CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: November 6, 2008
Members Present
Yemesrach Abdurahman
Weston Edwards
Geri Graham
Doris Johnson
Anita Kaneza
Colette Lawrence
Meeting Place: Continuing Education & Conference Center
Michael Lee
Marcellus Mayaka
Sheila Mills
Siona Nchotu
Keith Pederson
Gary Remafedi
Alvine Siaka
Michelle Sims
Charlie Tamble
Michael Wilkerson - Proxy - Gene Danilenko
Monica Yugu
Members Absent
Julia Ashley
Mitchell Davis
Mary May
Ephraim Olani
Drew Parks
Neisha Reynolds
Kevin Sitter
Louis Taylor
MDH Staff
Ruth Dauffenbach-Kotrba
Dhidha Timona
Kathy Chinn
Japhet Nyakundi
Community Members
Mezgebu Abegaz
Shanasha Whitson
Agenda Items/Discussion
Action taken/required &
by whom
Opening, Welcome and Introductions
Reports
Website/Discussion Board
Initiated six months ago and has been put on hold due to changes in the way the
IT is organized at MDH and they are changing the platform; members will be
notified when available on line.
Minutes
Old minutes have been updated with the changes sent in by the members and
uploaded to the website as approved.
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
1
Logo
Timona projected the logo on the screen and told next steps.
Concurrence Letter
Timona explained that the concurrence letter signed by the co-chairs went out
September 4, 2008 with the concerns that were voted on by CCCHAP. An
addendum letter went out October 20, 2008 listing all of the concerns that had
been brought up by the CCCHAP member.
Charlie asked if Timona could get copies of the concurrence letter and the
addendum letter during the lunch break for the members to be able to read.
Weston asked if there was going to be a larger conversation on the concurrence
process or if that time was now. Timona responded that they were going to have
that conversation at the ET and then have a discussion with the larger group.
Weston asked Timona to explain why that was the case and Timona responded
that they needed to look at the processes and then make a recommendation based
on what happened previously. Timona said it was a more efficient use of time to
do it that way. Timona asked for Weston’s comment and Weston said his concern
was that the Bylaws were not followed with the letter of concurrence. The letter
was not sent out for discussion at today’s meeting. The ongoing conversations that
occurred via e-mail were not what was agreed to in terms of the Bylaws and he
was disappointed that the conversation wasn’t going to happen at today’s meeting
seeing as the next meeting would be in February or March. Timona replied that
they wouldn’t be going through concurrence in February or March and Weston’s
feedback was that the process was not followed and the conversation should have
happened right after concurrence and not six months after concurrence occurred.
Timona agreed with Weston and said that from a logistics perspective, due to
streamlining and strategic planning, there was a full agenda for the ET the rest of
this year and half of next year. Because concurrence happens later in the year, the
ET decided to look at the concurrence process next time it happened. Timona said
that the ET wanted to give that particular agenda item some thought and look at
the process and come up with thoughtful interventions for next time; because of
the time crunch, that couldn’t happen now. Weston asked about the addendum and
Timona explained that the addendum does not say that those were the items that
were voted on, it was just what was discussed. The concurrence letter clearly
states that the items listed were the ones voted on by CCCHAP as reservations
and concerns.
The letter of concurrence and the addendum letter were passed out to the members
in the afternoon and the following discussion occurred (Timona wanted to be clear
on the intent of giving the letters to the CCCHAP members at that time and that it
was to show them what was submitted to CDC. The first letter was the
concurrence letter which included what was voted on and the second letter was an
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
2
addendum which included the pieces that were discussed and not voted on to be
put in the letter. Moving forward, the ET will be discussing the issue of what the
process should look like in the future based on what happened this past time and
what they were looking for was any input members want to give on that process.):
 Weston – Asked Timona to clarify when the conversation would happen about
how the second letter was inappropriate and should not have been sent. He felt
that the letter being sent needed to be dealt with by CCCHAP and not just the
ET. He explained that he wanted to know when the addendum letter being sent
and the process would be discussed. Timona responded that he was not in a
position to clarify that. Timona said his philosophy was that there are only so
many hours in a day and it was wasted resources to talk about things that do
not move them forward when CCCHAP only meets a few times per year and
their mandate was to cover HIV prevention for the whole state. His advice, as
the technical advisor for CCCHAP, was that they have to acknowledge that
the process went awry this last time and they did their best to address it and
CCCHAP now has to figure out a way to not have a repeat performance.
