Meeting Date: July 8, 2002
Meeting Place: 25 Van Ness Ave., Rm. 330A
Meeting Time: 4:30pm - 7:30pm
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
See Attachment A., a quorum was achieved.
III. Review and Approval of Agenda
The Agenda was approved with an addition from Michelle Long Dixon.
IV. Review and Approval of Minutes 6/24/02
The June Minutes were approved without changes. There were five abstentions to the motion: John Conley, Charlene Pugh, William Blum, Brad Hume, David Gant.
V. General Announcements
There were no announcements.
VI. Public Comment
Patrick Monette Shaw would like the Council to respond to the Stop AIDS Project E.D. regarding erroneous remarks indicating that social events for PWA's are the greatest service need for PWA's in San Francisco. Additionally, Mr. Monette-Shaw voiced frustration that the Needs Assessment has not yet been published.
Charlotte Bobek from Positive Health Program distributed a letter from the HIV Primary Care Coalition (See Attachment B) regarding their recommendations for upcoming prioritization. She attached, Declining Morbidity and Mortality among Patients with Advanced Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection related abstracts and bibliographies. The complete article is available from the Council office upon members' request.
Lee Green, a consumer, is frustrated that he has been on the Housing list since 1996. Margot Antonetty offered to discuss the matter further with him following the meeting.
VII. Presentation - SF Sunshine Ordinance & Open Meetings
Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney, gave a brief overview of the Sunshine Ordinance as it applies to the CARE Council.
A meeting is defined as a gathering of the group, including a committee, as long as majority applies. There is no requirement that the group discuss matters relevant to the committee or Council under the majority principle. "Seriata meeting" is when a number of members communicate with each other, but are not physically present (i.e. e-mail, conference call). There is no violation if there is only one-way communication (i.e. scheduling coordination).
Notice of any meeting is required 72 hours in advance. An agenda should be posted outside the normal meeting place, on the Council website, and in a public place (library). Compliance with agenda formation is critical to Sunshine Ordinance compliance. There must be meaningful description on the agenda, so that someone who might be interested could attend the meeting. The agenda must include whether the item is either an action item, or whether it will be raised solely for discussion. There is a boilerplate form for all agendas, including provisions regarding Sunshine Ordinance contact information, cell phones, chemical sensitivities, and notice that all discussion is subject to public comment.
Public comment offers diversity of perspective. Public Comment must occur before any action is taken on an issue. The Council must be non-discriminatory regarding time allotments for members of the public. The members of the public have a right to anonymity and the right to criticize. Council members are not required to respond to any members of the public. If related to a record (i.e. formal document request), obviously a response is required.
The public also has the right to raise issues at the time of the agenda item. Mr. Zarefsky suggested the Council should give each speaker at least 2 minutes for comment, as to avoid any inconsistencies or discriminatory behavior.
Closed sessions are generally reserved to real estate, labor, personnel, and litigation issues. Passive meeting bodies are meetings orchestrated by one member of a body, without a majority (only by one member). In this case, there is no requirement for an agenda, or public comment: they would only need to notice the meeting in a public place and allow the public to observe.
When the Council decides to respond to Public Comment, they must be careful not to initiate a whole new discussion, thus creating a new agenda item. Response should be only to clarify. Should testimonies be abundant, the chair might strongly encourage the members not to be redundant and not be lengthier to two minutes. Only if a public member is truly disruptive, should the Council take matters to the Sheriffs Dept. No member of the Council can act as a member of the public. Council members can request that issues be put in writing, but cannot require it.
VIII. Presentation - SFDPH - Report, Unexpended Funds/Carry-Forward Funds
Michelle Long Dixon distributed an addendum to the 1st Quarterly Report regarding CarryForward Funds and Unexpended Funds (See Attachment C). She proposed that the August I & E Committee discuss the possible projects to be supported by the funds and present their findings at the September Council meeting. The details regarding the CarryForward funds are currently being compiled by her staff.
