair of the SILC somehow in August of 2015 got a COLA increase under part B funding.  It was $19,000.  $19,341.10 just to be a little bit reprice off my memory.  And that was sent into the SILC.  Those were supposed to be distributed as part of the plan for the SIL, you know, to the various centers for independent living.  And then it was put into the disability network Michigan's account.  No accountability, that money.  That was public money.  That was federal money.
There's a direct conflict of interest in that.  Because it was ‑‑ it was using her position, arbitrarily, as the chair of the SILC, without a vote of the public body.  Without even knowledge of the public body into her entity's account.  No explanation for this.  And I've asked, by the way, ladies and gentlemen.  In written form.  I've sent this out to ACL.  I've sent this out to others.  Look, we have ‑‑ we have, and we've had a SILC that's out of control.  We've had centers for independent living that are unaccountable and out of control.  And we have ‑‑ we're revisiting the wheel.  This distresses me to no end.  To no end.
By the way, Steve, you might mention to people that are new on this board, you know, the violations of Ms. Grivetti, Ms. Robin Bennett and Lisa Cook‑Gordon and all the other people about their term limitations.  And might want to take a look at Mr. Michael Hamm once again and some of his shenanigans that as ‑‑ as a former treasurer of the SILC.  And making these unauthorized expenditures.  You might to want to explain to people, Steve, with the contracts where things have to go out to a competitive bid.  They did not.
Heck, Richard Hartwick apparently doing.  Put the Ps on him, nobody has a contract, and nobody has the content on this.  People have to be a judge app Rodney Craig is currently working for the State of Michigan in the IR unit.  Period.  Making, I'm sure, well over $100,000 as a public employee.  Where is his dereliction of duties is gross negligence taken into account?  That also goes to Sarah Grivetti.  She was the chair of the SILC at the time.
Those final agency recommendations, as far as I can figure out, were only made offhanded by the executive committee, or the finance committee.  I can't get it straight.  That's why the open meet Meetings Act is so important.  You folks at this meeting cannot make final agency determinations.  Period.  Without deliberation before the public and the public body.  Glen is totally right on ‑‑ totally right on in that these procedures need to be written and written in stone.
As a matter of fact, those are requirements by the feds.  You know, when our standards and assurances by the feds, we're supposed to have written policies for this stuff.  We're supposed to have written policies for our board membership and that type of thing.  And by the way, we're down two members.  Or will be.  We're supposed to have written policies and procedures for all of our activities.  We do not.  We do not.
And we've continued to conflate the miSILC corporation with the statewide independent living council.  And in inappropriate fashion.  The bylaws need to be totally rewritten.  ACL has told us that.  But we haven't even met on that because those bylaws by Miss Grivetti's sleight of hand and by ‑‑ that the SILC corporation didn't have it follow A, B, C and D.  They didn't have to act in the open.  And they were wrong.  And I told them that they were wrong, and I wrote to them that they were wrong.  I sent case law out to people.  You've had ‑‑ the AG's office do it.
We also, you know, have had major misappropriations of funds related to, oh, I got to stop here.  I got to stop here.  We go back to the common disability agenda which is supposed to gathering things.  And Steve was a little bit incorrect, you know, forgive me, Steve.  Because I remember dates.  But, you know, that you were down two employees.  Maybe you were talking about down two employees in that last year's budget.  But Miss Terri Robins who was contracted to develop the common disability agenda and gather public input, you know, was let go in August of 2018.
Basically, because she didn't do her job.  Basically, there wasn't a common disability agenda, which was a gathering of the type information that people were supposed to be doing, didn't occur until the last one in September of 2017.  Which I attended, by the way.  It was in ‑‑ and that's not accounted for in all the information relative to development of this current SPIL.  We're going around gathering data.  Heck, we're supposed to be doing that all along.  And it was supposed to be accounting for these things.
Let alone the money.  Think about it.  $21,000 spent on those.  But we spent $16,000 on Hiring Solutions.  No competitive bid for that.  And that was a fiasco.  We spent $15,000 on paid time off for Rodney Craig who said in September he wasn't going any place.  He was going to be deputy director.  But then on October 9th of last year went into a sweetheart deal to work for Michigan Rehab Services.  A documented lie.  A documented lie.
We spent all kinds of money ‑‑ all kinds of money ‑‑ for an auditor who couldn't catch a thief.  And actually, in his IRS 990 couldn't put the right resources, the right funding flows down.  Which has never been corrected to the state.  Now we have to expend other things.  I would like to know ‑‑ people need to send this out to the auditor general.  We need to have a single audit, period.  Not only of SILC operations.  But of the extensions into the TSE.
Yes, we had criminal activity going on here.  We've had negligence.  Gross negligence.  Which is criminal activity.  For Rodney Craig and Sarah Grivetti not to have done a background check.  And which this blind man ‑‑ what this blind man can get.  This blind man could find out that he was convicted of $1 million worth of fraud and embezzlement.  They spent 18 months and gathered the licensing.  Look at the meeting minutes, they keep referencing a financial consultant, an accountant?  The guy didn't even have an accountant's license.
That is negligence.  Negligence, ladies and gentlemen.  But the point is the people that are suffering are the people going without services, are going without unvetted CILs.  And that do nothing.  And then when we get non‑disabled, related center for independent living people put on the SPIL team.  Shelter workshops, dealing with them.  Conflict of interest there.  I would like to ‑‑ I cannot tell people ‑‑ maybe you can tell by my tone ‑‑ which sounds a little bit angry ‑‑ about the abuse that's being gone on.
I cannot express my indignation for this anymore.  I would like written comments as per the SILC policy, which has never been followed, to answer any statements.  Right up on your website, send it out to everybody.  We'll have comments within 7‑10 days.  Never has occurred.  It hasn't occurred to even my written comments and questions.  Which I do and nobody responds to.  Or never did.  You know, Rodney Craig, Sara Grivetti, former SILC members, other people.  Scared silently.
Accounting is just a simple term.  Accountability is what is the purpose of organization and are we following it?  It isn't just a matter of money.  Most of our money was spent last fiscal year.  On just garbage.  We got nothing done.  Nothing related to the SPIL.  And I'm so sorry to the new members about all this stuff.  But people have to know the history if they need to know our present.  And we are ‑‑ I'm not going to reinvent the wheel.  I'm done.  Hello?  Hello?
>>> I'm still here, Joe.  This is Patricia Sterling.
>> Joe: I said I'm done, I'm done.
>> Joe this is Steve.  I'm still here.
>> Joe: Okay.  I didn't know if everybody heard me.
>> Steve: Yeah.  Yep, I heard you loud and clear.
>> Joe: Steve, as an added aside, I think you should send all those emails out, you know, to all the members.  That I got today.  They need to know the history.
>> Steve: Yep, okay, Joe.  All right.  Well, I think that wraps it up, then.  Is there anyone else for public comment?  Okay.  Then I think we stand adjourned.  Thank you, everybody.  And I'll look forward to seeing you at the November 22nd meeting.
>> Bye, everyone. 
>> Bye, everyone. 
>> Joe: Hey, Steve, you still there?
>> Good‑bye.