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 Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
|
Hartnett called the meeting to order at 8:33 am. She stated that she and Henderson met and decided that for the next four meetings, they will meet before each meeting and construct the agenda and will rotate leading the meetings. Her task is to get the group through the agenda in a timely manner. Today the focus will be on how the CCH would like to proceed and discussion of current issues.
Introductions
Members and staff introduced themselves.
Approval of the agenda and the November 17, 2005 minutes
Martin-Smith moved to approve the November 17, 2005 minutes. Dinsdale seconded the motion, which passed.
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.
Henderson further added that it was their thinking that missing is missing – excused or unexcused.
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.
Henderson said that he raised the issue during the last meeting because there was concern that there were gaps on the TF in terms of homeless representation. One person who has experienced homelessness is going to have to be a huge voice in order to represent the many segments of homeless in the community. Also The Salvation Army (TSA) is absent and so much of what the group talks about is going to be linked between the Lawrence Community Shelter (LSC) and TSA. Homelessness can be broader than the population served by the two shelters. It seems that agencies relating to jobs and the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority should be included, among others.
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.
Henderson said that he is becoming more comfortable with the conversation knowing that there will be opportunities for others to be heard.
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.
Henderson said he would talk to Wes Dalberg, get his input and ask him to be involved with 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 Henderson about a process for receiving information from the public. There is an agenda item for public comment but she wonders how the group should deal with letters, phone calls, etc. She feels the group should respond in writing to all comments. At this point in the plan they have asked for a Community Cooperation Committee that will be a soundboard for community concerns. Until the group is up and running, that will be the task of the CCH.
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.
Henderson said that perhaps they could do the Powerpoint presentation that Barbara Huppee put together for the Study Session.
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 Community Drop-In Center. She did not know that such a thing existed. That is why she became so involved – to try to help people know the steps to go through, because it is not easy.
Henderson offered to escort a group through the services for a day.
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 Henderson.
Hogue suggested having lunch at TSA to gain a valuable experience.
Faubion asked about the links between agencies.
Henderson said that they are linked informally. There is a new database coming – HMIS (Homeless Management Information System)- that will make the links somewhat more formal.
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 – Henderson said that two weeks ago he got a call from the national coalition to provide a heads up that a national study on the criminalization of homelessness has been completed and will be released in January. Depending on the content, it may cause controversy regarding community procedures for dealing with homelessness issues.
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 Kentucky. In light of that information and other concerns, the Planning Commission recommended a review in one year instead of five and included conditions with the recommendation. Personally, he has a problem with the CCH speaking tonight and asked which side they would take.
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.
Henderson said that the length of time was an issue as well as the conditions that were placed on the permit.
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.
Henderson said number three.
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.
Henderson said that he would be willing to support tabling the decision. A more meaningful conversation can be had at a CCH meeting versus a CC meeting. One of the conditions placed on the permit by the Planning Commission states that LCS was to define loitering and develop a plan to address it.
Swarts noted the CCH should formally acknowledge that Hartnett will speak on behalf of the CCH at the CC meeting.
Henderson asked if group members could speak individually.
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 10:25 am.