Laura Thomas distributed an answer sheet on Reggie questions asked at the last meeting (See Attachment D).
IX. Presentation - SFDPH - Report, Healthcare Sub-category Summary Sheets
Michelle Long Dixon distributed a Guide to Sub-Category Summary Sheets, and the Summary Sheets (See Attachment E). She explained that primary care is a subcategory of the health care category. Program description and target population may give more information on who provides the service, where it is provided and who it is provided for. Information and analysis is an interpretation, and allows the reader to see how the money was used. If the date is not specified, most likely it is a mix of last year and this year.
Looking at Primary Care offers a gaze at the trends going on in other categories. The issues are general but their impact is great, causing them to flow over into other categories. For those clients who are providing data via Reggie, the numbers of persons represented in the data changes from one report to another because unduplicated consumers may change from program to program, not service. The AIDS office intake criteria is different from the Reggie critieria because they are different systems. Michelle Long Dixon does not know why this is the case. Patrick Monette Shaw, a member of the public, expressed that Michelle Long Dixon's answer to this question is unacceptable.
X. Committee Reports
Mark Dunlop explained that the Council has been inconsistent with their method of electing nominees through either block voting or individual nomination voting. He made a motion to submit nominations in block form; Jeff Byers seconded the motion. Blocks are recommended by the membership committee. Any issues or amendments raised by the Council can be addressed at the time of discussion. Jeff Byers, as the Council Parlimentarian, agreed that if an individual is pulled from a block, they will be considered at a later date in a separate block.
Brad Hume spoke against the motion because the slate does not give him enough voice through his vote. Selecting candidates in the Membership Committee is difficult as only a small cross-section of Council members can attend the meeting. Additionally, pulling an individual from the slate can create an awkward situation.
Susan Shea suggested that the committee could forward the names to the Council for review via email. Upon their review, they can discuss any issues before a vote occurs. Due to confusion regarding Attachment A of the Bylaws, the motion was withdrawn.
Outcome: The motion was withdrawn.
New Member Nominations
The council unanimously endorsed Randy Algaier, Trevor Bougouneau, and Mary Lawrence Hicks as new Council nominees to be forwarded to the Mayor for appointment.
Kevin Johnson distributed an attendance report for all Council Members. He explained that people need to attend 2 meetings per month to fulfill their Council requirements (See Attachment F). Council members can only take an excused illness leave if they are HIV+.
Community Action Committee
Catherine Geanuracos explained that the group has not seen any significant attendance, so will not meet until after prioritization.
PLWH Advisory Committee
The PLWH Advisory Committee, formerly known as the PWA Caucus, is currently looking at completing their mission statement. They would like to create a community forum by the end of the summer, either specifically for the Transgender community or have a content-specific forum regarding core services.
Margot Antonetty reported that the June meeting consisted of discussion regarding the Needs Assessment, and the 3-Year Plan.
Implementation & Evaluation Committee
The grantee assessment that is scheduled to be included in the next application is an evaluation of the status of the recommendations in the previous Grantee Assessment. Following the submission of the application, the I & E Committee will investigate creating a Memorandum of Understanding between the Council & the AIDS office. There had been objections from the Council in the past to the idea of an MOU, so if anyone did have objections they are instructed to direct their concerns with the co-chairs of the I & E Committee.
Steering Committee - Discussion - Core Services
Pursuant to the decision made at the 6/24/02 Council meeting, the Council will need to begin identifying core services. Catherine asked the group to look at the Sub-Category sections that Michelle Long Dixon distributed to determine what categories are core. This will help with the prioritization process. Staff will bring old I & E minutes from a few years ago to aid in their process. Jeff Byers raised issue with prioritizing sub-categories vs. main categories.
XI. New Business
There was no time to discuss new business.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:30pm.
Community Action Committee
& Evaluation Committee | Membership
People Living with HIV Advisory Committee | Steering Committee | Three-year Plan Work Group