Committee Members Present: Laura Thomas (co-chair); Don Soto (co-chair); Billie-Jean
Kanios, Ken Pearce, Chris Callandrillo, Margot Antonetty
Committee Members Absent: Ellen Sweetin
Other Council Members Present: Randy Allgaier, George Simmons, Charles Siron,
Raymond Banks
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Skot Jonz
Others Present: Russ Zellers (Health Services), Celinda Cantu, Susan Strong
(facilitator); Robert Whirry (Comprehensive Plan consultant)
1. Introductions
CM Thomas called the meeting to order and those present introduced themselves.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Committee reviewed the agenda and approved it.
3. Review/Approve Minutes – July 26, 2005
Committee reviewed the minutes from July 26, 2005 and the minutes were approved
by consensus.
4. Announcements
CM Kanios announced the upcoming Community Meeting scheduled tomorrow at Walden
House targeting the transgender community.
5. Public Comment
None.
6. Steering/ General Update
A monthly update of the Steering Committee activities and discussions and any
other Council/ Committee Updates.
CM Thomas provided an update on the Steering Committee activities and discussions.
It was agreed that Planning Committee has met since the last Steering Committee
meeting and there was nothing new to discuss.
7. Prioritization/Allocation Summit Meeting (Continued)
The Committee will continue discussion of the content and format of the August
Prioritization/Allocation Summit meeting and discuss the facilitation with
the Consultant, Susan Strong.
Council Director, Jack Newby, reviewed the agenda for the summit and the documents
to be included in the binder. The full epidemiology report from the City will
also be included in the binder. The conflict of interest policy and Council
Member conflicts matrix will be included in the binder. Jack reviewed the remainder
of the documents in the binder and asked Committee to review and discuss whether
there are additional documents to be included.
Documents still unavailable but should be arriving soon, include:
• Corrections on codes and other issues to be provided by Celinda Cantu
from Reggie as soon as possible.
• Needs Assessment and Community Forum Report to be provided by Harder
+ Co.
• Final Counties Budget Information
• AIDS Office Budget
• Any further modifications to the Draft Evaluation of the Three Year Plan
• Past two-three years of approved budgets for comparison
Others to consider include:
Introductory Executive Summary and one-page summaries for each section
CM Thomas distributed and discussed a document that includes HRSA Service Categories on the front with local Sub-categories listed. On the back side is a list of these categories, as well as a list of HRSA-defined Core services.
Committee reviewed and discussed the Service Category List and CM Thomas agreed to forward the revisions to Council Support for copying.
Committee discussed the issue regarding Centers of Excellence and indicated there would be a separate category but it would not be ranked because it does not actually exist as a HRSA category.
Committee discussed expectations of Council Members and how to control public comment which will be limited to the designated public comment items of the agendas. AIDS Office staff can provide information and data, and will be treated differently from the members of the public. Public will not be allowed to participate in the small breakout groups. Council Support discussed the meeting space and the availability of public comment podium and microphone, as well as space for the breakout groups.
Mr. Zellers asked about the expectations of HHS Staff. Jack replied that Mr.
Zellers, Dean, Celinda, and staff from Harder & Co. will be available to
provide information and data. HHS Staff, H+Co. and Council Support staff will
be monitoring each small breakout group to be available to answer questions.
The committee discussed the changes in the decision to have official facilitators
for the groups, especially HHS and Harder +Co. who felt that it would unduly
influence the groups. Council Support and senior Council Members can be available
to facilitate as necessary. Being official facilitators might prohibit certain
Council Members from being able to participate.
Committee discussed having a recorder and report-back person for each breakout
group. Committee discussed the drawbacks of a “wandering facilitator” and
seemed to agree that the facilitator needs to be present throughout the entire
meeting of the subgroup to maintain order.
CM Callandrillo mentioned that it is a good idea to determine the members of
the subgroups thoughtfully, and let the groups decide who will be note-taker,
facilitator, speaker, reporter, etc. and Susan, the main group facilitator
and Council Support will be available for additional facilitation as necessary
to keep the groups moving.
CM Pearce reported that he had put together the members of the subgroups based
on a balance of HIV+, personalities, and other issues. Council Support indicated
that no changes had been made to the list prepared by CM Pearce.
CM Pearce made a motion that Jack and Susan will be process facilitators.
HHS Staff and H+Co. will be content monitors.
Each group will be responsible for deciding how to determine the roles of each
person in the groups.
Motion seconded.
All in favor of the motion made by CM Pearce. None opposed. Unanimous.
The tentative list of small groups was passed around the table for review.
Committee members were given the opportunity to make comments on the list as
drafted.
Committee discussed how to go back and forth between Susan, the group facilitator,
and the co-chairs who will adhere to Robert’s Rules of Order.
ACTION: Committee discussed the use of color-coded name tags to help distinguish the members of each subgroup.
Committee discussed the nature of the “ice-breaker” exercise. CM Thomas suggested that this could be a brief introduction of Council Members (1-2 minutes) explaining why they joined the Council and some other ideas of their motivations and concerns. The goal is to have some sort of minor team-building. Committee discussed options and agreed to leave it up to Susan to decide how to format this introductory exercise.
ACTION: Change this from “ice-breaker” to “introductions”.
ACTION: Update the agenda and provide new draft to Susan.
8. Prioritization and Allocation Recommendations (Continued) VOTE
The Committee will continue to determine additional recommendations to be made
to the Full Council regarding Prioritization and Allocation.
CM Thomas and CM Soto discussed additional recommendation to be made to the
Full Council, specifically a set of motions from Planning Committee.
