Committee Members Present: Randy Allgaier (co-chair); Charles Siron (co-chair);
Brad Hume; George Simmons; Mary Lawrence Hicks; Don Soto; Catherine Geanuracos;
Raymond Banks; Wilfredo Ortiz;
Committee Members Absent: Anita Booker; Laura Thomas; Charlene Pugh; Walter
Miller; Ayisha Benham
Other Council Members Present: George Simmons; Darnell Durio; Mark Molnar
Others Present: Russ Zellers
Council Support Present: Jack Newby; Skot Jonz
1. Introductions
CM Allgaier called the meeting to order and began introductions.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
The agenda was reviewed and no changes were made. The agenda was approved
by consensus.
3. Review/Approve Minutes
Minutes from Steering Committee meeting on May 16, 2005.
Committee reviewed the minutes from the Steering Committee meeting on May
16, 2005. CM Soto moved to approve the minutes. CM Durio requested two
minor changes
which were noted by Council Support. With those changes, the minutes
were approved.
4. Announcements
CM Hicks provided an update regarding the Continuum Adult-Day Health
Care Program, and mentioned programs that had moved to 255 Golden Gate.
CM Durio announced his resignation as co-chair of COA Committee, and informed Committee of the two newly elected co-chairs: CM Raymond Banks and CM Wilfredo Ortiz.
CM Allgaier welcomed CM Banks and CM Ortiz to the Steering Committee and welcomed CM Hicks back from vacation.
CM Allgaier provided an update about last minute changes to a budget meeting and plans to meet with Mr. Illig next Monday. He reported on how this might impact the Needs Assessment process and contract. Committee discussed.
5. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
6. Committee Check-in
Discuss any issues coming up at the different Committees, communication between
Committee Co-chairs, and ensure linkage of Committee activities to the Full
Council.
•
Update on Prevention with Positives – need for new Representative, Darnell
Durio
•
Update on Needs Assessment Working Group
•
Update on Housing Working Group – Status of Consultant recommendations,
if available
•
Update on Counties Working Group – Need for San Francisco Co-chair
CM Hume provided an update for Membership Committee about pending interviews.
CM Durio provided an update for COA Committee and stated that new co-chairs
were elected, and mentioned that there is an opening on the Prevention with
Positives and HOPWA Loan Committee following CM McMurray’s departure
from the Council.
CM Banks added that COA would be working with Membership on recruitment efforts.
He added that he would like to add an item to the Council Agenda regarding
video recording of meetings to be broadcast on public television.
CM Geanuracos discussed the Evaluation Committee, and indicated that the MOU is slated to move forward because no comments were available from the AIDS Office. It was discussed that this should move on to I&P Committee and no longer the purview of Evaluation.
CM Soto provided an update on Planning Committee and stated that much of the meeting was devoted to the HAPN Presentation. The Severe Need Definition and other issues were moved to next month’s agenda. It was discussed that an additional meeting might be needed in preparation for the August two-day Prioritization and Allocation Summit Meeting. CM Soto reported on the HRSA Service Category definition that will be discussed further at this meeting. Council discussed the time frame regarding getting someone on board as far as a facilitator for the P/A Process. Jack provided a status report on the facilitator search and informed Committee that Planning co-chairs would be advised as information comes available.
Committee discussed the HAPN recommendations regarding service categories. It was further discussed that HAPN would be providing a presentation during the July 25 Council Meeting.
CM Banks returned to his comment about video taping the Council Meetings, and suggested that it would be easier to store videos for more than 90 days. He added that having videos broadcast on public television during the Needs Assessment process would be useful with regards to outreach and recruitment efforts. Committee discussed the process for getting this or other items on the Planning Council agenda via a committee proposal that gets forwarded to Steering for approval of the agenda.
CM Allgaier provided an update from I&P Committee which focused primarily on the MOU. He added that I&P did not have a quorum.
WORK GROUP UPDATES:
Needs Assessment Work Group: CM Geanuracos stated that over 300 surveys were
completed, and that focus groups were being started. She reported that the
process is moving forward. The Spanish-language survey has been launched.
The Provider Survey has been finalized.
Housing Work Group: CM Hume discussed an email from the consultant mentioned that he was behind schedule, and that Mr. Phillips (the HRSA consultant) would be attending the Council Meeting next week to report on his recommendation to HRSA. The Housing meeting later this week will formalize this. Committee also discussed that the HRSA Project Manager for the SF Title I Grant, Lorenzo Taylor, would be attending next week’s Planning Council meeting.
