Legal Meets Practical

by Sarah Schauerte

[Update on February 18, 2014 – It’s official! Obama signed the bill to reverse the pension cuts for our nation’s veterans. Access the full story at: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-signs-debt-ceiling-military-pension-bills/].

On Wednesday, February 12, the United States Senate sent legislation to President Obama’s desk that would repeal the over $6 billion cut to military pensions. Someone, hand that man a pen!

This move comes as a great relief to veterans organizations such as the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), who lobbied tirelessly to undo this aspect of the December budget deal. It doesn’t seem like Congress needed much persuading, however, as the bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate in a 95-3 vote. The day before, it swept through the House at 326-90.

So what was at stake here? The December budget deal reduced the cost of living adjustment (COLA) to non-service-disabled military retirees under age 62 by one percentage point below inflation. While one percentage point might not seem like a lot, the cut matters to a veteran who struggles to make ends meet with pension as his sole source of income. A cut would mean he couldn’t buy a load of groceries each month, or might fall short on his mortgage. In all, 750,000 of our nation’s veterans would have been impacted. Thankfully, this is now no longer the case.

But as the saying goes, there ain’t nothing for free. The cost of this reversal is offset by extending the sequester on Medicare spending by one additional year, to 2024. Also, some veterans advocates criticize the bill because only current service members and veterans will see the reversal – the cut still applies to service members entering the military after January 1, 2014. 750,000 veterans who receive pensions, however, can finally breathe a sigh of relief.

It’s unfortunate our veterans even had to worry about the reduction, but that’s fodder for another blog.

To learn more about the COLA for military members, visit Military.com’s website here. Military.com is a great go-to website for news, information, and resources affecting military members, and it provides many helpful articles relating to military pay.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

by Sarah Schauerte

Last week I blogged about the Center for Verification and Evaluation’s (CVE) decision to remove all “fee-based” counselors from its website, arguing that the regulation they referred to in support of this move was inapplicable. This topic was also covered in the Washington Business Journal, and I understand from various sources that Tom Leney addressed it in the Tuesday VetForce meeting in Washington, D.C.

I completely agree that veterans need to be shielded from “experts” who are predatory. If you are charging four grand to put together a VetBiz application, you one hundred percent should not be listed as a counselor on the CVE’s website. (You should also be shipped off to an island, with a lampshade on your head). However, the CVE is removing not only those folks, but also individuals who are helping with VetBiz applications on a cradle-to-grave basis.

There’s also a disconnect with what qualifies as “counselor services.” The CVE is removing anyone who they say is charging for “counselor services.” I submit that preparing and submitting an entire application for a business – which can take a very considerable amount of time – is well out of the purview of what qualifies as “counselor services.” If you as the veteran business owner call someone listed on the counselor site and ask them to rewrite your operating agreement, prepare your Letters of Explanation, act as your representative, and interface with the CVE – all for free – they will politely and quickly get off the phone with you.

To protect these veteran businesses, rather than cite to an inapplicable provision and remove anyone who charges a fee in any context, the CVE should borrow from the Small Business Administration (SBA). After all, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) already gleaned some of its VetBiz provisions from the SBA regulations.

If an applicant applies to the SBA’s 8(a) program and hires someone to help with the application, there are provisions intact to make sure that individual is not being taken advantage of. Under 13 CFR 124.4, the SBA imposes restrictions on fees charged for assistance with an 8(a) package, holding that the fee must be reasonable in light of the services performed. In addition, with the package, a form must be included that discloses how much that representative is paid and what the services included. Why not impose the same requirement for VetBiz services?

Also, the VA already requires such disclosures as it relates to its disability compensation claims. Fee-based attorneys and agents must file a copy of the fee agreement with both the regional office and the Office of General Counsel. This way, it can be reviewed for reasonableness. Then, when a claim is granted, the claimant has the opportunity to contest the fee.

These are checks and balances that are already in place to help protect business owners and veterans from being taken advantage of. If the CVE has the same concerns – which it should – it should require that anyone receiving fees for assisting with a particular VetBiz application disclose the fee agreement to the CVE. Also, it should consider adopting a regulation similar to the SBA’s 13 CFR 124.4, which outlines the limitations of fee-based representation. Protect our vets!

