DRAFT MINUTES
I. Call to Order
Co-Chairs called the meeting to order at 4:45 p.m.
II. Roll Call
Council Support called the roll and there were 16 members present, three of
whom are newly appointed members; not enough for quorum. (see Attachment A, Roll
Call)
III. Review and Approval of Agenda
Co-Chair Kanios discussed minor changes to the agenda due to pending late arrival
of HIV Health Services staff. No other input for the agenda. With arrival
of enough members, agenda was approved by consensus.
IV. Review of Minutes-
August 26 & 27, 2005 and September 26, 2005
Council Members will review the minutes from the two-day Prioritization and
Allocation meetings on August 26 and 27, and the September 26, 2005 Council
Meeting.
Council reviewed the minutes from August 26 and 27, and the September 27 Council
meeting. Without quorum, the minutes were not immediately approved.
Public made comment regarding a change to minutes of August 26 on Page 6.
Council Support noted.
No changes recommended to minutes from August 27.
No changes recommended to minutes from September 26.
Upon arrival of sufficient Council Members for quorum, CM Thomas made a motion to approve all minutes. Seconded. All minutes approved.
V. General Announcements
Co-Chair Allgaier reminded Council that there is not quorum, and given that some agenda items that do not require a vote will need to be moved.
CM Anderson announced regarding the Community Meeting scheduled for November 9 and encouraged Council Members to attend.
CM Flores announced that the Marin HIV AID Council is scheduling a November 10 community forum. He also announced a newsletter that he is producing, entitled “Consumer’s CARE Report” and brought copies for Council Members and the public. (Copy on file at Council Support Offices).
Co-Chair Kanios reminded Council Members about completing their meeting evaluation forms.
VI. Public Comment
Patrick Monette Shaw made a comment regarding voting procedures when there
is not quorum.
Bill Hirsch from ALRP thanked the AIDS Office for moving through their contracts
in a timely manner.
VII. Council Membership Applicants Scheduled for Interview
Mark Molnar and Dorothy Kleffner, Membership Committee Co-Chairs
Co-Chairs of Membership Committee announced that they have six people lined
up for Membership interviews. He mentioned their names and invited all Council
Members to attend interviews and/or provide feedback after reviewing applications.
The names of applicants are as follows: Susan Philip; Joseph Graham; Joaquin
Sanchez; Micke Ulate; Aimee Zenzele Barnes; and Heriberto Quesada.
Public Comment on this item
None.
VIII. Rollover Funds Request Update and Discussion - VOTE
Michelle Long, Director HIV Health Services
Council Members will be presented with an update regarding HRSA’s
response to the request for application of Rollover Funds and vote on an AIDS
Office
proposal.
Co-Chair Allgaier provided an update regarding the reason for this item being
on the agenda, primarily because the Council had asked for the rollover funds
to be directed toward the service category of Direct Emergency Financial Assistance,
but HRSA considers this a housing category, which is not a core service category,
and would not approve having this entire amount go for this service category.
The AIDS Office has come up with another proposal. CM Allgaier indicated that Steering Committee and Co-Chairs have reviewed the proposal.
With the absence of Michelle Long, the presentation was provided by Russ Zellers.
Russ Zellers presented the AIDS Office proposal for November 2005 – Feb.
2006 (four months).
$193,000 ISP#1 Continuation (580 patients) in the Haight
$109,637 ISP#2 Continuation for women (85 patients). Case management.
$60,764 Direct Financial Assistance
$317,395 Two Primary Care sites for non-COE clients, including a H.C. and SFGH
program.
Total $680,796
General Funds to be used as needed to continue ISP programs and 2 Primary Care
programs (March through June 2006).
Russ Zellers spelled out the details of the proposal. Council discussed and directed questions to Mr. Zellers who provided succinct and informative answers.
CM Thomas made a motion to: approve Items 1, 3, and 4 in the interest of moving
things along for approval by HRSA, and wait to vote on Item 2 pending additional
information.
Motion Seconded.
Discussion on CM Thomas’ motion.
Mr. Zellers mentioned that the only dilemma is the short amount of turn-around
time.
Council discussed.
CM Molnar introduced an alternative motion:
To combine all amounts into an ISP/COE transition fund so that ISPs can continue
or transition their clients, without the level of specificity. The $60,764
will still go for Direct Emergency Financial Assistance.
That motion seconded.
Discussion on alternative motion.
Co-Chair Allgaier injected an amendment to CM Molnar’s alternative motion:
Keep the motion outlined by CM Molnar, but have that money combined with a
directive to the AIDS Office to revisit funding amounts while taking into consideration
client numbers, and ensure clarity on using the funds for transition purposes
and case management for direct medical services.
Seconded.
Discussion on amendment to alternative motion.
CM Callandrillo called the question on the amendment to the alternative motion.
Public Comment
Patrick Monette Shaw commented on the Council allowing the AIDS Office to make
the decisions on the matter.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO ALTERNATIVE MOTION to provide a directive to the AIDS Office on the specific use of these funds for transition purposes and case management for direct medical services.
HAND VOTE: 13 in favor; 3 opposed.
The substitute motion with the amendment: The remaining funds go to ISP/COE for transition and continuation issues with a directive to the AIDS Office to look closer at Item #2 regarding case management.
Discussion on alternative motion.
Public Comment
Patrick Monette Shaw directed a personal comment to CM Hicks, and provided
his input on the amounts being discussed.
VOTE ON ALTERNATIVE MOTION.
14 in favor; 3 opposed. No abstentions, no recusals.
Original motion from CM Thomas withdrawn.
Council agreed that there should be a fair process for determining who gets
this money, and how it gets spent.
Public Comment on this item
No public comments.
IX. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Goals – VOTES
Don Soto and Randy Allgaier, Comprehensive Plan Working Group
A brief review of the work from the Comprehensive Plan Working Group, followed
by a review, revision, and VOTES on Working Group Values Recommendations and
the new Plan Goals.
Co-Chair Allgaier provided an update regarding the activities of the Comprehensive Plan Working Group. He discussed that there has not been adequate time to devote to the plan and it is acting as a springboard for future discussions on how to deal with greater funding cuts. He discussed core values identified by the Planning Council at their September 26 meeting. He reviewed the changes in values from the previous plan. He indicated that the Council needs to vote whether to approve the results of this exercise.
Motion to approve the 7 values compiled by the Comprehensive Plan Working
Group.
CM Kleffner moved to approve. CM Thomas seconded.
No further discussion.
Public Comment on this item
Patrick Monette Shaw made a comment regarding the values and consolidating
agencies.
No other public comments.
Hand VOTE All IN FAVOR: All present in favor. None opposed. No abstentions
or recusals.
THE MOTION PASSED to approve the 7 values.
Co-Chair Soto continued with a discussion of the Plan Goals. He explained that the last plan had too many goals, and this Plan consolidates all of those goals into a few important goals. He reviewed with the Council the document DRAFT LIST OF GOALS FOR THE 2006-2009 COMPREHENSIVE SAN FRANCISCO HIV SERVICES PLAN (On file at Council Support Offices). These included long-term goals for systems, planning, evaluation, and service goals. The others include short term goals for care and treatment. He explained the reasons for consolidating the goals.
Council discussed.
Public Comment
Patrick Monette-Shaw advised Planning Council to exercise oversight and accountability,
and to consider hiring their own staff person to perform these tasks.
No other public comments.
VOTE on approving of the Comprehensive Plan Goals.
CM Anderson made a motion to approve the Plan Goals. Seconded.
Discussion. None.
Public Comment
No public comment.
VOTE by hand: In favor: 16; Opposed: 1; no abstentions or recusals.
MOTION PASSED.
X. Dinner Break
Meeting Evaluation Forms will be distributed to Council Members during the
Dinner Break.
XI. Report on Title I Summit
Randy Allgaier, Council Co-Chair
Co-Chair Allgaier provided a report on Title I Summit sponsored by the State
Office of AIDS. He added that CARE Reauthorization was a main topic of discussion.
Public Comment on this item
No public comment on this item.
XII. CARE Act Reauthorization Update
Laura Thomas, Council Member
The Council will receive an update on the latest information regarding CARE
Reauthorization and the possible impact on the Planning Council and SF-EMA.
This item moved up on the agenda. CM Thomas announced that this would be a
standing item on the Planning Council agenda until reauthorization is approved
(or not). She provided an update to Council. The goal for a decision on the
matter is now the end of December. She mentioned a Unity Summit that is bringing
together national and regional advocates that work on this issue. CM Thomas
added that everyone concerned has signed on to the joint letter.
Public Comment on this item
No public comments on this item.
XIII. Funding Scenario Proposals from Planning Committee -VOTE
Laura Thomas and Chris Callandrillo, Planning Committee Co-Chairs
The Planning Committee submits two proposals regarding funding scenarios for
budget cuts greater than 10% and greater than 15%; Council Members will vote
whether to approve the proposals.
CM Thomas reviewed the background with the funding scenarios, that in the two-day
prioritization meeting Council voted and approved on cuts up to 10%. That left
some decision to be made regarding the above 10% cuts for Planning Committee.
Planning Committee has drafted a proposal for a 10%-15% cut, and why no decision has been made on cuts greater than 15%.
Additionally, Planning Committee proposes that the Planning Council work more closely with the Board of Supervisors regarding upcoming cuts and work together on a more thoughtful process.
Services in Tier II will take a larger cut, and services in Tier I will take a smaller cut. The proposal is: cut greater than 10% and up to 15%, first Planning Council Support will take a 5% cut. Tier II will get a 15% cut, whatever the remaining reduction will be taken from Tier I proportionately.
Since this came from Planning Committee and Steering Committee as a motion, it does not need a second.
Discussion. None.
Public Comment on this item
Patrick Monette Shaw commented that people should determine what the plan is
for more than 15% cut before making a decision on the 10-15% cut.
Bill Hirsch spoke in favor of the proposal and believes it will help to preserve services.
No other public comments.
Council voted on the motion from Planning and Steering on the proposal regarding funding cuts less than 15% and greater than 10%.
ROLL CALL VOTE (See Attachment A, Column 2). All in favor. None opposed.
XIV. New Business/ Next Agenda
No new business was discussed; No items for the next agenda were mentioned.
XV. Adjourned
The Co-Chairs adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee