I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
Roll Call was called and quorum was met.
III. Review and Approval of Agenda
Item 14 and 15 moved prior to Item #10 as they are being presented by the same
person to increase flow. No other changes to the agenda were noted.
CM Booker moved to approve the agenda. CM McMurray seconded.
All were in favor of approving the agenda.
IV. Review and Approval of Minutes- January 24, 2005
CM Kleffner commented on changing the word “funds” to “process” and
delete remainder of sentence in section XII.
Under Item #10. Remove reference to public comment and indicate that consumer
feedback was immediately after the presentation and that it was “generally
positive”.
No other changes to the minutes were noted.
Motion was made to approve the minutes. Motion was seconded by CM Thomas.
The minutes were approved with the changes noted.
V. General Announcements
Jack Newby announced that due to a fire at Project Open Hand that there will
be no serving of the usual meal and instead pizza was being delivered.
CM Booker encouraged Council Members to complete FPPC forms that were distributed
to all those pending completion and return to Council Support at the end of
the meeting.
CM Booker encouraged Council Members to complete Meeting Evaluation Forms.
CM Thomas provided an update on Ryan White CARE Act reauthorization. Congress
reauthorized and will be introduced in Senate. The President called for reauthorization
of the Ryan White CARE Act and should be a fairly smooth process with Republican
support.
CM Spaeth updated site monitoring of CARE contracts, and seeks consumers to
participate in Marin AIDS Project site monitoring.
CM Tanner announced that he is stepping down from the Planning Council due
to Health Reasons. He added that he was not feeling well now and plans to depart
the meeting early. Council Members applauded CM Tanner’s work on the
Council.
CM Soto announced that he completed the first month of training for the SF
AIDS Marathon.
CM Geanauracos announced that CM Kanios and she are co-chairing the Needs Assessment
Task Force and informed Council that they are seeking consumers to participate
and that the next meeting is scheduled for the 16th of March. She announced
that Harder & Company was selected as the contractor to perform the Needs
Assessment.
CM McMurray reminded Council regarding the upcoming Community Fourm on March
24th but that the location has not yet been determined. Asked for a show of
hands regarding who plans to be in attendance and encouraged CMs to make an
effort to attend. Previously planned to be held at MCC, but it was discovered
that the planned week was Holy Week. The focus will be assessing community
needs and services.
CM Graham thanked CM Siron, CM Booker, and Jack Newby regarding their attendance
at the last Marin County Advisory Council meeting.
CM Siron announced that CM DiCrocco will be late and gave authority for Council
to vote on his behalf on specific items.
VI. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
VII. Conflict of Interest Policy-VOTE
The Council will vote to approve a Conflict of Interest Policy forwarded from
the Infrastructure & Policy Committee and Steering Committee.
CM Pugh was not in attendance so Jack Newby provided a review of the Conflict
of Interest Policy developed by Infrastructure and Policy Committee and reviewed
by the Steering Committee. Jack reviewed the highlights and indicated that
this does not require a change of bylaws. The policy was provided to all in
attendance and is available on file at Council Support Offices. Jack reviewed
why this came up and informed Council regarding voting restrictions. This policy
was discussed with the City Attorneys’ Office and approved.
CM Banks asked what will happen to members if they have a conflict of interest,
and after filing a grievance how will it be resolved.
Jack Newby indicated that a policy is being worked on for removal of Council
Members.
CM Kanios indicated that she is confused about what will be considered a conflict
of interest for her, and what role she plays in voting.
CM Ortiz has no conflicts but concerned about what it means to the public if
tags or markers are on name placards and doesn’t understand the value
of this.
Jack explained that it is with respect to the agency, not the person individually
should disclose what the conflict is.
CM Durio commented and asked about the format of the name placards.
Jack indicated that the format will stay the same with codes indicating service
categories.
CM Durio spoke against the conflict of interest policy as it does not specify
who perceives the conflict. Does not feel comfortable signing a form that does
not specify whose perception and suggested a training.
CM Hume thanked Infrastructure and Policy Committee for putting this together,
but had concern with next to last paragraph regarding recusal and suggested
having some parameters. Also commented on the form.