Another included a motion to create a housing case management category.
Russ Zellers asked if anyone would be giving an update on the reauthorization
issue and how that might affect San Francisco. CM Thomas suggested adding something
at the end of the second day, but discussing it ahead of time based on unknowns
could be unproductive. Committee discussed at length whether the changes proposed
could affect San Francisco, and how that should be considered with regard to
COE’s being held harmless, and deciding on prioritization for other services.
CM Simmons made several suggestions for how to address the issue, and added
that it is likely to come up at Prioritization and the Committee should be
clear on the matter and be prepared.
CM Allgaier commented on the reauthorization issue, and realized that it will
add confusion to have people go into that issue at the time of prioritization.
It could also lead to becoming a dominant issue overshadowing the rest of the
meeting. The priorities and allocation decisions are made on current data available,
the needs assessment, summary sheets, and other sources rather than possible
future cuts with reauthorization.
CM Callandrillo agreed with Mr. Zellers that it could be helpful to know how
much the cuts will be, but there is no way to know that. He suggested having
some sort of process or methodology for everyone to work with together and
move ahead with a common framework.
CM Simmons clarified his concerns regarding COE’s and suggested treating
all categories equally, with lower categories not taking higher percentage
cuts while COEs receive none or are held harmless from cuts or elimination.
CM Pearce suggested a clearer definition list for such things as “hold
harmless” and “holdout” and “set-aside” and “Bayview
Hunter’s Point” versus “Southeast Corridor”. He reviewed
his research on the confusion regarding these definitions and suggested clarity
and understanding. Committee discussed whether there was a need for a glossary.
Mr. Whirry responded to Committee about being careful not to send a message
to HRSA that SFEMA could cope with large cuts by developing scenarios for such
cuts.
Jack agreed that it needs to be clear when it comes time for a vote and perhaps
writing out specifically what the motion being voted on is worded, so there
is no confusion about the discussion and the actual vote. He also added that
it would be helpful to have some framework so people are working with current
data rather than speculative proposals.
Susan suggested that the Council would be wise to begin thinking about future
cuts, but not necessarily assume that the worst-case scenario is actually going
to be reality. She suggested reviewing past decisions on funding scenarios
cuts and working from there. She suggested that the Bush Administration proposal
will unduly color the discussions planned for the day of prioritization and
allocation and should not be a focus and only briefly discussed, if at all.
CM Thomas continued the discussion about how this should go to the Council
level regarding core services, tiered system, across-the-board, eliminate some
service categories, or protect some, none eliminated or none protected. She
offered several ideas for committee members to think about regarding funding
scenarios. Committee agreed to discuss this further at the next Planning Committee
meeting scheduled for August 22, and to come with motions.
CM Banks arrived to the meeting late and asked if there were any motions or
proposals regarding the Bayview Hunter’s Point COE and how to use Unfunds
amounts.
CM Thomas explained that there were no motions, and informed CM Banks that
she had just instructed committee members to bring motions to the next meeting.
9. Comprehensive Plan Update
Council Support will give a brief on the status of the Comprehensive Plan Process.
CM Thomas reviewed the latest developments that had occurred regarding the
need to write a Comprehensive Plan. She introduced Robert Whirry who is the
consultant hired to write the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it is the
task of the Council to develop the content of the plan but the duty of the
AIDS Office to actually write it.
CM Thomas explained that the Comprehensive Plan is due January 1, 2006. Committee
agreed that it is an absurd deadline and that there are only a few Council
meetings after prioritization to provide input. She explained that it is necessary
to decide which tasks will happen at work group level, which tasks at the planning
committee level, and which at the Council level. She explained that it is necessary
to get the working group started.
Jack added that it is important to get the list of volunteers, and determine
if it should also include community members or whoever.
Committee discussed that there is limited time to develop a strategic plan,
but this needs to be done as thoughtfully as possible given the time constraints
to adhere to HRSA’s request. A broader more comprehensive plan could
be developed, but it is unlikely that this can happen at this point due to
the lack of time to complete it.
Mr. Whirry suggested that the draft needs to be done in mid-November for final
review in December. That leaves the October Council meeting to make many of
the decisions.
CM Banks asked if there could be a bibliography included in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Whirry agreed that it definitely would be included.
Mr. Whirry discussed HRSA’s Comprehensive Plan outline and commented
that they also suggested it be less than 100 pages, ideally less than 80 pages.
He reviewed the Outline and ideas for the group planning process (copy on file
at Council Support Offices).
Mr. Whirry suggested that the Committee decide which of these tasks should
be directed to the Council as a whole, and which to the working group. Committee
discussed.
Potential members of the Comprehensive Plan Working Group include: Randy Allgaier, Charles Siron, Robert Oropeza, Don Soto, Chris Callandrillo, George Simmons, Mark Molnar, Bill Blum, Dorothy Kleffner, Billie-Jean Kanios, Laura Thomas. Other Council Members should be given an opportunity to participate.
ACTION: Jack Newby indicated that an email would be sent to all Council Members requesting feedback on preferred dates. It was also agreed by Committee members that the working group would not meet prior to prioritization.
ACTION: The October Planning Council Meeting should include a large amount of time dedicated to the Comprehensive Plan as well as the November Council Meeting.
10. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
August 22nd, 4-6 p.m., 25 Van Ness Room330B
Recommendations – VOTE
Budget
Funding Scenarios
Moving Categories (including COEs)
Mission Statement: The Planning Committee, as the Council’s forward looking body, plans and coordinates a timely and relevant prioritization process to ensure an effective annual prioritization, consistent with the Council’s Three Year Plan.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee