Committee Members Present: Brad Hume, Don Soto, Darnell Durio, Laura Thomas,
Randy Allgaier, Charles Siron, Anita Booker, Ayisha Benham, Catherine Geanuracos,
Walter Miller, Margot Antonetty
Committee Members Absent: Mary Lawrence Hicks, Joe McMurray
Other Council Members Present: Brian DiCrocco, Ken Pearce, Lara Sallee
Council Support: Jack Newby, Skot Jonz
Others Present: Mike Smith (HAPN), Michelle Long Dixon
1. Introductions
CM Booker called the meeting to order and asked for those present to review
the agenda.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Committee reviewed the agenda and without changes the agenda was approved by
consensus.
3. Review/Approve Minutes
The Committee reviewed the minutes from the April 18, 2005 Steering Committee
meeting. CM Allgaier made a motion to approve the minutes. All in favor of
approving the minutes
4. Announcements
CM Thomas announced a suspension of services for Continuum's Adult Day Care
Program and provided details about the change, specifically about moving
clients to other
services.
CM Thomas also announced that she is the interim-interim E.D. while the new
E.D. at Continuum comes on board.
CM Hume mentioned that Friday June 3 is the next Project Homeless Connect.
CM Antonetty followed up with details. They mentioned that additional help
would be needed and additional information on the website is available: www.projecthomelessconnect.com
CM Durio mentioned that CM McMurray is resigning from the Council as of next
week, and they are down one co-chair on the COA Committee, one less person
on Prevention for Positives as well as the HOPWA Loan Committee.
CM DiCrocco asked about funding adult day care at Continnuum. CM Thomas provided
an overview of City General Funds that have covered the program during the
transition. The Council no longer funds this program.
CM Allgaier mentioned that the B.A.R. (Bay Area Reporter) contacted the Planning
Council regarding this decision about Continuum, and he discussed that other
funding streams are available for this service that not very many people access,
and explained how he had to describe the difficulty with deciding which programs
receive cuts in funding. CM Allgaier also discussed the changes with the Medicare
drug benefits and that he is in working with Gilead Pharmaceuticals to develop
an informative educational program on this issue.
CM Soto announced that Lutheran Social Services is having an open house on
Monday at their new location on Folsom.
5. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
6. Committee Check-in
CM Durio has no update with Prevention with Positives, as nobody had attended
the last meeting. CM provided an update on the COA Committee, the last meeting
looked at consumer input and that this is an ongoing topic. They hope to
come up with a plan for the next contract year. CM Durio informed Committee
members about the Community Forum at MCC this Thursday and offered to have
people attend to assist. CM Allgaier followed up with an announcement that
he would be providing an orientation at 4:30 on that day.
CM Miller provided an update on Evaluation Committee. They went over the Policies and Procedures Table of Contents. They also discussed the grantee assessment and the evaluation form for the planning council as well as the evaluation form for the monthly meetings, and who would evaluate support staff.
CM Hume provided an update on Membership Committee. The Committee had no further interviews this month. They hoped to complete the disciplinary and involuntary removal policy, but indicated that several members had an issue with “respectful engagement”. CM Hume indicated that he and Jack Newby are working on clarifying this policy and will finalize in June. CM Hume indicated that CM Hicks returns in June. He followed up that some additional candidates would be interviewed in July while they work on policies in the meantime.
CM Soto mentioned that Planning Committee had an overview of Celinda Cantu’s Reggie presentation. He added that CM Antonetty and CM Calandrillo are working on specific issues with regard to homeless definition; and CM Kanios and CM Thomas are working on clarifying the definition for special need, specifically with regard to incarcerated people. CM Soto discussed the issues with regard to working with Prevention with Positives. He added that there is work ongoing with regard to clarifying HRSA categories.
CM Benham provided an update on the I&P Committee and mentioned that the
committee discussed changes with the Policies and Procedures Table of Contents.
CM Benham discussed that other issues came up at the end of the meeting and
perhaps got derailed a bit with regard to a Council Member having an issue
with a particular service provider. Committee discussed that this Council Member
should go to the Consumer Advocacy Project.
CM Pearce suggested that the respective chair persons of each committee should
reiterate that there is a process for complaints.
