MN HIV Services Planning Council
Meeting Minutes for March 11, 2003
Division of Indian Work

 

 

I.                  Welcome and introductions; lighting of the candle

Sarah called the meeting to order at 12:45.  Introductions were made.  Debra lit the candle for the empowerment, education and self-advocacy of HIV positive people. 

 

II.     Review the minutes and proposed agenda

The minutes were passed by unanimous consent.  Tracy is unable to attend today so we will not have a SHAS update.

 

III.   Open forum

No one came forward to speak.

 

IV.              Co-chair update

Sarah shared that she’s had spirited email conversations from many regarding the motions regarding the statewide plan.  If anyone feels left out because of Robert’s Rules please feel free to raise your hand and ask any questions.

 

The Comprehensive Plan and archival process need to be approved.  Members recently received the final copy of the Comprehensive Plan.  MOTION:  Megan moved Julie seconded approval of the Comprehensive Plan.  Passed unanimously. (16 voting)

 

The archival process was passed out.  This is a process that has been developed by Operations Committee and is our method for being in accordance with HRSA’s regulations for public access to Planning Council documents as well as managing the paper generated in our office.  MOTION:  Efren moved Sarah S. seconded approval of the archival process.  Passed unanimously.

 

V.                  New member election

Efren passed out ballots for the new member election.  Mary Doyle shared information about the proposed new members with the Planning Council.   Planning Council members then cast their ballots for new appointments and reappointments.  David Bergquist and Debra Smith were nominated for reappointment.  All four new members on the slate were approved.  Congratulations!

 

VI.              Title I update - Jonathan Hanft

Jonathan passed out an outline of his update.  Based on spending for this year it looks like we will have carryover funds again this year: approximately $112,000.  Based on the projections from last year’s prioritization there were two items that could not be funded – home health care and benefits counseling.  He would like to use the carryover funding to fund those service areas for 2003.  This year we hope to send our carryover proposal in June instead of August.  MOTION:  David B. moved not committing to the carryover proposal at this time: take more time to consider the possibilities.  Discussion was opened before seeking a second.  Ron asked about the future of funding for health insurance.  Information on the state budget will not be available until June or July.  Bob O. asked if we’ve looked at the vulnerabilities of the service areas that were prioritized.  Linda said she believes that it is estimated that about 100 HIV positive people will be losing GAMC (general assistance medical care) if the announced cuts in the state budget occur.  Jonathan said that there is some immediacy in making this decision – these two areas are currently only being funded for another two months before the programs lose funding April 30.  Dave R. said the Council needs to be cautious not to position itself based on what the legislature may do – if the Council stockpiles in anticipation of cuts it may be forced into a spending flurry.  He also pointed out that just because GAMC may be cut it doesn’t mean that there won’t be pressure put on other systems that provide health care to fill those gaps.  Efren spoke against the motion – even if programs are cut there will be a phase in period, if that takes a while (beyond the grant year) changes may not have been implemented yet and the Council would be faced with an overage.  Becky pointed out that benefits counseling is a program that works with people who need information about transitions such as these.  Bob O. asked for clarification of these being lower priorities – his thought being that these service areas would not have been funded.  His question is how the Planning Council will stand by the prioritization process results.  Meg added a bit of history for this decision-making.  If these areas are defunded it will be the first time in the Planning Council’s history.  Megan asked if members would prefer to refer this conversation to Planning & Priorities who would make a recommendation back to the Planning Council.  Randy said this is carryover money so the proposal to increase funding in other areas doesn’t make as much sense as putting it to a service that people can really use during this time of much change.  Jim Knappe-Langworthy suggested that the question seems to be are there deeper needs in service areas that were ranked higher that are not being funded at the level they should be.  Efren said that there are higher priority areas that will always be able to use additional funding but those clients will still be served.  He would rather see this money being used to continue services that will cease if funding is lost.  Bob O. clarified that this is a fundamental decision about how the Council does business – he’s clear that there will always be areas that will need more funding.  He feels that either way we need to vote this up or down but that it’s critical to look at what our job is.  Gwen said that from the perspective of a provider it’s a very devastating thing to have a program or funding go away.  She would like to see the funding go to these areas but also devise a plan for dealing with this in the future.  Bob O. seconded the motion.  Motion failed.  Dave Rompa abstained. 

 

MOTION:  Sarah S. moved, Efren seconded, accepting the grantee’s proposal to put $112,000 of carryover funding into home health care and benefits counseling.  Motion passed.  Dave Rompa abstained.

 

MOTION:  Efren moved Sarah S. seconded that the long term issue of how we handle carryover funding be forwarded to Planning & Priorities for consideration – they will report back to the Planning Council with recommendations.  Passed unanimously.

