HIV Health Services Planning Council
Infrastructure & Policy Draft Minutes
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
25 Van Ness Ave., Room 330A
4:30-6:00 p.m.

Committee Members: George Simmons, Ayisha Benham, Charles Siron, Charlene Pugh, William Blum
Other Council Members: Laura Thomas, Darnell Durio
Council Support: Jack Newby, Leah Crask, Kari Orvik
Others Present: Francine Austin (HIV Health Services) Raymond Banks

1. Introductions

2. Review/Approve Agenda
The agenda was reviewed and approved.

3. Review/Approve Minutes
The minutes from November 3, 2004 were reviewed and approved.

4. Announcements
CM Blum announced that in San Mateo County there were three open nursing positions, bilingual preferred. See CM Blum for more information.

5. Public Comment

6. Steering Committee Update
Leah Crask updated the committee on the last meeting of the Steering Committee, which included discussion about the development of a housing work group, recommendations to the AIDS Office about unobligated funds, and further integration of Marin and San Mateo counties with the Planning Council.

7. Close committee Co-Chair nominations – VOTE
The committee voted to elect CM Charlene Pugh and CM Ayisha Benham as committee co-chairs.

8. Review Committee Co-chair Job Descriptions- VOTE
The Committee reviewed the committee co-chair job description and made changes.
The Committee discussed emphasizing the participation of unaffiliated consumers in the membership policies and procedures.

The Committee approved the Committee Co-chair job description and will forward it to the Steering Committee for approval.

9. Development of Committee Work Plan
The committee discussed including the following items on their committee work plan.

• Review/develop/execute/monitor the MOU according to HRSA guidelines
• Develop a Council policies and procedures manual and review by-laws
• Update the unobligated funds policy
• Review the severe need definition (linkage to prioritization process )
• Determine the role of Ad Hoc committees
• Work with the Evaluation Committee to implement recommendations from the Grantee Assessment
• Review the implementation of Council recommendations and priorities and determine who is responsible
• Develop a Conflict of Interest policy

10. Develop Conflict of Interest Policy.
CM Simmons stated he favored the most stringent policy for conflict of interest.
CM Pugh countered that such a policy could lead to a situation where the voting pool would be so small that it would be not representative of the full Council.
CM Simmons stated that the groups representing alternative/complementary therapies were very “organized.”
CM Thomas stated that ideally the Council would have a policy that was specific enough so that all members were clear about the policy.
CM Blum stated that being “unaffiliated” is not necessarily without conflict of interest
Jack Newby responded that according to HRSA, unaffiliated is not having a conflict of interest.
Francine Austin stated that conflict of interest becomes confusing when a Council member feels he or she should advocate for an agency that he or she represents.
CM Thomas cited the example of Centers of Excellence, as no agency is currently in a COE or knows whether they will be; therefore, the process is more removed and people are voting more on an idea.
Jack Newby stated that Planning Councils are supposed to be set up so there is not conflict of interest, using broad categories and not being involved in the Grantee’s role of who receives the money. Other Planning Councils have tried to use alternative methods such as nametags stating what funds a Council member’s agency receives. Other Councils try to reach consensus by using colored cards.
CM Benham stated that she felt Council members were voting in spite of having a conflict of interest.

CM Simmons made a recommendation to ask the City Attorney’s Office for an opinion on conflict of Interest in January, to bring to the February meeting.
Francine Austin suggested looking at the HRSA definition to determine which is more stringent.
Jack Newby stated that according to CM Byers providers of services should not vote on those service categories.
CM Blum suggested bringing a summation of the Brown Act to the next meeting, and to invite CM Byers to the January committee meeting. Also, announce the discussion to the full Council, if they want to attend this meeting.
Francine Austin suggested addressing conflict of interest in the orientation for new members.
Jack Newby suggested inviting unaffiliated consumers into that process to dispel myths that Council members are “ lining their pockets.” Non-profit agencies don’t benefit anyone but the public, but occasionally there is job protection.
CM Benham asked for clarity on the rules for abstentions and recusals in voting.

11. Next Meeting Date and agenda items
CM Simmons stated that the Redevelopment Agency would be participating in the Housing Work Group and might be able to provide some funding for consultants and support.

The meeting adjourned at 6:05 pm.

 

Meeting minutes are considered to be in DRAFT form until reviewed and approved by Council attendees.

Home | Community Outreach & Advocacy Committee | Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation Committee
Membership Committee | Planning Committee | Steering Committee