CM Hicks indicated that CM Hume addressed her concern, and wondered about training,
and the confusion about who can decide who can vote, the issue of grievances,
and removal from council.
Jack indicated that a Conflict of interest is not black and white, and provided
an example. If agency provides Service X and you are voting on Service X because
it could be perceived as a conflict of interest, and it goes to the individual
perception and the audience perception. He indicated this is to provide overall
guidelines, if agency provides a service and that service being voted on should
raise flags.
CM Durio commented that he works for UCSF and asked if this means he cannot
vote on anything that UCSF can go for there is no purpose for him being on
the Council even though his job does not receive any Title I funds.
Jack discussed circumstances such as those brought up by CM Durio and suggested
that a large organization that the Title I funds received are minimal to overall
budget.
CM Antonetty stated that service categories are being voted on, not whether
agencies are receiving funds. She emphasized that it is not black and white
and indicated that presentations have suggested that it is not cut and dry,
the conflict of interest is to not disclose the conflict of interest and then
go ahead and deliberately vote on something that will provide personal benefits.
She provided an example of someone who recuses himself when his agency receives
money from the vote on a particular item.
CM Miller suggested that the confusion was who would be a conflict. Indicated
that people could talk about it, but recuse self from voting.
CM McMurray stated that this could be discussed at length and still be murky,
asked if there is a training around the issue.
Jack stated that one was being planned before the Prioritization and Allocation
process.
CM McMurray suggested specific case studies around perceived conflict.
CM Pearce stated that the policy is different than the information and discussion
in a training on a conflict of interest, suggested that he often discloses
even though he may not need to, self-identifying perceived conflicts and wants
the opportunity to state it.
CM Geanuracos expressed support for the policy.
CM Booker spoke in favor of the policy as well and suggested that she knows
in her heart if she or her agency benefits from a vote then she will recuse
herself. If someone else thinks she has a conflict and can show her where,
she will abstain. CM Booker expressed a concern that people are making too
much out of it.
CM Hume called the question.
Public Comment on this item
Patrick Monette-Shaw congratulated the Council for getting around to ethical behavior. Indicated that the issue is black and white, and it should be clear when deciding whether to vote. Suggested that policy should be strengthened and provided an example. Suggested that it does not necessarily have to do with Priority Setting and suggested year-round ethics. Suggested amending the policy as a list that can be seen clearly.
Gary Harrell, a previous Council Member, stated that these issues will always come up. Indicated that he reviewed the policy and it should be clear whether a conflict of exists. Would like to see meetings spent on other more important issues.
No further public comment or discussion.
Roll call vote…20Yes/3No
The policy was passed. SEE ATTACHMENT A – COLUMN 2.
VIII. Committee Co-chair Job Description -VOTE
The Council will vote to approve the Committee Co-chair Job Description forwarded
from the Infrastructure & Policy Committee and Steering Committee.
CM Benham reviewed the Committee Co-Chair draft Job Description.
CM Siron indicated that the description had been reviewed thoroughly several
times.
CM Ortiz made a motion to call the question. Seconded.
Public Comment on this item
There were no public comments.
Vote by show of hands the job description passed unanimously.
IX. Final CARE Budget Approval-VOTE
Russ Zellers, HIV Health Services
Russ Zellers will present the final CARE budget for the Council’s
vote of approval.
Russ Zellers presented the final CARE budget for fiscal year ending today for
Title I. A handout was provided and reviewed and is on file at Council Support
Offices.
CM Benham asked a question regarding unspent dollars and whether there was
a survey of why the dollars were not spent.
Russ stated that a survey was done and stated that Michelle will provide the
information when the grant is awarded.
CM Hume inquired about figures in parenthesis.
Russ stated that this represented underspent, underutilized funds.
CM Thomas asked regarding a dollar amount to vouchers was the amount that Planning
Council voted on. Russ stated that it was.
CM Antonetty offered an example of how money not used during a reorganization
of a program, and suggested that a program is not required to spend every penny.
CM Durio questioned a particular line item and who made the decision.
