June 1, 2006 Minutes Infrastructure & Policy Committee

HIV Health Services Planning Council
INFRASTRUCTURE & POLICY MINUTES
Thursday, June 1st, 2006
Department of Public Health
25 Van Ness Avenue, Room 330B
3:30 - 5:30 pm

1. Introductions
Co-Chair Ayisha Benham called the meeting to order at 3:41.

2. Review/Approve Agenda
The agenda was approved by consensus.

3. Review/Approve May 4th, 2006 Minutes
The minutes were approved by consensus.

4. Announcements
Director Jack Newby announced that he needed to leave at 5:00 pm.

5. Public Comment
There was no public comment.

6. Steering Committee Update
There was no update.

7. Review of the Policy and Procedure Manual
The Manual now has most of what is needed. Still missing is the resolution of policies concerning attendance, use of an alternate, and the advocate’s report. There was a discussion of to the recent changes to the Advocate’s Report. While those changes recognized the concerns of those opposed to naming providers, they did not eliminate them.

However, CM Margot Antonetty may be uncomfortable further advocating for change because of possible conflict of interest problems. CM Charles Siron believed her advocacy had been beneficial to an understanding of the issues and urged her to consider continuing her past calls for reform.

8. Discussion of the Committee’s Role in the Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan

• Develop Action Steps

Mr. Newby provided a step by step review of plan and the status of various items. There was also some discussion of the mechanics of holding joint meetings with other committees, particularly Evaluation. Mr. Siron agreed to call Staff Support Enrique Asis and the members of the Evaluation Committee to get them to commit to a meeting of I&P with Evaluation on July 6. It was also agreed that Goals 2.1 and 2.3 should be scheduled for the August agenda perhaps even inviting all members to attend.

9. Staff Report on the Review Process of HIV Consumer Advocacy Project Policy and Procedure
Consumer Rights Advocate Richard Bargetto had made changes to the Report. There was a discussion of the underlying issue. It was hoped that a policy resolving the issues discussed above at Item #7 would be `determined by the next meeting so that it could be included in the manual.

10. Review and Monitoring of Action Plan and MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)

• Upcoming Dates and Action Items

Mr. Newby reviewed the steps and timeline of the Action Plan:

A. 2d (“Sufficient time provided to ensure a fair and competitive process…”): The steps and timeline had been met;

B. 3b (“Awards made in adherence to published schedule….”): Mr. Newby plans to speak to Ms. Michelle Long at his next meeting with her; Mr. Newby also planned to check to determine whether Bidding and Contracting 101 was on schedule;

C. 3c (“All new and renewed contracts certified by start date…”): Language had been discussed, but not set. DPH was making progress with providers reporting daunting paperwork causing delays;

D. 3f (“Prompt communication…”): This was completed except for Bidding and Contracting 101;

E. 4h (“Effective Program monitoring…”): Mr. Newby would ask for a report from Ms. Long.

Regarding the MOU, Mr. Newby indicated that the co-chairs, he and Ms. Long would meet concerning communications issue and raise specific examples. He said that there were concerns arising from last minute requests for the agenda. At the very least, these requests had to be made by the Tuesday before a council meeting. This problem seems to have been exacerbated recently. In general, the MOU seemed to be working. It provides a platform on which communication with DPH’s Office of HIV Health Services can occur.

11. Discussion of Merging the Evaluation Committee and the Infrastructure and Policy Committee
There was a review of the history that led to the creation of the two committees. Concerns of the two committees seemed to overlap and the I&P committee would soon exhaust its founding purpose of gathering together a Policy Manual. It might be possible in the future to use an ad hoc committee to achieve the benefits sought by the original division of responsibilities between the two committees. Evaluation was now reviewing the council structure and Council Co-Chair Randy Allgaier’s past report on the committee structure. The thought among some was that too many committees may have been created through that structure. However, rather than focusing on just these two committees, a better approach might be to review the whole committee structure before making decisions. At this point, however, it seemed to make sense to allow the same committee that identifies problems through evaluation be charged with coming up with proposed solutions. Mr. Newby agreed to find the report by Mr. Allgaier and email it to the I&P members

12. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items

The next meeting will be Thursday, July 6th, 2006 at the same location, Room 330A.

Preliminary interest was expressed in studying the procedures by which non-members of a committee may be allowed to make motions and vote on that committee’s business. It was agreed that attendance at a committee other than the member’s home committee should not satisfy the member’s attendance requirements.

The meeting adjourned at 5:02 pm