MN HIV Services Planning Council Meeting

August 8th, 2006 8:30 am – 4:30 pm

Plymouth Congregational Church

1900 Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis

Minutes

 

Council Members Present:

 

Susanne Phiel

LeMonte Graham

John Cyzon

Gary Novotny

Jim Lawser

Ephraim Olani
Antonio Marante

Eric Meininger

Francis Mark

Lee Lewis

Andy Ansell (Co-Chair)

Gilbert Achay

Gwen Velez

Aaron Keith Stewart (Co-Chair)

Rae Eden Frank

Dean Halland

Ron Schut

 

Council Members Absent:

 

Bob Hansen - excused

Ama Sabah - LOA

Lois Crenshaw - LOA

Ojuolape Olagbaju - LOA

Willie Wesley - unexcused

 

Consultant:

 

Beth Zemskey – One Ummah Consulting

Becky Kroll - CLEAR

Nehrwr Abdul-Wahid – One Ummah Consulting

 

Guests:

 

Lori Lippert

Colleen Bjerke - MAP

Lorraine Teel - MAP

 

G-HAT:

 

Kathleen Howard - Hennepin County

Julie Hansen Perez - MDH

Eduardo Parra - Hennepin County

Michelle Sims - DHS

Jonathan Hanft - Hennepin County

Sheila Murphy - Hennepin County

Redwan Hamza - DHS

 


Staff:

 

Wendi Kistner

Tim Sullivan

Quorum Present? Yes

 

I.                    Welcome

The meeting was called to order at 8:43 am.  Introductions were made.  Tim lit the candle in honor of the work Planning Council members have done to this point in the prioritization and allocation process. 

·         Participant Introductions – Everyone was asked to introduce themselves, say how long they have been on the Planning Council, and one word to describe how they are feeling about the process.  Everyone was reminded that Planning Council staff will be the primary speakers for the day.

·         Review Agenda and approve minutes from July 11, 2006 meeting – Beth reviewed the agenda with Council members.  All those present were told if they wish to speak during the open forum there will be time to sign up during the break.  The open forum will run 20 minutes in length and each person speaking will receive three minutes.  After reviewing the agenda a correction was made that the prioritization process has already been done and the agenda is for the allocation process.  The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.  The minutes were approved, with minor corrections, by unanimous consent. 

·         Review goal for the day: To utilize the new service area prioritization list and the grantee’s draft budget to make the Planning Council final allocations to services areas/activities. 

·         Review ground rules for discussion – Council members read the meeting norms/rules previously approved by the Planning Council.  Beth added to this list that discussion during the allocation process will be limited to Planning Council members unless others are specifically asked to speak. 

 

II.                 Review Overview of Planning Council Charge, Tim Sullivan, Planning Council Coordinator

Tim reviewed the Planning Council charge.

 

III.               Review Budget Criteria for 2004, Tim Sullivan, Planning Council Coordinator

Tim reminded Council members of the Budget Criteria they approved in April when considering 2007 allocations.  These budget criteria were used by the grantees to develop today’s proposed allocations budget.

 

IV.               Review Results of Prioritization Vote, Tim Sullivan, Planning Council Coordinator

Tim walked Council members through the handout entitled 2004 and 2006 Prioritization Comparison.  Tim pointed out where ranking changes occurred and where service areas/activities were changed to be more in line with HRSA.  Questions/Comments:

·         Eric asked about Greater MN Initiatives.  Even with the difference in services areas Greater MN did move down in the list significantly.

·         Francis noted Interpretation/Translation was pushed down in 2006 when it was made its own activity. 

 

V.                  Review Budget Allocations According to Budget Criteria and Prioritization, Jonathan Hanft, Hennepin County

Jonathan met with Dave and Redwan to make the proposed allocation budget.  The proposed budget was created with the assumption that funding levels will stay flat.  If more money is allocated, the Planning Council will need to reallocate funds and approve the budget based on the actual allocation received.  Jonathan walked the Council through the allocation spreadsheet entitled Year 12 (FY 2007) Allocations.  The allocation amount for service funding is $3,408,484.  Questions/Comments:

·         Francis asked for clarification on the Admin and Planning Council budgets.  Jonathan said the admin budget is for the Title I grantee staff and the Planning Council budget includes the costs of running meetings and other Council functions which include staff and member reimbursement.  Both of these budgets have a 5% cap.  Title II is capped at 10-15%.  The Quality Management budget is capped at 5%.

Jonathan walked the Council through the proposed service area allocation portion of the spreadsheet.  This spreadsheet will be used during the allocation discussion.  The spreadsheet is set up to change totals based on proposed changes so Council members can immediately see how changes will affect the bottom line.  There was a 2% increase across the board.  With the proposed allocation, funding is set to run out at Interpretation/Translation.  There were several areas that did not receive the 2% increase because the service was underutilized in the past. 

Jonathan walked the Council through the spreadsheet entitled Comparison of Proposed 2007 with 2006 Allocations to show members what change in allocation is proposed. 

Questions/Comments:

·         Andy asked for clarification if the lack of funds in Child Care would prevent people from using EFA funds.  Jonathan said EFA covers medical expenses and utility bills.

·         Gwen asked where MAI funds are.  Jonathan said all things in blue font are MAI funded.  Jonathan also showed Council members a table entitled Year 12 (2007) MAI Allocations.  The funding for MAI was increased by 2%. 

·         Gwen asked if HERR was funded by MAI last time.  It was not.  MAI funded service areas/activities were broken down for Council members. 

·         Eric asked for the three areas where cuts have been made.  He asked Jonathan to speak on why Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) and Greater MN are not receiving funding.  EHA was under spent last year.  The cap was decreased to make sure the money wasn’t used up.  The lottery system was used to make sure the money would last.  There was also some carry-over money that came late in the year.  The proposed allocation was given the base of what was allocated in 2004 and did not include the carryover.  For Greater MN one of the service providers decided not to continue services.  Money is now tied to service to the client so money is being better spent.  In the past it was thought there was some over allocation and the new system will be more cost effective.

·         Andy asked for clarification on substance abuse.  In the past no money was allocated and there is no money proposed to be allocated now.  Jonathan said there is other money available to pay for this service area.  At this time they don’t feel they can make a proposal to fund this service area.  The Needs Assessment committee may be looking at this service area in the future.

·         LeMonte asked what Culturally Appropriate Primary Care is for.  Jonathan said this is being targeted to Latinos.  Gwen asked if it was sole source funded and Jonathan said no. 

·         Nehrwr asked about the language regarding Culturally Appropriate service activities.  Jonathan said this language comes from HRSA MAI language.  The Planning Council also uses this to identify areas that are targeted to specific cultures.  This is based on the agency needing to focus on specific cultural services.

·         Francis asked if it is possible to change the language from culturally “appropriate” to “specific”?  Yes, this can be changed if the Planning Council thinks it should be. 

 

VI.               Things to Think About During the Break

After all the information was presented to members they were asked to take a few minutes during the break to think about the following discussion points:

·         Practice good communication skills.  Speak to be understood and listen to understand. 

·         Ask each other for clarification of understanding.

·         Know the difference between intent vs. impact. 

·         Depending on class, etc. someone may have a different understanding of communication and data.  Try to draw from the data and give people the context of where the data is coming from.

·         People have different access to information.  Information is power.  Be mindful of how this power is used.

·         Remember everyone has a target identity and multiple identities.  A target is what you visualize yourself being targeted as.  Agency is an aspect of identity that gives access to information. 

·         Remember you are planning for multiple groups. 

·         Looking at multiple levels for consideration.  Think about all these things at once and think about your own conflict of interest when making these decisions.  If someone doesn’t clearly identify their conflict of interest everyone has a charge to disclose this information.  If this isn’t done it is the duty of other Council members to bring it up in a respectful way. 

·         There will be time to caucus if needed.

·         This will be a challenging process for some.  The information needed to make decisions have been supplied.  Council members are the people to make these decisions and have chosen the responsibility and have to give the appropriate response according to their ability. 

 

VII.             Housekeeping

·         Please fill out the