Russ stated that the AIDS Office made the decision.
CM Pearce asked why it was not just done through Administration Dollars.
Russ stated that it went out as a contract.
CM Banks commented that some programs will not be funded in the future and
inquired about consumer empowerment.
Russ stated it was funding of an agency that works with people around benefits
and training and employment. Russ stated that it be earmarked for that purpose
and the AIDS Office finds an agency that provides that service.
CM Durio asked what would be voted on.
Russ stated that the vote was on the final budget figures and stated that it
is a formality since everything has been approved except the movement of administration
dollars.
CM Durio asked what the purpose is if it has already been approved.
Russ clarified that it is merely a formality to present the budget before the
Planning Council.
CM Geanuracos informed Council that there were efforts to reduce unspent dollar
amounts and urging the AIDS Office to get that under control and get the unspent
dollars closer to zero. Empathized with CM Durio’s concern about Administration
dollars should come before the Council.
CM McMurray called the question. Seconded.
Public Comment on this item
Gary Harrell had a question about percentages around Administration Costs
not indicated.
Question was addressed by Russ Zellers.
Patrick Monette-Shaw commented on the virile unspent dollars and indicated
that the Planning Council has worked hard. Discussed unspent funds on housing
and pointed to that as one of the greatest needs and recommended trying to
find a way to use these funds. Disagreed with CM Geanuracos, and not whether
Council should or should not make the decision about how the funds are allocated
and that the AIDS Office should not be making the decision. Congratulated Council
on good work.
Gary Harrell commented that HRSA might reduce overall funding if the unspent
dollars issue continues.
Roll call vote. All in favor except two. The budget was approved. See Roll
Call Attachment A, Column 3.
[THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS MOVED UP ON THE ORIGINAL AGENDA]
XIV. Prioritization Process Calendar- VOTE (Continued)
Laura Thomas & Don Soto, Planning Committee
*Planning Committee Prioritization Topic
The Planning Committee will present the prioritization process calendar for
2006-07 prioritization process and the Council will vote to approve the proposed
process. This agenda item was continued from the January 2005 Council Meeting.
CM Thomas reviewed Prioritization Process Calendar and the work being done
on this.
CM Soto also reviewed items on the calendar that was provided to all present
as a handout. The calendar is available on file at Council Support Offices.
CM Thomas asked if there were questions.
CM Durio asked regarding the two day attendance policy for voting purposes.
CM Thomas indicated that it would be discussed later.
CM Geanuracos indicated that due to the Needs Assessment information would
be available for the August meeting.
CM Hume asked if Council is voting on the whole calendar schedule.
CM Thomas clarified that the vote was not for the schedule, but specifically
on the two proposals she will be presenting. CM Thomas asked if there were
any other questions.
No questions.
CM Thomas reviewed the two proposals regarding a two-day summit and the format.
Council discussed.
Public Comment on this item
Patrick Monette-Shaw agreed with hiring a facilitator to lead the Council
through the process.
No other public comments.
Council discussed that the first proposal was already voted on.
CM Durio suggested a vote on the actual date. And a second vote on the voting
procedure requirement.
CM Thomas agreed that would be okay.
The calendar outlined a draft schedule including dates for August 26 and 27
meeting would be voted on.
Question called. All in favor. None opposed.
There were no public comments.
With a show of hands of those in favor of calendar as it is.
21 in favor, 2 opposed. Motion passed.
On the second motion, the proposal for the two-day prioritization/allocation
summit.
CM Durio called the question.
Public comment. There was no public comment.
With a show of hands for those in favor of the two-day summit:
20 in favor, 1 opposed. Motion passed.
Regarding the Proposal on Voting –
CM Pearce spoke in favor of the proposal as a lot of time and effort went into
this decision, as there should be consequences for people deciding not to
show up, with allowances for work/illnesses. CM Pearce spoke to the issue
personally providing an example of when he was involved in a decision making
team and did not have enough information. Important to set a standard that
if you don’t participate you don’t vote.
There was no public comment.
CM Durio asked for a roll call vote.
