Committee Members Present: Don Soto (co-chair); Margot Antonetty; Laura Thomas
(co-chair)
Committee Members Absent: Ken Pearce; Billie-Jean Kanios; Ellen Sweetin; Chris
Callandrillo
Other Council Members Present: None
Council Support Present: Skot Jonz
Others Present: Susan Strong (prioritization facilitator); Bill Hirsch (ALRP);
Joseph Graham
1. Introductions
Co-Chair Soto called the meeting to order at 3:50 pm and those present introduced
themselves.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Without a quorum, the agenda was not approved. The meeting proceeded with the
current agenda.
3. Review/Approve Minutes – August 22, 2005
Without a quorum, the minutes were not approved. This will be moved to next
month’s agenda.
4. Announcements
No announcements.
5. Public Comment
Bill Hirsch from ALRP commented that he believes the prioritization meetings
went well and thanked Planning Committee for making it go as smoothly as
it did.
Mr. Graham announced that he had filled out an application for membership and added that he has certain life experience that could be helpful to the Council.
6. Steering/ General Update
CM Soto provided an update on the Steering Committee activities and discussions.
7. Prioritization/Allocation Summit Meeting Review
CM Soto began a brief discussion on the prioritization/allocation summit review.
Susan Strong was thanked for attending. Committee discussed the successes
and challenges of the meeting. Susan indicated she does not have the evaluations
completely compiled, but did provide some preliminary information (on file
at Council Support Offices). Overall, the average priority rankings were
over 4 on a scale of 1-5, which was described as very good. Committee discussed
the responses and how to use this to structure future summits. A full report
with pie charts and accurate numbers with an analysis will be provided by
Susan.
Conclusion: goals were accomplished, except for the larger funding cuts scenario. Susan felt that there was too much time for review of data on first day, and perhaps more time could have been devoted to providing top trends and discussion.
Other thoughts: Susan felt totally prepared with Robert’s Rules upon starting the meeting and totally unprepared upon leaving. She indicated she would be updating her library on this information and appreciated everyone keeping her on track.
She also mentioned that certain Council Members had expressed to her that they enjoyed the process and learned quite a bit. Committee discussed general comments they had heard about the process.
Bill Hirsch offered HAPN feedback: felt too much time devoted to Needs Assessment in light of other things that needed to be addressed. He added that many of HAPN’s recommendations were endorsed by the prioritization process, including approval of prior year’s priorities, funding scenarios, and other matters. He commented that it seemed unusual that there was not more provider participation and input, but unsure why this was the case. Suggestions were offered.
Co-chair Soto added that few people commented that perhaps this could be an ongoing over-the-year process rather than at one short time.
Co-chair Thomas replied that last year the process took over three months, and everyone was in agreement that it should take less time.
CM Antonetty described the first day of the summit as a “love fest” and was concerned that the last data heard can often be the most highlighted in memory, and the hard decisions were put off until the last minute.
CM Thomas agreed that it would be helpful to have a process where the hard decisions are not put off until the last minute when people are tired, frustrated, and impatient to complete the process.
CM Soto discussed a suggestion that prioritization be done and finished on the first day, and save allocation for the second day.
Mr. Graham suggested a way to do the prioritization process easier. Do the hard stuff on the first day, and save the “love fest” for the second day.
CM Antonetty agreed it was a really good process, and thanked Co-chairs Thomas and Soto for their hard work.
Susan asked about future Needs Assessments. Committee discussed it would be done every couple of years. A more in-depth report and analysis of the Needs Assessment will be provided by Harder + Co. to Council in October.
Regarding small groups: CM Antonetty did not find them useful, although it was interesting to be chatting informally. CM Antonetty commented that the Needs Assessment data preceding the small groups seemed to overshadow the groups and not a good use of the time, and caused too much floundering.
CM Soto stated that he had a good experience in the small group, but it evolved into an informal time-out to share ideas with regard to the various forms of data. This offered more opportunity for individual dialogue.
Susan asked if allocation discussions could be done on the first day and whether it would affect the prioritization discussions.
Committee discussed that prioritization had traditionally been done first, but does not necessarily have to be that way. Committee discussed the changes in tiers over the years. Committee discussed that it would be interesting to do allocation first, but not sure if it would work.
8. Development Funding Scenarios- VOTE
The Committee will develop funding scenarios to forward to the full Council
for a funding cut of greater than 10%.
Committee agreed that a discussion on this matter could go forward, but without
quorum no vote could take place. Even with a vote, this cannot be discussed
at the next Council meeting because the agenda is already full. Committee agreed
that it should be discussed with more people in the room. It was agreed to
have this discussion again at next month’s meeting.
Co-Chair Soto reviewed with Committee the service categories in the two tiers. Committee discussed.
ACTION: Add development of funding scenarios greater than 10% cut to October Planning Committee meeting.
Bill Hirsch asked whether the purpose of the two tiers was designed to use with funding scenarios.
Committee discussed Co-Chair Soto’s draft proposal for funding scenarios incorporating a greater than 10% cut. Susan Strong offered a suggestion to build upon the policy for the 5-10% cut, to cut every service category 10%, then cut from the bottom up until the balance is absorbed. Committee discussed various approaches, including ways for agencies and services to be able to identify other sources of funding before CARE funds are significantly reduced.
9. Planning Committee Policies & Procedures
Committee discussed the three policies for this committee to be included in
the Policy & Procedure Manual. Committee requested for Council Support
to draft policies to bring to next month’s committee meeting for their
review and modification.
ACTION: Council Support to draft the following policies for Planning Committee: Priority Setting and Resource Allocations Process; Development of Comprehensive Plan; and Inclusion of Marin and San Mateo Counties. Bring drafts to October Planning Committee meeting. Rename Development of Three-Year Plan to Development of Comprehensive Plan on Table of Contents.
10. Comprehensive Plan Update
Co-Chair Thomas reviewed the Comprehensive Plan activities and discussed that
the consultant would be coming to the next meeting of the Comprehensive Plan
Working Group scheduled for September 20th. The review of Values and Vision
will be at the September Council Meeting. The goals and objectives will be
taken to the Full Council at the October Council Meeting.
11. Needs Assessment Update
Council Support provided an update on the Needs Assessment process.
12. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
October 11, 2005, 3:30-5:30 p.m., 25 Van Ness Room330A.
Co-Chair Thomas asked Council Support to poll the Planning Committee members
to determine whether changing the standing meeting time from 3:30-5:30 to 4:00-6:00
would be acceptable.
ACTION: Council Support to poll new list of Planning Committee members regarding a change in the standing meeting time of committee.
CM Antonetty mentioned that she would not be on Planning Committee any longer as of next month she will be participating on the I&P Committee. The membership of Planning Committee will otherwise remain the same, with the addition of CM Simmons.
Co-chair Soto adjourned the meeting at 5:00 pm.
October agenda items include:
Minutes from August 22 and September 13.
Discussion of Development of Funding Scenarios (greater than 10% cut) – VOTE
Review of Draft Policies and Procedures for Planning Committee
Comprehensive Plan Update
Needs Assessment Update
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee