MN HIV
Services Planning Council
Meeting Minutes for
Council Members Present:
|
Council Members Absent:
|
|
Gilbert Achay |
Osmam Ahmed -
unexcused |
|
Andy
Ansell (co-chair) |
Lois Crenshaw –
LOA |
|
Dan
Capouch |
Andrea
Jenkins – unexcused |
|
John
Cyzon |
Binta
Johnson – unexcused |
|
Rae Eden Frank |
Sarah
Senseman - excused |
|
Paul
Eknes-Tucker |
Aaron
Keith Stewart (co-chair) - excused |
|
LeMonte
Graham |
Gwendolyn
Velez - excused |
|
Dean
Halland |
|
|
Bob
Hansen |
|
|
Randy
Hornstine |
|
|
Patrick
Kramme |
|
Jim Lawser |
|
Lee Lewis |
|
|
Antonio Marante |
|
|
Francis Mark |
|
|
Eric
Meininger |
|
|
Gary
Novotny |
|
|
Susanne
Pfeil |
|
|
Ron Schut |
|
|
Willie Wesley |
|
|
|
|
|
Consultants: |
|
|
Becky Kroll – CLEAR |
Jennifer Thompson – CLEAR |
|
|
|
|
Guests: |
|
|
Allain
Hankey - |
|
|
|
|
|
G-HAT: |
|
Diane Knust -
|
Dave Rompa – DHS |
Redwan Hamza – DHS
|
Eduardo Parra -
|
|
Debra Riley – DHS |
|
|
|
|
Staff: |
Lori Lippert |
|
Wendi Kistner |
Mary Dwyer |
I.
Welcome
and introductions; lighting of the candle
The meeting was
called to order at
II.
Review
the minutes and proposed agenda
Eric - Section I
strike the typist’s comment. Staff will
strike that from the record.
Jim – On Page 6,
the second to last paragraph on page 6 has a hanging sentence: “This section addresses”… Also Page 7, the third paragraph ends with
another hanging sentence: “Approximately
80 clients qualify for subsidies so they are focusing”... Staff will finish these sentences.
Mary – Needs to
fix attendance record
No changes to the
agenda.
The meeting
minutes were accepted, with noted changes, by unanimous consent.
III.
Open
Forum
No items
IV.
Co-chairs
Update
·
Re-authorization
position paper
A sub-committee
met to develop a position paper stating the Planning Council’s key
recommendations regarding federal re-authorization of the CARE Act. A draft version of the paper was sent to the
Executive Committee. They liked the
points but had concerns about language.
The goal was to
keep it short, concise, user friendly.
Other points could have been put in but it would have diluted the
message and impact of the paper. The
sub-committee doesn’t feel Bush’s recommendations fit with the needs of
PLWHIV. Andy Wants to get a motion of
the paper so it can be distributed in the community and legislature.
Lori made a
clarification that she did the redrafting of the paper, not Jonathan.
Eric made the
motion to accept. Willie made a
second.
Jim made a suggestion
that under first item, 3rd
line down, where the paper reads “supporting the majority of people?” Should that point be expanded? For example, “We don’t want all the money
taken from EMA’s because…” This idea was
not formally accepted so the draft language stands.
A council member
pointed out that there is a need to get this to the legislature soon, and then
to have a meeting to talk with our representatives about reauthorization.
A vote was taken:
15 people were for the motion, 0
opposed, 0 abstained from voting. The
position paper was accepted as written.
Dave Rompa
expressed concern about the length of time it takes the PC to make a formal
response to a legislative action. In
times when congressional seats are changing taking 1-2 months to get a paper
out is not going to be good enough.
Rompa suggested that PC offer a “coffee” or “tea” gathering and invite
the congressional delegates so they can listen to our concerns. He also suggested that the Council look at
their own processes to think about ways to “fast track” things when the Council
needs a timely response.
The
Operations Committee is currently
reviewing the by-laws. Now is a good
time to bring operational and process-related recommendations to them.
·
Retreat
Reminder: Friday, November 18
Andy and Mary
Dwyer reminded everyone of the upcoming PC retreat on Nov 18th. The results from of the cultural assessment
tool that council members filled out will be presented and discussed. The retreat will be at the
V.
Staff
Update
·
Lori
Lippert introduced herself. She worked
with the PC during the 10 years that she worked at DHS as the
coordinator/policy consultant (in the position currently held by Deb
Riley.) When Mary Doyle left RWCAP
Jonathan Hanft asked Lori if she could fill in the position and keep things
running until they had a chance to hired someone new. She will be working half-time until the end of
Feb (4 months). If/when the position is
filled she will move on. Wendi has been
helping out with minutes. Since Lori is
only working half-time, Mary Dwyer will be staffing the Community Voice and
Community Participation committee meetings.
Lori has the same phone number as Mary Doyle had. Her email address is: Loretto.Lippert@co.hennepin.mn.us.
·
Since
the Planning Council is a public body it is critical to have a fair and
transparent process. The PC has say over
a lot of public funds that affect many people’s lives. Everyone needs to be able to work to a level
that is accountable to the public. There
are two key ways in which the Planning Council safeguards its fairness and
accountability which Lori took time to review.
o Conflict of Interest forms (handout to
use for clarification)– The PC by-laws lay out the Council’s Conflict of
Interest policy and requires that all members identify their conflicts when
they join the Council and again on an annual basis. It’s hard to get people involved in the
Planning Council who are knowledgeable and interested in the process, but who
don’t have any conflicting interests. Many
people who get involved are also involved in the system in some way and that’s
fine. However, it’s important to be
aware of conflicts you may have. People
who join the Council often wear two hats:
an interest a particular organization and an interest in serving the
public (fairly represent the whole community).
Council members need to put their private interests aside when working
with the council. It can be hard to
understand what constitutes a private interest.
The policy defines it. First the
level of association is defined: it has
to affects you or a member of your immediate family. Second it defines what constitutes
“benefit”. For example, being an
employee of an organization, a director, a member of the board of directors. Then you have to understand what sort of PC
actions trigger that conflict. For
example, if an entity that you have an interest in will be affected by the
decisions made by PC, such as getting or losing funding. In short, if you stand to gain personally or
financially by the decisions made by PC, or even have the appearance of gaining
personally, than you have a conflict and shouldn’t participate in that
vote. The way we manage this conflict –
every year each PC member is asked to fill out a COI form to help identify each
personal conflict. If there is a vote
that will affect conflict it is asked that you abstain from that vote. If a person has a lot of conflicts then it
may not be worth the involvement in PC.
Francis
asked how this relates to people who get services from various
organizations. Also, what about being on
a member advisory council of an organization?
Lori
responded that this is a common question, since so many consumers are PC
members. Her understanding is that being
a consumer of a service does not constitute a “conflict”.
Eduardo
pointed out that the fairness of the work of the PC is also protected by
maintaining several steps of distance between PC decisions and funding to
specific agencies.
Lori
suggested that anyone who still has question can talk to herself if he/she is
still confused or has concerns about your conflicts.
An
example: If the PC is taking a vote about reallocating funds to a food service
area which only currently has one vendor and you are an employee of that one
vendor, you should abstain from voting on that item.
All
the files need to be updated. Please
fill out the form and return to Mary Dwyer now or at the next meeting.
o Grievance policy review (handout given)
– reviewing so everyone is aware of the form and also so it can be reviewed by
other committees. This is a description
of the formal process by which a person can raise objections to the work of the
PC if they don’t feel they are doing something right or fair. The community can hold the PC accountable for
decisions and can go through the process of getting things changed. This process also helps manage the complaints
so the PC isn’t left open to dealing with complaints at any time, in any
fashion. The first concept is to avoid
problems before they happen. To this end
the PC reviews and monitors all their processes every year to always check for
fairness and opportunities for improvement.
There needs to be a lot of ways in which information about PC activities
is shared with the community and there need to be many opportunities for people
to be involved. Second, if a grievance
brought forward there should be an attempt to informally handle it. There is a grievance committee that does
this. The by-laws call for there to be a
grievance coordinator which is a function filled by the co-chairs of the
Grievance Committee. What can be grieved?
Decisions that relate to the priority setting process (NA, allocation of funds,
etc) and how the PC complies with its own appointing process. If other things come up they are not
grievable. Who can bring a
grievance? Individuals affected by HIV,
consumers of HIV services, and HIV providers.
For example, an advocacy group would not be able to come file a
grievance.
Diane
Knust pointed out that section 4A (“individuals affected by HIV disease” is
very broad and perhaps should read, “individuals infected by HIV disease”. Lori
suggested that the Operations Committee
should look at this portion and decide whether or not it should be changed.
Grievances
need to be brought in writing, being specific to which PC decision is at issue
and the basis of the grievance. Time
limit: within 5 days of making the
decision. This is in place because
decisions are acted on very quickly.
It
is a confidential process. If the
grievance committee can’t resolve the problem it will need to go to a
mediator. Mediation is when a 3rd
party comes in and helps both parties reach an agreement. If that doesn’t work then both parties will
need to go to arbitration. Once this is
done whatever agreement the arbitrator comes to is the final decision.
If
there are any questions about this form talk to Lori or the Operations
Committee chairs.
Eric
raised the question of how “hardship” is determined in terms of possibly
waiving the cost to the grievant. Also
the address given on the form is wrong. Operations Committee will review these
items.
The
form to use in filing a grievance is at the end of the policy.
Eduardo
raise the question, how would someone with limited English proficiency get
access to this? Staff should help anyone
who wants this form figure out if it is grievable and should take
responsibility for getting them the information. Suggestion to have the form translated or
have an interpreter there to read it to them if they cannot read in their
native language.
o Letter from Resource Recovery - Lori asked the PC how they wanted staff to
handle mailings of announcements that come to the office. Members suggested that staff review them and
at their own discretion either toss them out or forward them on to members. A PC member filled the group in on a new
federal (SAMHSA) 5-year grant awarded to the
Break
VI.
Committee
reports; time for questions, discussion
A. Executive Committee
·
Action Item:
Memorandum of Understanding –
Hennepin County has suggested
making changes to the MOU that governs the roles, responsibilities and
relationship between Hennepin County and the PC.
Allain Hankey was present at the meeting to answer questions.
In
previous discussions there had been concern about having the PC staff report to
the Title I coordinator at the County.
Andy had proposed language about that that made him more comfortable and
willing to support the proposal which he read aloud. (Pg. 3 of Exhibit A.) A motion was made to accept the MOU, with the
new language as shown in Exhibit A. Jim
seconded. There was no further discussion. A vote was taken: 10 votes in favor, 3 votes
against. 1 abstention (citing employment
with
·
Closure
of joint co-chairs coordination plan – Andy gave the background that for a
couple of years in the past the co-chairs of the PC and the prevention planning
group (CCCHAP) met together and engaged in several tasks to bring the work of
the two groups closer together. The
biggest shared projects: the Linkages project, Statewide services project and
writing a joint Continuum of Care have been completed. The co-chairs have not met with each other
for over a year. G-HAT has offered to
finish up the last couple of tasks to be done in the joint workplan. Both bodies have asked for the coordination
plan to be closed. Exec committee signed
off on having G-HAT do the last bits and the joint plan is no officially
complete.
·
ADAP
Ad Hoc Committees recommendations have also been dealt with now so the work of
that group is officially done. (The primary function for organizing oversight
of ADAP will go to NA & E committee).
B. Needs Assessment and Evaluation Committee –
no items
C.
Planning
and Priorities Committee -
· Action Item: Action item to authorize reallocation of $5000 from mental health services to congregate meals. The money allocated to mental health isn’t being s