December 13, 2005 Minutes
(City Commission Room)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Katherine
Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Phil
Hemphill, Barbara Hogue, Shirley Martin-Smith, Robert Mosely, Sara Taliaferro |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Ed
Brunt |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley
Rigney and |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
|
Hartnett called the meeting to order at
Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
Approval of the agenda and the
Martin-Smith moved to approve the
Martin-Smith moved to approve the agenda. Dinsdale
seconded the motion, which passed.
Procedures
Attendance/Resignation – Hartnett proposed that as
members of the CCH, the expectation will be to miss no more than three meetings
per year and for members to formally resign if they are unable to attend
regularly, in order to maximize the potential of the group.
Martin-Smith agreed, stating that missing three times
is somewhat typical, but missing more can create a void.
Dinsdale moved that if a member misses more than
three meeting, barring extreme circumstances, the member will resign from the
group. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed.
Decision making – Hartnett stated that there are
multiple ways to make decisions including a simple majority. She and Henderson
were suggesting that the group adopt the 70% consensus model of decision making
such as that used by the Task Force on Homeless Services (TF). She believes
that this model sends a clear message that more than just the majority approved
the actions of the group. Issues this group is dealing with can be
controversial and this consensus model may be beneficial.
Hemphill agreed and stated that it seemed to work
well for the TF.
Dinsdale moved that the group adopt a 70%
consensus model for decision making. Taliaferro seconded the motion.
Taliaferro suggested that to aid the process,
perhaps members could e-mail their vote to staff before the meeting if they had
to be absent. She suggested a friendly amendment to Dinsdale’s motion to
allow for absentee voting.
Dinsdale agreed to the friendly amendment. The
motion passed.
Membership – There was some discussion about who was
currently appointed to the CCH and potential gaps. The group considered inviting
people to be non-voting members.
Mosely said that after the previous meeting, he visited
TSA and got a list of people who would be willing to serve as well as the names
of several homeless individuals who would be willing to serve on the CCH. If
they decide to expand the membership, that is a place to start.
Hartnett said that the TF plan included 12
categories and there were only 11 memberships.
Swarts noted that if the CCH agreed that membership
should be expanded, they would need to make that recommendation to the City Commission
as it would require a resolution change. She would visit with legal staff to
determine the process, but it is not as simple as the group just increasing the
number.
Hogue said that she feels that if homeless
individuals would like to be involved they are welcome to come and speak during
the public comment period. She is disappointed that no public are present.
Martin-Smith restated that she would recommend
waiting to decide to increase membership.
Mosely said that if they are going to invite new
people onto the CCH, it is important to bring them in at the beginning of the
process.
Martin-Smith noted that if it is opened up, efforts
need to be made to ensure that no one is excluded. When the Mayor made
appointments, every effort was made to cover the many different areas.
Dinsdale asked if there was a way to formally invite
comment or position papers.
Martin-Smith said yes, the TF had invited such
comment.
Hartnett asked if the CCH has the authority to ask
people to sit in as non-voting members.
Swarts stated she thought they could. One of the reasons that the size of the CCH
was small was that the TF had 18 members and the group struggled with the size
and keeping everyone involved. When designing the CCH, they had that in mind.
Too small is not good, but neither is too big.
Mosely said that he has a problem constructing a
mission around homelessness with no homeless representation.
Taliaferro said that she served on the model cities
subcommittee of the TF as well as the TF, and understood the need to have all the
major players at the table. She would be willing to resign her position to give
a spot to TSA.
Martin-Smith said she disagreed with that
resignation. TSA had been included on the TF, but had not continued to attend
meetings. Taliaferro brings much
knowledge of TF proceedings to the group.
Hartnett suggested tabling this discussion but
strongly encouraging the homeless community and TSA to attend the meetings so
the group can get a sense of where we are. She agreed with Mosely but was
concerned with leaping and going in a direction that might not be the best. It
has to be a thoughtful and deliberate process. The theory is good, the
practicality is more difficult.
Mosely said the TSA did not know why they were not
contacted.
Martin-Smith said that TSA representatives needed to
contact the Mayor like other members who indicated an interest in serving on
the CCH.
Martin-Smith noted the CCH needs to get the
attention of the media.
Swarts said she could make sure that Chad Lawhorn
with the Journal World knows about the January meeting.
Hartnett asked if the group was ready to could move forward
on the agenda.
Swarts asked if staff should put this item back on
the agenda in a couple of months.
Martin-Smith suggested putting it on the March
agenda. She asked if staff could
facilitate a news release throughout the community. She felt that it was important to get the
word out to all contacts.
Process for receiving info – Hartnett stated that
she had spoken with
Dinsdale said that the CCH has to be careful about assuming
responsibility in responding to community concerns.
Hartnett said that it is not the responsibility of
the group to solve problems but to decide as a group what their response is, because
at this point the CCH is the only group.
Her focus was to respond to information, even if it was only to
acknowledge the receipt.
Current Task Force Plan
Hartnett stated that at the last meeting members
were asked to make suggestions regarding what they needed to become familiar
with the plan.
Gouge said that it would be a good start – it
probably tells the story.
Taliaferro said that she and Henderson had presented
a condensed version that may be more helpful.
Martin-Smith said that what she liked about the Powerpoint
was the historical information.
Swarts said there may be some value in looking at
the presentation as a group.
Faubion said one of the challenges is understanding
what services are available. She would like to spend a “day in the life” of a
homeless individual – to go through the system.
