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
AGENDA
SILC Executive Committee Meeting
Monday, March 24, 2014
1:00 – 3:00 PM
SILC Offices
1600 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Call to Order 1:01 p.m.
Introductions
Eli Gelardin, Chair
Ben Jauregui, Vice Chair, C&C Committee Chair
Linda Schaedle, Governance Committee Chair
Jacqueline, SPIL Committee Chair
Liz Pazdral, SILC Staff
Kathleen Derby, SILC Staff
Public Comment
None
Motion to Approve minutes from January meeting
Moved: Linda
Seconded: Jacqueline
Motion carried.
Follow-up on communications with RSA.
We heard back from Elizabeth Akinola of RSA.
Liz summarized for the group that we submitted the draft language the Council
Agreed to. We received an email back that to equally distribute the funds on a onetime basis we will need to file an amendment and hold public hearings as soon as
possible. Jacqueline asked if there was a specific time limit. The answer was that
the funding it impacts becomes effective October 1, 2014. Award notices usually go
out prior to that. The message that was given is that the longer our process takes,
it inhibits the process of funding. For example, RSA likes you to give 6 weeks’
notice before a hearing. This would leave just enough time for a notice to go out
before the May meeting.
March 2014
Executive Committee DRAFT Minutes
Page 2
The group agreed this was a good suggestion. The amount of money we’re talking
about is $96,000, so keeping the short time line makes sense so the entire amount
of the grant is not held up for this amount. Linda asked if there was anything that
would inhibit the public notice from going out. Liz shared the process of public
hearings in general. Some hearings require more advance work than others. She
talked about doing the hearings for CRS and noted that if you want to have a lot of
people attending the hearings, that’s the part that takes the most work.
Megan Juring mentioned DOR would support these efforts and she would keep
Director Xavier posted along the way. She also offered use of facilities or webinar
technology.
Eli questioned whether a motion needed to be made and it was decided that
direction to staff would be sufficient. Directions were made to staff to put
preparations for the public hearings in motion and take care of next steps.
Funding Formula Discussion – Next Steps
Action Item: Jacqueline noted that directions were made to staff re consulting
with CFILC and DOR, and convening a meeting with all three groups to get a handle
on all parties’ progress. Liz appreciated DOR coming through with the funding
allocations which were helpful to the discussion. There was also direction to follow
up with APRIL and get them involved as well.
Committee Updates
a. Communication and Collaboration
Ben talked about the lengthy discussion about the goals we had the
previous year and revisiting these goals. He mentioned collaborative
relationships to build, like that with the DO Network, that can help
achieve those goals. The goals to continue are:
1. Develop and implement Public Affairs Plan in coordination with staff.
2. Monitor proposed and existing public policies.
3. Educate potential community and agency partners and encourage
collaborations.
Social Media Discussion
Liz talked about the social media proposal that Quantum ACS brought
forward to us. If we are ready to move forward with social media, they
have a contractor they regularly work with. Liz wanted to bring this
before the committee to find out if they think we are ready for
something like this and whether the costs seem reasonable.
March 2014
Executive Committee DRAFT Minutes
Page 3
Some thought the $1100 setup seemed reasonable, but the $800 per
month seemed excessive. However, this would include the weekly
postings. There would be no additional costs in maintaining the site
other than these. If the cost were down to $300-$400 month, it seemed
more reasonable. However committee members acknowledge this could
also be a burden on staff to keep supplying the content and possibly
responding to posts.
The question was asked as to whether Facebook and Twitter are
accessible. Liz talked about our trial with online political address book
and found that it usually depends upon the technology the user has. If
we were to have a Facebook page, anything we have on it should have
descriptions to incorporate accessible content on our page. Anecdotally,
some of the more active users of this technology are people who are
deaf and blind. Jacqueline recently found a program that makes PDF
files usable. She agreed that much of this is generational.
The group agreed that it could be a good idea for the SILC to use social
media. It is important to find out what SILC staff’s role would be as
compared to the contractor. If they make it as easy as possible so that
SILC staff’s time isn’t monopolized with this that would be ideal.
Reporting back would also be important – like receiving a monthly
report about how many hits are received.
Ben is concerned about the staff time it will take and also expressed
concern with the price, along with the staff time it could potentially take
because Twitter and Facebook have to have constant activity to keep
people’s interest.
Facebook posting and tweets are usually used for short messages, not
the longer messages usually sent out by the SILC. He suggested looking
to the DO Network to see how much they are doing. If this work can be
accomplished by our associates that may be enough.
Linda – wants to know why these 2 particular media (Facebook and
Twitter) are being recommended.
Liz thought the main use of this would be directing others to longer
articles, for example, tweeting the link we use on our website.
She also made the point that having control over content is very
important, especially with sensitive language. Therefore, our role in any
system should be about exerting editorial control.
Liz mentioned that if we moved forward with this, it would need to be a
competitive bid process, so we might see a bid lower than this one.
March 2014
Executive Committee DRAFT Minutes
Page 4
Action Item: Linda asked for samples of what the contractor has done
with these media. Liz said she would take this advice and come back
with this along with what the monthly fee entails and what the process
of working with this contractor would be like.
b. Governance
Governance committee had begun work on the goals and logic model.
Their top priorities have been recruitment and succession planning.
They had a list of 7 people who expressed interest in applying to be on
the SILC. Nominees to be ranked based on appropriate skills and
characteristics.
It has been decided that Eddie will continue on as an adjunct member.
The committee has also sought information from the CA Committee on
Persons and Disabilities (CCEPD) as to whether there is interest there to
participate on their committee.
Liz will be having a discussion with staff in the Governor’s office about
those who have applied there.
c. SPIL
Discussion about subjects the SPIL Committee has interest in were
already covered by the preceding headings “Follow-up Re
Communications with RSA” and “Funding Formula Discussion – Next
Steps”
SILC Internal Capacity Building status
Staffing
Caroline has returned and is working full time. We will also continue to
retain Ka to help out in the area of accounting.
Liz has started the paperwork to retain a retired annuitant to work on the
ADRC grant
She has been in contact with a meeting planner organization to see if there
is one imbedded in another state agency that we may be able to have an
interagency agreement with for access to meeting planning services.
Accounting
Our accounting contractor continues to be involved in training the staff and
reviewing accounting spread sheets, in particular the Cal Stars report.
Liz asked committee members if they had feedback on the budget
report that was received. None was indicated.
March 2014
Executive Committee DRAFT Minutes
Page 5
Liz gave the update that DGS is on time in their submission of invoices
to DOR.
Eli suggested because of the relationship we have with the CA
Commission on Aging and State Rehabilitation Council that it might be
good to have an interagency agreement with them if they had a
meeting planner and it could also serve the interest in having a
collaborative meeting. Liz mentioned that they usually have staff
perform these functions.
Follow-up to SILC Chair/Director Monthly check-in
Eli mentioned that Liz has developed a work plan that she can share with the
group and there will probably be follow-ups as time goes on.
Liz designated items for the work plan based on communication from the
executive committee. It is a work plan for her in relation to fulfilling
objectives of the SILC. It includes four objectives, with detail underneath each
objective:
1) Create a succession plan for staff and Council members.
2) Increase communication/interaction with the Governor’s Office.
3) Build consensus and explicitly spell out public engagement and plan for
2015 Needs Assessment.
4) Continue moving forward with having SILC declare a funding formula for
the CA IL Network to include in the SPIL
Eli and Liz see this as an evolving plan and will continue to share with the
Executive Committee and get their input.
Next Meeting – Monday April 28, 2014
Discussion of the next meeting led to discussion of the next quarterly meeting. Liz
has been to the hotel and has toured it. One drawback is that the food in the hotel
is expensive and other options are distant. One important aspect of the meeting is
that they are looking for speakers from the Native American community.
Ben would like to see if there is someone else who might be able to take the lead of
the Communication and Collaboration Committee. Eli mentioned there are strong
people on the committee and he looks forward to hearing if there is interest.
Adjournment – 2:02 p.m.