MN HIV Services Planning Council
Meeting Minutes for October 11, 2005
Redeemer Missionary Baptist Church

Council Members Present:	Council Members Absent:
Gilbert Achay	Andy Ansell (co-chair) – excused
John Cyzon	Osmam Ahmed - unexcused
Paul Eknes-Tucker	Dan Capouch - excused
Rae Eden Frank	Lois Crenshaw – LOA
LeMonte Graham	Dean Halland - unexcused
Bob Hansen	Binta Johnson – unexcused
Randy Hornstine	Andrea Jenkins – unexcused
Patrick Kramme	Francis Mark – LOA
Jim Lawser	Sarah Senseman - excused
Lee Lewis	Ron Schut - excused
Antonio Marante	Willie Wesley - unexcused
Eric Meininger
Gary Novotny
Susanne Pfeil
Aaron Keith Stewart (co-chair)
Gwendolyn Velez
Consultants:
Becky Kroll – CLEAR	Jennifer Thompson – CLEAR
Guests:
Ojuolape Olagbaju – AIDS Project of Nigeria	Allain Hankey - Hennepin County
Ama Sabah – DHS	Duane Bandel – DHS
Beth Zemsky – One Ummah	Newrhr Abdul-Wahid – One Ummah
G-HAT:
Jonathan Hanft – Hennepin County	Diane Knust - Hennepin County
Julie Hanson Pérez – MDH	Dave Rompa – DHS
Redwan Hamza – DHS	Eduardo Parra - Hennepin County
Michelle Sims – DHS	Debra Riley – DHS
Staff:
Mary Doyle	Mary Dwyer

I. Welcome and introductions; lighting of the candle

Andy called the meeting to order at 9:00. Introductions were made. Mary Doyle lit the candle because this is her last meeting. She thanked everyone for letting her be here with them – often through pain folks learn a lot that they are able to take with them and use in future endeavors, which helps them do the work that needs to be done. She thanked everyone for the work that they do in the community. Dave added a celebration for Bob who is celebrating his fourth anniversary of moving out of the nursing home (probably should take this out and find other wording).

II. Review the minutes and proposed agenda

The revised minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

III. Open Forum

Gary announced that yesterday the CDC announced funding available and passed. If anyone has questions please talk to Gary during the break. He also shared that grant applications will be reviewed in January and they are looking for reviewers. He handed out applications for those interested.

IV. Proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and staffing supervision discussion

Andy shared that Hennepin County has drafted an MOU for working with the Planning Council, including a staffing supervision proposal. Planning Council members have been given copies of the MOU, supervision proposal, letter from Allain, response from Paul, and comments from Jim Lawser for review in this discussion. The Executive Committee was not comfortable forwarding a recommendation on this discussion. His goal for today’s meeting is to have open discussion about the pieces related to supervision with a vote at next month’s meeting. Members were welcomed to share their thoughts.

Jim shared that there are some pieces that require amendments to the by-laws, which can be done. There are also some pieces related to duties of staff, which may also be modified. In a conversation he had with Jonathan he shared that the money for the positions comes from the CARE Act so Hennepin County doesn’t have the authority to move positions around. Gwen asked for information about why the change was proposed in the past. Allain deferred to Dave who suggested Jennifer answer the question. Jennifer shared that the consultant who was working with the Planning Council decided not to continue. For the amount of money spent on staffing the PC wasn’t getting the value in number of hours that could get with Hennepin County staff, which increased the amount and scope of work that could be done. They also looked at the Prevention Task Force, which was staffed by MDH staff – several members were familiar with that process and liked the model. PC members were involved in hiring, etc. as well. Dave shared that he was not in favor of the model then but has seen many benefits since that decision was made. He added that the obvious strength of the Council today is partially indicative of how the benefits worked. Paul shared that there are many models for staffing – his whole issue is about the structure and direction of the Planning Council – what we will lose or gain out of this is something we need to be very cognizant of. Andy asked if there is another supervisor who could assume these responsibilities. Allain said she did have other managers but this program requires much information and knowledge of the work being done, which would be challenging just as much as her continuing to do the work. She feels that this proposal would provide the meaningful support that the Planning Council needs to do their work. Dave added that the three month opt out clause could help because members could evaluate the situation then. He further added that this is beneficial with potential funding cuts that could be coming. Andy said having the coordinator position report to the grantee manager might put them in an awkward position because of conflicting opinions. Aaron Keith shared his opinion, which is in complete opposition to those of Andy and Paul. He feels that the concerns expressed by them and other members have been addressed with the changes incorporated into the MOU and staffing agreement. He then encouraged folks to raise other concerns that they have. Gwen said it would be helpful to look at other models that have been put into place. Mary Dwyer gave some information about. Allain added that if staffing happened through another organization – it can’t be a Title I or Title II funded agency. Jonathan said it would be considered a conflict of interest. Paul has spoken to a couple of agencies who have expressed interest but aren’t willing to engage with Hennepin County directly – the Planning Council needs to make that decision. Paul knows that another EMA has had staffing through a funded agency and doesn’t know about any limitations within the legislation. Ron asked Jonathan what the pros and cons are from the county’s perspective. Jonathan said the supervisor would have the expertise of the CARE Act, ensuring that the roles and responsibilities are being carried out (which is the responsibility of Hennepin County) according to the legislation. He added that the Planning Council is then able to get the support they need because of that increased information. Allain added that in the next couple of weeks the position will be open. She is looking for someone who can bridge the gap for the next three months or so – this person would be someone who knows the CARE Act who is also not interested in taking the position. This decision needs to be resolved so she can hire new staff. Sarah asked how members will know if taking the option of opting out needs to happen. Allain clarified that she currently supervises both positions and meets with both staff twice a month. In the proposed set up the same three people will still be involved but with a different structure. Sarah reiterated her question – saying staff should be able to check in with the co-chairs to let them know how it’s going. Aaron Keith directed members to the outline of supervision that illustrates how that would take place. Dave shared that Sarah’s comment is important – there seems to be trust issues that are eeking out. Operations Committee should be responsible in monitoring the effectiveness of the agreement – would add checks and balances that could . Aaron Keith responded to Sarah’s question saying that he feels it’s his responsibility to check in with staff. LeMonte asked what it would look like to envoke the opt out option. Allain clarified that the clause is in the MOU and that there is a clause that it could be amended, which could be done. Allain added that her assumption is that if the PC decided to opt out there would be much planful discussion and ninety days to envoke that particular plan. Lee added that it would be a daunting task to review information that Gwen has requested. Eric asked what the consequences would be if the PC rejected the MOU. Jonathan said things would stay within the status quo. Allain said it currently is totally her deision and she could say that it will happen anyway. Paul said he does support the MOU – it’s a good thing to do with the County. He added that there is a third option – the Planning Council can say staffing supervision will stay the way it is with the MOU in place. Dave added that Title II is currently sitting in the back seat of the car with the Planning Council and Title I in the front seat and he wanted to remember that they will be weighing in at some point depending on how this works out.

The next steps are for members to talk to whomever they need to to get their questions answered. More discussion and the vote will happen in November.

V. One Ummah

· Presentation of Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) for use in Planning Council retreat

Andy shared that this information will be used for the retreat the Planning Council is holding on November 18^th. Beth and Newrhr introduced themselves and are here to talk about the process that they will be using. They are using an instrument called the Intercultural Development Inventory. Newrhr said this is an interesting tool – MN has the most certified administrators than any other state in the country. Milton Bennett created this tool out of the field of multicultural communication rather than some of the more commonly associated fields one might assume. This is very important to the theoretical role of this tool and does impact other areas. It can be used on a variety of levels (i.e., individuals can use it for a more personal analysis). This work is developmental – traditional approaches are much more concrete than other tools and illustrates the levels of difference that exist within each individual. Beth added that one reason they are interesting in continuing this work because the epidemic is changing and information that members will use in decision-making and/or populations that will be considered need to be understood. Newrhr added that knowledge is not necessarily incorporated in what we do and this tool is more to look at how folks experience cultural difference. This tool is also used to do organizational assessment – this information informs work or training that needs to be done for organizations using the tool. The handout summarizing the IDI also includes information about various measures that are currently being used. Newrhr then handed out additional information about using the IDI and core approaches that are used. This data is predictive and indicative – there probably won’t be any surprises but may give information about why things are happening. Beth and Newrhr are the only ones who will see the data. They asked that if folks think they may want any individual assessment they right down the number of the tool that they use because that is the only way they will be able to identify each persons results. There will be two profiles – one of the Planning Council and one of the G-HAT staff.

· Fill out IDI Assessment

Beth and Newrhr handed out the instrument, gave instructions, and members filled out the forms. The results will be reviewed at the retreat on November 18^th.

VI. Co-chair updates

· Membership poll on PC meeting location

Aaron Keith shared that there has been some feedback on meeting evaluations about the location of meetings. He asked for a show of hands from members who would like to move to a new location.

· Update on position paper on reauthorization

Andy shared that the meeting is scheduled for Friday, 10:00 am at MAP. He encouraged all who are interested to attend.

Andy further reminded members that the retreat will be held on Friday, November 18^th from 8:30 to 4:30 (check – flyer says 4:00) location to be announced.

Mary Doyle will be leaving the Planning Council. He reiterated his previous statement thanking Mary for all of her hard work for the Planning Council and those living with HIV/AIDS. Paul shared that he has worked with other Planning Council’s and expressed his appreciation for all of the work she has done. Jonathan presented her with a gift and card in appreciation of all of her work. Mary then thanked everyone.

VII. Committee reports; time for questions, discussion

A. Planning & Priorities Committee

B. Community Voice Committee

Pat shared that they discussed several things including the position paper (meeting to be held on Friday) and incentive program. There will be a subcommittee meeting on October 25^th to discuss incentives further. The committee discussed a recommendation from Planning & Priorities to Needs Assessment about provider presentations. The recommendation is to have written information from providers

C. Needs Assessment & Evaluation

Discussed planning the next Needs Assessment, the coming year’s workplan, and discussion about SAR review with the Planning & Priorities Committee.

D. Community Participation Committee

E. Operations Committee

The committee has been working on the retreat – Beth and Newrhr will be presenting the results from the IDI and building on that work.

VIII. Title I update, Jonathan Hanft

Jonathan shared that the application has been completed and submitted. For the next few months Jonathan will be giving highlights of some of the information they have learned. About half of the money we get is a formula that is based on the number of AIDS cases in the EMA. This section addresses

The carryover request has been officially approved by HRSA. Many of the contracts are in the execution stage of contracting. A mini-RFP is also being released.

All vendor meeting on November 10^th all day and all Planning Council members are invited to attend. The morning will be a provider networking session that will highlight African serving organizations. The afternoon will be a workshop focusing on change.

They are embarking on the quality management training series. November 4^th, December 6^th and January 20^th. Focuses on quality management and how plans to improve quality of services provided to consumers. All Planning Council members are invited to attend.

IX. Title II and ADAP update, Dave Rompa

Dave shared that DHS did not get the HCAP grant – feedback from the reviewers is being circulated to staff and others involved in preparing the grant. Medicare Part D continues to proceed. Currently 141 have received letters informing them of the need for them to apply for MA to see if they are dually eligible to enroll. Redwan is reviewing all of the information and trying to help. There are three community forums coming up this month where the Department of Aging folks will be sharing information with consumers. It is still unclear what DHS will be able to

cover – they can pay for certain things but if they do it won’t count towards the donut hole. Approximately 80 clients qualify for subsidies so they are focusing

With respect to reauthorization DHS is continuing to work with other national agencies to advocate for legislation that will be in our best interest.

They have been working with pharmaceutical companies regarding patient assistance programs. They have called a meeting of all the companies to discuss the issue. The program has helped in states that have had to go to waitlists and he’s hopeful that they’ll come up with good ideas.

The Formulary Committee has developed their final recommendations for potential waiting lists that DHS is reviewing. They will be reporting in November.

The Title II application is due on January 2^nd but they have not received any guidance.

SCSN needs to be completed by January. They will be convening three community meetings – PC, vendors, etc. – will be invited to come to the table to talk about unserved or underserved communities.

Re: waitlist A new forecast will be available at the December PC meeting. Currently it looks like summer 07 problem.

An email will be sent out to folks with DHS’ new phone numbers and contact information for staff soon.

X. Announcements, evaluation, next agenda

There were no annoucements

Documents distributed at or before the meeting:

· Agenda and minutes from the September 13^th meeting

· Written committee reports

· Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

· Draft Exhibit A (to the MOU) regarding staff supervision

·

·

·

· Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Summary

· When Might You Use the IDI?

· MDH STD/HIV Section Notice of Availabilty of Funds

· Call for HIV Prevention Review Team Participants

· Title I Update outline including map of service providers compared to numbers in the epidemic

MOTION: Lee moved Gary seconded adjournment of the meeting. The motion

passed unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.