Timona said he would not respond directly as to what the conflict was that
happened. Keith asked for people to give their feedback in the form of a bullet
point and not a question because the people that could best answer the
questions were not in the room. Weston had put his comment in the form of a
question because earlier in the day Timona had said they would have the
conversation on how it failed later and just now he had said he wasn’t going to
have a conversation on how the process failed and to help members
understand what pieces failed. Weston felt that the conversation needed to
happen on a CCCHAP level and not an ET meeting level and that there was a
need to understand that letters were sent off that were not representative of
CCCHAP, that were not authorized by CCCHAP and to accommodate special
interests, which was unacceptable for the way CCCHAP does business and it
violated the bylaws. Timona responded that the members had a right to put a
proposal on the table and have their peers vote on whether that discussion
needed to be at the ET level or at the CCCHAP level and it then would go on a
future meeting agenda. He said that was an effective way to do it and today it
was not part of the agenda. What Timona said in the morning was that it was
going to be discussed at the ET level, then they would bring back
recommendations on how to move forward. Weston asked Timona to clarify
how a member gets an item on the agenda and Timona responded that
members can simply e-mail Timona. Weston responded that he had e-mailed
Ruth at least two weeks prior to the November 6, 2009 meeting asking for this
issue to be put on the agenda. Timona responded that what Weston had asked
for and what was put on the agenda was the report back on the concurrence
letter which was on that day’s agenda and what they were talking about was
format and things like that. Weston responded that on 10/28/08 he e-mailed
requesting an agenda item to review the consensus process and the final
outcome specifically addressing the consensus process. He had asked for it
according to the process and they were telling him he couldn’t do that and that
it would be handled at an ET meeting. Timona asked if he was talking about
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
3
the consensus or concurrence process. Weston said he wanted them to review
the consensus process and the final outcome that occurred. Timona said that
they need to move forward with HIV Prevention. Gary R asked how a
grievance process happens and that Weston should consider using it. Timona
stated that the contents and intent of the concurrence letter did not change and
Weston disagreed because when they put an addendum to a piece of literature,
you change the content of the literature. Timona disagreed because it was
reflected in the minutes and they cut the information out of the minutes from
the meeting which is an existing document of what happened at the meeting.
What was voted on still remained. They felt that CDC needed to hear all the
concerns. Weston still wanted to know when the conversation would happen
and how they could prevent the same thing from happening again. Charlie
read page 21 of the Bylaws to clarify the grievance process.
 Michael – Couldn’t recall an addendum to a concurrence letter ever happening
in the past. His understanding was that the voted on items would be included
in the concurrence letter. He asked if CDC receives the minutes from the
CCCHAP meetings. His concern was that what was agreed upon to be
included in the letter was included but then an addendum was sent. He felt like
the voting body of CCCHAP was gone around and that materials were sent
that did not reflect the majority of the members that voted at the 10/19/08
meeting. It felt like someone made a leap and made a decision on behalf of the
entire body that the entire body didn’t agree to. Timona said he was going to
defer to the membership on this issue and they needed to figure out how they
would like him to proceed. He only provided technical assistance and advice
to the group but in terms of making decisions, actually it was something the
group needed to do.
RFP Results
Kathy Chinn gave a PowerPoint presentation and had a handout that showed the
results of the RFP project that would fund projects to do HIV Prevention work
from 2009 – 2012.
Gary R wanted to point out how small the amounts of money were for each
population and that CCCHAP needed to keep in mind how to increase resources
as they go through the restructure process.
Doris asked why only one African American HRH agency was funded and Kathy
responded that it was due to a decrease in funding.
Kathy reviewed a memo to the Commissioner of Health, that was passed out to
the members, explaining what happened in the RFP process. When asked why she
passed it out she said to show a basic explanation of the process. Charlie asked
about the MDH internal review process. Kathy pointed out that there was an
explanation of that in the memo to the Commissioner as well. Kathy said that
Gary Novotny is more familiar with the internal review process and asked that
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
4
those with questions e-mail him. Kathy stressed that MDH tried so hard to be as
transparent as possible in the whole process and there was documentation about
every step and exactly how the money was redistributed.
Gary R said that it was a very clear process and he knew someone that was one of
the reviewers and that person was just glowing about the process from the
reviewer’s perspective.
Keith asked if MDH let the applicants not funded know what they could have
done differently. Kathy said that notes were taken during the review process and
shared with the applicants.
After lunch, Kathy Chinn wanted to share one more thing about the RFP Results
and that was that MDH got a small amount award from CDC to do needs
assessment in the MSM communities. She had minimal information, but would
make sure that Timona gets the information to share with CCCHAP. The purpose
of the project is to assess HIV prevention needs among MSM and to identify gaps
in the MSM community. Gene said that the U of M HIV STI Prevention program
recently published an article on online E-type prevention education needs or wants
of MSM that asked what men want to see in online education that they would
share. Julia, who stopped in with Peter for lunch, added that this needs assessment
was mandated to be done in the MSM community by CDC.
Julia shared that she took a new position in the Immunizations, Tuberculosis and
International Health (ITIH) Section of MDH working with clinics to get
vaccination out to children and that she would be leaving CCCHAP effective
immediately. Peter Carr, STD and HIV Section Manager, would step into her role.
Yemesrach presented a gift to Julia from CCCHAP. Yemesrach also had a
congratulatory gift for Keith for his new position at the U of M.
Action Items
Strategic Planning
Timona said that CCCHAP needed to become creative in finding new resources in
this time of funding reductions. Timona reviewed the strategic planning
documents he provided for the members (The ET+ meeting schedule and
Streamlining and Strategic Planning Tasks documents are attached to these
minutes.).
Keith explained that the community partners they want The Plan to be useful to
were: schools, healthcare providers, other Minnesota Departments. They want the
readers to be able to pick it up and find value in it so that they can start to
implement HIV prevention within existing programs. We have a shrinking pot of
money and can no longer meet all the prevention needs statewide, therefore, the
one product we create needs to become a utility for all the people that can partner
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
5
in the prevention efforts statewide.
Gary R hoped to be able to spin off other products from The Plan, which currently
was not user friendly to the average person, but if they created a document like
“The State of HIV For the State of Minnesota,” it could be a great advocacy
document that outlines what the problems are right now and where do we need to
go and what are the prospects for the future. Kathy Chinn said two foundations are
currently using The Plan to make their plans for what to fund.
Charlie - The Streamlining and Strategic Planning Tasks, Phase 2, January 2009;
Charlie asked that Timona explain who Peter, Marcie, Steve and Gary were and
what their role was in the clarification of roles and responsibilities of MDH and
CCCHAP in the partnership. Timona said that Peter was Peter Carr, Section
Manager; Marcie was Marcie Babcock, Manager over the Counseling and Testing
Position; Steve was Steve Schletty, Unit Manager over Partner Services and Gary
was Gary Novotny, HERR Unit Manager. They served as an advisory body to the
clarification of roles and responsibilities of MDH and CCCHAP in the
partnership. Keith explained that each MDH program manager was included in
the process to insure their buy in to the direction CCCHAP was heading.
Yemesrach stated that some of the things are highly interrelated, if a person was
unaware of their HIV status, the next step was to get tested. If people didn’t get
tested, there was no way to track the impact of HIV transmission throughout the
state. The information helps us do the HIV planning. It is important to be
inclusive with all the stakeholders. Charlie asked if the MDH people would be
able to make changes before CCCHAP saw the suggestions/recommendations.
Keith said that he saw the providing feedback piece not as a revision of a
document as much as a comment back, “this makes a lot of sense” or “this is
where we need further clarification” as to how this would apply. Timona said that
conversation had happened and that MDH would only be advising and the ET+
would make the final decision. Weston voiced his concern that ET was making so
many decisions and Keith responded that that’s why there were ET+ meetings
which were open to all. Kathy asked if there could be an ET+ meeting in late
January 2009 which could possibly address some of Weston’s concerns. Timona
said he had been in community planning for a while and this situation was not
unique to Minnesota. When you are working with volunteers, it’s really hard as
most have full time jobs and it’s hard to demand the extra time from people to do
things like setting dates on strategic planning goals. There are things that can be
done by a small group of people and in this situation, the ET level and if you look
at the document the way it’s structured, there was a lot of time spent and
thoughtfulness put in this process because basically what they did was the busy
work and they don’t make any decisions at the ET level, they bring them back to
CCCHAP. Under normal circumstances, we wouldn’t have been meeting today;
the way this meeting was designed was that once the ET in Phase 1 had identified
certain recommendations, then they would bring them back to CCCHAP for the
final decision making and adoption. Then they would go back to the Phase 2
action items and discuss and make some recommendations and bring them back to
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
6
CCCHAP for decision making. At the February meeting there would be some
recommendations from the ET. If people felt that they should bring everything
back to CCCHAP for discussion, that’s something Timona could put on the next
meeting agenda to discuss, but his job was to give technical assistance and advise
CCCHAP on how the process can work smoothly even with the challenges with
resources, human resources, the financial piece and logistics management being
faced. The logistics management is that it is just Timona and Ruth here. Keith
pointed out a typo on the tasks document in Phase 2, 2a, that there actually is an
ET+ meeting on December 8, 2008. Keith encouraged people to attend and if they
are not able to attend, provide feedback to one of the ET+ people. The ET+
meetings are at MAP from 9:00 a.m. - Noon. Japhet asked if there was a way to
allow time for discussion before decisions have to be made. Keith said that he
feels they are already doing that with mailings, and that it is each individual’s
responsibility to read their mailing before the meeting and not the day of the
meeting at the meeting. Gene suggested that the discussion board will be very
useful in that way once it is ready to roll out.
Streamlining and Strategic Planning Tasks (Continued)
Timona shared that they needed a CCCHAP Prevention Plan Workgroup to start
work in January 2009 and that he would be passing around a piece of paper for
members to sign up. The final approval of The Plan will be done at CCCHAP.
Monica asked what the time commitment would be and how it would be
marketed. Timona agreed that they needed a plan on how to market The Plan and
he said that there were already a couple of organizations/foundations using The
Plan and that CCCHAP needed to be more intentional about marketing it and
creating the infrastructures on how to distribute and identify who needs to be
receiving the report.
Training will be restructured to follow the streamlining process.
The Bylaws will be updated after planning has been done as issues will be
identified during the planning process.
Streamlining
Timona presented a PowerPoint on streamlining.
Four Year Planning Cycle
Timona shared pros and cons to going to a four year planning cycle.
Pros
ET’s list
 Allows CCCHAP to be proactive
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
7






Allows more time to be thoughtful at each stage of the cycle
Prevention plan components are updated in piecemeal not all at once (can
be overwhelming to review and put together)
Gives the planner (Timona’s position) more time to do internal processes
Given the strategic planning goals – it allows for time to implement
It fits with the spirit of streamlining, i.e., less annual meetings because
they are spread out Follows along the MDH funding timeline Charlie - Followed funding recommendations MDH has put forth. Not cost
effective to do RFPs more than every 4 years. Michael L said that it only made
sense to follow that plan; wouldn’t want prioritizations sitting for a year.
