34 C.F.R. § 395.14

The State Committee of Blind Vendors

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The State licensing agency shall provide for the biennial election of a State Committee of Blind Vendors which, to the extent possible, shall be fully representative of all blind vendors in the State program on the basis of such factors as geography and vending facility type with a goal of providing for proportional representation of blind vendors on Federal property and blind vendors on other property. Participation by any blind vendor in any election shall not be conditioned upon the payment of dues or any other fees.

(b) The State Committee of Blind Vendors shall:

(1) Actively participate with the State licensing agency in major administrative decisions and policy and program development decisions affecting the overall administration of the State's vending facility program;

(2) Receive and transmit to the State licensing agency grievances at the request of blind vendors and serve as advocates for such vendors in connection with such grievances;

(3) Actively participate with the State licensing agency in the development and administration of a State system for the transfer and promotion of blind vendors;

(4) Actively participate with the State licensing agency in the development of training and retraining programs for blind vendors; and

(5) Sponsor, with the assistance of the State licensing agency, meetings and instructional conferences for blind vendors within the State.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1984–1990 · leading case: Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Dist. of Columbia, 695 F. Supp. 1234 (D.D.C. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Dist. of Columbia, 695 F. Supp. 1234 (D.D.C. 1988). “” 34 C.F.R. § 395.14 (b)(2). If CBV is to represent vendors in hearings against SLA’s, and the results of those hearings may be arbitrated and ultimately litigated, it would appear that CBV is empowered to represent vendors in suits against SLA’s.”

Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1990). · cites it 2× “” 34 C.F.R. § 395.14 (b)(1). The evidence established that DCRSA’s decision to terminate DEB and to utilize DAC instead was motivated in part by DCRSA’s desire to expand the District’s vending facility program into the operation of large “emporia.”

Smith v. Rhode Island State Servs. for the Blind & Visually Handicapped, 581 F. Supp. 566 (D.R.I. 1984). · cites it 2× “§ 107b-l; 34 C.F.R. § 395.14 . In Rhode Island, the Association functions as the SCBV.”

Delaware Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. v. United States Dep't of Educ., 772 F.2d 1123 (3rd Cir. 1985). “§ 107b-l(3) (1982) and 34 C.F.R. § 395.14 (1984). . 34 C.F.R. § 395.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.