Right now, however, the CVE isn’t doing that. Technically speaking, a veteran business owner who doesn’t know any better can still go online and hire a company that will happily take an exorbitant fee for assisting with a VetBiz package. There’s no accountability because no fee agreement has to be approved by the CVE.

Instead, the CVE has taken the route of removing all “fee-based” counselors from the website, never mind that counselors such as myself never charged for questions or calls – even if the issue was nuanced or took a bit of legwork to research. I was happy to do that – I got into this business because my dad was a veteran and a small business owner – and now I don’t have that visibility.

This topic has received considerable attention in recent weeks, so change may actually be effected. Stay tuned….

Did you find this blog informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

by Sarah Schauerte

Fifteen years ago, Bill Clinton amused millions with his carefully worded phrase, “it all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.” Well, this year the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is trying a similar shtick. Only in this situation, no one’s laughing.

A few months ago, the VA announced its initiative to end its disability claims backlog. This included giving priority to older claims and requiring claims adjusters to work overtime. This was in response to the heated criticism levied by organizations and individuals across the board, including highly publicized stories about veterans facing foreclosure, bankruptcy, and even committing suicide while waiting to receive their benefits.

“We’re taking care of it,” the VA claimed. “No more backlog. Full speed ahead!”

Here’s what a lot of people don’t know. The VA defines “backlog” as any claim where an initial decision has not been reached within 125 days . The VA disability claims backlog does not include any claim where a denial has been rendered, and the veteran is waiting in one of two lines: for review by his Regional Office, or for his claim to make its way up to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. It also does not include aid and attendance claims, spousal claims, and claims for increases or total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU).

When the VA began its initiative, the  disability backlog had reached over 600,00 claims, with over 900,000 total claims pending in the system. Now the backlog has decreased by over 36.5%. That’s a great statistic to release to the public, but the fact of the matter is that the focus on the backlog has diverted resources to resolve the hundreds of thousands of claims that are not categorized as “initial” claims for purposes of the backlog. For example, in a recent call to the Roanoke Regional Office, I was told that it is now taking approximately one year to resolve a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability, and two years to resolve an appeal once a notice of disagreement is received. The wait times were considerably lower prior to the commencement of the backlog initiative.

In general, while the VA disability claims backlog initiative is a positive development, the statistics released are misleading because they don’t shine the light on the bigger picture. Pending initial claims are going down, but the line for the appeals process is growing longer.

There’s also the point that the focus on quantity may come at the cost of quality. Those veterans join the long appeals queue.

Also, research by veterans organizations such as the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) show that the backlog initiative is falling short of its long-term mission. The VA is unable to determine which elements of its backlog initiative are working (and which aren’t), and there isn’t a concrete plan for further progress after 2015. In fact, IAVA compiled a report that: defines the VA disability compensation system and its backlog; considers the challenges to the VA disability compensation system; and provides recommendations on how to move the system forward to prevent future backlogs. I highly recommend that every veteran or veteran family member in the claims process read this report. Not only does it suggest recommendations with “teeth” for ending the backlog, but it provides extremely helpful information related to the claims process. This includes relevant statistics and a comprehensive overview of the timeline.

Reducing the backlog by 36.5% sounds impressive. But this progress doesn’t help the veterans who are in the appeals process, waiting for compensation they need to maintain a quality of life. And with so many soldiers leaving the military and filing claims, claims adjusters will continue to be overburdened. IAVA is right. For the VA’s initiative to truly make an impact, mechanisms for a long-term solution must be in place. The question is whether the VA is capable or equipped to implement such mechanisms.

Access IAVA’s report on the VA disability claims backlog online at: http://issuu.com/iava/docs/2014battletoendthevabacklog_print.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com.

by Sarah Schauerte

Today I received an email from the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE). I wasn’t surprised, as I had recently heard of many veterans advocates and organizations receiving similar ones.

I simply hoped it wasn’t true. This new development hurts every veteran applying for VetBiz verification that needs guidance.

Here’s what the email said:

“Dear Ms. Schauerte

CVE is highly supportive of the Verification Counselor program as this program provides a valuable service to Veterans who are going through the application process. CVE provides responses to counselor inquiries as a means to inform applicants about the Veterans First Contracting Program. However, 5 CFR § 2635.702(c) prohibits agency endorsements of any product, service or enterprise. Accordingly, CVE’s resources are not available to certified Verification Counselors who are currently accepting fees for their counseling services. CVE Certified Counselors found to be charging a fee will be removed from the VETBIZ website.

A review of organizations listed on the VETBIZ website was conducted. Your website (https://legalmeetspractical.com/va-vetbiz-verification-program/va-vetbiz-applications/) indicates a fee is being charge for Verification Counselor services. In light of this, your name has been removed from the VETBIZ website as a CVE Certified Counselor.

Kind regards,
Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE).”

Here’s the issue.  I never charge for initial consultations and am always happy to help with questions (which is what being a counselor entails – note that the CVE stated that “a fee is being charge[d] for Verification Counselor services, but that is inaccurate). I chose this career for a reason – I am a veterans advocate and I care about the veterans. However, I cannot work for free, always, and afford to live. As such, I charge if I am spending hours upon hours putting together a VetBiz application or a request for reconsideration. This is helpful for both me and for veterans – I am able to make a living doing something about which I am passionate, and veterans receive much-needed guidance.

by Sarah Schauerte

I truly want the Veterans First Contracting Program to fulfill its mission of helping veteran-owned small businesses. But protests like this one worry me that the program is sinking instead of swimming.

On January 5th, the second-lowest bidder for a VA contract appealed the Center for Verification and Evaluation’s (“CVE”) denial of its status protest to the Executive Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (“OSBDU”). Harbor Services, Inc. was relying on a determination made by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) on December 12, 2013. The SBA had concluded that the awardee (Nacci Construction Services, Inc., or “Nacci”) and another corporation, Coleman Construction, Inc. (“CCI”) were affiliated. Even so, the CVE denied the initial status protest, deciding that the evidence showed that the veteran still controlled Nacci (ie, that no undue dependence on CCI by Nacci existed).

In affirming the initial decision of the CVE, the Executive Director again found that Nacci’s and CCI’s relationship did not make Nacci ineligible for the Veterans First Contracting Program. It found no issues with Nacci’s corporate documents (which enabled the veteran to control the business decisions), and it also found it acceptable that a non-veteran (Mr. Coleman, the owner of CCI) possessed a critical license required for Nacci to perform jobs. Also, it did not find undue reliance despite the fact that CCI had served as a subcontractor on 12 of Nacci’s last 32 jobs.

Again, this is all despite the fact that the SBA had already determined that the two corporations were affiliated for purposes of determining size. Keep in mind that in determining affiliation, the CVE has adopted the same definition used by the SBA. So how was this affiliation not enough to disqualify Nacci from the Veterans First Contracting Program and the solicitation?

This isn’t a rhetorical question. I really want to know. Under the CVE’s own regulations at 38 CFR 74.2(e), any firm found ineligible due to an SBA protest decision is to be immediately removed from the VetBiz VIP database, unless that protest is overturned or the CVE receives official notification that the firm has successfully overcome the grounds for the negative determination.

In addition to the frustration the affiliation inconsistency creates, the CVE’s analysis is hard to read because I am a verification counselor. By far and away, the largest issue for mom-and-pop companies seeking verification is the lack of meat and detail to explain bright line rules. CVE found that the critical license wasn’t an issue here, but meanwhile a small company seeking verification might be denied because a non-veteran uses a license under the veteran’s direction. There’s no guidance for how the CVE determines that a non-veteran holding a license isn’t grounds for denial, other than a very, very generally-phrased regulation.

And why was it fine for CCI to serve as a subcontractor on 12 out of 32 jobs? What’s the cutoff or the criteria? Does the length of the period of performance and the contract dollar value factor in?

This decision reflects a much bigger problem with the Veterans First Contracting Program. There is a disconnect with the SBA, and the CVE’s regulations are hard to understand for lack of detailed guidance to give them actual meaning.

For years, veterans advocates have complained that this ship is sinking instead of sailing, and these kinds of decisions further their point. So when this Titanic sinks, who will it take down with it?

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog at https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click on the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

by Sarah Schauerte

This is what happens when the Center for Verification and Evaluation (“CVE”) messes with a contractor that also happens to be a lawyer.

On October 11, 2013, federal contractor A1 Procurement, LLC (“A1”) sued the United States Government, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (“VA”), the CVE, supervisors of 8127 Debarment Committee, and various individuals working for the VA and the CVE for a host of claims including violation of the Federal Torts Claims Act, violation of A1’s Fifth Amendment Due Process rights, and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

I am not familiar with this contractor, and only time will tell whether these claims will stand. Regardless of this, the facts alleged are worth repeating.

According to the complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York (the “Complaint”), A1 was verified in the CVE’s Vendor Information Pages (VIP) as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) in 2010. In 2011, owner Derrick Storms criticized a CVE employee for not removing ineligible contractors from the VIP database. That same year, A1 was removed from the VIP database because the CVE had found that based on his resume submitted, Derrick Storms, the service-disabled veteran, did not control the business.

And what did this resume say? Surely that Mr. Storms worked for another company for a considerable period of time each week, preventing him from operating his business on a full-time basis. Right?

Hardly. The resume submitted, which according to the Complaint was the basis for removing A1 from the VIP database, stated that Mr. Storms was also President of Homeless Veterans of America and the Managing Partner of Storms and Associates, P.A. In reality, Mr. Storms spent about four hours per month working for the former company – work which entailed volunteering at a soup kitchen for homeless veterans. As it relates to the latter business, this was a one-man law firm where Mr. Storms worked about seventeen hours over the course of a few years. All hours worked were to provide legal services to A1 and were not compensated.

A1 promptly requested reconsideration (“R4R”). A1 clarified the amount of time devoted to Mr. Storm’s endeavors and provided tax returns to show that he, indeed, did not receive compensation for his involvement in Homeless Veterans of America and Storms and Associates, P.A. According to the Complaint, the CVE first denied having received the request, then miraculously located it when pressure was applied by Mr. Storm’s local Senator’s office.

Guess how long it took CVE to respond to the R4R? According to the Complaint, two years.

In the interim period, A1 wanted to compete for contracts. After all, its owners had to eat. In November of 2011, it competed for a certain VA contract and represented itself as an SDVOSB. The VA reacted by – and this is a very condensed version of the sequence of events – debarring A1 for five years for misrepresenting its status as an SDVOSB.

In reading the Complaint, the actions on CVE’s behalf are stunning. However, when one takes a close look at the time sequence, we see that A1 filed its R4R in August of 2011, and it bid on a VA contract only three months later and represented itself as an “SDVOSB.” I expect that the CVE’s explanation will be that at this time, it was taking a considerably long period of time to process R4Rs, and A1’s R4R was delayed because of its action of “misrepresenting” itself as an SDVOSB when bidding for a VA contract. (At this time, the VA’s Answer to the Complaint is not yet available).

Even so, think about how unnecessary this all is. If A1 was denied inclusion in the VIP database solely because of a few extra items included on Mr. Storm’s resume, and this was the catalyst to this business being debarred, losing millions of dollars in federal contracts, and the federal government being sued, how can that be justified? At what point will the CVE realize that there needs to be objective criteria to determine whether a veteran can devote “full-time” to his business? It is nonsensical that involvement in two additional activities requiring a very minimal amount of time would call into question a veteran’s ability to control his business, and result in the type of lawsuit (and grief) we see here today.

In the months to come, I’ll be following this case. There is much to learn here, and I hope the lesson isn’t wasted.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at https://legalmeetspractical.com. Remember to click on the link sent to your email to activate your subscription!

by Sarah Schauerte

Late this week, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees reached an agreement on the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It looks like the bill will be wrapped up by Christmas, but not everyone is happy with the packaging (double pun intended).

As approved by the committees, the text of the latest iteration of the bill is derived from H.R. 1960, which passed the House on June 14 by a vote of 315-108 and S. 1197, a version passed by a Senate committee by a vote of 23-3, later that same day.

The NDAA contains many important budget provisions, but its scope isn’t limited merely to budgetary matters. For two years, the NDAA included provisions that purported to authorize the president of the United States to deploy the U.S. military to apprehend and indefinitely detain any person (including an American citizen) who he believes “represent[s] an enduring security threat to the United States.” These provisions were heatedly criticized as unconstitutional.

Regardless of these voiced concerns, and promises made by certain politicians, the language of the NDAA continues to potentially place every citizen of the United States within the universe ofl “covered persons” due to the scope and definition of this term.  Also, Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA approved by the House and Senate committees expands on the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).  For example, Section 1071(a) authorizes the secretary of defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center.’” The center’s task would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

This language has caught a lot of heat from various well-known rights advocates, including libertarian icon Ron Paul and the People Against the NDAA (PANDA). Others, however, aren’t too concerned, citing the need to enhance national security measures due to the risk of internal terrorist attacks. The Boston marathon bombers come to mind. We Americans balk at the ideas of surveillance and infringements on our privacy, but if we have nothing to hide, would these provisions affect us? Legislators appear to think not, or at least not enough to justify omitting them from the 2014 NDAA.

