Meeting Minutes for January 11, 2001

Meeting Location: Midway Sheraton Hotel, St. Paul

Present: Rand Stenhjem, Roseann Faber, Joe Ascheman, Rosemary Laberge, Sharon Johnson, Cara Ruff, Phyllis Coppess, Terry Graff, Linda Lingen, Bill Bauer, Brad Westerlund, Carl Bryngelson.

Absent: Rick Cardenas, Connie Berg (excused), Ann Zick (excused), Cory Heit (excused), Hulet Sherry (excused).

Guests: Jay Johnson, David Skilbred, David Hancox, ASL interpreters Claudia Willis and Patty McCutcheon.

Call to Order: The January 11 meeting of the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) was called to order at 9:15 a.m. by Rand Stenhjem, Vice Chair. Introductions of members and guests followed.

Approval of October Minutes and January Agenda: Council members were reminded that approval of the September 2000 minutes had been tabled. Both the September and October minutes were approved as written. A MACIL report was added to the January agenda.

State Council on Disability (SCD) Report: David Skilbred, the new Executive Director of the SCD, provided a history on the Council. The SCD was formed in 1973, and is funded solely by State dollars. David reported that the SCD has undergone numerous changes over the years; however, the Council’s duties have not changed significantly. The SCD primarily serves as an advisory council on disability-related matters to the Governor and the Minnesota Legislature. The SCD also serves as an aid to RSB and SSB. Other SCD duties include the development of interdepartmental goals relating to disability issues, to review and comment to state agencies and legislators regarding plans and budgets for programs of and for people with disabilities, and to research, formulate and advocate for plans that will serve people with disabilities. The SCD also has advisory duties related to Workers’ Compensation. Assistive technology is also a concern, through the STAR Program.

The SCD is presently working on where the Council has been, in order to develop a “vision” on where the SCD will be going. This “reorganization” began last summer with the former Executive Director’s retirement. In December 2000, a retreat was held to begin envisioning where the SCD needs to go. Short and long-term strategic plans were developed and initiated. David read both the old and the new vision statements of the SCD. He briefly discussed the SCD’s strategic planning process. For the short-term, the SCD identified improving relationships and external communications, as well as the writing of additional issue papers and briefs.

David provided SILC members with a brief biography on his educational background and work experience. He worked for the State Senate for fifteen years prior to being hired as Executive Director of the SCD.

David requested SILC members to submit their comments regarding the State’s hiring goals for people with disabilities, which was recently lowered from 12.8% to 9.1%. David feels the prevalence data on disability utilized for the state’s hiring goals are dated and generally insufficient. He asked SILC members if they feel that a new prevalence study is warranted. What data should be gathered? What value would be received from this type of information?

Questions and answers followed. David was advised that the SCD’s Executive Director, or his designee, serves as an ex officio member of the SILC. David stated that he plans to attend future SILC meetings. He will be added to the SILC mailing list.

Conflict of Interest Training: Terry Graff began by stating that definitions of “conflict of interest” can differ depending on one’s duties. Terry then provided Black’s legal definition. He explained that “public duties” generally involve public officials, and SILC members’ activities can be viewed as public duties. Terry then explained what a “fiduciary” is. (Person holding the character of a trustee or a character analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires.) More simply, a fiduciary is a person having duty, created by his/her undertaking, to act primarily for, or on another’s benefit, in matters connected with such undertaking. A fiduciary generally has control over another’s money or property, and the fiduciary may not, either directly or indirectly, personally benefit or profit from his/her fiduciary responsibilities. It does not matter if the persons for whom you are serving as a fiduciary are undamaged by your conflict/s of interest, and the fiduciary must check and limit his/her actions. Terry then provided several examples of a “fiduciary.” Terry next provided examples of “public duties.” He advised SILC members that conflicts of interest can go beyond merely voting or abstaining on a matter before the Council. For example, if you are researching the effectiveness of different pain relievers, and you hold stock in one of the companies whose pain reliever is being researched, your findings could be biased. If one has conflicts, one loses credibility, can be removed from the Council, and may be sued in tort. Terry advised members that the Department of Education is “very sticky” on conflicts of interest, and has developed bulletins to judge whether there is a conflict. Conflicts can arise from professional work one has done, and/or from personal or business relationships. An “apparent conflict” is one that a “reasonable person” would determine is a conflict.” Terry stated that “potential conflicts” are more difficult to define. A “self-dealing conflict” involves matters such as the award of a subcontract to a fiduciary’s family member/s. “Influence peddling” involves the promise to give someone something if he/she does something for you. Another type of conflict is using an employer’s property for personal gain. “Insider information” is utilizing confidential information to benefit oneself. Terry encouraged all SILC members to read the definitions of “conflicts of interest” included in this month’s mailing. Discussion followed.