Hogue noted that accessing the system can be difficult
if one is unaware of what is available. It
took her three months to find the former
Martin-Smith said that is one thing the group has to
address – making resources available 24 hours a day. Maybe TSA would take them
through their system if the group is too big for
Hogue suggested having lunch at TSA to gain a
valuable experience.
Faubion asked about the links between agencies.
Swarts said that the next Housing Practitioner’s
Panel (HPP) meeting is January 5. That group has 25 members and the agencies
work together, talking about issues and what individual agencies are doing to
solve the problems.
Hartnett asked for the group to think about spending
the bulk of the next meeting going through the presentation and asking and
answering questions. There should also be some kind of report about the Case Management
RFP by then. The next step will then be to concretely think about how the CCH
will proceed.
Current Community issues
Hartnett stated that this may be a recurring agenda
item of things that have an impact on the group and on implementing the plan.
National Coalition for Homelessness Report –
LCS Occupancy Permit – Hartnett said this relates to
the role of the CCH. The UPR (Use Permitted upon Review) for LCS is being reviewed
and difficulties have been encountered. This directly relates to CCH work
because LCS is central to the ability to implement the Plan. The Plan assumed
that existing resources would remain and new endeavors would build on existing.
She asked if this issue was something that the CCH should take a stand on during
the public comment period at the upcoming City Commission meeting.
Hemphill asked if the CCH was to provide oversight
to programs.
Taliaferro said that the group discusses processes
although it is not an authoritative body.
Martin-Smith clarified that this issue began at the Planning
Commission when the UPR was considered for renewal. As she understands it, there
were caveats to granting the use permit that are different now from what they
used to be. It seems that the Planning Commission is requiring conditions on
granting the use permit by telling LCS to improve on soft issues such as loitering
and smoking. She does not think that falls under Planning Commission authority
and feels that perhaps they have overstepped their authority. She hopes the CC
will say that the shelter needs to remain open. She thinks that the CCH should take
a stand.
Dinsdale agreed that it is the responsibility of the
CCH to make a statement.
Martin-Smith said that ideally if there was a use
permit issue in the future, the Community Cooperation Committee (CCC) would
work with neighborhoods to address the issue before it goes to the Planning Commission.
Taliaferro said that she agrees that it is not for the
Planning Commission to govern what they are trying to govern in this case. The
problem is that the CCC has not yet been created so there is nothing in place
to help work out the situation and that is her understanding of the CCC. It will be a body where things can get
mediated until everyone can live with the outcome and they will work with the
issues of the day. The Planning commission and the CC are currently the only
mechanisms available.
Hartnett said that regardless of what may happen in
the future, in the absence of the CCC, the CCH has a responsibility to respond
at this point in time.
Martin-Smith asked if the group should address the CC
tonight.
Hemphill said the issue tonight is related to information
that came up at the Planning Commission meeting – the fact that during the past
year, there were 368 police calls to 944
Taliaferro moved to extend the meeting ten
minutes. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed.
Taliaferro said the group has to address the issue in
a real way. LCS is a focal point now that was, in the past, spread out through many
neighborhoods. Removing a service provider just moves the problem to another
space. Her thought is that leaving these soft issues to be solved at the Planning
Commission or CC level is not appropriate. Reducing the review period for the use
permit gives the neighborhood leverage, but does not result in gains for the community
at-large.
Hartnett asked if the CCH should take a stand.
Dinsdale said that there is no way they can come up
with a response with inadequate information and on such short notice.
Martin-Smith agreed and said that she would like to
have access to all of the information. It is an opportunity to remind the CC
that they just appointed the CCH and if the group does not say something it
would make it seem useless.
Faubion asked if the worst outcome is a one year permit
versus five.
Martin-Smith said the CC should recognize that they have
a commission in place that needs to know about this so there can be input.
Taliaferro moved to extend the meeting ten
minutes. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed.
Hartnett said that she personally and professionally
believes the CCH should take a stand because it is an issue that is condemning
a population they are supposed to be helping. Having to go through the review every
year is almost ridiculous and is a request that would likely not be made of any
other establishment. Service providers are often held accountable for things
that other establishments are not. The CCH is supposed to promote the community’s
support for the implementation of the Plan. The Plan cannot be implemented
without LCS.
Faubion asked what Hartnett would say at the
meeting.
Hartnett said that she would say “These decisions affect
our ability to implement the Plan and should not be played out in public
policy. This raises the issue of the adequacy of the current shelter system.”
Faubion said she would endorse Helen speaking.
Martin-Smith asked which agenda item the LCS issue
was.
Dinsdale said she hears two things coming from the
discussion. The first is to ask the CC to delay their decision until the CCH
has had an opportunity to review the facts and make a recommendation. The
second thing is whether or not to support a one year permit, and the group has not
had a chance to examine relevant documents.
Swarts suggested asking the CC to table the decision
until the CCH can review it and submit a recommendation.
Swarts noted the CCH should formally acknowledge
that Hartnett will speak on behalf of the CCH at the CC meeting.
Swarts stated that if Hartnett is designated as the
spokesperson, no one should speak on behalf of the CCH except Hartnett; however,
anyone can speak on behalf of themselves.
The CCH acknowledged that Hartnett would speak to
the CC requesting that the decision regarding the LCS UPR be delayed and the
item referred to the CCH for review and recommendation.
Public comment
No public were present.
Adjourn
There being no further business the meeting
adjourned at