[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30093-30094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11593]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 March 16,1999, and August 13, 
1999, an arbitration panel rendered decisions on both merit and remedy 
in the matter of James E. Waldie v. Alabama Department of 
Rehabilitation Services (Docket No. R-S/97-13). This panel was convened 
by the U.S. Department of Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a) 
upon receipt of a complaint filed by petitioner, James E. Waldie.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: A copy of the full text of the arbitration 
panel decision may be obtained from George F. Arsnow, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3230, Mary E. Switzer 
Building, Washington DC 20202-2738. Telephone: (202) 205-9317. If you 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the 
TDD number at (202) 205-8298.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding 
paragraph.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the 
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
    To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 
available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions 
about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 
toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 
512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html


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

Background

    This dispute concerns the alleged improper denial by the Alabama 
Department of Rehabilitation Services, the State licensing agency 
(SLA), of Mr. James E. Waldie's request to bid on a full food service 
vending facility at Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama. A summary of the 
facts is as follows: In April 1996, the SLA informed licensed blind 
vendors of an opportunity to manage a full food service vending 
facility at Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama. Twelve persons bid on 
the Fort McClellan vending facility including Mr. James E. Waldie. On 
April 23, 1996, the selection committee, which included members of the 
Elected Committee of Blind Vendors, met to make the selection for the 
Fort McClellan vending facility. Following the selection committee's 
evaluation, they unanimously awarded the Fort McClellan location to 
another vendor. The decision to award the location to another vendor 
rather than complainant was based upon the successful vendor receiving 
the highest total number of points of any applicant, including 
additional points for seniority.
    Mr. Waldie was informed of the SLA's decision to award the bid to 
another vendor for the Fort McClellan vending facility. Complainant 
requested that the SLA convene a full evidentiary hearing on this 
matter, which was held on January 2, 1997.
    Following the hearing, the hearing officer affirmed the selection 
committee's decision to award the Fort McClellan bid to the other 
vendor, and the SLA adopted the hearing officer's decision as final 
agency action. It is this decision that complainant sought to have 
reviewed by a Federal arbitration panel. An arbitration panel heard 
this matter on November 16, 1998, concerning the merits of the case and 
on May 26, 1999, regarding the remedy given to Mr. Waldie.

Arbitration Panel Decision

    The issue before the arbitration panel was whether the Alabama 
Department of Rehabilitation Services violated the policies and 
procedures governing the Business Enterprise Program of Alabama during 
the selection of a vendor/manager for the Fort McClellan, Anniston, 
Alabama facility pursuant to the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.) and the 
implementing regulations (34 CFR part 395).
    In ruling on the merits of the case, a majority of the panel 
determined that the successful bidder should have been disqualified 
since that vendor did not fulfill the training requirements for 
managing a full food service operation such as the Fort McClellan 
vending facility. In reaching that conclusion, the majority of the 
panel noted that the SLA had sponsored a special 18-week program 
dedicated solely to cafeteria operations and had stated that specific 
cafeteria training was a prerequisite for any individual to be selected 
for a cafeteria facility under the Business Enterprise Program.
    The majority of the panel further noted that Mr. Waldie had 
completed this training while the successful bidder for the Fort 
McClellan vending facility had never taken this or similar cafeteria 
training. The majority of the panel concluded that, since the full food 
service operation at Fort McClellan was the equivalent of a cafeteria, 
the

[[Page 30094]]

successful bidder should have been disqualified for lack of training. 
Similarly the panel ruled that the successful bidder lacked food 
preparation experience and, therefore, did not meet the experience 
requirements for managing a full food service operation.
    One panel member dissented.
    In ruling on the question of remedy, a majority of the panel 
determined that Mr. Waldie did not prove under the facts of the case 
that he was entitled to damages. The panel ruled that had the 
successful bidder been disqualified, there was another individual with 
a higher score than Mr. Waldie who would have been chosen as the 
successful bidder for the Fort McClellan food service operation. The 
panel noted both the Eleventh Amendment and the Eleventh Circuit Court 
of Appeals decision in Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Nash 
915 F.2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1990) barring the award of damages.
    One panel member dissented.
    The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily 
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
Judith E. Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 00-11593 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P