Gary R thought that CCCHAP should visit issues of new trends every year.
Timona responded that needs assessment would be done on an as needed basis.
Siona asked what CCCHAP was doing about young organizations and the 501C3.
Timona responded that with the funding shrinking, MDH couldn’t allocate money
to do capacity building only and that they had an intern whose job it was to
identify resources at the national, state and local levels for capacity building and
also for funding opportunities. The CDC project officer visited MDH a couple of
months ago and at the meeting, people asked how to access direct funding.
Timona said MDH was not the only source of HIV funding and there were other
resources out there and nonprofits needed to learn to diversify their portfolio and
look for other funding sources and that was what MDH was trying to do with the
intern.
Cons
ET’s list
 Have to re-arrange how we currently do business
 Less CCCHAP meetings in any given year except prioritization year
Monica - We could miss an emerging trend with a four year planning cycle.
Timona responded that the Epi data would be introduced yearly. Keith said that
one of the components of the four year plan is that CCCHAP would take sections
of The Plan on an annual basis and update The Plan continually as opposed to
trying to crank out an updated Plan once every three years.
Gary R said that if they were talking about identifying new resources, there may
be other mechanisms to respond to emerging trends. Especially if we wanted to
have a plan that was going to be inspiring to Minnesota.
Keith wanted to encourage people to not see the proposal of a four year planning
cycle contingent upon a four year grant cycle for MDH. That allows us the
opportunity to be much more thoughtful and implement updates to The Plan on a
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
8
regular annual basis and would give us a document that was going to be
meaningful that we could shop out to other organizations that might have enough
money to fund small organizations or to augment the funding that came through
MDH. One of the cons however, was that the Bylaws only allow for 3 two year
consecutive terms for members which wouldn’t work with a four year planning
cycle as no member could serve through two consecutive planning cycles and that
would be a huge disadvantage. Timona responded that there was a
recommendation from the Membership and Training Committee (M&T), that
would be discussed later in the meeting, to stagger those terms so that CCCHAP
could still have people that have institutional memory. Michael L commented that
going back to what the streamlining document talked about with mentorship, there
was the opportunity there, whatever they decided with the membership terms, for
folks that have been through a four year cycle to spend their next two years doing
intensive mentorships for the group that were going to come along next. It was an
opportunity to develop mentorship, which CCCHAP had talked about for some
time.
Proposal
Charlie summarized and made a proposal to change from a three year planning
process to a four year planning process with a look at yearly epidemiological
data to recognize any new HIV trends.
Consensus was reached unanimously.
Membership/Recruiting
Colette said CCCHAP’s membership gaps are:
No members from Asian Pacific Islanders (API) or Latino communities. M&T
was looking at changing how CCCHAP does recruitment. Suggestion – when a
gap is found in the membership, recruitment should happen at that time so that the
voices that need to be at the table are there. The Bylaws should be amended to
accommodate the recruitment process and member terms.
Colette suggested that an experienced members mentorship program would
greatly benefit CCCHAP. Trainings would be done through mentoring – matching
new members up with an experienced member. She felt that the learning curve
was at least six months to a year, depending on how many meetings CCCHAP is
having, to really understand what is going on. She felt she understood what
CCCHAP was really doing in her second year. A current member would be paired
with a new member for mentorship and each pair would figure out their own
schedule for training.
Timona said that it had been recommended that:
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
9
1. This time, recruitment be done to fill the API and Latino gaps;
2. The member terms be changed to be four two-year terms; and,
3. Recruitment happens when there is a gap.
Monica asked about getting Greater Minnesota representation from Rural AIDS
Action Network (RAAN) and Timona responded that CCCHAP couldn’t recruit
based on an organization. Michael L said that Mary May was Public Health Nurse
on Leech Lake Reservation and therefore a Greater Minnesota representative.
Timona said another way to approach recruitment was that it is tied to the target
populations that are affected by HIV. Even though they say they are recruiting for
API and Latino/Hispanic, they could give added weight if any of those
populations come from Greater Minnesota.
Michael L said that there was guidance not just about having someone from a
population represented but also proportional representation; that it’s not just
sufficient to have somebody from a certain group but, for example, there was a
guideline that said a certain percentage of the group should be HIV+. He
wondered if we added this to the Bylaws, were we going to put ourselves in a
situation where we were constantly recruiting to have to meet up to the level that
was recommended for the membership of the body. Timona responded that there
would have to be zero members in a population to need to fill a gap.
Yemesrach was concerned that there was no representation on CCCHAP from
white HRH and asked if there was a way to recruit from that population. Timona
responded that the recruitment process was who was most affected by HIV and
who were we missing from those populations. There was actually a mathematical
formula that they used when they were doing the membership gap analysis. As it
stood now, there was representation from white HRH.
Charlie wanted to recap the three recommendations from the M&T:
1. Change the term of service from three (3) 2-year terms to four (4) 2-year terms
with a 1-year hiatus before they can serve again.
2. Active recruitment when CCCHAP identifies a gap (meaning zero people
representing) in a specific target population. (Timona wanted to clarify that
they were using that as a threshold for a gap. Colette said they would still do
the normal recruiting each year and if the new member recruited to fill the gap
has missed orientation and the mentorship program is active, then the mentor
would bring the new member up to speed.)
3. In November 2008, active recruitment for specifically API HRH and
Latino/Hispanic HRH.
Timona said that there was no need to be so specific as to say HRH and Charlie
disagreed that there was a need to be specific because they were asking about
representation along specific target populations. The reason was it was about how
would we assure that the people that were at the table were actually clear about
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
10
which target population they were actually representing. Because Charlie did not
see young people at the table, would that mean that him representing an agency
that was funded to reach young gay and bisexual men would change his hat?
Where as before you may have deferred to him as being someone who represented
MSM IDU because he worked with that target population. They had to be clear
about making decisions about trying to fit who was going to be representing
which target populations, we who are sitting around the table needed to be real
clear about who we were representing.
Yemesrach brought up the fact that Drew Parks was no longer in Minnesota and
she hadn’t been able to contact Louis Taylor by telephone.
Monica suggested that the third recommendation was a continuation of the second
and should be part of it. Timona said that there was an element of Bylaw change
in two that was not reflected in three. If they decided to approve the second
recommendation, it needed to be reflected in the Bylaws. If the third
recommendation was not approved, they would make a general recruitment.
Colette said that she would not put HRH by either population because CCCHAP
was looking for someone that had a voice whether they were MSM, a person
living with HIV, or an IDU. That voice needed to be at the table and they may fit
into more than one category and Colette thought saying HRH would be cornering
themselves.
Gary R, making a process point, said they were trying to discuss all three items
simultaneously and were not making any progress; it might be more efficient if
they did them one by one and then voted on them. Doris agreed with Gary.
Michael L said that he thought the members were struggling with the difference
between gaps and representation. They needed to clarify that representation meant
someone that worked with that community or was a member of that community.
Timona said as he saw it and having worked in community planning and his
experiences doing the membership and recruitment, different states did it
differently. His experience in Minnesota had been that if a person had experience
or worked in that community or worked with an intervention in that community,
they could represent that population. He suggested that when they identify a gap,
meaning they were at zero, they should give first preference to that population
when recruiting. As a way to add value to it, depending on the pool of applicants,
if someone had applied and they had experience working with that population,
you would consider them as a secondary measure to fill that gap. Michael L said
that was true, like Gary R having to speak on behalf of young MSM and young
HRH, and Michael himself, Charlie, Keith, and Gary as well have had to speak on
MSM IDU issues because it is not a population that they could readily get to the
table or necessarily find people who would be courageous enough to identify
themselves as being part of that community. By necessity, sometimes they may
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
11
need to represent populations that they work with that weren’t able to make it to
the table.
Charlie listed the recommendations again and CCCHAP voted:
Proposal
Bylaw change: Term of service changes to a maximum of four consecutive twoyear terms; with a one-year hiatus before being able to serve again.
Consensus was reached with one abstention (Yemesrach).
Charlie said the next recommendation was two pieces, the first one being
CCCHAP needed to actively recruit people when there were identified gaps and
the second one was, CCCHAP had identified a couple of gaps and needed to
actively recruit people. Gary R, in order to be able to make a decision, requested
they do a list of pros and cons. It was his understanding they went to the once a
year type of thing so that everyone would get on the same page at the same time
so they could do an all out pitch to get people in, rather than having to do it on an
ongoing basis. It was an issue of convenience and efficiency. The downside was
that they had these unfilled gaps that go on for long periods of time. He wanted to
hear other pros and cons. Keith wanted to reiterate something that may have
slipped under the radar already which was what Timona addressed earlier talking
about going forward in the way that we plan meetings and one of the benefits of
having an all out training/orientation for a whole new group was that they were all
together and were learning together and could ask questions together. The
problem was that sometimes orientation happened and then the activity that we
had to engage in is six to nine months later. They were going to revise the
meetings themselves and the component of the meeting would be training the
group whether you had been through orientation or not and then engaging in that
activity. It would be a different way of training and that combined with the
implementation of mentorship, would hopefully have less of a need for that
intensive training because everyone would have an ongoing learning experience.
Gary responded that what Keith just said had its pros and cons as it left the rest of
CCCHAP adrift. Yemesrach asked what they were talking about and Charlie
responded it was the pros and cons of active recruitment when CCCHAP
identified a gap of zero of a specific target population representation. Yemesrach
asked about the active recruitment plan and the M&T and felt that it wasn’t clear
which were identified gaps and how recruitment occurred and what the point of
reference was when CCCHAP recruits people; was it based on race, behavior,
gender or what? In an environment that they don’t know how the process had
been, it’s hard to make a comment and Doris thought it was clear that they needed
a Latino and Yemesrach said that was not what she meant. Siona questioned what
the priorities were when they selected applications. Yemesrach wanted to explain
herself, she had been with CCCHAP for a long time but had no idea what criteria
was used to recruit; were they there because they serve an agency? Were they
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
12
there representing an agency or because they were a member of that agency who
were clearly infected or affected. Were we here based on our sexual orientation or
race or what or a combination of three? She felt it was not clear. Charlie wanted to
make sure he was clear about what Yemesrach wanted and he said he thought she
wanted clarification on what the role was that members of CCCHAP serve versus
a community or agency. Yemesrach said that was it, whenever we were talking
about representation, who did they represent there, was it because they
represented an agency or was it really members of that community? Was there
someone from that community that was part of that community that was infected
or affected who spoke on behalf of those people because they were one of them?
How had it been done in the past and how were they moving forward?
Michael L said that there had been clear guidelines on this issue before that had
been used for membership recruitment in a document. M&T members had seen
them many times and the document said, this many people on your board should
represent this portion of population that is most affected by HIV, this proportion
of your board should be this amount and so on. Timona had his computer hooked
up and showed the document Michael was speaking about on the screen. Michael
L asked if the document was based on guidance from the CDC and Timona said
yes. Michael said there were guidelines on this issue and that was what Colette
had been bravely trying to follow in doing this and they were able to identify
specifically that API and Latino/Hispanic were not represented. That was the
piece that had been missing and it did exist and had been used many times.
Yemesrach agreed but still wanted to know who we were representing, for
example, Keith worked for MAP and was a member of one of the communities
and when he expressed his voice, were we going to take him as a member of his
community, were we treating him as an ambassador, or did we keep on saying he
had an interest loving his agenda, advocating for his agency. He happened to be
both. This process happened during this course, it needs clarification. Michael L
said he thought that was already spoken to in the Bylaws, people were there
representing themselves and that was why we had the Conflict of Interest form
that people sign off on each time listing their affiliations. Keith said it was also
part of the application; think back to when you applied to be on CCCHAP, you
articulated who you were representing on CCCHAP. Colette said you had to selfidentify, we didn’t say you needed to go into this group, CCCHAP does not
determine that at all. Michael L said certain organizations support their staff being
there, however, nobody went to MAP for example and said we need to get two of
your employees to come serve on this board. Nobody went to the U of M and said
we need somebody from YAP to serve on this board. Recruitment had never taken
that format and it never would. If people want to serve on CCCHAP, they had to
either take time off from their employer or have support from their employer to
take time off. The Bylaws were pretty clear about that, you were here as an
individual not as a representative of your agency. Yemesrach asked what the
criteria were for determining gaps. Timona wanted to make a clarification; there
was an application that each individual that applied to be on CCCHAP had to fill
out and in that application they identified what demographic or whatever the case
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
13
may be that they were representing. That became a data point for us when we
were doing the analysis; who was represented in the membership and as you could
see (he had an excel sheet on the screen) the specific representations along the
lines of geographical distribution, gender, age, race, ethnicity, and HIV+
categories. Also, it showed the percentage points where we were and where we
needed to be. He thought the bulk of the discussion was very process based and
the process was there for two things; 1) recruitment process; 2) conflict of interest
management. There was no mechanism for preventing someone who was clearly
from that specific target population from lobbying; you can’t get into their head
and see at that point and time, even though they declared they were representing
the MSM target population but apparently they worked for Agency X. You could
have documentation, but in the heat of the moment when there was a decision
being discussed, how can you determine what is motivating the person. Siona said
that during the last year of her membership she had been thinking of drawing a
cartoon, Listen Clear and Good. One of the criteria for someone being selected to
be on CCCHAP should first of all be either a drug user or HIV+ because she had
seen people riding rich on the backs of HIV people. It took a horse with a painful
leg to be able to serve a horse with a painful leg. Some people would come and
get the money and didn’t care what was going on. She said that the people at the
table inspire her to be able to continue in this community in CCCHAP because
when she looked left and right she saw so many people who were representing
their community but they did not know where the shoe was hurting. They should
let somebody who was affected or afflicted have priority unless they cannot find
somebody in the API who was positive or a drug user. Unless you identify, do we
just take a common person from the community because he was used to that
community or do we take somebody who was actually living with the virus or a
drug user to represent other drug users because he understood the pain they were
going through. Gary wanted to make a comment about the history of community
planning; the reason that this had come up at all was because years ago before
community planning had started, HIV prevention monies were being used
inappropriately and protesters forced the CDC to institute this community
planning process so that members who were affected by HIV within communities
would have a voice into the allocation of funds. He thought it was pretty clear
what the intention was, that members of affected communities be appropriately
represented in these groups. Doris said that when she filled out the application,
she filled it out as an African American Woman and she represented multiple
communities, like women in prostitution, HIV positives, those that were affected
by it, instead of being infected, youth. When talking about a specific population
needing to be on this board, whether they were male or female, they needed some
Latino voice, that meant a person that was Latino whether they were gay, straight,
bisexual or whatever, it didn’t matter just so long as their voice was there. There
were African Born there, male and female, there were no Asians there which
needed to be there whether they were from China, Japan or wherever they came
from, just so long as they were there representing the Asian community. Only they
could come and let us know how to help them. There had to be some
representation from all the communities and there were 32 seats and there are a lot
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
14
people in Minnesota. There’s white women HRH, who knows if they are gay, it
doesn’t matter. It’s a matter of representing who you were and she came from
different agencies; started in one and now was at another agency. It would be a
conflict of interest if she used her agency to prioritize things. Sometimes she had
to step back to get out of the conflict of interest. She didn’t want people to be
confused about the gap, the gap was the people that were not there. Japhet wanted
to make three points; 1) what they had on the board was not what they were
discussing; what was on the table was when would they recruit; 2) interpretation is
very tricky; if you want to talk about why you were here, I think you could open
up another meeting to discuss that. The key issues there were that they needed
representation, forget about other things first, we need representation which
reflects our communities. Japhet further stated that Gary R pointed out the
sensitivity issue to those communities or the current population. Those are the key
issues, generally we looked at that. He wanted them to come back to what was on
the board so that they could get done with it. Keith asked the three people
(Monica, Colette and Sheila) still on the board that had not had their turn
speaking, if their comments were essential to getting back to the issue and Monica
said hers could wait and Colette wanted to say that she was really glad about
everyone being so passionate about the issue and she wanted them to think about
getting on M&T.
Charlie asked Timona to bring up the CDC document he had on the screen before
which helped provide clarity to what the definition of what does zero meant. It
was not specific to API HRH or Latino HRH, it was really about a broad cross
section of the definition of community. Sheila said that she represented African
American women and the reason she was there was because she was infected, she
had no problem stating that. However, not everyone may be comfortable in a
setting such as this to announce who they were. She assumed when she got on
CCCHAP that it was because she was African American and she was infected and
she was the only one that should be telling her business, but someone else may not
be comfortable for their business to be discussed. She had heard people talking
about the fact that the Latino and Asian communities were such a close knit
community and things were kept so private, so why would they sit on CCCHAP
where people may know their neighbors and some people love to tell other
people’s business but they won’t tell their own. Monica said it would be helpful if
they introduced themselves as an individual; until today she wasn’t aware that
people weren’t all there representing their agency because the introductions were
made by telling them where they worked. Timona said that in the application if
someone was HIV+, they were not required to state that. There was a really good
process for membership and they could discuss it at a later date; possibly have it at
a future meeting. Marcellus said that there was no need to discuss the need to
recruit HIV+ individuals on CCCHAP. Yemesrach thanked the people for their
comments as it showed that whether they are infected or affected, they were all
the same at the table. She was concerned that the gaps identified on the document
Timona had up on the screen were based on 2006 information and Timona said
that they were not discussing the document’s content and it was up there for
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
15
people to see that there was a process and how it worked. Timona said he would
be glad to provide orientation on how M&T does recruitment at another time.
Charlie asked if anyone had any new comments or information around the
recruitment topic that people wanted to present. Michael L called for consensus
for the issue on the table and asked Charlie to state it. Gary R stated that it was the
issue of recruiting annually or continuously.
Active Recruitment when CCCHAP identifies a gap.
Pros



Convenient
Hopefully sooner representation of identified gap.
Important to have members representing, treated sensitively and valued for
their voice.
Cons




Unfilled gaps
What identifies a gap (based on race, gender, risk behavior) - need clarity on
this
Need clarity on who are we representing here on CCCHAP – as a member of
an agency or member of a community; only then can we clearly see where the
gaps are
Unclear that CCCHAP members represent community and sensitive to that
Proposal
Do annual and ongoing recruitment into CCCHAP:
 Ongoing to address identified gaps in representation. (gap = zero)
Consensus was unanimous
Bag of chips awards were presented.
Parking Lot Issue
Siona’s Issue - Priority for recruitment from an affected community should be
reflective of risk behavior within the said community.
Evaluations and Announcements
Michelle –World AIDS Day event flyer – sponsored by DHS – share with staff
and community consumers - contact with questions.
Monica – African World AIDS Day - 12/6/08, 1:00 – 4:00 p.m. South High
School 3131 - 19th Avenue South – African Dance, free food and HIV talk – free
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
16
table displays for organizations - all invited.
Siona – Moving to a warmer climate during Winter and will return in February.
Film “Living With AIDS” coming 11/13/08 Channel 17 – TPT.
Michael L– MAP hosting Russian Human Service Workers - Wednesday,
11/12/08 delegation presenting 7:00 p.m. - Loft Literary Center - Washington
Avenue South - reception to follow.
Geri – Resources - Department of Education HIV Programs receives about
$350,000/year to work with youth around HIV, STI and teen pregnancy
prevention. Within that money is a particular grant that promotes science based
approaches – Hosting a training in Richfield 12/19/08 on “How to respond
culturally to sexuality skills based instruction.” Geared toward teachers and
people who work with many cultures. - 9:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. The idea is they
will present essential skills that everyone in the room will participate in and then
various members of the communities of color will respond to whether those are
appropriate adaptations. Register www.MOAPPP.org $10.00.
Weston – Is the Director of Program Development at Pride Institute and to create
sexual health programming and have now started at Pride Institute substance
abuse treatment for the LBGT community but also sexual health treatment for the
LBGT community commonly referred to as “Sexual Addition” – Some time in
January 2009 they are having a six hour training for providers on addressing and
treating sexual health issues, sexual compulsivity, things to look for and skill sets
to help people. He will send an e-mail as all are invited.
Shanasha – World AIDS Day Block Party – December 1st – Minneapolis Urban
League, 2100 Plymouth Avenue North - will send information to Timona in an email.
Sheila – African Video - 11/16/08 on TPT - Channel 2
Gene – Man to Man is having free men’s sexual health seminars 11/15 & 16/08 –
sign up with Michael Wilkerson – Hosted at The Pride Institute.
Adjourn and Pick-up
Next meeting date/place: Tuesday - Wednesday, July 21-22, 2009
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
Veterans Service Building
17
CCCHAP Executive Team and Streamlining Committee (ET Plus)
Strategic Planning And Streamlining Process
Interim Agenda 2008 and 2009
ET Plus Meetings
September 8, 2008 (ET Plus)
 1d. 3 or 4 year planning cycle
October 13, 2008, (ET Plus)
 1e. New and improved process for selection of sub-populations and their cofactors
 November meeting agenda
November 10, 2008 (ET Plus)
 1f. Plan for annual evaluation of CCCHAP
December 8, 2008 (ET Plus)
 1g. Final CCCHAP process
 2a. Clarify roles and responsibilities of MDH and CCCHAP in the partnership
(ET agenda item)
ET Meetings
January 12, 2009
 2b. Finalize the mission statement
 3a. Evaluation of implementation of strategic plan-are we there yet?
February 9, 2009
 2c. Finish strategic planning dates
March 9, 2009
 TBD
April 13, 2009
 TBD
May 11, 2009
 TBD
June 8, 2009
 TBD
July 13, 2009
 3d. By-laws updates to reflect strategic planning and streamlining
August 10, 2009
 TBD
September 14, 2009
 TBD
October 12, 2009
 TBD
November 9, 2009
 TBD
December 14, 2009
 TBD
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
STREAMLINING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING TASKS
DRAFT June 24, 2008
WHAT
HOW
WHO
WHEN
1a. New Members
Recommend how often to add new members every year
Decide how often to add new members every year
M&T
CCCHAP
M&T meeting in Sept
November 2008
Recommend whether to recruit this summer and fall
Decide whether to recruit this summer and fall
M&T
CCCHAP
M&T meeting in Sept
November 2008
Begin recruiting based on decisions made
M&T
November 2008
Choose 3 to 4 among those submitted by contractor
CCCHAP votes for 1
Create tablecloth and other promotional materials
Develop and implement a mentorship program for new members
Create list of pros and cons
ET
CCCHAP
Timona
M&T Committee
Timona
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
January 2009
August 2008
Review pros and cons and make a recommendation
ET Plus
September 2008
Decide on length of planning cycle
Draft a process for selecting all subpopulations at risk, co-factors for
all sub-populations and sub-population prioritization process for
Minnesota
Provide feedback and preliminary approval
Approve process
Review CDC requirements and previous process
Modify as needed
Implement annually
Draft process
Preliminary approval
Approval
CCCHAP
Julia and Timona
November 2008
September 2008
ET Plus
CCCHAP
ET Plus
ET Plus
Timona
Julia and Timona
ET Plus
CCCHAP
Oct 2008
November 2008
November 2008
November 2008
Review current role/responsibilities description in by-laws, CDC
guidance and strategic planning document. Revise as appropriate.
ET
December 2008
Review and provide feedback
Peter, Marcie,
Steve and Gary
January 2009
Phase 1
1b. Logo
1c. Mentorship
1d. 3 or 4 year cycle planning cycle
1e. New and improved process for
selection of sub-populations and their
co-factors
1f. Plan for annual evaluation of
CCCHAP
1g. Final CCCHAP process
December 2008
December 8, 2008
February 2009
Phase 2
2a. Clarify roles and responsibilities of
MDH and CCCHAP in the partnership.
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
STREAMLINING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING TASKS
DRAFT June 24, 2008
2b. Finalize the mission statement
2c. Finish strategic planning dates
CCCHAP reviews and revises as needed
Incorporate into new member orientation
CCCHAP
Timona
February 2009
February 2009
Finalize mission statement
Adopt new mission statement
Draft dates for each goal and objective
Finalize dates for each goal and objective
Update CCCHAP (via email)
ET
CCCHAP
Julia and Timona
ET
ET
January 2009
February 2009
January 2009
February 2009
February 2009
Julie and Timona
ET
Timona
November 2008
January 2009
June and December
Timona
Timona
Prevention Plan
workgroup-PPW
PPW
PPW
January
November 2008
January 2009
PPW
April 2009
CCCHAP
Timona
Timona
ET develops
CCCHAP
approves
July 2009
July through Sept 2009
June 2009
July 2009
Phase 3
3a. Evaluation of implementation of
strategic plan-are we there yet?
3b. Format of new, improved and
expanded HIV Prevention Plan
3c. Training curriculum (streamlined)
3d. By-laws
Draft evaluation plan including bench marks for each goal
Review and approve evaluation plan
Every 6 months, collect information regarding progress towards
bench marks
Annually update CCCHAP on progress
Recruit CCCHAP members to join Prevention Plan workgroup
Determine the audience for the plan and what we think they should
know
Determine overall content of the HIV Prevention Plan
Determine which chapters of the plan should be deleted,
changed/updated every year, and which updated periodically
Create a mechanism to get feedback on the utility of the plan from
the end user
Approve new and improved plan
Create HIV Prevention Plan
Compile the training pieces
Change all by-laws as needed
*At each step consider whether there are concurrent by-law changes needed!!!!
*ET Plus means Executive Team and Streamlining Committee members
CCCHAP Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2008
February 2009
March 2009