FR Doc 05-4941
[Federal Register: March 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 48)]
[Page 12458-12459]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access []
Download: download files


Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act

AGENCY: Department of Education.

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


SUMMARY: The Department gives notice that on October 10, 2003, an 
arbitration panel rendered a decision in the matter of Faye Autry v. 
Kentucky Department for the Blind (Docket No. R-S/00-5). This panel was 
convened by the U.S. Department of Education, under 20 U.S.C. 107d-
1(a), after the Department received a complaint filed by the 
petitioner, Faye Autry.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may obtain a copy of the full text 
of the arbitration panel decision from Suzette

[[Page 12459]]

E. Haynes, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 
5022, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 
245-7374. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
you may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 6(c) of the Randolph-Sheppard 
Act (the Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c), the Secretary publishes in the 
Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision 
affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other 


    This dispute concerns the alleged improper denial of Ms. Faye 
Autry's bid request to transfer to another facility under the Kentucky 
Department for the Blind's transfer and promotion policies, in 
violation of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.), the implementing 
regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and State rules and regulations.
    A summary of the facts is as follows: In January 1999 the Kentucky 
Department for the Blind, the State licensing agency (SLA), notified 
vendors of an opening to provide food services at the Fort Knox 
Military Base in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
    On February 26, 1999, the SLA was awarded the food service 
contract. Prior to receiving the food service contract, the SLA's 
Upward Mobility Selection Committee (the Committee) interviewed and 
rated each of the six finalists including Ms. Autry (complainant). The 
SLA used criteria established by the SLA's rules and regulations 
governing the transfer and promotion of vendors in the Kentucky 
Business Enterprise Program (BEP).
    On February 9, 1999, the Committee discussed the applicants and 
made its recommendation to the SLA's Director of BEP. The Director, who 
participated in the February 9th discussions, concurred with the 
Committee's recommendation, awarding the vending facility management 
position at Fort Knox to a vendor other than Ms. Autry.
    Following the Committee's decision, complainant requested a State 
fair hearing based upon her dissatisfaction with the Committee's choice 
of another vendor. At complainant's request, a fair hearing on this 
matter was held on May 12, 13, and 27, June 4 and 25, and July 15, 
1999. In a decision dated February 14, 2000, the hearing officer ruled 
that Ms. Autry failed to demonstrate that the Committee and the SLA 
improperly applied State rules and regulations governing transfer and 
promotion in this case.
    On March 20, 2000, the SLA informed complainant it had adopted the 
hearing officer's decision as final agency action. Complainant sought 
review by a Federal arbitration panel of that decision.

Arbitration Panel Decision

    The issue heard by the panel was whether the Kentucky Department 
for the Blind violated the Act, 20 U.S.C. 107 et seq., the implementing 
regulations in 34 CFR part 395, and its own rules and regulations in 
allegedly improperly denying complainant's bid on the vending facility 
at the Fort Knox Military Base.
    After reviewing all of the records and hearing testimony of 
witnesses, the majority of the panel ruled that the SLA acted properly 
and in full and fair compliance with the Act, implementing regulations, 
and State rules and regulations. Therefore, the panel denied 
complainant's grievance.
    The views and opinions expressed by the panel do not necessarily 
represent the views and opinions of the U.S. Department of Education.

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 the following site:

    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using 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:

    Dated: March 8, 2005.
John H. Hager,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 05-4941 Filed 3-11-05; 8:45 am]