19 Yes/3 No. The motion passed. See Column 4 on Attachment A.
CM Booker indicated that the meeting was going over time and called for a ten-minute dinner break
XI. Dinner Break
XV. Presentation of Council Integrated Work Plan
Jack Newby reviewed the Council Integrated Work Plan before the next presentation
to show how it relates to priority process. Jack reviewed document provided
to all present at the meeting and a copy is on file at Council Support Offices.
Jack reported that work being done feeds into the Needs Assessment, and Priority
Allocation Process. Added that this has been discussed at Steering Committee
Retreat and that provides a month-by-month look at what committees are doing
and how that work meshes with work of other committees. Jack indicated that
if there were any questions to let him know and added that the Committees
and Council are on schedule and the best way to manage the work is through
a work plan. He indicated that updates will continue to be provided to show
the Council whether they are on track. Planning Council Support is happy
to provide information and feedback from Committees, and that it is a living
document and we are not bound by it, it shows how work is integrated and
goes toward the ultimate goal of prioritization and allocation process.
CM Hume commented that Council Support is doing great work and that the Council made a good decision to make that happen.
Public Comment on this item
There was no public comment.
X. HRSA Requirements for Prioritization /Allocation
Don Soto (Planning Committee Co-chair) & Wilhelmina Parker (Council Support)
*Planning Committee Prioritization Topic
Wilhelmina Parker and Don Soto presented a PowerPoint presentation on the prioritization
and allocation process. Printout of slideshow presented to all present and
available on file at Council Support Offices.
Council discussed various issues with regard to the prioritization process
and expressed concerns about how the process can be changed. Council thanked
presenters.
Public Comment on this item
Patrick Monette-Shaw commented on the aspect of the presentation regarding
CARE Act Data Report, service utilization and suggested finding out specifically
what this meant.
There was no further public comment.
XII. Discussion of Council’s Relationship with Marin and
San Mateo County Planning Bodies- VOTE
The Council will vote to accept a proposal forwarded from the Steering Committee
to outline the relationship of the Council with the Planning Bodies in Marin & San
Mateo Counties.
Motion: To form a working group in order to develop expectations; Develop a
process and timeline; Accountability and feedback; Decide on the level of support,
training, and technical assistance; Evaluate the contract and MOU language;
and create an ongoing structure and process. The membership of the working
group will consist of: Council Members, Grantee Staff, County Staff and consumers,
and County Planning Group Members. The existence of the working group will
be time-limited: With a goal of input in FY06, Prioritization/Resource Allocation
if not by FY07 Prioritization/Resource Allocation.
The Co-Chairs will ask for participants interested in joining this working group should the motion pass.
CM Booker indicated that this topic had been presented at each committee meeting
and reviewed the formation of the working group and read the formal motion
detailed above. CM Booker opened up the issue for discussion.
CM Thomas clarified that the FYO6 process refers to the process this summer
for FY06 and expressed support for the motion.
CM Geanuracos suggested minor editorial changes.
CM Durio inquired about the fiscal year differences among the counties.
CM Thomas admitted that there would be a different timeline and unsure how
this would work.
CM Hume indicated this was addressed at Steering.
CM Antonetty expressed uncertainty about the fiscal year differences.
CM Thomas suggested that she discuss the matter with CM Spaeth.
CM Spaeth stated that Marin County supports the motion and believes it is a
productive way to move forward. Explained the fiscal year as July 1 through
June 30.
CM Kleffner expressed a comment in favor of motion and indicated that Steering
Committee discussed the issue for over an hour. Emphasized the need for volunteers
in the working group.
CM Durio had a question for CM Spaeth regarding CARE dollars and contracting.
The Council discussed the issue.
CM Booker reiterated that this was discussed for over an hour at Steering and
indicated that this is what came forward; added that there were questions and
reviewed them; suggesting that this needs to go through a separate working
group over time; and cannot be fully resolved in an hour discussion.
CM Siron suggested that anyone interested in working with task force should
come to help out.
CM Geanuracos added comments why the task force is being brought together.
CM Ortiz asked about financial impact to counties with regard to the motion.
The Council indicated that there was no impact.
CM Graham expressed support for Motion.
Director of Budget and Finance for AIDS Office, Brenda Walker asked for clarification
on what is being voted on. She informed Council that she must report to HRSA
what is being prioritized. She wanted to ensure that Marin County is not being
exempted and confirmed that Marin County process will be approved.
CM Booker reiterated that this will not be resolved in this meeting and encouraged
people who want to be involved in the decision making process to join the working
group.
Council continued the discussion.
Public Comment on this item
Will Carter commented that this is a great process and discussed the meetings
that he has participated in and sees this as a viable resolution. This does
not leave Marin County consumers in the dark. Believes this will help ameliorate
the frustration.
Kevin, a Council Member in San Mateo County, spoke in favor of the motion.
He commented that he believes avoiding a cookie-cutter approach is not good
to make decisions on a matter for one county that might affect another. He
indicated that he has already volunteered to be a part of the working group.
Michelle Long-Dixon spoke to last sentence in the motion and cautioned voting
on a motion that is unclear.
CM Thomas indicated that having the working group information far enough along
to be useful in this year’s August allocation process. Suggested editorial
changes.
Brenda Walker indicated that the grant award has already been prioritized.
Council discussed that this was a line item on the budget.
Brenda Walker asked for clarification on whether the counties were approved
by lump sum or service category.
Council discussed uncertainties around whether the prioritization and allocation
process was approved.
CM Pearce commented on recognizing what the Council has done rather than demeaning
for what can not be changed. Now in a process of having greater involvement
of setting allocation numbers rather than accepting numbers offered by counties.
Public from San Mateo suggested that the Council develop a system of relaying
information to Council so recommendations are made that additional impasses
are not encountered.
CM Spaeth asked about scheduling meetings.
Council agreed that there needs to be a vote.
CM Hicks asked about the agreement on the final sentence.
CM Kleffner suggested re-wording of the motion to reflect that the time-limited
nature of the working group should not end at the end of FY06, and leave it
open to exist for a longer period of time.
CM Durio asked if the current motion was being taken off the table, and expressed
confusion.
CM Booker reviewed editorial changes.
The motion restated with changes:
Motion: To form a working group in order to develop expectations; Develop a process and timeline, accountability and feedback; Decide on the level of support, training, and technical assistance; Evaluate the contract and MOU language; and create an ongoing structure and process. The membership of the working group will consist of: Council Members, Grantee Staff, County Staff and consumers, and County Planning Group Members. The existence of the working group will be time-limited with a goal of input in FY06 Prioritization/Resource Allocation if not, by FY07 Prioritization/Resource Allocation.
CM Booker asked for a roll vote. See Column 5 on Attachment A.
Unamiously passed in favor.
CM Pearce suggested moving on to the Membership item that has to be dealt with
tonight and suggested postponing Item XIII on funding streams.
CM Pearce made a motion to change the order of the last two items. Seconded.
By a show of hands, the majority were in favor of the motion.
CM Booker made a motion to extend the time by roll call vote.
See vote on Column 6 in Attachment. 13 yes/9 no.
No two-thirds vote. Motion to extend the time of the meeting not approved.
XIII. Local HIV/AIDS Funding Streams
Brenda Walker, AIDS Office
Laura Thomas (Planning Committee Co-chair), Randy Allgaier (Council Co-chair)
*Planning Committee Prioritization Topic
The group will give a presentation on the various local HIV/AIDS funding stream
in San Francisco.
This item was not addressed.
XVI. Membership- VOTE
Membership Committee
The Committee also would like to recommend one Council Member for term renewal:
•
Darnell Durio
A motion was made to renew the term of Darnell Durio. By show of hands, all were in favor.
The Committee also would like to recommend two new Council Membership Candidates for appointment to the Council:
• Chris Callandrillo
•
Mark Molnar
A motion was made to appoint two new Council membership Candidates to the Planning Council. By show of hands, all were in favor.
XVII. New Business/ Next Agenda
No new business was discussed.
XVIII. Adjourned
The meeting was adjourned at 7:32 pm.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee