I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:37 pm.
II. Roll Call
Roll was called, and quorum was established. [See Attachment A, Column 1].
III. Review and Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved by consensus with the understanding that the presentation by Dean Goodwin might be delayed.
IV. Review of June 26th, 2006 Minutes – VOTE
The correct names of the Marin HIV/AIDS CARE Council and the CAEAR Coalition were amended into the minutes.
V. General Announcements
• Council Co-Chair Randy Allgaier thanked Council Co-chair Don Soto for chairing the last meeting.
• Director Jack Newby introduced new staff Ray West.
• Council Member Margot Antonetty announced an upcoming baseball game fundraiser. She also said that Supervisors Ammiano and Dufty were moving to create a HIV/Housing Planning Group.
• Council Member Dorothy Kleffner announced that Council Member Micke Ulate had resigned.
• Council Member Tracy Brown provided information on add-backs from the Board of Supervisors.
VI. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
VII. Summary Sheets for All Service Categories, to include Unmet Needs Information and Trends by Service Category
Dean Goodwin, Senior Program Analyst, SF Department of Public Health, HIV Health Services
Mr. Dean Goodwin, DPH, presented detailed figures, and pointed out the ways in which they had changed from last year’s presentation and explaining the structure of the tables. He provided more detailed explanations for some items. He thought some trends might indicate needs that should be studied and better understood. The effect of the aging populations’ increased needs from Medi-Cal funding was one example. Some of the budget line items in the sheets were not supported by the general fund.
There were several questions concerning the document, and it was agreed that time should be set aside at a future meeting to discuss them. In the meantime, folks could forward their questions to Mr. Newby. The document was not intended to be a picture of clients’ unmet needs.
There was no public comment.
VIII. Presentation of Community Outreach and Advocacy Committee Community Forum Input
Jack Newby, Director, HIV Health Services Planning Council
Mr. Newby reported on two recent meetings, explaining the different methodology of each meeting and drawing conclusions from the meetings’ participants. He indicated that incentives should target those groups where turnout would be increased.
The Latina/o Community Forum raised complaints about the dignity with which clients were treated and language barriers. The Community Forum for people 50 and over raised some questions concerning burnout since these were the folks who had been the pioneers on the cusp of medical knowledge.
There was no public comment.
IX. Dinner Break
Meeting Evaluation Forms will be distributed to Council Members during
the Dinner Break.
The group broke for dinner from 6:10 to 6:30
X. Presentation of Provider Input by HIV AIDS Providers Network (HAPN)
Mike Smith, President, HIV AIDS Providers’ Network
Mike Smith presented an analysis of the prioritization and made recommendations. He thought that better information was needed to outline other funding sources. Otherwise, there may be unintended consequences, ex., as with day care services in 2004. Attention needed to be paid to expenditures that fell into the jurisdictions of various organizations over another. Some of this focus will be determined by definitions adopted by HRSA, such as on medical case management. Until this data is developed, care should be exercised to research fully the effects of any change in prioritization.
There was no public comment.
XI. Ryan White CARE Act Reauthorization Update
Laura Thomas, Council Member
CM Thomas stated there was nothing new to report at this time.
There was no public comment.
XII. Update on the Impact of Reauthorization on the Prioritization and Allocation Process – Possible VOTE
Laura Thomas and George Simmons, Co-Chairs, Planning Committee
Prioritization must take into account the present law. There was an option to consider possible new rules that reauthorization could adopt, asking DPH to report on which funds could be swapped. Another option was to ask for a waiver, but that could affect the EMA’s ability to be competitive for supplemental funds. There was a reluctance to start the work that will be needed with the new 75%/25% funding allocation rule without more information. Many believed that the process was difficult enough without dealing with speculative scenarios. The waiver option was discussed. It was also believed that the law will have to allow EMA’s time to adjust their budget to changes in the law. Council Member Jeff Byers reported that other EMA’s were not belaboring the issue since it was still unsettled.
Some suggested that other dates be calendared in the event the reauthorization proceeded. Decision points could be considered rather than actual dollars. Further information concerning funding streams could also be developed in the interim.
There was no action taken.
There was no public comment.
XIII. New Business/Next Agenda
• Council Members completed Meeting Evaluation Forms.
• The next Council Meeting and Agenda (Monday, July 24th) was determined.
There was no public comment.
XIV. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:30pm
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