Next meeting: July 8, 2004
1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Minnesota AIDS Project
(1400 Park Avenue, Minneapolis)
Minnesota Department of Health
STD and HIV Section
HIV/STD Community Prevention Planning
COMMISSIONER'S TASK FORCE ON HIV/STD PREVENTION PLANNING
Executive Committee Minutes
March 4, 2004
Present
Task Force Members
Gerry Anderson
Kip Beardsley
Kathy Brothen
Donna Clark
Rhys Fulenwider
Kelly Hansen – via phone
Doris Johnson
Nick Metcalf
Jerry Moss
Rosemary Thomas
Community Members
Don Anderson
Jared Erdmann
MDH Staff
Julie Hanson Pérez
Janell Brown
Absent
MINUTES AND AGENDA APPROVAL
Rosemary Thomas opened the meeting. The minutes from the February 5th meeting were
reviewed and approved with one change. The agenda was reviewed and approved with the
addition of a budget update.
BUDGET UPDATE
Kip Beardsley reported that MDH recently received a notice from CDC that the federal HIV
prevention award for 2004 has been cut by approximately .50 percent, which is about $40,000.
The cut will not affect current community grants or staff. At this time, it is not known what will
happen with the state budget. Kip noted that the Ryan White CARE Act Title I award was cut by
5 percent, and a cut is also expected for Title II.
COMMUNITY ACCESS REPORT
Update
Don Anderson reported that the Celebration of Change was successful. Two possible new names
for the Task Force were chosen and will be forwarded to the full Task Force for a vote in April.
Kathy Brothen added that the committee interviewed all of the new applicants for Task Force
membership. The committee planned the details of the March 18th orientation about the new
planning process with Becky Kroll. An additional orientation for newer members has been
scheduled for March 16th. The new member orientation will cover the basics of community
Executive Committee Minutes 3/04/04 Page 1
planning and the history of the Task Force, and will prepare newer members for the orientation
on March 18th. After the Executive Committee meeting, members of the Community Access
Committee will contact new members that are elected today to invite them to the new member
orientation. Jerry Moss noted that it will be important for experienced members to provide
mentorship to all of the new members coming on.
The question was raised on behalf of one of the applicants as to whether a Task Force member’s
stipend could be paid directly to his/her employer. A stipend is provided for the purpose of
replacing a portion of lost wages to Task Force members who take unpaid time off to attend
meetings. It was determined that a stipend must be paid to a Task Force member. MDH cannot
pay an agency to send an employee to meetings.
New Member Election
Because there were 17 applicants being brought forward for consideration, a ballot was
distributed containing the name of each applicant and a space to indicate a yes or no vote. Rhys
Fulenwider asked for more information about the applicants in order to understand how they
reflected the epidemic in Minnesota and how they would contribute to the makeup of the Task
Force. Don stated that the Community Access Committee used a questionnaire during the
interviews that addresses how each applicant would be a positive contribution to the Task Force.
Rhys recognized that the committee had conducted interviews and noted that he is not trying to
take away from the work they did. However, he is being asked to vote on each person and did
not feel that he could make an informed decision without further information. He stated that
when applicants have been brought forward for election in the past to the full Task Force, they
were given a chance to briefly introduce themselves. It was noted that this has not always
happened and was not an established part of the process, it just depended on if the applicant
happened to be at the meeting. There was further commentary back and forth, with no
resolution. Rhys stated that he felt he was not being heard, and left the meeting.
The committee continued to discuss the issue, and agreed that it would be important in the future
to provide summary information about the applicants. This was the first time that so many
members have come on at one time, and it’s possible that it will happen again since members
will only come on once a year. Julie Hanson Pérez noted that all information provided on
membership applications is public, including HIV status. She suggested that one possibility
would be to include summary information about the demographics, HIV status and expertise of
each applicant on the ballots. The ballots would only be given to Task Force members. Once
the votes have been calculated, the ballots would be shredded.
Julie stated that this recruitment effort had not been targeted at people of any specific
demographic characteristics or areas of expertise. Nick Metcalf noted that it may have been
helpful to clarify that in the earlier discussion. Don stated that the Community Access
Committee had considered demographics and expertise as they were interviewing people.
The committee discussed whether to continue with the election today. The election was
scheduled for today so that new members could be brought on in time for the March 18th
orientation on the new planning process. The Task Force can have up to 35 Task Force members,
and that there will be 32 members if all of the applicants are accepted. The committee agreed
Executive Committee Minutes 3/04/04 Page 2
that they were comfortable with the interviews conducted by Community Access and the
recommendations made regarding the applicants. They agreed to hold the election today, and the
Community Access Committee will continue the discussion about how to provide more
information for future elections. All of the applicants were approved for membership.
Kathy suggested that new members be paired up with experienced members at the March 18th
orientation. This will give new and experienced members a chance to connect, and new
members can sit with their mentors during the next few meetings and ask questions. Nick also
suggested that other members present today could help to call new members and welcome them
to the Task Force. Those interested will meet after the meeting to divide up the calls.
SPACE FOR TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Kip stated that he has made the decision that Task Force and committee meetings can no longer
be held in churches. He explained that it is important that community planning meetings be held
in spaces that are comfortable and welcoming to all. Churches do not provide a safe or
comfortable environment for everybody.
Rosemary supported Kip’s decision, noting that some people have had bad experiences with the
church. Gerry Anderson noted that there are churches that are supportive of HIV prevention
work and are welcoming to the Task Force. The Youth Council moved their meetings to Wake
Up We’re Affected (WUWA), which is located in a church, because they had not been
comfortable in the space they were previously meeting. The pastor of the church has been very
gracious and opened the doors to the Task Force, allowing the Community Access Committee to
also meet there. She asked that Kip write a letter to the pastor thanking him for the use of the
space. Kip agreed, and stated that he appreciated the church’s willingness to open up its space.
Nick noted that this decision ignores the HIV prevention work within communities of color that
comes from the church. Kip acknowledged that faith based organizations are reaching
communities of color, and stated that this decision is about removing barriers for people to
participate in the Task Force’s planning process. Meeting space that is related with a specific
religion can create a barrier for people who do not identify with that religion, or have had
negative experiences with it.
Jerry Moss stated that he was not comfortable with the decision, particularly with the fact that it
had been made by Kip without the opportunity for discussion with the Task Force.
AGENCY INFLUENCE ON TASK FORCE MEMBERS
This topic was discussed some at the last meeting, and was related to a comment made at a Task
Force meeting by a member who said his agency told him how to vote during the concurrence
process. Another member was concerned that Task Force members may not be able to make their
own decisions.
Julie asked the committee to review a draft letter that members, and particularly new members,
could use with their supervisors to explain their responsibilities as Task Force members. The
letter is a tool that members can use if they want. It could serve as a guide during a dialogue
with their supervisor, or it could also be sent from MDH to the supervisor, if preferred by the
Executive Committee Minutes 3/04/04 Page 3
member. The committee liked the letter, and the person who originally raised the concern stated
that she was comfortable with providing the letter as a tool to members.
APRIL AND MAY TASK FORCE MEETINGS
Julie briefly reviewed a proposed process for the April and May Task Force meetings.
According to this proposal, the Task Force would work on developing a process for prioritizing
target populations and identifying interventions for each target population in April. These
discussions would occur with the full Task Force. On Thursday and possibly part of Friday, the
Task Force would review at least two different models for prioritization, discuss and adapt as
necessary, and arrive at consensus on one model. On Friday, the Task Force would discuss and
arrive at consensus regarding a process to identify interventions.
In May, the Task Force would break up into two smaller groups on Thursday. One group would
focus on developing the gap analysis process. The other group would address several other
processes: needs assessment, training and orientation, and the plan and concurrence. On Friday
the two groups would come together and come to agreement on all four processes as a full Task
Force.
The committee agreed with the proposal.
PRIORITIZATION QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
Kip, Julie, Lucy Slater and Tracy Sides met the previous week to start discussing possible
prioritization models. They agreed to each develop a model and come back together to discuss
and refine several options. These would then be taken to the co-chairs for further discussion and
input in preparation for the April meeting.
Julie asked for some guidance about the underlying philosophy to be taken into consideration as
the various models are being developed. She referred to a list of questions that had been sent to
members prior to the meeting.
1. On a continuum between having a completely objective or a completely subjective process,
where do we want to fall?
- What role and weight epidemiological (epi) data should have in determining priority
populations?
- How do we account for factors not captured by data?
Jerry stated that it would be helpful to include more explanation of the unspecified mode of
exposure category. Nick stated that is important for subjective information to be included, but
was not sure how to integrate it into the process. Kip felt that the perspective and experience of
Task Force members makes the process more comprehensive. He noted that staff are struggling
with developing models that take epi data into consideration, but also look at co-factors present
in populations and other available resources. He also stated that it is critical that the process be
simple, as well as clear and transparent.
Kathy asked about models from other states and how weighting is used. The Academy for
Educational Development (AED) developed a model several years ago that many states have
Executive Committee Minutes 3/04/04 Page 4
modified. The model identifies various factors to be considered, such as epi data, co-factors, risk
behaviors, etc., and each factor is assigned a weight by the planning group. Kathy agreed that
assigning weights is important because it indicates how various types of information are valued.
Further feedback on the prioritization questions should be sent to Julie by March 10th. Staff will
be meeting the week after that to review and refine several models, and then will work with the
co-chairs before bringing them to the Task Force in April for discussion, modification, and a
decision on one model.
Nick stated that the community is important and voices at the table are critical, and hopes that
MDH will remember that.
Executive Committee Minutes 3/04/04 Page 5