Committee Members Present: Charlene Pugh (co-chair), Devin Anderson, Ayisha
Benham (co-chair)
Committee Members Absent: George Simmons; Bill Blum; Charles Siron
Other Council Members Present: Brian DiCrocco, Chris Calandrillo
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Skot Jonz
Others Present: Michelle Long-Dixon; Francine Austin (HHS)
1. Introductions
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Committee reviewed the agenda. CM moved to approve the agenda. Without objection,
the agenda was approved by consensus.
3. Review/Approve Minutes
Committee reviewed the minutes from the April 6, 2005 I&P Committee meeting.
CM Benham moved to accept the minutes. CM Anderson seconded. All in favor of
approving the minutes.
4. Announcements
Jack Newby announced that the Needs Assessment survey tool is finalized and
the process is up and running. Francene mentioned that the RFP for Bayview/Hunter’s
Point COE went out today.
5. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
6. Steering Committee Update
CM Pugh reviewed the draft minutes from the previous Steering Committee meeting
and updated Committee on the activities of the Steering Committee. Committee
discussed.
7. Review Council Policy & Procedures Table of Contents
The Committee will review a draft of the Council Policy & Procedures
Table of Contents and discuss adding or changing any pertinent documents to
this
committee. The committee will begin to review the documents if time allows.
The committee will continue to review their appropriate documents at the next
meeting as well as review suggestions from the other committees at the next
meeting.
Jack Newby reviewed the available documents provided to Committee Members:
1) Conflict of Interest Policy
2) Grievance Policy – the original was in the by-laws. In the old MOU
(the one approved but not signed) there is a grievance policy on the last page
that might be acceptable. Committee discussed another one used by Shanti that
might be useful.
3) Meeting Procedures –
4) Co-chair Job Description –
Missing policies are:
Committee Development and Organization
Document Handling
Policies Regarding Establishment of Work Groups
Jack asked Committee regarding the missing items if they would prefer Council
Support to draft an initial document and then have Committee review and revise.
Council Support will attempt to obtain samples from other EMAs.
Jack discussed the Policies and Procedures Manual to include revision dates
in the footer and a document locater I.D.
CM Benham suggested that the footer include an adoption date so the minutes
from that date could be referred to when necessary.
Jack advised Committee that Conflict of Interest was just adopted so it does
not need to be reviewed.
Committee agreed that Committee Development and Organization was already compiled in the form of other documents and agreed to have Council Support rewrite this to present a draft document to Committee.
In reviewing the Meeting Procedures document:
Committee agreed to add a comment regarding the Roberts Rules of Order in use
at all meetings. Committee discussed that this document was originally put
together to address public comment and not the other areas of the meeting.
Committee agreed to add “Public Comment” to Item 4 in the TOC and remove “Meeting Procedures” from Item 7.
Regarding “Document Handling” Committee discussed whether this policy should include who is the point person for different types of requests. Committee agreed that this is different than the policy under Item 13 “Information Request Policy” which refers specifically to the public. This particular Item “Document Handling” should refer to “internal” document requests. Council Support will prepare a draft.
CM Benham asked if there would be a link to items under “Item 4” of
the TOC.
CM Pugh also suggested having the entire P&P manual online.
Jack suggested that Council Support would draft a Grievance Policy based on the old MOU and present to Committee for review.
Committee Development and Organization document: needs to be drafted
CM Banks asked if there were archived documents from previous years for public
review. He asked if someone wanted to do general research on Council activities
if they could access this information.
Jack Newby provided an overview of what information is available in the archives.
Committee reviewed the document for Council Co-Chair Elections.
CM DiCrocco asked if this document was going to be revised.
CM Pugh indicated that it was only recently approved.
CM DiCrocco indicated that he was not pleased with No. 7 regarding strong written
or oral communication skills would limit participation by certain members.
Committee discussed.
CM Benham indicated that if these people were to speak before the State or
the media they would need strong communication skills, but it was removed with
regard to the committee participation.
Jack reviewed by-laws regarding co-chairs policy, but indicated that it is
not a written procedure. He indicated that the policy would be drafted by Council
Support and provided to Committee for review and approval. Committee discussed
that chairs are nominated in August, elected in September, and take office
October 1st.
CM Pugh discussed the document under Item 10 regarding “Unfunds Policy” that I&P Committee develops the policy and Planning implements the policy. Committee discussed moving Unfunds Policy to I&P also, but leaving it in Planning for their approval. CM Benham suggested being specific on this item.
Document entitled “Policies Regarding Establishment of Work Groups”,
Committee discussed. Jack discussed that the work groups are covered under
Item 16. Specific Work Groups, since they are short term should be removed
and simply have the policy for Work Groups.