CM Genauracos provided an update on Needs Assessment and that she had talked with Harder & Co. and knows that the process has begun. Jack Newby indicated that the survey instrument is being translated into Spanish and that trainings have been completed. The next work group meeting is at the end of this month.
CM Antonetty provided an update on the Housing Work Group. Harold Phillips,
the HRSA-appointed consultant met with the working group on the issue of length
of stay policy. She indicated that the working group is less concerned as before.
He recommended that the policy be contract-based, which will provide additional
opportunity to come up with a number. She also discussed that the policy is
being rolled out to all EMAs. CM Hume followed up by saying that he feels optimistic
and he feels good about working with Mr. Phillips. HRSA really wants something
reasonable developed with regard to length of stay, and the policy he recommends
will allow for the realities of the San Francisco housing situation. Wants
a better tracking of the housing plans, and if unable to exit within the length
of stay duration, then what are the extenuating circumstances that prevented
moving on to more stable housing. CM Antonetty discussed the bulleted ideas
that the working group came up with and passed on to Mr. Phillips.
CM Hume and CM Antonetty mentioned a proposal: That there are certain service
categories that are listed in housing, but they are actually case management
services attached to housing programs that could not function without those
case management services. She indicated that this artificially inflates the
housing category. By pulling out the case management, this would bring down
the housing category by over $1 million.
Michelle Long Dixon mentioned that the recommendation from the consultant has
ramifications for the budget that the Housing Work Group does not have the
authority to implement.
CM Antonetty replied that this is a proposal, not a motion.
CM Hume added that Harold Phillips mentioned this proposal and reviewed the
discussions with Mr. Phillips and the AIDS Office. He added that the working
group is not assuming they have authority to make these changes.
CM Allgaier suggested that anyone on the Council can bring something to the
agenda.
CM Hume discussed his thoughts about putting this item on the Planning Council
agenda.
Michelle discussed that the Committee needs to be clear with regard to Policies
and Procedures with Working Groups if there is a topic not calendared by an
existing committee. She stated that it sounds great now, but the AIDS Office
does not move that fast, and cannot change the budget until they look at implementation,
and the Council votes on the allocation formula. The budget would not be changed
until voted on. The consultant is not HRSA, he merely makes recommendations
that help us move in a direction that is consistent with local goals and HRSA
rules. Michelle requested clarity about the authority of the working groups
and standing committees to give “directives” to the AIDS Office
so there is not a problem later.
CM Genauracos suggested that no action would be taken until voted on by the
Full Council, and it is not coming from Steering.
CM Durio – Asked what Committee the Housing Working Group reports to.
CM Antonetty mentioned that they report to Steering. She wants to get clarity
from Steering,
to add another subcategory under case management. She discussed why this was
still in the housing service category. She repeated that there was not a directive
or a motion.
CM Thomas added that this is the correct process for things to come to the
Council. She indicated the complications with the short time line. She indicated
that the consultant was doing his job in discussing how HRSA would receive
it as well as what would be in the best interest of the SF EMA. By lessening
the amount of housing, this would incur less scrutiny by HRSA, and not be so
apparent on their radar. She discussed that this does not change the dollar
program of any programs, but changes the appearance of the budget. As long
as the services remain the same, changing the budget for these reasons is acceptable.
CM DiCrocco mentioned that he has lived in transitional housing, and asked
a question regarding the specifics about changing from housing to case management.
CM Antonetty offered to provide a table with that information (On file at Council
Support Offices).
CM Pearce indicated that if he was hearing this for the first time at a Council
Meeting he would want more concrete information, as well as the debate from
the AIDS Office and would prefer to hear both sides.
Michelle clarified her position. She is not in opposition to this change. Her
issue is the speed with which it gets made sets a precedent in terms of committees
coming to HIV Health Services and the AIDS Office and wanting something done.
She is hesitant to set a precedent or continue such activity. Changing contract
documents or budgets would not move quickly enough for the change to happen
by June 1. This is a fiscal change that changes the priorities presented by
the Council. She agrees with the proposed change, but the timing and authority
issue are a problem.
CM Antonetty discussed that she does not want to bring this to the Full Council
and receive the same response as received here, and suggested slowing it down
a bit.
CM Allgaier briefly clarified that any work groups or committees will not be
implementing any changes without the approval of the Full Council. Issues around
work group functions are being handled through I&P development of the Policies
and Procedures manual, as well as communication with the AIDS Office. Any insinuation
of a work group making a decision is incorrect.
CM Hume supported CM Antonetty’s comments about slowing down the process. He expressed disappointment that the grantee cannot be more responsive.
Public Comment
Mike Smith discussed that various contracts have been moved with service categories in the past and unsure about why this cannot be done now. He suggested that he understands wanting to slow down, but suggested that it be done before prioritization.
Committee discussed adding this to Steering Committee and Full Council in June agendas
CM Miller provided an update on the Counties Working Group. He mentioned that co-chairs have been elected. The meeting last week resulted in developing a mission statement. A list of issues to be discussed at the next meeting was developed. The working group also discussed support staff for the counties which will be discussed further in the coming meeting.
7. MOU and Action Plan Update
Charlene Pugh will present an update on the status of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the AIDS office and the Action Plan from the Grantee Assessment.
CM Pugh was absent. Jack Newby discussed that CM Pugh will meet later this
week to develop a draft MOU for co-chair review which will move on to the AIDS
Office for review.
CM Allgaier indicated that the AIDS Office desires that the co-chairs buy into
this so that it is not perceived simply as an I&P issue.
8. Request for Committee Policies and Procedures
The Infrastructure and Policy Committee will request that Committee work
on pertinent policies and procedures for the development of the Council’s
Policies and Procedures Document.
• Membership of Steering Committee
• Council Decision-Making Matrix (flow chart)
• Supervision of Director of Council Support
CM Benham returned to the issue of policies for working groups. CM Benham mentioned
that I&P has not come up with a policy for this, because the working group
could be a majority of people who are not on the council. She indicated there
needs to be a policy developed by Steering on how to handle ad hoc committees.
Jack reviewed how ad hoc committees (working groups) have different operating
mechanisms, and if they are created the decision needs to be made how members
of working groups vote, how proposals are forwarded, etc. While a policy and
procedure is not developed, operating on the fly can create problems.
Committee discussed that it is agreed which committee the ad hoc groups report
to is decided but not other issues.
CM Allgaier added that with the variety of working groups there should be a
structure for proposing the function and structure of the groups.
Removing the specifics is the change recommended for the Table of Contents.
CM Thomas agreed that having a policy is a good idea to remain consistent.
She offered to work on this policy. CM Allgaier agreed to work on this as well.
CM Benham mentioned a generic policy for this issue.
Committee discussed items in the P&P table of contents that should be added
or removed:
CM Thomas suggested a procedure for putting together an agenda for the full
council meetings.
CM Hume suggested a policy for Three-Year Plan. Committee agreed that it should
be in Planning.
CM Genauracos asked about Committee Mission Statements. Council Support pointed
out that it is already under Item 2.
CM Allgaier discussed supervision of Director of Planning Council, and indicated
that it is in the process of being handled.
CM Durio discussed that under Item 11 should be Provider Input and Consumer
Input, and remove the Development of Community Fora and rolling into Consumer
Input.
CM Hume suggested a vote on which committee should handle the 3-year plan.
CM Allgaier discussed that once Needs Assessment and Prioritization is over
then perhaps the 3-year plan could be worked on and there are a few months
to get this going. There is probably consensus from Planning, but cannot vote
on it tonight.
Committee agreed to add this for a vote on the next Steering Committee meeting
for June.
9. Review and Discussion of AIDS Office Presentation on
CARE Title I FY2005 Planned Allocation
The Committee will review and discuss the AIDS Office Budget Presentation by
Brenda Walker scheduled for the upcoming Planning Council Meeting.
Jack reviewed that this was put on the agenda due to the discussion about housing,
as well as the concerns raised at the last council meeting.
CM Durio indicated that he is waiting for the presentation and doesn’t
feel comfortable with how the cuts were allocated and will make proposals that
he feels are just. He discussed that the funding scenario cuts were decided
based on the idea that the COEs were beginning sooner than they actually are.
Committee discussed.
CM Pearce discussed that the recollection of this issue is unclear and suggested
a review of the matter to avoid any animosity with regard to the COEs being
held harmless.
CM Allgaier suggested having someone go over the decision that was made. CM
Thomas added that it would be helpful to have something in writing to show
people how the decision was made. CM Allgaier indicated that he would have
it reviewed by the AIDS Office and Jack Newby.
CM Durio indicated that his vote for the algorithm last year was not based
on 4 months of COE this year.
Public Comment
Mike Smith asked if there were programs that did not receive a cut.
CM Durio explained his interpretation of the budget that shows a zero percent
cut, and will wait for AIDS Office presentation.
CM Geanuracos indicated that budget presentations can often go over the heads
of many council members who are unable to pick apart a spreadsheet. Committee
discussed that this was made available to Council Members at the last meeting
and will be go out in the Council Member mailing this week.
10. HRSA Service Categories
Michelle Long-Dixon will present and review the HRSA Service Categories
Michelle discussed that she can provide an overview.
Jack stated that Russ Zellers asked for Michelle to make a presentation on
this issue and that is why it is on the agenda. She indicated that this is
budget reshaping and reallocation. Because this is sub categories voted on
during prioritization. When they are rolled up into the full HRSA categories,
the higher categories may not be as high. She indicated that this is not a
good way to operate, and suggested that the Council operate under HRSA categories
so that the integrity of what is presented remains.
CM Geanuracos indicated that Russ Zellers made an abbreviated presentation
to the Needs Assessment Working Group, because the more information the better.
There is a lot of rolling up of categories when prioritizing subcategories.
The level of precision using HRSA categories is lost. She indicated that there
are a lot of different ways to look at this and it is helpful to have the two
separate lists to review at the same time.
CM Hume suggested that transforming what the Council does to what HRSA wants
to see.
Michelle indicates she sends a different budget, and HRSA needs to know what
is actually done.
CM Allgaier commented that this returns to the separate issues of prioritization
versus allocation. He suggested revamping subcategories to fit into HRSA categories.
He added that this is a very complicated issue, and Michelle wants the Council
to work on this to make things more reflective of the actual budget.
The budge that goes to HRSA is different than what the Council does in order
to make them fit, they need to be more accountable.
CM Thomas asked what Steering wants to do. If something needs to happen sooner,
it can be put on the agenda for an upcoming meeting.
Michelle suggested that this is not something that is trying to be done for
the June 1 budget. Her intention is to bring it to a Committee for review with
substantial information. She suggested that Planning Committee would be ideal.
ADD THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA
CM Pearce commented that this has been discussed for quite some time and there
is a need to recognize the necessity of adhering to certain standards and doing
it the way HRSA suggests – Do prioritization and allocation separately.
CM Siron thanked CM Pearce for his comments.
Public Comment.
There were no public comments on this matter.
11. Review Council Meeting Agenda
Committee reviewed the Council agenda for May 23, 2005.
CM Hume asked about the Reggie Presentation. CM Soto indicated that there was
a long review at Planning Committee and a final review is pending this week.
CM Hume also asked about the allocation vote for last month’s council
meeting. He suggested that if Brenda Walker does not come next week, that whoever
comes will be able to discuss the budget in a way that Council Members understand.
CM Geanuracos suggested adding something from Evaluation for a standing agenda
item – for completing Evaluation Forms. She also commented that the agenda
looks empty and concerned that they are so close to prioritization.
CM Durio indicated that 40 minutes for budget piece may not be enough. Committee
agreed to add 10 minutes more (to be taken from work group discussion)
CM Soto asked about feedback regarding change of meal time. CM Geanuracos indicated
that the consensus was to keep things the way they were, in the middle of the
meeting, but agreed that having lines down both sides of the table was recommended.
CM Allgaier discussed regarding that the AIDS Office budget presentation, with
Brenda possibly not attending is troubling.
Michelle indicated that she is unsure as she has been out of the office.
CM Hume commented regarding Housing Work Group – that they would put
on the radar for now and it would be discussed later.
CM Thomas suggested adding something regarding a Planning Committee announcement –as
a reminder on the Prioritization Schedule. Five minutes before dinner break.
CM Pearce indicated that this discussion was held at the Planning Committee
regarding attendance of the first day of the Prioritization Summit Meeting,
and it is not the responsibility of anyone to be a mother, and that Council
Members take responsibility.
Committee approved the agenda by consensus.
12. Next Meeting Date and Agenda Items
• Review and Update Integrated Work Plan
• Discussion on Ad Hoc Committees
• Discussion on 3-Year Plan - VOTE
The meeting adjourned at 7:00.
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