SPIL 2002-2004: Rand and Bill commented on the revised format for the new SPIL. Many attachments have been either deleted or combined into four attachments for FFY 2002-2004. The various “Section” pre-prints have either minor revisions or are unchanged. Bill advised SILC members to read the instructions and review the forms prior to next month’s meeting. (These instructions and forms were included in January’s mailing.) Bill also advised SILC members that the comment period for these revised materials remains open until January 12, and there may be additional revisions.

Rand discussed this year’s public forums, and SMILES’ focus groups. This information will be utilized in the new SPIL, and all SILC members were advised to review these reports, which will be mailed to all SILC members prior to the February meeting.

In the current SPIL, the various section pre-prints correspond with the attachments. In the new SPIL, there will be only four attachments; for example attachment two and Section 5.1 will correspond. Many of the Section pre-prints and attachments will be copy and paste jobs from the current SPIL, with some updating. Attachment fourteen will require editing, and will now be placed under attachment one. The SILC’s new objectives will be the primary task for the February meeting. On that matter, it was Rand’s opinion that the SILC, in the current SPIL, set far too many small objectives. Discussion followed regarding what the various members saw as major objectives for the new SPIL. This list includes urban and rural transportation, affordable housing, underserved populations, and access. Accountability may also be added to the list of objectives. Bill recommended that advocacy be considered for the new SPIL’s focus. Discussion followed, and it was suggested that Red Lake’s transportation system be considered as a possible model for rural transit issues.

MACIL Update: Cara reported that there was a MACIL meeting on January tenth at Metro CIL. MACIL is still establishing its legislative agenda. Cara reported that internal MACIL issues were discussed during the meeting. Cara reiterated that MACIL would like a stronger working relationship with the SILC. SILC members were invited to visit the nearest CIL, and there will be an open house at Metro CIL on February first from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Freedom CIL will also be holding an open house in the near future.

SILC Congress Report: Rand felt that the SILC Congress 2001 went well. A great deal of time was spent on each state reporting on what that SILC was doing. Rand commented that some states continue to have the same issues. There were forty-seven states and four territories in attendance. There were presentations on the “Drive for Seventy-five,” (ten million additional dollars awarded nationally), the Olmstead decision and other housing issues, and TWWIIA. Rand commented that none of the other states appeared to have the comprehensive employment and Medical Assistance program that Minnesota has, and Minnesota is being looked at as a potential model. It was asked if the new Part C dollars would be awarded under the 2002 contracts, and Bill responded that this would depend upon MDES receiving the grant award notice in a timely manner. Note: Should MDES receive the grant award notice in or before June 2001, SILC members and CIL Executive Directors are reminded of the seventy-five/twenty-five percent Federal Fiscal Year split in Part C fund distribution, which became effective when Part C contracts were converted to the state fiscal year.)

FFY 2000 704 Narrative: Bill reminded Council members that the 2000 704 narrative was included in this month’s mailing, and requested that he be contacted should anyone have comments. Rand advised SILC members that there would be a vote on the narrative during the February meeting. Bill advised SILC members that the new 704 Parts I and II forms and instructions have not yet been mailed or posted. The deadline for submitting the aggregated 704 Part I report (723 states) has been advanced to March 31, which means that Centers will be required to have their 704 Part II reports on Bill’s desk on or before February 28.

Visitors’ Comments: There were no comments from the guests.

Issues, Correspondence, Announcements: There were no issues, correspondence or announcements.

Next Meeting, Adjournment: The next meeting will be held on February eighth and ninth, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Both days, at the Radisson Hotel, 11 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, in the “Governors” room. The January meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.