City of Lawrence
Task Force on Homeless Services
August 17, 2004 minutes
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Randy Beeman, Tami Clark, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Paula Gilchrist (for Rich Forney), Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Steve Ozark, and Jim Schneider
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Bruce Beale, Caroline Hicks, Shirley Martin-Smith, Mike Rundle, Sara Taliaferro, Sarah Terwelp, and Barbara Tucker
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
Monica Cardin, Cindy Nau, and Margene Swarts
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
None
|
Huppee called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. She noted that Mayor Rundle asked her to Chair the meeting in his absence.
Approval of Agenda
Hartnett moved to approve the Agenda. Ozark seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Huppee stated she was asked to include three items underneath “Other Business”: a proposal by Ozark; Nau has a call to action; and Henderson would like to bring up the Walnut Street Mobile Home Park substandard housing crisis.
Ozark moved to include those three items in the agenda. Johnson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Approval of July 20, 2004, minutes
Ozark stated that, on page 8, he meant staffing has been provided by existing service providers: Lawrence Open Shelter, Community Drop-In Center, and the Salvation Army. It is being staffed by professional staff from those organizations.
Hartnett stated that somewhere in the minutes it said she would help write the final report. She would like her name stricken from that Committee.
The minutes were approved unanimously.
Beeman entered the meeting.
Committee chairs present final reports
Huppee stated that agenda items three and four are derived from the timeline and the task list approved by this Task Force at the July meeting. The subcommittees were to submit their final reports to the Task Force by August 17, 2004 and any not submitted would be considered the final draft.
Vision Committee
Nau stated this was the very first step taken by the Task Force. It is a three-page document with the vision on the last page. It begins with the goal and continues on with a vision for the Task Force. She said it may not need to be included as a final report, but wanted the Task Force to decide.
Huppee asked who served on this Committe. Nau identified the members.
Hartnett asked if the report as it stands is final. Nau stated that it is in its final format as adopted by the Task Force months ago.
There followed a brief discussion regarding the process and the finalization of documents.
Huppee asked if the Committee’s intent was to have the document included in the final report.
There followed a brief discussion whether the vision document was a committee report.
Clark asked if it was a vision statement or a report. Davis stated that it is a compilation of everyone’s opinions. The vision is nice, but it has definitely evolved.
Johnson moved to have the Vision Committee’s document be part of the appendix as a historical document. Ozark seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Resources and Programs in Other Communities Committee
This committee is also the Model Cities Committee and the report has been submitted.
Standardized Intake Form Committee
Clark stated that there was no report to submit.
Caseworker Communication Committee
This Committee was created to try to establish caseworker coordination. Sarah Terwelp was the chair. There is no report to submit.
ID Card Committee
Nau reported that Hicks would be e-mailing that report.
Non-committee reports:
Nau distributed the report. Johnson stated that it should be included.
Nau stated this research was completed by some University of Kansas students. It was used as information as part of the Committee’s research. Harnett added that it is included as part of the Current Lawrence Area Resources Committee final report.
The document was used as a reference. Harnett stated that she had one change: to correct the spelling error.
Johnson stated those should be included.
Nau stated this was some initial research she did for Sue Hack. It was included.
Huppee stated that it is a compilation of focus groups that Nau and Charlotte Knoche did prior to the creation of the Task Force in preparation for the grant that the Lawrence Douglas-Count Housing Authority received. It was included as a final report.
10-Year Plan Committee (seven key issues)
Huppee noted there is a difference of opinion regarding the final report.
Schneider stated that at the original meeting, he and Dinsdale were supposed to address the seven points listed in the September 29, 2003 meeting minutes. In response to that directive, he produced the discussion of a rehabilitative versus relief/maintenance approach. As he understood it, there needed to be revisions of that report in order to present it as a final report. He worked on it and tried to take out all the inflammatory comments and news articles, but did make a reasoned argument for the rehabilitative model. He stated that he understood that it would be included if it was updated. He was told that the appendix material of the final report would be given to the public before the stakeholder meetings.
Schneider stated that he followed the Portland, Oregon format. The format was to hit the issue, identify a goal, and then explain how to carry out the goal. He did his best to clean the document up and the purpose of the document is to educate those reading it. He thinks it should be included in the appendix and he is willing to be the only one backing it.
Huppee asked if the Committee agreed on the report.
Schneider noted that the 10-Year Plan Committee requested he go through the seven issues and state the issue and the goal, and outline things that need to be done.
Clark stated that this report is more comprehensive than she thought. It was one of the initial works of the Committee, but she does not necessarily agree with some of the key issues.
Dinsdale stated that issues are on the single page and come from the original statement. They identified the key issues and addressed them from information based on model cities. It is a body of information collected on each issue and as a group, identified them. They are not prescriptive, but as a body of information to be included. She stated that part of the confusion is that everything is done at the last minute and no one has time to review it.
Hartnett asked if this was tied to the vision statement and should it be considered an historical document.
Huppee asked if this document is the result of the research of different approaches. Schneider stated that it is clearly different approaches.
Hartnett stated that it is clearly one approach.
Johnson asked if it was a committee function and if it speaks for the Committee. Clark stated that it does not.
Johnson stated that he like Hartnett’s approach. The document was already made public so it should be put in historical documents. It is a reference for the final report and these committee reports provide foundation.
Clark suggested submitting the document as an individual contribution like the written Public Comment.
There followed a discussion regarding how the Committee was developed and why.
Huppee stated that it is not a vision statement because it represents personal beliefs. It should be renamed to reflect it as. Nau suggested renaming it as “Survey of Community Members.”
Johnson suggested renaming Schneider’s report to “Key Issues and Goals Submitted by Jim Schneider.” He asked if that was satisfactory. Schneider stated that it was.
Hartnett disagreed based on the agreed upon process. The document is controversial and the Task Force has to decide whether to include it or not in the appendix.
There followed a brief discussion regarding whether to include the report in the final report or not.
Clark stated that she cannot support the report because it is inflammatory. She stated that none of her beliefs are reflected in this work.
Davis left the meeting.
Huppee asked for a Committee vote so the Task Force can move forward. The vote was 3 to 1. The report will be submitted as a subcommittee report.
Current Lawrence Area Resources Committee
Hartnett stated the Committee attempted to put different research components into some form of a cohesive body. This included the data tables, the historical information, and the different academic literature information, as well as the interview and survey information.
Define stakeholders (Downtown Lawrence Assn./businesses, funders, homeless, service providers, police, Chamber of Commerce, neighborhood groups, and advocates)
Huppee stated that some of the stakeholders have been identified. The goal is to have separate meetings with each. She also stated that if anyone has a contact within those specific groups, please let staff know.
Dinsdale left the meeting.
There followed a discussion regarding various stakeholder groups.
Clark asked how the process will work. Huppee stated that has not been decided yet. After the Task Force develops its recommendations and initial plan, they will then hold meetings and submit the plans to the stakeholders for feedback.
Hartnett reminded Huppee of the September 21 deadline to get all the documents and recommendations to the Program Development Committee. Huppee asked Nau to send the reminder for submitting specific names and contact information to her for the stakeholder meetings.
Other Business
Ozark stated he sent an e-mail regarding the Coalition for Homeless Concerns proposal before the City Commission. They are asking for emergency funds for September 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004 to fund for 24 hour emergency services. He asked the Task Force to let him know regarding their personal thoughts.
Clark stated that the Community Drop-In Center hours will expand to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days a week. There will be 24-hour shelter through the service providers. It eliminates the need for volunteer coordinators of the volunteer shelters. Ozark commented that the volunteer structure was not good.
Hartnett stated that it is a really great plan. She suggested the Task Force support it.
Nau stated that there is a call-to-action alert regarding the McKinney Homeless Grant. This is the first cut to that grant in a decade.
Henderson stated there was a concern brought before the Coalition for Homeless Concerns regarding the report of tenants who called for inspections and the mobile home was found to be unsafe. The occupant was to told leave. The problem is that they were caught because they were reporting on unsafe conditions, but ended up harming themselves. They have no place to go. The concern was that the Task Force should include that kind of emergency shelter so that they have some place to go to for three days or a week.
Hartnett stated that they should try working with a local hotel owner for a voucher.
Hartnett stated that the other issue to think about is ways to affect bigger policy. The landlord is at fault and so how can he/she be held accountable.
Johnson stated the solution needs to be more comprehensive. Huppee stated that could certainly be a recommendation.
Huppee stated the next meeting is September 21, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. The deadline to submit recommendations to solving homelessness to staff is September 14, 2004. The recommendations should be one or two sentences long. Staff will weed out the duplicates and send it all back to the Task Force so on the 21st, the Task Force can review and vote on each one. There will be no debating.
Public Comment
Diane Yehman stated that she is the new L.I.N.K. president.
Adjournment
There being no further Public Comment, Hartnett moved to adjourn the meeting. Clark seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.