CM Benham suggested start and end dates for the work groups so that oral history
is not relied on and there is documentation to back up the history of the work
groups.
Committee discussed the issues that have been involved with the ad hoc work
groups, especially around voting.
CM DiCrocco expressed his opinion that only Council Members vote.
Jack indicated that Council Support would draft a policy with regard to Ad
Hoc Work Groups. He suggested that public input is important for these work
groups, and since they are not a subcommittee that they do not adhere to the
same rules.
Jack also discussed that the requirements of the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance
apply to the work group meetings just as they would with regular committees.
Committee discussed that ad hoc work group members need to be held to the same
standards and requirements and not be permitted to have email meetings and
other meetings outside of noticed meetings. Committee agreed that the vote
should only be Council Members, and that it will be flushed out in Steering
before going to Full Council.
Michelle discussed angst in the community related to who could vote in the
working group, for example around the COE, and the feeling that there had not
been enough community
input
and
that
some
people
often felt cut out
of the process. She suggested gauging the work group depending on the issues,
and stated that consensus is a good thing.
Jack indicated that Council Support would work on these documents and the drafts
would be distributed to Committee members prior to the next I&P meeting.
At the next meeting, dates for last revision will be included to determine
how long it has been since it was last revised.
Francene suggested a procedure for how often items in the P&P are reviewed.
Michelle asked who decides what policies get developed.
Committee discussed.
8. Discuss Development of the MOU with Grantee
The Committee will discuss the development of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Grantee including the recommendation from Evaluation Committee
regarding the Grantee Assessment Action Plan and Timeline.
CM Pugh indicated that issue with Senator Enzi interrupted the planned discussion
on the MOU.
Michelle suggested that whatever is developed is consistent with the legislation
and not in conflict with the contract for Planning Council Support.
Committee discussed that Jack Newby and CM Pugh would develop a draft to bring
to the next Committee meeting and submit to Michelle and then they would clarify
items from that point on.
Jack asked if anyone else on the Committee would be interested in working on
this matter. Nobody volunteered
9. Next meeting date & agenda items
The next meeting date for I&P Committee is scheduled for June 1st, 2005.
Proposed agenda items include:
The committee will continue to review their appropriate documents at the next
meeting as well as review suggestions from the other committees at the next
meeting.
Review the MOU [again].
Since committee finished agenda business early, discussion continued with a topic raised by CM Banks around agency problems, denial of service, client bill of rights, and grievance procedures. Committee discussed the possibility of a client/consumer watchgroup to monitor agencies.
CM Banks asked about video-taping these meetings since they are public information, and he wanted to bring up how useful it would be for someone just coming on to the council that these meetings be archived and available on video for people to review. Committee discussed that Sunshine requires the audio recording but unsure about a retention policy. CM Banks indicated he wants to get a feel for the process of voting and feels that it would be useful. Committee discussed how knowing how people vote and whether they have a conflict of interest. Committee discussed the recently compiled conflict of interest matrix. CM Banks believes that providers are taking priority and consumers are getting left behind. He thinks that the damage has been done and there has been conflicts in the past causing people to vote for services and he is attempting to undo the damage.
Francene mentioned that the Council votes for categories of service, not particular
agencies.
Michelle indicated that CM Banks brought up several good points that need further
discussion. She indicated that the Council rarely gets a perspective from clients
about how priorities play out for consumers, and the system seems to be set
up for managed care. The client-centered approach versus the system needs to
be discussed by the Council and looked at in the Needs Assessment and 3-year
plan. She indicated that this conversation has not been had for several years,
and due to the shift in how services are provided it really needs to be looked
at again.
Committee discussed issues especially around the format of the COEs and how
services are delivered. Committee discussed the problems with clients being
intimidated into not filing a grievance.
Michelle asked how to get this type of debate and discussion in front of the
Council for the purposes of making decisions. Getting feedback about the COEs
is important, and it is important to give the agencies an opportunity to provide
their service before criticizing them.
CM Pugh indicated that a Council Member should come to Steering and specifically
ask for it to be put on the Planning Council agenda.
Jack Newby suggested having this conversation in the COA committee since they are focused on client input and needs assessment. Although COA looks at the reports from the Advocacy Project, they have not looked at patterns of complaints regarding a particular provider. Jack communicated to CM Banks about putting it on the official agenda of COA for further discussion.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 pm.
Mission Statement: To ensure that Council activities, policies and procedures support Council priorities and responsibilities, and monitor and enhance the relationship between the Council and the grantee.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee