Creating Policy and System Change
for Independent Living
VOICE (866) 866-SILC (7452) • (916) 445-0142
TTY (866) SILC-TTY ( 745-2889) • FAX (916) 445-5973
1600 K Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95814 • www.calsilc.org
Executive Committee Meeting
June 27th, 2016
DRAFT Minutes
1. Call to Order – 1:03 PM
2. Introductions
Linda Schaedle – SILC Chair
Jacqueline Jackson – SPIL Chair
Rebeca Aguirre – C&C Chair
Michael Agyin – Governance Chair
Peter Mendoza – SILC Member
Jay Harris – Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) Ex-Officio
Victor Duron - DOR
Liz Pazdral – SILC Staff
Danielle Hess – SILC Staff
3. Public Comment
None.
4. Approve minutes from June 6, 2016 meeting
Jacqueline motioned to approve the Minutes, and Rebeca seconded. The motion
passed with one abstention.
5. Vote on consensus-built draft 2017-2019 SPIL
Jacqueline thanked everyone for their hard work and input, and especially
thanked DOR and California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC)
for their assistance in holding the public hearings.
Liz thanked Jacqueline, and stated how pleased she was with the collaborative
and cooperative process for the 2017-2019 SPIL. She welcomed anyone to speak
up if they had questions about the document as it currently stands, and then she
will review the language changes recommended by DOR.
Victor asked if there were any additional comments that came out of the hearing
on June 24th, and Liz stated that the SPIL information was presented without
comment. There was discussion after the presentation about declining funding
and a strong emphasis on the commitment to getting 50% or more of the ILC’s
approval for the operations plan.
Executive Meeting 6/27/16
DRAFT Minutes
Page 2
Since nobody had any general questions, Liz went straight into the language
changes that were suggested by DOR.
In Goal 1, they would like to change the wording to emphasize that centers are
already providing transition services. The suggested wording was “The California
Independent Living Network will enhance and expand existing transition
services”. The group agreed that this was a good representation of the work the
ILC’s do, and a positive change.
In Objective 1.4, DOR would like to change the wording to “Through existing
state I.L. Network Technical Assistance structures, I.L. Network members access
all available resources and tools for providing Transition services”. This language
is suitably flexible to allow for development of additional tools if funds are
available, or full utilization of existing tools if funding is not available. Victor
clarified that the Resource Specialists in the ILAT’s unit are what people typically
think of in terms of Technical Assistance resources, and at this time there is not
funding to hire any more of them. Liz did suggested adding more detail in the
operations plan to protect existing resources and grow for the future. The group
agreed that this was appropriate.
DOR brought up a concern that all five of the counties stated with low
penetration rates come from the area covered by one ILC. They thought it would
be appropriate to add more counties or eliminate the naming of specific counties
to avoid singling out a specific center. Liz said that naming specific counties is
something that has been specifically required by the Rehabilitation Services
Administration (RSA) in the past, and although she is happy to take them out,
the Administration on Community Living (ACL) will likely ask her to add them
back in. The group decided that adding in a 6th county would be the best
solution, because that widens the area to cover more than one ILC.
In the section on partners, they suggested the addition of workforce system
partners in order to better align with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA). The committee agreed that this was a positive change.
The mention of CFILC was changed to Systems Change and Assistive Technology
Networks, to reflect the fact that those are competitively awarded and may not
always go to CFILC. The group agreed that it was appropriate to not refer to
them for future contracts because they could end up not managing those
programs in the future.
Rebeca motioned to approve the 2017-2019 SPIL instrument as revised in this
meeting, and Michael seconded. The motion passed unanimously through a roll
call vote.
Executive Meeting 6/27/16
DRAFT Minutes
Page 3
Peter Mendoza brought up the concern in the community about how advocacy
was conducted to gain more funding for the SPIL projects, and asked if there
was any method to have another conversation with DOR to revisit the funding
amounts. Liz stated that there were several conversations in SPIL meetings
regarding advocacy, and a concern around the decreasing funding for SPIL
projects. Liz’ impression is that DOR believes that the block grant is their
responsibility to allocate, and as such they get to choose how it is distributed.
DOR did commit to a flat level of funding for the next 3 years, and fully funding
two of the very popular legacy projects. She does not know how things are going
to change with the implementation of WIOA, but there was some suggestion in a
training given to the Executive Directors of SILCs that the Designated State
Entity (DSE) shouldn’t be treating it like their money. She doesn’t know of any
other advocacy routes that can be taken at this time, but is open to suggestions.
Peter clarified that he appreciates the work of DOR and the good relationship
that the SILC has with them, but as he understands it there is supposed to be
more of a conversation around the money rather than them treating it as theirs.
He is troubled by the idea that the SILC can’t advocate for more funding, and is
hoping to talk in Santa Barbara about other possible advocacy strategies. He did
want to bring it up now, to make sure he didn’t miss the opportunity to raise
questions about this.
Liz reminded the group that DOR provides more Social Security Program Income
to the Independent Living network than any other state, and that in some states
they also invest Innovation and Expansion dollars into the IL program. She also
brought up the fact that they had not received a final budget from DOR until late
in the process, when the goals had already been chosen. In the past year, a lot
of things that had previously been dialogs with DOR have not been discussed, for
example the SILC has not received a report on the VIIB funds since last
September. She isn’t sure if there is anything that can be done, but is open to
any ideas Council Members have moving forward. It was requested that part of
the ongoing work between the SILC and DOR is to get information in a timelier
manner so the group can make informed decisions and pursue advocacy as
needed. Linda asked if Victor knows whether this backlog of reports and
information was due to unusual circumstances at DOR and whether we can
expect more timely communication in the future. Victor stated that there were
changes in leadership that may have contributed to a temporary slowing of
information in the past several months but that that is solidly in place so we
should be able to expect more timely information.
6. Next Meeting
a. July 21-22, 2016 – Quarterly Meeting in Santa Barbara
Executive Meeting 6/27/16
DRAFT Minutes
Page 4
b. Agenda items
Liz reviewed the draft agenda for the July 2016 quarterly meeting in
Santa Barbara. Additions recommended by the group include a section
for encouraging SILC SPIL committee members to join the
Communication and Collaboration (C&C) and Governance committees
now that most of the work on the 2017-2019 SPIL has been completed,
nominations and a vote for SILC Vice-chair, and if possible a vote on
the Governance Committees Reasonable Accommodation form.
7. Committee Updates
a. Communication and Collaboration
There are no major updates on legislation at this time. Most of the
communication has been related to publicizing the SPIL hearings.
Linda inquired about the capacity of the SILC staff to prepare
background summaries on issues that come before the SILC members
for decisions, and how that direction would happen. Liz responded that
they typically ask people to complete and Action Request Form (ARF),
but executive committee members also have the ability to direct staff
work. Linda asked if this could be discussed at a future executive
committee meeting, and agreed to send Liz some language around the
subject for inclusion on a future agenda.
b. Governance
The governance committee has lost some members and is currently
looking at how to best move forward. Liz and Michael Agyin will be
meeting to talk about recruitment for the group. Right now there are
not enough members to work on projects, and due to scheduling
conflicts it has been difficult to have quorums at the meeting. There will
be more discussion about the time and date of the meetings as more
members join.
c. SPIL
Jacqueline did not have further updates from what was discussed and
approved earlier in this meeting.
8. SILC Internal Capacity Building status
a. Staffing
Liz and Danielle are continuing work with DGS HR and CalHR on
personnel issues.
b. Accounting/Financial Status
The Department of Finance has rejected the request for accounting
Executive Meeting 6/27/16
DRAFT Minutes
Page 5
autonomy, but SILC has been appealing to determine if we can start
doing our own accounting Mid Fiscal Year.
The CFS at DGS has submitted the paperwork to request the advance
from DOR. There has been some misunderstanding between DGS CFS
and DOR about a past FY close-out, and there are meetings happening
this week to try and resolve it.
Linda asked if, in the future, DOR will be able to provide financial
information for the general budget and projects such as the SPIL earlier
in order to allow the SILC more planning time. Victor answered that it is
difficult to get timely financial information currently because of the
connection between SILC, DOR, and DGS. They have been supporting
the SILC in the bid for accounting autonomy, and that will hugely
increase the ability of the SILC to have timely financial reports. For the
VIIB funds, they have been working on getting the information
approved for publication by management. There have been several
unusual staffing changes and transitions at DOR in the past year, and
he expects the delays in releasing financial information will not
continue.
9. Adjourn – 2:24 PM