Committee Members Present: Charlene Pugh (co-chair); Ayisha Benham (co-chair);
Devin Anderson; Bill Blum; George Simmons; Charles Siron
Council Support Present: Jack Newby; Skot Jonz
1. Introductions
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Committee reviewed the agenda. No objections were made and the agenda was approved
by consensus.
3. Review/Approve Minutes March 2, 2005, Minutes
The Committee reviewed the minutes from the March 2, 2005 Infrastructure and
Policy Committee meeting. No objections were made. CM Benham moved to approve
the minutes, CM Siron seconded. The minutes were approved by consensus.
4. Announcements
CM Siron announced the Housing Working Group meeting on April 7 from 4-6pm
at 101 Grove Street, Room 200.
5. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
6. Steering Committee Update
CM Pugh reviewed activities and discussions at the Steering Committee meeting,
with emphasis on Marin County activities.
CM Siron added other details about Planning Council co-chairs discussion on
adhering to time constraints and issues around timing of dinner. Steering also
discussed the Community Outreach & Advocacy community meeting scheduled
for next week, and the upcoming meeting with San Mateo Planning Committee.
The County working group meets on April 20th from 5:30-7:00 pm.
7. Develop Council Policies & Procedures (Cont.)
Jack Newby updated Committee on activities related to the Policy and Procedures
document. He and CM Blum worked on the Table of Contents and distributed
it to the Committee for review at this meeting. Jack suggested adding an
agenda item to other committees to determine if they have additions.
Committee discussed that the Unfunds Policy in Planning needs to move to I&P.
Committee discussed that the Table of Contents looks fine.
Committee discussed providing weblinks to resources on some items, such as
the Sunshine Ordinance.
The next step is to give the Table of Contents to all the committees and have
them review appropriate sections, make additions and changes as necessary,
and provide necessary documents.
CM Siron asked to put this on next month’s agenda and Committee discussed
adding this item to other committee agendas for the current month.
Jack suggested that Council Members receive only appropriate sections during
the development phase, and a final full copy not provided until complete.
Committee discussed adding a link to the full Policies and Procedures on the
Council website.
CM Pugh discussed a software program that works well with linking to specific
documents.
CM Siron inquired whether in addition to the date in the Version column if
there could be a column for Review date. Committee discussed naming this column “Revision”.
Committee agreed to include that the committees will review the table of contents
and be given target dates to get back to I&P.
Jack indicated that current Policies and Procedures will be organized and gaps
identified.
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.
Jack reviewed with Committee that a meeting has been set with Michelle at the
AIDS Office. Jack informed Committee that Evaluation Committee reviewed the
Action Plan Ideas for the Grantee Assessment. (Handout provided to Committee
members and available on file at Council Support Offices). Jack provided Committee
members with sample MOUs (available on file at Council Support Offices). One
of the issues with the Grantee Assessment is the area of getting contracts
resolved within a reasonable time.
CM Siron asked about a policy that would allow new Council members to vote
and be appointed by Council without having to wait for mayoral appointment.
Committee discussed that as it stands, appointment must come from the CEO of
the grantee, the mayor.
Committee discussed that there can be language added to the contract to make
the grantee more accountable for the process.
Committee discussed that the AIDS Office is in the process of providing a clearer
definition of their responsibilities to the Evaluation Committee.
Committee reviewed the revisions and recommendations to the Action Plan, and
samples. Committee turned their attention to Section III (Communication) of
the Sample MOU between the MetroCity Title I Grantee and Planning Council.
CM Siron asked whether the old MOU can be incorporated into the language of
the sample.
CM Pugh asked about adding something with regard to documents being reviewed
prior to Council Meetings, and why certain information is not being freely
shared between the AIDS Office and the Planning Council, especially since this
information is available to the public. Documents presented to the Council
should be available.
Committee asked to obtain documents from the last Planning Council meeting
that were provided by the AIDS Office but insufficient number of copies were
made available. Jack agreed to do so.
Committee discussed the issue about difficulty in obtaining electronic copies
of the budget when a presentation is being done.
CM Benham asked about a discussion to determine why the AIDS Office is seemingly
so defensive and how to resolve this issue. Committee discussed that perhaps
the AIDS Office is reluctant to share salary information, but this is collapsed
into one lump sum which is acceptable.
Committee discussed that the AIDS Office takes 5% of the budget for their administrative
expenses.
CM Siron reiterated that communication, document sharing and reports should
be included in the discussion with Michelle of the AIDS Office.
Committee discussed adding specific language that spells out a requirement
for the AIDS Office to provide a sufficient number of copies so that Council
Members do not have to share, and that an adequate number of copies for the
public are available.
Committee discussed clarifying Section IIIA5 of the sample MOU, regarding avoiding
inappropriate communication, and information that is considered confidential.
Jack discussed that the Advocacy Project reports should be less specific in
identifying agencies in a dispute, complaint, or grievance. CM Siron asked
if this could be decided by co-chairs. Jack indicated that it should be in
the MOU and also in Policies and Procedures for that particular program (Section
15 – Advocacy Program).
Regarding Section IIIB1, Committee agreed to increase face-to-face meetings
with both entities and all parties from once a quarter to monthly.
Regarding Section IIIB2, Committee agreed that the sample MOU should also include
the grant, along with the Conditions of Award when making special requests
for information or materials. And also change the word “including” instead
of “such as”.
CM Pugh added that a budget should be presented to the Council within 30 days
of the award, and that this should be spelled out in the MOU.
CM Blum asked for action plans on these issues.
Jack indicated that the primary issue in working with the AIDS Office is the
sharing of documents.
Committee reviewed Section IVD3 regarding: The Planning Council will not have
access to the grantee’s detailed budget other than the version submitted
in the Title I Application, and only grantee staff responsible for financial
management will have access to the Planning Council’s detailed budget.
Committee discussed that this language was completely eliminated from the MOU.
Committee agreed on reviewing the documents and forwarding them to Michelle
from the AIDS Office so she has time to review them before the meeting with
CM Genauracos, CM Pugh, Jack Newby. CM Siron asked if he, or others, could
attend. CM Blum added that if it is too large of a group it could inhibit building
trust.
CM Siron reiterated that the redlined Action Plan Ideas should be incorporated
into the MOU. CM Siron asked if a draft revision of the document could be emailed
to committee members so that they could have an opportunity to respond.
Committee discussed the issue with regard to having consumers or contractors
involved in site monitoring.
Committee reviewed Section IVC1 and IVC2
CM Siron asked if it was necessary to adopt the format of the Sample MOU in
order to move on to Steering and the Full Council.
CM Pugh indicated that they would talk about areas in the first meeting and
work into drafts later.
Committee discussed that it had been awhile, if ever, that a working MOU was
in existence.
Jack indicated that the timeline for the MOU and Action Plan is June and that
it seems to be on track.
Committee agreed that with regard to Section VIIC2 that the MOU will be reviewed
and revised annually, a change from at least once every two years.
9. Next meeting date & agenda items
Committee reviewed that the next meeting is May 4. Jack reviewed the to-do
list for the next meeting is to forward to other committees a copy of the
Table of Contents for the Policies and Procedures manual, for them to suggest
additions and changes. Committee discussed that Policies and Procedures for
the Advocacy Program is already available. Regarding the MOU, Jack reviewed
that CM Pugh and he will report back to Committee regarding the meeting with
Michelle. As soon as Jack has CM Geanuracos’ comments on the Action
Plan he will forward to all parties. The sample MOU and Action Plan will
go to Michelle, co-chairs, and I&P Committee.
Next agenda will include reviewing current Policies and Procedures as well as I&P’s section.
Meeting adjourned at 5:57 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