It’s also worth noting that one high-profile amendment to the bill won’t be included. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., had hoped to force a vote on a proposal to remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command. That plan had won support from some unlikely allies – including from some of the Senate’s most conservative members – but it was strongly opposed by many top Pentagon officials. In the end, it was a no-go. The bill does, however, overhaul the way the military handles allegations of sexual assault, making it a crime to retaliate against those who report sex crimes in the ranks, among other new reforms.

by Sarah Schauerte

During the week of Thanksgiving, the Wounded Warriors Project (“WWP”) served up a steaming helping of lawsuit to fellow non-profit, Help Indiana Vets.

Both organizations are designed to help veterans. According to Help Indiana Vets, however, WWP is a fraud. Dean Graham, the owner of Help Indiana Vets, posted an article on its website alleging that WWP is a sham because it does not donate a majority of its profits directly to veterans in need. The article picked up more exposure when it was posted on Facebook, yet more proof to never discount the power of social media. Soon many individuals were posting about their disappointment with WWP and cancelling their subscriptions.

Ultimately, Graham’s criticisms reached those at WWP, and they were not game for having the organization’s name dragged through the mud.  (They draw the line at Tough Mudder).

WWP is very, very proud of its reputation. In the 31-page complaint (the “Complaint”) filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, WWP outlined the different services it provides to veterans to fulfill its mission of “honoring and empowering injured service members.”

In November, Help Indiana Vets attacked this reputation by publishing a number of disparaging statements about WWP on its website (http://www.helpindianavets.com), including comments about how WWP was “best paid non-profit ever…” and that it “was really a fraud…that needs to be investigated immediately.” Also, on the same page as these statements, a link enabled website visitors to make a PayPal donation to Help Indiana Vets. This was a follow-up to an email with similar content that had been sent to government officials and entities back in July.

The six-count Complaint against Help Indiana Vets alleges false advertising, criminal deception, defamation, unfair competition, tortious interference with business relationships, and unjust enrichment. It can be accessed here. In the Complaint, the bottom line is that Help Indiana Vets seeks to drag WWP’s name through the mud and divert its donations.

But is legal action worth it?

To me, the act of filing a lawsuit seems a little drastic. WWP has worked hard to build its reputation, and there’s no question that it should defend that reputation. But couldn’t it just as easily have done that by writing to Dean Graham and threatening him with legal action if he didn’t stop his actions? His company is small and new; theirs is big and established. There’s no mention in the Complaint that this was attempted.

And here’s the another point. I’m blogging about this story because it’s interesting (ah, the power of social media). One non-profit for vets, suing another non-profit for vets. Who would have thought? This wouldn’t be interesting, however,  if the two organizations had just slugged it out on-line. WWP could have done an email blast to its thousands of followers about the accusations and clarifying where its money goes. Or it could have addressed the attacks on its website, and asked its supporters and allies to spread the word. Instead, it has a public lawsuit where all variations of the tagline address that it is being accused of “being a fraud.” Why be so vocal about it?

Maybe WWP has an agenda in taking the contentious approach. Or maybe it’s just one tough mudder. Access its website at:  http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/.

by Sarah Schauerte

On November 27, the Washington Business Journal relayed that the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) had ended a three-year contract with Alexandria company, Ardelle Associates (Ardelle), a federal contractor that has been processing applications submitted to the Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE). Ardelle’s contract had already been extended twice since September 2010. The VA had expressed an intention to extend it again, through the end of February to allow time to compete a follow-on contract but – for reasons unexplained – did not.

Ardelle President Art Forcey was told on November 22 that the contract would extend until December 18. On November 26, he was told it would end December 2. That’s not a lot of notice, especially given that the days between November 26 and December 2 include Thanksgiving and two weekend days. Now that the contract is in limbo, the VA plans to put into place a short-term contract for five months until a long-term solution can be implemented. This makes perfect sense of course, as there was no conceivable way the VA could have known that it would need someone to process VetBiz applications after Ardelle’s contract expired.

