1. Welcome and Introductions

Bob Tracy opened the meeting by thanking everyone for coming. The group went around the table and introduced themselves and whom they were representing. Jerry Moss was on the speakerphone, in an attempt to join the meeting from out of state.

There was discussion on how it had been awhile since the last time the group had met in May. The meeting was called to order at 5:20 pm.

The meeting minutes had been sent out via e-mail the preceeding Tuesday. Bob asked if there were any questions, comments, or changes to be made to the minutes. The suggestion that those who were excused from the meetings be noted, and it was agreed that the minutes should reflect those who were excused and unexcused. Frank Guzman motioned to approve the minutes, Linda Brandt seconded it, and the motion was carried.

3. Co-chair’s and Coordinator’s Report

1. Retreat Report and Follow-up

Bob started by giving a little background on what happened at the retreat for those unable to attend, and stated that it was agreed to set up two temporary task forces. One task force would be set up to develop a statewide plan, and the other task force would focus on how to link prevention and services in conjunction with the Prevention Task Force.

Bob then asked for any suggestions or reactions on the retreat from those who were present. Judi said that she enjoyed being able to focus on one specific area, and give it more careful thought. Bob said that it helped to develop in depth discussion and address new issues. Clarence said that he thought the retreat was excellent. He suggested that they be held more often than once a year, because it helped him to become better acquainted with updated information. Linda Brandt said that she couldn’t endorse more retreat time but she thought that building in some small group time to discuss issues in a similar fashion to the retreat would be acceptable, and Clarence agreed. Lorraine said that she enjoyed the Planning Council retreat because it gave them time to really discuss current topics such as: statewide services, HIV prevention, and core services. She said that it was good to get those topics out in the open. The Council them moved on to the next topic on the agenda.

2. Discuss the goals and process of appointing Task Forces for the Statewide Plan and Linking Services to Prevention.

Bob related that the Operations Committee had agreed that there was a need for two work groups. He then handed out a draft proposal on task force goals and composition. Because both the Planning Council and the Task Force on Prevention have identified a statewide plan as a priority, he asked the question of how membership could be developed linking prevention and services for the statewide plan.

He then asked for input to clarify the objectives for the new task forces and opened the floor for discussion. (See attachment) Lorraine asked how they would be related to CDC guidelines or goals. Bob stated that they would look at HRSA guidelines as well as CDC guidelines, and the difficult part for the two groups would be linking them. They would be looking at service areas that would be useful to the Planning Council and try to encourage grantees to coordinate contracting activities. Nick said that the first objective should be to identify the strategies, and perhaps that should be a separate goal. Bob said that the Planning Council and the task force will receive recommendations, and that the Planning Council will then run the ideas through the committees. Julie said that instead of Statewide Service System, they should use a word that would cover everything. She suggested that they should just use the word "system" instead of "service and system". There was general consent and it was so changed.

At this point Jerry decided that the speakerphone wasn’t working effectively and ended the call.

Jim pointed out that the term "direct" may not be received very well by the agencies involved, and it was agree that the word ‘develop’ would be better suited to describe the actions. Bob went on to propose how the groups would be set up. They would have three co-chairs: one appointed by the Planning Council, one appointed by the Task Force, and the other appointed by the IGA representatives. These were based on who is using Ryan White money as funding, and are part of IGA and the service system. There would be ten to twelve members in each group, and the Planning Council co-chairs would appoint half, and the Task Force would appoint the other half. These appointments would include a mix of Planning Council and Task Force members, and some community members. There would also be additional grantee appointments as appropriate. Bob said that the goal of these groups would be to set up a statewide system that would ensure coverage. Judi said that it was to make a seamless system linking prevention and care, and would enable outreach groups to come together. Bob said that the first part would be to identify care needs, the second to identify barriers and opportunities and the third to develop a proposal to ensure statewide access to care and services. Lorraine asked how it would be possible to make a system for Greater Minnesota work. David reminded the group that the issues must be deemed important and the plan must be acceptable to those it is set up for. It was suggested that the process may need some extra resources to implement it, and Bob wondered if that would be acceptable. Jennifer said that there would need to be meetings other than in the metro area in order to understand the need of Greater Minnesota. Helen said that it must be flexible enough to meet all cultural areas of Minnesota. David said that it must be palatable to Greater Minnesota in order for it to be used effectively. Bob asked if there were any other comments regarding the process. Lorraine said that we should think of ourselves, HIV service providers, as parts of a bigger picture. We must consider Greater Minnesota where services are provided through many different players, and must identify them in this process. There are other points of entry into care that the Council must remember as they begin this process. HRSA is emphasizing this point.

3. Operations update

Mary invited the Planning Council members to take a tour of the new office at the break time. She introduced Russell Pruitt as the new temp for the Planning Council. The consensus about holding the meeting at Powderhorn Partners is that the room is too tight for the entire Council. Clarence stressed that the location was very good for parking and bus lines, an important consideration.

ACTION: Mary will seek a site with parking, bus service, a kitchen, handicapped accessible and free, if possible by the next Planning Council meeting.

3. Title I and II updates

First of all, Jennifer brought the group up to date on staffing changes at Hennepin County Community Health Department. The new acting director of CHD is Todd Monson, and the new manager for the Ryan White area is Meg Hargreaves.

Jennifer presented a historical overview of the Ryan White CARE Act funding and the reauthorization themes. The four main themes from the recent HRSA conference she identified were:

1. Access to services for those that know of positive status, but are not in care.
2. Quality of care-the care provided must meet guidelines
3. Capacity building for providers to ensure culturally appropriate services for diverse communities
4. Prevention- HRSA is showing much more flexibility in terms of prevention See attachment.

Julie presented an overview of current HRSA initiatives and focus areas. Julie identified seven areas of focus for HRSA:

1. Needs Assessment, especially for HIV+ individuals not in care
2. The requirements for the Comprehensive Plan for titles one and two have changed.
3. The ADAP policy is more flexible
4. The Congressional Black Caucus for titles one and two can be used on ADAP
5. Women, Infants and Children spending must be proportional to the percentage of those in the groups effected.
6. Early Intervention is now seen, by HRSA, as short term care, in an effort to get those affected into programs
7. Formal referral points or Points of Entry will be emphasized next year.

See attachment

Bob commented after the presentations that much of the tension in the planning process comes from the imposition of the HRSA regulations upon the community planning process. He added that it is critical to remember that Julie and Jennifer are responsible for satisfying the HRSA requirements and must remind the group of the requirements to ensure funding even when they seem to contradict or impede the community process. The Planning Council is caught in a balancing act between what the community tells us and legislative mandates.

Julie handed out information on meetings for the Statewide Coordinated Statement on Need. See attachment.

Julie and Lori presented the carryover plan. (See attachment) The plan is for $530,000, which is carryover funding from both title I and II from 1999 and 2000. It needs to be allocated soon so it can be spent before the end of the fiscal year. Debate was intense on this topic. One point of contention centered on the $71,000 allocated to case management to enhance capacity. This was to be for case management programs that were not funded at the amount they had requested and who were experiencing waiting lists. This funding would allow them to increase staff in order to effectively serve the number of clients that are applying for case management services, which were ranked third by the Planning Council. It included the request that the Planning Council prioritize carryover funding for the next fiscal year to be used to insure stability in the case management programs. DHS would agree to cover any difference if there are not sufficient carryover funds next year.

MOTION: Efren moved to approve the carryover plan. Helen seconded the motion.

As part of the discussion, Planning Council members had questions about how the funding would be distributed. It would go to agencies that were funded in the last RFP and who have waiting lists for case management. Another question asked, was how was it that DHS had funds to ensure the coverage of the case management if the Planning Council carryover funding is not sufficient? The funding that DHS has for that use is the result of rebates from the drug companies. Debra, Frank, Bob and Linda had serious reservations about using the money for case management. They saw great importance in using funding for potentially innovative or emerging areas such as for newly diagnosed or those in chronic care. Helen inquired into the possibility of delaying the decision, but it is not an option. The funds will take time to be distributed and need to be used before the end of the fiscal year.

DECISION: Judi suggested that in order to maintain direction over the funding that the prioritization process incorporates a plan for using carryover funds. This was supported.

It was suggested that members with a conflict of interest abstain from voting. Or, if the agency they represent is affected they should mention that prior to voting. Several members mentioned that the agency they represent was affected by the situation. The voting result was 8 in favor, 4 opposed.

RESULT: The motion was carried, with the proviso that next year the Planning Council will include prioritization for potential carryover funds.

3. Committee Reports

1. The slate of nominees for the election of Planning Council co-chairs and Committee co-chairs was handed out. Voting will take place in the September Planning Council meeting.
2. The vote on the nominated Planning Council members was passed. In addition, appointees filled several HRSA mandated slots. Sarah Rybicki, representing MATEC, and Megan Ellingson, representing the City of Minneapolis, through the Department of Health and Family Support filled the City of Minneapolis and MATEC slots. A title I representative, replacing Mark Lee, will be named by the next meeting. There was discussion on key criteria for selection to fulfill reflectiveness requirements for general members. The criteria were HIV+, nonaligned, MSM, white, emerging population. The new members will be Tim O’Brien, Sandra Lever, and Michael Allen Beyer.
3. Orientation will consist of two four-hour sessions in the early evening, one in September, one in October. All members who would like to attend or who have not attended orientation are invited.

4. Community Participation Committee

5. HIV+ Committee

No report. They will meet next September 11^th