MN HIV Services Planning Council
Meeting Minutes for September 9, 2003
All God’s Children Metropolitan Community Church

 

 

I.          Welcome and introductions; lighting of the candle

Sarah called the meeting to order at 9:05.  Mary May lit the candle – this is her last meeting as a Planning Council member.  She thanked everyone and said she feels like her brother has been here with her as a partner in this work.  Introductions were made.

 

II.          Review the minutes and proposed agenda

The minutes were passed by unanimous consent. 

 

III.   Open forum

No one came forward for the open forum.

 

IV.             Co-chair update

Sarah welcomed everyone back.  This is the first full Planning Council meeting since June.  The Planning Council retreat was held in July – 23 Planning Council members attended.  Beth and Newrhr are working with the Operations Committee on follow up to the training, including a small session for new members.  Most committees continued meeting over the summer.  Planning & Priorities is currently doing a lot of work – prioritization will occur again in August 2004 so much of the Planning Council’s work in the coming months will be in preparation for prioritization.  Needs Assessment has been working on the CSAD project.

 

MDH will hold a SHAS and CLRS presentation on Monday, October 27^th from 9:00 am to 12:00 noon at Snelling Office Park.

 

The Title I grantee is preparing the application for submission in late October.

 

New members will be welcomed after elections today.

 

Paul announced that this is the end of a membership cycle.  Two members resigned – Bob Olander and Lauretta Moore.  Dave Rompa and Julie Hanson will also be changing hats and will not be serving as Planning Council members anymore but will continue to attend as G-HAT.  Mary May and Efren Tovar Leon have both served for four years – the Planning Council appreciates all their hard work and hope they will continue to participate when possible.

 

V.          Planning Council elections

Debra and Gwen are serving as election officials from the Operations Committee.  They passed out summary information compiled for all of the new members and ballots.  After ballots were collected, the nominations slate for co-chairs was passed out.  Additional nominations for Planning Council co-chair were solicited.  Committee co-chairs were approved by the committees and forwarded to the Planning Council for approval.

 

MOTION:  Dave moved Megan seconded approving the co-chair ballot as written.  Passed unanimously.

 

18 ballots were cast – all candidates were approved unanimously.

 

VI.     Title I update - Jonathan Hanft

Jonathan handed out an outline of his report and a spending report for the first quarter.  Members asked clarification questions about the spending report. 

 

The CSAD Project team will be coming September 29^th and 30^th for a site visit.  The grantees will have a conference call with them next week and will have more information about the site visit then. 

 

The carryover proposal was submitted on August 25^th – the grantees are still waiting for the response.

 

As Sarah mentioned, the grantees are working on preparing the application.  Additions to this year’s application include a new CDC initiative, calculating unmet need and increased provider monitoring.  HRSA is hoping the appropriation by Congress will occur in October so the award will be announced by January.

 

Jonathan reminded members that Michelle McCafferty sent out a confidential survey and those results need to be submitted with the application.  Please be sure to return surveys to Michelle by the end of this week.

 

Jonathan then recapped the dealing with cutbacks training that was conducted in July.  Many vendors participated and were able to share information about how their agencies are handling decreases in funding.

 

2004 carryover plans – a provider survey – board development, legal issues for non-profits, missed two.  Planning Council members are always invited to attend training.

 

VII.   Title II update – Dave Rompa

Dave reported that they are hoping to hear from SAMSHA on the grant application submitted by DHS and MDH.  The focus is on African American MSM in this joint project.  The date to start is October 1.

 

The ORR grant (funding Redwan’s position and staff at HCMC) expires in February.  They will be applying again and hope to hear by June.  The carryover plan has been submitted to HRSA for Title II.  They’re waiting to hear from HRSA but don’t know of a timeline.

 

DHS launched a training model in greater Minnesota, including Hennepin County, MDH and providers working in greater Minnesota (RAAN and MAP).  The first training will be in Moorhead at the end of this month.  Flyers have been mailed and are available for those interested.  The focus is geared toward providers – mental health, substance abuse, etc.

 

More will be known about the ADAP fiscal situation in October when the outcomes from the cuts that are made to other state funded programs will be more visible.  There are still efforts to consider the option of using other programs in the Minnesota health care system before accessing HIV programs.  DHS is planning to forecast the estimates out to 2007.  Mary Doyle sent out an action alert to save ADAP funding.  Dave has heard that the legislature is looking at all Ryan White funding allocations in the coming week.  In light of the recent request for additional money to fund efforts in Iraq it is unclear if that will have an impact on other funding. 

 

VIII.          MHSPC staff update

·        Meeting logistics

Mary Doyle reported that when we switched the meeting time to the morning the Planning Council lost its space at Division of Indian Work.  Staff has researched other locations around Aliveness to find another suitable space.  All God’s Children is available but is not accessible so it’s not a good long-term option.  Mary Doyle reported the results of the search; all the options have not been completely exhausted.  The staff is continuing to explore the YWCA and the Minnesota Council of Churches.  Another option is to switch the day the Planning Council is held to continue using the Division of Indian Work.  Members offered other options that staff will look in to.  Mary Doyle then asked if moving the meeting to the second Thursday would be an option – it appears that is not an option.  The Planning Council will continue to meet at All God’s Children Church until a new space is located.  Staff will continue to research alternative sites to keep the meeting on the second Tuesday of the month.

 

Mary Doyle then announced that the November meeting will be on Veteran’s Day and asked if any members would have a problem meeting that day.  Consensus is that the meeting date will stay on the 11^th.

 

·        Grantee Evaluation

Mary Doyle reported that the Planning Council is charged with evaluating the grantee and asked that all Planning Council members fill out an evaluation.  The information needs to be submitted with the application.  Questions have been sent to vendors and grantees.  She asked that members fill them out as soon as possible and try to return them by the end of today’s meeting.  If not, please fax them to the office by Friday.  Mary Doyle will also email the form to all members.  Members asked clarification questions that Jonathan, Dave and Mary Doyle fielded.

 

IX.            Committee  – written reports, time for questions, discussion

·        Executive Committee

          Action item

·        Application budget

Jonathan handed out the budget that’s been prepared for the application.  Planning & Priorities and the Executive Committee have reviewed and approved the proposed budget.  Jonathan then reviewed the proposed budget which includes slight reductions in some service areas, an increase in primary care and care advocacy, and an ability to continue funding home health care and benefits counseling at a reduced level.  Megan reiterated that when the options were posed to the Planning & Priorities Committee there wasn’t total consensus on each line item but that this budget did represent issues identified by HRSA as needing to be addressed in the application.  She also reminded people that this is the application budget and can be revisited once the award has been received.  Ron asked if there is much leverage to change the budget after the grant is received– members clarified that if there are significant budget modifications, they could be submitted to the Planning Council for approval.  The finalized budget would then be resubmitted to HRSA.  Members expressed their thoughts about specific line items to which Jonathan and Eduardo responded.  Julie reported on some of the changes that MDH is working to develop in light of the shift away from counseling that the CDC has initiated.  MOTION:  Bob N. moved Sarah S. seconded approving the proposed budget for submission with the application.  Passed with one opposed, one abstention (Rompa).

 

·        Planning and Priorities Committee

          Action item

·        Prioritization process plan

Mary Doyle passed out the proposed scheduled presentation plan for prioritization.  Megan then reviewed the plan that has been developed by Planning & Priorities.  Three elements have been discussed and include presentations by service providers and a practice prioritization that will be done in November.  There is also some discussion about have a staged approach to prioritization next summer that will give members an opportunity to discuss the results and then revote.  The committee will also solicit consumer input in the form of consumer forums, with at least one being held in greater Minnesota.  The committee is also working on processes for prioritization, including forms that will be used and information that will be collected.  One idea is to have members prioritize each area in rank order (i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.).  Debra asked about new members who will come on in April and be participating in prioritization.  Mary Doyle clarified that providers will give summary information that will be collected and given to new members, along with other information collected.  Nick asked that consumer forums be well structured to be sure consumers attend but also have an idea of what they’ll be asked to provide feedback on.  Bob H. shared the conversations that have happened in committee and said he suggested the Planning Council go to consumers (like Aliveness, Park House, etc.) to ask them what they need saying that the Planning Council would get more information that way.  Randy raised a concern about having provider presentations – his thoughts are that there won’t be a lot of time and also that the Planning Council is not supposed to be involved with providers directly and has some concern about decisions being made on a personal basis as opposed to based on the merits of the service areas.  Ron asked that presentations be linked with needs assessment information available.  Mary Doyle explained that SARs would be included as part of the service area presentation.  The SARs include information on epi, utilization, and consumer survey response.  Linda pointed out that the committee has had much discussion about several of the points made.  She reported that lots of other EMAs have held provider forums and we’re a bit out of step with hearing about trends that providers may be more in tune with.  Dave shared that the amount of time allocated won’t be sufficient for vendors to present to the Planning Council in an unbalanced way.  Megan reiterated that the committee has grappled with these decisions for months and had has much of the same conversation that’s occurring here today.  Gwen asked that the committee keep in mind that various agencies have different ways of delivering service (i.e., case management) and that needs to be taken into consideration when structuring presentations.  The next step needs to be directed toward the implementation of the provider presentations.  MOTION:  the Committee moved, Lee seconded moving the proposed presentation structure forward.  Passed with two opposed.

Dave added that a component of a vendor forum, to be attended by Planning Council members as well, be added to the plan.

 

·        HIV Positive Committee

·        Needs Assessment and Evaluation Committee

·        Community Participation Committee

·        Operations Committee

Action items

·        Attendance policy

Dave presented the attendance policy that was approved by the Operations Committee.  When the policy was enacted last year it was decided it would be revisited in a year to address the effectiveness.  The revised policy is being brought forward for vote today.  Planning & Priorities committee members expressed concerns about a disparity in the number of absences they are allowed.  Mary Doyle explained that the number of committee meeting absences is equalized between committees.  MOTION:  The committee moved David seconded approval of the proposed attendance policy, to be effective October 1^st.

·        By-laws revision

Dave reported that the by-laws have been revised.  Now that the attendance policy has been approved it will be incorporated in the by-laws that will be mailed to members for discussion in the October meeting.

 

X.          Announcements, next agenda, meeting evaluation

Linda shared that there are people who have been left off the mailing lists for greater Minnesota trainings and expressed some concern.

 

The next meeting will be here at All God’s Children Church.

 

Documents distributed at or before the meeting:

·        Agenda and June, 10 2003 meeting minutes

·        Title I update outline

·        Title I and II spending report for year 7 (2002-2003)

·        Title II update

·        Committee meeting summaries

·        HRSA CARE ACTION newsletter

·        Grantee evaluation

·        Schedule for provider presentations for prioritization

·        Meeting evaluation

 

The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent.

 

Adjourned at 12:00 noon