 

Bob O. said the Council continues to have vendors that underspend and that there should be a conversation about the grant management role with these contracts.  Dave R. suggested that this would be a good topic for discussion at a future roundtable discussion that the Executive Committee has agreed it will incorporate in meetings.  Mary Doyle clarified that there is the mechanism of the grantee evaluation to provide this kind of feedback. 

 

Jonathan continued his report by giving a training update.  Staff supervision is on March 27^th and will conclude the staffing series.

 

The Title I grantee has hired a new Title II contract manager – Joe Freesmeier will start on Monday.  He currently works at Hennepin County and will bring a lot of experience with him.

 

VII.   Title II update - Jeff Buckles

Jeff passed out a written report.  He reviewed it briefly; there was no discussion.  (See handout.)

 

VIII.Statewide Plan discussion

Sarah updated the group on the process for the statewide plan discussion.  On February 26^th members of the Task Force and Planning Council met as a conference committee to review the plan and discussed motions to take back to each of the bodies for a final vote.  The motions to be presented today were further discussed at the Executive Committee meeting, and finalized by Sarah, Paul and Mary.

 

MOTION:  Megan moved Dave R. seconded approving the component one motion.  It is: The Planning Council and Task Force will establish a provisional Greater Minnesota planning group with representation from the whole state to provide input on the planning process to the Planning Council.

 

AMENDED MOTION:  David B. moved Linda seconded Linda Brandt’s revised component one motion.  Discussion ensued.  Julie shared information from the conference committee meeting – she is objecting to the seven regions as stated in the amended motion because the specifics of the regions would be an item to be addressed by the greater Minnesota committee.  Further clarification is that voting rights would be for the planning body representatives only not the whole committee.  Discussion of what parity was continued.  Dave R. said the wording using provisional from the original amendment was very important. 

 

Bob O. suggested we suspend making motions, look at all of the proposed motions, propose changes then vote on the slate.  It was decided to suspend Robert’s Rules of Order, work on editing the actual motions then call the vote.  Efren asked if there are other parties that have proposed changes to the motions.  Sarah said this is the time we have an opportunity to weigh in on the motions and she encouraged everyone to give their input.

 

Revised Component One motion: The Planning Council and Task Force will establish a provision Greater Minnesota planning group with representation from the whole state (not including the EMA) to provide input on the planning process to the Planning and Task Force.  A permanent greater Minnesota committee would be established once the regional planning groups are in place.  Vote:  15 yah, 1 nay and 1 abstention (Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Revised Component Two motion:  The Planning Council, Task Force and Greater Minnesota regional planning group/committee will participate in joint non-EMA regional planning.  They will explore various possibilities for the conveners of the regional planning group.  Vote:  12 yah, 1 abstention (Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Revised Component Three motion:  The Planning & Priorities Committee of the Planning Council will develop a plan for the regional prioritization process for the Planning Council and get feedback from the provisional planning group when it is established.  The Needs Assessment & Evaluation committee will contribute to this effort.  The completed process will be reviewed and voted upon by the Planning Council.  Vote:  12 yah, 2 abstentions (Bob Olander and Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Component Four:  Allocations will be set aside for each region, according to a formula which will include, but not be limited to the regional population of PLWH/A and a base rate per region.  Vote:  12 yah, 2 abstentions (Bob Olander and Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Revised Component Five motion:  The Planning Council and Task Force support the development of an RFP that requires the provision of prevention and care services within each region and include a suggested list of partners that enhances collaborative and coordinated care.  Vote: 13 yah, 1 abstention (Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Revised Component Six motion:  The Planning Council, Task Force, Greater Minnesota Committee and regional planning group will seek technical/capacity building assistance as needed.  Vote:  10 yah, 1 nah, 3 abstentions (Gwendolyn Velez, Tim O’Brien and Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Component Seven motion: Based on the plan implemented, monitoring and evaluation will be done as required.  Vote:  12 yah, 1 abstention (Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

Statement plan summary:  The Planning Council approves the whole model as approved through previous seven motions.  Vote:  13 yah, 1 abstention (Julie Hanson).  Passed

 

IX.             Committee Reports

Written reports were handed out.

 

Documents distributed at or before the meeting:

·        Agenda and February 11, 2003 meeting minutes

·        Archival process

·        Meeting evaluation

·        Title I update outline

·        Title II update

·        Committee meeting summaries

·        Comprehensive Plan minus resource listings

·        Statewide joint conference committee meeting minutes

·        Work plans for all of the Planning Council committees

·        Statewide Plan motions

·        Proposed edits to the Statewide Plan motions

·        Parliamentary procedure handout

·        Linkages Workgroup Recommendations for Linking Prevention & Care

·        Meeting evaluation

 

Adjourned at 3:35 p.m.