Counties Working Group: CM Allgaier discussed that this working group needs a SF co-chair. Committee discussed options. Russ Zellers commented that the Planning Council’s involvement on this ad-hoc group is very important in developing the relationship between the Council and the counties. Jack added an update regarding his participation in the process.
7. Prevention Update
Committee will receive an update regarding the activities of the Prevention
Planning Council and the plans for a presentation at the HIV Health Services
Full Council Meeting in June.
Committee discussed that CM Thomas was prepared to offer this presentation
and not in attendance at today’s meeting. Therefore, this item was skipped
for discussion and it was agreed that CM Allgaier would follow up with CM Thomas.
8. Three-Year Plan Discussion – VOTE
The Committee will discuss which committee will be responsible for developing,
implementing and evaluating the Three-Year Plan.
CM Allgaier discussed that the Three-Year Plan would be an activity for Planning
Committee. Committee discussed. Jack provided an update that Planning should
coordinate the Three Year Plan but with the nature of the plan, there must
be ample community input which might require the formation of a work group.
It was discussed that the Evaluation Committee should review the last three
year plan to give guidance to the Planning Committee and/or work group so that
they could move ahead.
CM Geanuracos stated that this is the primary item on the next Evaluation Committee
agenda.
CM Hume made a motion that the Three-Year Plan be officially housed in the
Planning Committee to decide how to move forward.
CM Hicks seconded.
Committee discussed the motion.
CM Banks disagreed and provided his assessment of the Three Year Plan, and suggested that the plan is about consumers and therefore should be in COA Committee.
By hand vote, all except one were in favor of moving the Three Year Plan to
the Planning Committee.
CM Allgaier agreed to discuss with CM Banks about how to make the plan more
consumer-friendly.
9. HRSA Service Categories Definition – Discussion - VOTE
Committee will discuss the proposal from Planning Committee regarding the definition
of HRSA Service Categories. Committee will also discuss the proposal from Housing
Work Group to change the budget line item of Housing Case Management to Case
Management.
Jack updated Committee regarding this item and the reasons why it was up for
vote. He read the exact proposal forwarded from Planning Committee. (Document
on file at Council Support Offices). He indicated that this is primarily for
reporting purposes. Russ Zellers clarified one item on the proposal. Committee
discussed. Regarding bullet item #3, Final budget for vote, and the AIDS Office
has the ability to move money within [HRSA] categories. Committee discussed
concerns with bullet #3.
Committee agreed to clarify this.
Mr. Zellers stated that the AIDS Office is accountable to the federal government
and that is why they prefer using the official HRSA categories.
CM Hicks discussed the need for checks and balances, as well as transparency
in the process of where funds are spent or moved, to further ensure accountability.
Committee discussed adding the word “unspent” would make this proposal
more acceptable.
CM Simmons recommended an amendment – to replace “money” with “unspent
funds.” Final budget in HRSA categories.
The final budget in HRSA categories for vote, and the AIDS Office has the ability to move unspent funds within HRSA categories. (underline indicates changes).
Discussion on amendment: None.
VOTE: All in favor of adding the words “unspent funds. All in favor of passing the amendment.
CM Hume discussed the importance of memorializing this decision.
CM Simmons supports the revised proposal. Committee discussed.
CM Hume expressed concern about the proposal.
CM Hicks stated that in the interest of transparency there needs to be some
clarification. She added that the movement of unspent funds would stay within
the same categories, but that it needs to be explained clearly or reworded.
CM Molnar commented that he does not support the proposal.
Jack added that the AIDS Office cannot fund something not on the approved priority
list, even if it was within the same broad service category. He pointed to
bullet #4 that allows for direction being provided to the AIDS Office.
CM Allgaier spoke in favor of the motion as amended, and does not want to hamstring
the AIDS Office, while keeping the AIDS Office accountable. This gives them
the flexibility and reports will be provided.
CM Geanuracos asked for clarification regarding the definition of HRSA categories.
CM Allgaier asked whether the presentation on this issue would be a joint presentation
from the AIDS Office and Planning Committee.
No further discussion.
Three were in favor of the amended proposal.
Eight were against the amended proposal.
The motion to approve the proposal did not pass.
It was agreed that the proposal be returned to Planning Committee to restructure
the language to make it work.
Jack suggested that the people voting against the proposal clarify their concerns
so that Planning can work with it.
CM Hicks: Be clearer about the ability to move funds by using more specific
language.
CM Molnar: agreed with comments by CM Hicks.
CM Durio: agreed with comments by CM Hicks.
CM Siron: agreed with comments by CM Hicks.
CM Hume: agreed with comments by CM Hicks.
