City of Lawrence

Task Force on Homeless Services

January 18, 2005 minutes

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Randy Beeman, Candy Davis, Katherine Dinsdale, Rich Forney, Helen Hartnett, Loring Henderson, Caroline Hicks, Barbara Huppee, David Johnson, Steve Ozark, Mike Rundle, Jim Schneider, Shirley Martin-Smith, and Sarah Terwelp

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Bruce Beale, Tami Clark, Sara Taliaferro, and Barbara Tucker

 

STAFF PRESENT:

Monica Cardin and Margene Swarts

 

PUBLIC PRESENT:

Hubbard Collingsworth, Coalition for Homeless Concerns; Chad Longhorn, LJW; and Holly Naylor, 6News

 

Rundle called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. 

 

Approval of Agenda

Hicks moved to approve the agenda.  Huppee seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Approval of November 23rd and November 30, 2004, minutes

Martin-Smith moved to approve the November 23 and November 30, 2004 minutes.  Beeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

 

Discuss recommendations from stakeholders, accept or reject recommendations, provide specific reason for rejections

Swarts advised that the January 14, 2005 stakeholder break down was staff’s attempt to condense all the focus groups into the six plans, plus another grouping for items that did not fit.

 

Hartnett stated that she really appreciated staff compiling all of the notes.  She also asked if the Task Force could look at this meeting as a discussion of the process of focus groups and process of deciding.  She wanted to discuss how to think about the recommendations and determining the plan for making the amendments to the proposal.  She suggested revisiting the timeline.

 

Hicks agreed with Hartnett.

 

Henderson entered the meeting.

 

Schneider suggested a long meeting to discuss the pros and cons of each suggestion.

 

Beeman agreed with Schneider because the comments are valuable for those that attended the meetings, but for those that did not attend, the suggestions need to be contextualized for clarity and to aid the voting process.

 

Rundle asked for suggestions regarding the structure to accomplish that.

 

Hartnett suggested the Task Force go point by point and plan for how the group is to decide how to adopt the recommendations.  Then, as a group, the group can determine who is going to do the work and how the plan is to be revised.

 

Rundle suggested the Task Force start with that.  There followed a brief discussion regarding necessary meetings.

 

Davis stated that she tried to consolidate the suggestions and felt that they could use more consolidating because some of the items are already in the report.  She wants to make it more concise.

 

Ozark stated that he wanted the comments and suggestions available on the website.

 

Forney stated that the Task Force cannot leave it open ended, but that there needs to be a cutoff.  Otherwise, the Task Force would never come to a unified conclusion.

 

Ozark asked for the next step in the process because he cannot imagine the proposal going to the City Commission without priorities or direction.

 

Martin-Smith agreed with Ozark.  She stated that the learning curve for another group would be rather large.  The Task Force needs to go the City Commission with some recommendations that can be currently accomplished to address current issues that do not cost and suggest a timeline for the other priorities to be accomplished.  The Task Force needs to prioritize the items.

 

Huppee agreed with Martin-Smith.  She noted that in order for the plan to be implemented, it needs to contain priorities, a strategy statement and a budget.

 

Dinsdale suggested incorporating the suggestions that can be placed into the current plan and submit it the City Commission with one of the recommendations being that whoever is willing to stay on be in charge of implementing the plan.

 

Hartnett agreed somewhat with Dinsdale, but noted that even if the Task Force recommends putting lockers somewhere, the Task Force, as a group, needs to vote on that.

 

Schneider argued that the Task Force needs to get beyond the specific of lockers and get to the issues.  He wants the Task Force to address transients.  He commented that the Task Force cannot educate the public on the issue of homelessness and not address transients. Other issues are expecting rehabilitation from the moment of intake and safety.

 

Davis stated the Task Force is divided on those issues.  It requires the entire Task Force to work together to develop a document.  The 70 percent consensus is required on some of those issues.  She also stated that at least a couple of those issues will be addressed if there is an effective plan that is stated as things evolve.  She believes they have to vote on it.

 

Hartnett stated that the bigger issue is what does it mean to have a consensus model.  “We”, as a group, support the plan if we agree with at least 70 percent.  The Task Force expects the community to collaborate, but the Task Force as a group has to send a message that we are behind the plan.

 

There followed a discussion regarding ambiguity in the plan.  Schneider stated the original charge from the Mayor was to devise two plans.

 

Hartnett reiterated that the Task Force voted as a group to present one plan.

 

Rundle stated that there was not a charge to develop one or two plans.  The alternatives will be in the implementation of the plan.  He added that if we have a plan, then they at least have to identify who might take a certain component.  He noted that they do need to come up with some sort of implementation plan.

 

Forney stated that he distinctly remembered the Mayor charging the Task Force with developing one or two plans to present to the City Commission.  He suggested modifying the current plan and incorporating what the Task Force has found out and what can be done now.  The secondary plan would then be things the City and community can do on long term basis.  He emphasized that the Task Force needs to prioritize items.

 

Hartnett asked to continue discussing the group decision process and the way of voting, prior to the voting process.

Forney stated that they need to look at all sides of what the Task Force has learned.  The Task Force needs to come up with a unified plan amongst the group.  They will not be able to hit all the issues, but the Task Force can hit the most important things for right now.

 

Schneider stated that he wants specifics.  He wants to be able to hear someone’s concern and point out in the report where the Task Force has addressed that.

 

Huppee stated that level of specificity needs to be left to the implementers.  She was very impressed with the attention to the report and wants to be very respectful and sensitive to the comments.  She noted that the Task Force should be mindful of those people who are going to live and breathe this plan.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding who are the most affected stakeholder group and the most important issues.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding the stakeholder input.

 

Ozark moved to place the stakeholder break down with the addition of the written comments on the website.  Schneider seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

 

Johnson suggested taking the comments, breaking down into subcommittees, and make specific suggestions based on those comments.  Then, the Task Force votes on those suggestions.  After voting, the Task Force moves on to developing a more detailed plan.

 

Huppee stated that they should take the statements and make them recommendations, vote on those and state why some of those do not get incorporated into the plan.

 

Davis stated that after hearing all the discussion and getting all the information, she concluded that the draft is missing some sections.  She stated that it might be useful to have a subsection under Mental Health pertaining to Substance and Addiction as well as a separate section on Safety and Police Involvement.

 

Johnson stated that it was a refinement that could come out of this process.  He moved that the Task Force volunteer for subcommittees for each section of the plan and incorporate comments into language that can be voted on. Hartnett seconded the motion. 

 

There followed discussion regarding incorporating new subsections.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Dinsdale noted that everyone should go through the document and see if there needs to be sections added.  She also noted that there are some philosophical things that need to be discussed.

 

Schneider agreed with Dinsdale.

 

Rundle suggested that a Task Force member present those issues to everyone.

 

Hartnett stated that the Task Force needs to determine if it is going to include their comments (relief vs. rehab).

 

Schneider stated that he is really torn.  He stated that the Task Force is choosing to ignore certain issues.  Transients are important because they take from the resources.  There is really hard empirical evidence that people are coming to Lawrence for the available resources.

 

Beeman asked about the Downtown Lawrence Association proposal/suggestion.

 

Johnson stated that he thought about their report and suggested that Downtown Lawrence submit it to the City Commission for consideration.  The Task Force cannot write a plan based on everyone’s beliefs.

 

Schneider stated that he feels the Task Force could produce a comprehensive plan that addresses all of these concerns.  He asked why they could not address all those issues and in doing so, get community support.

 

Hartnett pointed out that Schneider agreed to the plan when obviously he did not.

 

Huppee stated that the comprehensive plan includes all those elements.  Some are opposed to the plan because this plan should be all things to all people regardless of their nature.

 

Schneider reiterated that if the community addresses transients, the homeless population decreases.

 

There followed a discussion about what to do with the transients issue.

 

Task Force members volunteered for each plan group to review the comments and form recommendations from them.  The groups are:

 

 

 

Em./Shelter Services

Case Management

Mental Health Service

Housing Program

Jobs Program

Comm. & Quality of Life

Steve Ozark

Loring Henderson

David Johnson

Barbara Huppee

Shirley Martin-Smith

Candy Davis

Loring Henderson

David Johnson

Mike Rundle

Rich Forney

Caroline Hicks

Jim Schneider

Rich Forney

Katherine Dinsdale

Rich Forney

Caroline Hicks

 

Katherine Dinsdale

Jim Schneider

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hartnett asked about the timeline. Swarts advised that staff would like to have the revised recommendations within two weeks so they can redistribute them.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding changing the meeting date so everyone can participate.  It was decided by acclamation that the Task Force would meet February 2, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in the City Commission Room.

 

Swarts advised that staff will revise the timeline and send the suggestions out to the Task Force.

 

Henderson suggested involving the Police Department, Lawrence Memorial Hospital and/or other stakeholders in future meetings.

 

Rundle asked if they would be voting members.  Huppee stated that she did not think so.

 

There followed a brief discussion regarding inviting other stakeholders to the meetings.

 

Terwelp left the meeting.

 

Huppee suggested that if the Task Force has a vote and it goes against a substantive recommendation then the Task Force needs to be prepared to address that.

 

Swarts noted that the February 2, 2005 meeting could be a review of what the Task Force is doing in the interim.

 

Johnson stated that he thinks they owe people a response.  He stated that the development of those reasons for not accepting the recommendations could be a very slow process.

 

Martin-Smith asked if the Task Force could at least provide the City Commission an update of what they are doing. Rundle stated he could possible do that on January 26, 2005.

 

Public Comment

There was no Public Comment.

 

Adjournment

There being no further business, Forney moved to adjourn the meeting.  Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.  The meeting ended at 5:50 p.m.