The work will be competed under the VA’s IPT blanket purchasing agreement, giving an opportunity to bid to about half a dozen companies with no current role processing applications. A solicitation was released earlier this week, with bids due only a week later (December 3). The VA somehow expects that it will be able to kick off a new contract by December 6.

In an effort to potentially speed up the process of filling the contracted positions, the names of Ardelle employees supporting the current contract were provided to the IPT contracting officer (CO) to “make a determination about what is appropriate and legal to forward to offerors and awardees.”

The practical effect of this is important to note. This means that if the CO deems it “appropriate” and “legal,” the same evaluators will be performing the work…they’ll just have a different boss. This means that if the VA isn’t happy with the job Ardelle is doing, for all intents and purposes VetBiz verification won’t likely see much of an improvement because the players won’t change.

This also means that Ardelle loses its ability to remain competitive for the re-compete. If “appropriate” and “legal,” its employees will be jumping ship for the short-term contractor. This isn’t lost on Ardelle. Mr. Forcey shared with the Washington Business Journal that he thinks this move is political – to keep Ardelle out of the picture for the recompete. As he said: “I think delays in getting a new competition started caused infighting about what to do and people took some heat for extending our contract. But this isn’t the right way to go.”

This development has numerous negative implications. First of all, bringing in a short-term contractor will require re-training of evaluators. This can (and should) take weeks or months, as the VetBiz regulations are nuanced and veteran business owners deserve to have their applications properly evaluated. This, along with the transition in contractors in general, will create delays in VetBiz application processing.

Then, by the time the CVE begins operating at normal speed, the short-term contract will end.

There’s also the issue of the new, short-term contactor using Ardelle’s former employees. I would bet that these employees have a non-compete clause in their contracts with Ardelle which prohibits them from jumping from one lily pad to another.

Stay tuned in the weeks to come, because this development will be getting a lot of press. This press might be enough to cause the VA to back down and give Ardelle another extension while it prepares for the re-compete, but you just never know.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veterans issues at: https://legalmeetspractical.com. Also, the holiday edition of the Legal Meets Practical newsletter is now available here.

by Sarah Schauerte

As a former Midwesterner, I am cheap. This is my parents’ fault – during my entire childhood, they lied about my age for purposes of free meals at buffets, clipped coupons, and smuggled food into movie theaters. The importance of sniffing out a deal is engrained in me.

Now that I am older, I am still frugal. I’m not about to go into a D.C. bar before 7 PM and order a $12 martini. I’m going to go to the five-buck-beer happy hour. This is just me being smart. And, of course, every Black Friday and Cyber Monday, I’m going to track down shopping deals like an insatiable vampire hunter.

As much as I love Black Friday and Cyber Monday (particularly the latter, as it can be accomplished in pajamas), I have to give a shout out to a new phenomenon known as Small Business Saturday. You’ve likely already seen the American Express commercial pushing this event (and small businesses generally), as it is touching and well-done.

The idea behind Small Business Saturday is simple – rather than buying in bulk from Kohl’s (Hear that, Mom?) on Black Friday and Cyber Monday, support your local businesses. Statistically, most small businesses sink or swim in the first five years, so an event like this can make a difference. In exchange, you may receive a great deal that won’t  be around after the holiday season.

Ironically, it is the small business owner who receives the greatest value from this event. As a small business owner myself, I believe that part of being successful is being proactive and creative in marketing your brand, and this is an opportunity small business owners shouldn’t pass up. Even if it’s a small step – such as offering a one-day coupon for 10% off, or giving out free samples – it’s exposure on the one day small businesses are recognized. And this recognition is official, too – on November 10, 2011, the U.S. Senate adopted a resolution acknowledging Small Business Saturday and emphasizing the importance of supporting our area small businesses.

This year, I won’t neglect Black Friday and Cyber Monday. But I’ll make room for Small Business Saturday too, and I hope you’ll do the same.

If you’re a consumer interested in supporting small businesses by shopping small on Saturday, you can search for businesses in your area by using this tool on the American Express website. Also, if you’re a small business owner, it’s not too late to participate. Download resources including the “Shop Small” logo, email templates, and browse ideas for marketing campaigns here.

Did you find this article informative? If so, sign up for my weekly blog on veteran/small business issues at https://legalmeetspractical.com.