CM Allgaier emphasized: This needs to be handled before the July Steering Committee meeting. Jack stated that it would be helpful for Committee to provide some direction to Planning. Nothing definitive was provided at this time.
10. Removal for Cause and Member Discipline Policy – VOTE
Committee will review the Removal for Cause and Member Discipline Policy
and vote whether to forward to Full Council Meeting for final approval and
inclusion
in the Council Policy & Procedure Manual.
CM Hume discussed the history of the development of this policy and suggested
that this policy is on the light side compared to those of other EMAs or entities.
Committee reviewed and discussed. Jack provided an update from his discussions
with the Mayor’s Office and the City Attorney’s Office; both indicated
they were fine with the policy as-is and offered assistance as needed.
Committee discussed.
CM Geanuracos added that CEO should be clarified as “the Mayor”.
She also discussed that conviction of illegal behavior should be clarified
to “new” illegal behavior.
Russ Zellers added editorial suggestions for semi-colons.
CM Hume indicated that the illegal behavior refers to activities while a member
of the Council.
CM Banks commented that the policy is ambiguous and discriminatory against
certain people, especially consumers.
CM Hicks indicated that this policy has been discussed for months. The idea
is not to hunt down people that the Council has voted in. The idea is that
it could come up that something is egregious and disruptive to the work of
the Council. Not to look for reasons to get rid of people, but rather protection
of other Council Members from things that were not thought of ahead of time.
CM Allgaier clarified that a hot urine test is not enough grounds to get rid
of someone, as there is a due process. This is a way to hold council members
accountable.
CM Banks suggested that a simple way to handle this would be to call 911 if
someone is disruptive.
All in favor of calling the question: 8. Opposed: 3.
Calling the question passed.
All in favor of adopting the policy to move to the Full Council: 8. Opposed:
3.
It was voted to move the policy to the Full Council for discussion and approval.
11. Respectful Engagement Policy – VOTE
Committee will review the Respectful Engagement Policy and vote whether
to forward to Full Council Meeting for final approval and inclusion in the
Council
Policy & Procedure Manual.
CM Hume provided a summary of the history of the development of this policy.
Committee discussed. CM Hume reviewed the Rules of Respectful Engagement for
the Planning Council policy. (Document on file at Council Support Offices).
He added that this policy is not intended to target individual council members,
and is designed to help the process.
CM Allgaier added that he and Wilhelmina Parker worked extensively on this
policy.
CM Banks asked for clarification about whether this applies to Council Members
only or to others such as HRSA or AIDS Office personnel. Committee discussed.
CM Molnar brought up a recommendation for a change to item 6.1 (Remove “Listen &”)
as it seemed redundant.
CM Banks made a comment that not talking in a condescending manner should be
added.
CM Geanuracos suggested adding something referring to the use of acronyms and
jargon.
CM Durio called the question.
All in favor of calling the question: 10; Opposed: 1.
The motion is to recommend to Full Council the document of Rules of Respectful Engagement with the typo corrected.
All in favor of moving to Council for full adoption: 10; Opposed: 1.
It was agreed to forward this to the Full Council for approval and inclusion
in the P&P Manual.
Committee agreed to bring clearer language to the Council Meeting if changes are desired.
12. Review and Update Integrated Work Plan
The Committee will review and update the Integrated Work Plan.
Jack asked for input from the Steering Committee on items to add, such as the
approving the MOU, and adding the Three-Year Plan. The Integrated Work Plan
through the end of the year will be presented at the next Steering Council
Meeting.
13. Ad-Hoc Committees – Discussion
The Committee will discuss the formation and structure of Ad-Hoc Committees,
and whether to include this item on the June Council Meeting agenda.
Jack provided an update on why this is on the agenda. Primarily because each
of the ad-hoc group works with different procedures. Guidance and information
are requested from Steering in order to develop a policy for the P&P Manual.
Do they need to be consistent? How are they tracked?
CM Siron added that it was discussed in I&P, and suggested there be a standard
in all ad hoc committees.
CM Hume suggested that it is important to have some policy, perhaps from I&P
to present to Steering.
CM Simmons suggested that with the experience of the COE ad-hoc committee,
his recommendation is that all ad-hoc committees have the same rules as any
other committee.
Recommendation is for this to return to I&P.
14. Review Council Meeting Agenda
Review and finalize next Council meeting agenda-June 27, 2005.
• Discussion of Lorenzo Taylor visit to Council meeting
Committee reviewed the agenda and made recommendations. Noted by Council Support.
15. Next Meeting Date and Agenda Items
The next meeting date is July 18, 2005.
CM Allgaier adjourned the meeting at 7:00 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