Committee Members Present: Ellen Sweetin (Co-chair), Randy Allgaier, Dorothy
Kleffner, Will Carter, Wade Flores, Sparkie Spaeth, Charles Siron, Elyse Graham
Committee Members Absent: Bill Blum, Will Boemer
Others Present: Russ Zellers
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Hyla Breidenbaugh
1. Introductions
CM Sweetin called the meeting to order and the group introduced themselves.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
The agenda was reviewed and time was added. The agenda was approved by consensus
with amendments.
3. Review and Approval of Minutes-June 15, 2005
The June 15th minutes were reviewed and approved by consensus with changes.
4. Announcements
None
5. Public Comment
None
6. Co-Chair Nominations – VOTE
CM Siron nominated himself. CM Siron was unanimously voted in as the new San
Francisco Co-Chair.
7. Structure of Relationship Between Counties and the Planning Council
The group reviewed the draft document, written by Jack Newby, titled Relationship
between Planning Council, Marin and San Mateo Counties. The draft document
from Planning Council Support discussed the structure of the relationship
between the Counties and the Planning Council. CS Siron took charge of the
meeting by stating whose turn it was to talk and suggested for each person
to say whether they were for the Structure of Relationship draft document
or against it.
•
Objections to the Structure of Relationship draft document
CM Sweetin of San Mateo County-objects to the relationship report, because
it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to have the counties do all of
the reporting. CM Sweetin stated that San Mateo HAC is in line with HRSA priorities.
She was concerned that a county may decide to go in a different direction and
this “superstructure” would not allow for leeway.
CM Sweetin was concerned that the document would disrupt the relationship between
the San Mateo County DPH and the advisory Council. She feels that it is demanding
a structure and doesn’t think there is a requirement for the counties
to be identical. She would prefer that the Council just ask what they are already
doing. She doesn’t think they function independently, because no one
votes on the advisory Committee. She is worried that when she talks to the
San Mateo DPH about this, that they will wonder why the relationship has to
change.
• Agreements to the Structure of Relationship draft document
CM Allgaier of San Francisco County is for it, because the SF Planning Council
has to assure that the counties are in compliance with The Ryan White Title
I CARE Act.
CM Kleffner of Marin County is in favor because there has to be some legal
compliance.
CM Spaeth is for it, because it gives Marin County HAHSAC the structure for
how to comply.
CM Carter of Marin County is also in favor. He asked for clarity regarding
San Mateo County following the reporting procedure outlined in A through F,
because he didn’t understand what CM Sweetin was talking about.
CM Allgaier explained that the EMA’s perspective is that the Planning
Council has to hold the three counties accountable for compliance with Title
I. If one county is out of compliance, the entire EMA is out of compliance.
There can not be a different compliance for individual counties. He then explained
that he understood that CM Sweetin doesn’t want to fix what isn’t
broken, but it is the Planning Council’s duty to make sure that the EMA
resource allocation prioritization meets HRSA requirements.
CM Graham of Marin County is in favor and hopes they can all work together
to get to where they need to be.
Discussion continued.
CS Newby mentioned the contract and explained what it means. HRSA does require
an MOU. He is trying to stay out of the authorship, but this document tries
to determine what the Ryan White Care Act actually means.
CM Allgaier addressed resource allocation as the unnamed problem. He then explained
that as long as a CARE-like council approves them, then they are fine. The
Planning Council has to make sure it is working well so that they can sign
off on the letter to HRSA each year, but that there is leeway for local issues.
They want the local counties to have flexibility.
CM Kleffner addressed the fact that Independence is fundamental to the principle
of the whole CARE act, so it is important to her to hear from that advisory
group.
CM Spaeth was concerned about language details, because there are people in
Marin County who will hold them to the exact wording and therefore it needs
to be clarified so that it is a group effort.
AO Zellers explained the intent is to make sure there is local input into how
the local funds are spent.
It was decided to go through the document per each section and discuss language.
I. Introduction-The wording was changed.
II. Formation of Local Planning Bodies-wording was changed in first paragraph.
#1.
CM Sweetin mentioned that the board of supervisors of San Mateo County might
have a problem with changing the bylaws, but that she can not speak for them.
A discussion of who wrote their bylaws or where they came from was discussed.
CM Graham thinks it is perfect the way it is and CM Carter-thinks it works
for them.
CM Allgaier-suggested using the word strive to give leeway, but it was not
agreed to.
The majority agreed to leave it the way it is.
#2
The wording was discussed and it was decided that “planning bodies” will
be changed to “Local Planning Advisory Group”, and local grantee
will be changed to local health department throughout the whole document. No
other changes.
#3
Adding “or other contractual obligations” was discussed. Adding
the Sunshine ordinance was discussed. Whether or not the public has the right
to see these documents was mentioned. The Brown Act was also discussed and
if it covers the same thing as the Sunshine Ordinance. It was suggested and
agreed to come back to this after researching the Brown Act a little more.
#4 no changes
#5 no changes
#6 no changes
III. Reporting to San Francisco HIV Health Services Planning Council-
The amount of reports and due dates was discussed. CM Allgaier mentioned that
the dates had to do with reporting to HRSA. CM Sweetin wanted to know why they
have to do another report when they already report to DPH, because the amount
of reporting seems to be redundant. Responsibility was discussed. AO Zellers
explained that they want the advisory groups to come at least once a year and
it can not be done by the DPH. It was decided to park this discussion and come
back to it another time.
#1
CM Carter would like to see this working group continue to meet 4 times a year
instead of giving it over to the Steering Committee. He doesn’t trust
that the commitment to the counties will be there without meeting. CM Kleffner
added that the Steering Committee is too big to bring it up to them and another
quorum is needed. AO Zellers explained that the idea of these local groups
is that they would take care of themselves. CC Siron added that this group
is already an ad-hoc Committee and the Steering Committee would not agree to
another committee. CM Allgaier mentioned that this is a short-term working
group to resolve an issue and that operationally adding another committee might
not be useful even if it is practical. CM Spaeth can not continue with a regular
meeting group. CM Carter doesn’t trust the Steering Committee or the
Council because they are just too high powered. A discussion regarding who
is going to make sure the reports are turned in, and how to make sure that
this stuff happens followed. CM Kleffner was afraid that the counties group
would fall apart because of the attention span. CM Allgaier agreed that maybe
they should keep the working group continuing on a bi-annual basis. CM Sweetin
thinks that the Council needs to drive north or south and come see what the
counties are doing. CS Newby agreed that the Council has a short term memory
statement is valid. The Planning Council is creating a structure that never
existed before so things don’t fall through the cracks, because that
is the history of the Council.
A discussion regarding Council members attending county meetings was discussed.
It was decided that it would not be a good idea in San Mateo County, but that
Marin County is having their meeting July 6th, but this won’t be on the
agenda until August. CM Sweetin said it might be possible to take the document
to San Mateo executive board.
8. Working Group Next Steps
The group will continue the discussion to define its scope of work, and next
steps to complete it.
9. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
July 20th 5:30-7:30pm, 25 Van Ness, Room 330A
Tabled Items:
• Determine Planning Council Reporting Responsibilities
• Determine Grantee Reporting Responsibilities
• Council Support for the Counties
CC Siron Adjourned the meeting at 7:33 PM.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee