GLHRN Board Minutes
Friday, October 30th, 2015
9:00-11:00
City Rescue Mission-Maplewood
Board Members:
Sharon Dade, Susan Cancro, Mark Morton, Cathy Calkins, Su’Alyn Holbrook, Susan Land, Jenny Leaf, Elizabeth Rios, Al
Platt, Vicki Sandbrook, Linda Vail, and Doris Witherspoon
Present: Susan Cancro, Katrina Urista, Mark Morton, Cathy Calkins, Su’Alyn Holbrook, Al Platt, Liza Rios, Vicki Sandbrook,
Doris Witherspoon, Mark Criss, Joan Jackson Johnson, Michelle LaVoy, Ken Roubol, Julie Shaltry, Matt Stevenson, Toni
Young, Susan Ziegler, and David Henrion
1) Introductions a) Susan Cancro called the meeting at 9:11. b) Susan said that the board may condense committee reports, due to time constraints. c) All introduced themselves. i) Susan said that HRCS is collectively a board member with one vote. ii) Susan also confirmed that Julie Shaltry is functioning as Sharon Dade’s proxy.
(1) Julie stated that Sharon is in a rehab facility, hoping to come home in 7 to 10 days.
2) Approval of September Minutes a) Al Platt motioned to approve the minutes, and Mark Morton seconded. They passed unanimously.
3) HUD NOFA a) Susan said the first item is narrower than the NOFA: the ranking of the exhibit 2 applications. i) She noted the NOFA is much broader than the ranking of projects. ii) Susan said the Finance committee spent 6 hours ranking, looking at various alternatives.
(1) After many subsequent hours of research by the HRCS staff, more information was discovered.
(2) They have brought 3 options to choose from, 1 from the Finance committee and 2 from HRCS.
(3) Susan then gave an overview of the proposed changes, namely moving HMIS 1 down, changing the straddle project from PSH2 to RRH for Families, and then either moving both smaller TH projects
(Crossroads and Sober Center) to tier two or just Sober Center to tier two. b) Katrina said that the goal of the NOFA is for the community to receive as much funding as possible, which leads to the decisions on how to list our projects. i) She gave an overview of the priorities of HUD, and said the priorities should impact our NOFA strategy.
(1) Katrina said that HUD priorities are HUD’s way of forcing the CoC to where they want us to go. c) Susan said she had talked to NCA and CFC about importance of talking up their programs. i) Susan talked about the importance of youth programs, and how in Mark M’s submitted document there is language that can be used effectively in the NOFA. ii) Susan said that for NCA, it is important to say why the CoC placed it in tier 1, and discussed NCA’s possible transition of the project to PSH. d) Susan asked for a discussion about how to contribute to the exhibit 1 application, and narrowing the three proposed strategies to two. i) Susan said that Katrina had noted it is important to not have PSH straddling, due to HUD priorities. ii) Susan asked the board for any suggestions or opinions.
(1) Vicki Sandbrook said she prefers Crossroads in tier one, and asked why can’t both TH be in tier 1.
(a) Susan said that the city felt it was too risky to have TH in tier 1, but that youth is a priority, so they created the third ranking strategy.
(2) Susan suggested looking at the changes individually.
(a) She asked if members agreed to lower HMIS 1, which had scored high because of the criteria.
(i) Matt Stevenson agreed with Susan that HMIS wouldn’t be able to miss points from the criteria.
(ii) He said that HMIS is a valued part of the community, but the scale wasn’t fair to other projects.
(iii) Katrina noted that the project pays some of Matt’s salary, as well as other technicians.
(iv) Liza Rios asked if the lowest scoring programs were new projects, which Katrina confirmed.
(v) Susan asked what would happen if HMIS 2 wasn’t funded.
1.
Katrina said she would have to look into it, but other agencies might be asked to pitch in.

(vi) Susan asked if the group was on board with moving HMIS 1.
1.
Mark M agreed with Matt, and talked about Matt’s value to Gateway specifically.
2.
Joan Jackson Johnson said moving HMIS down is due to HUD, and no reflection on Matt.
(3) Doris Witherspoon suggested keeping the second city option in the mix.
(4) Cathy stated that the NOFA says HUD will be basing things on the ranking scores, which Liza agreed with.
(a) She asked what it says to HUD if the continuum changes the ranking after the scoring.
(i) Katrina said the continuum has a ranking strategy, and the initial meeting is part of the strategy.
(ii) Mark M said that as Finance Chair, the raw scoring process used in the meeting was not recommended by the committee, and the ranking had several problems.
1.
He said this is due to HUD’s unreasonable timeline, and HUD will fund the projects it wants.
(iii) Liza said the board doesn’t just rubber stamp whatever the committee sends to it.
(iv) Cathy said a lot of time was spent on the Finance ranking.
1.
Liza said she is not discounting the Finance meeting.
2.
Katrina said the Finance meeting is the core of the process.
3.
Susan said HRCS spent hours too, before and after the meeting, which is part of the process.
(b) The board unanimously voted to keep the second city option in the mix.
(5) Mark M said he can’t propose the other scenario, because Gateway would be affected.
(6) Katrina motioned to consider the other city scenario, and Su’Alyn Holbrook seconded.
(a) Mark M said he would speak in opposition to that.
(b) Cathy said that the Finance recommendation should be considered.
(c) Susan agreed with considering the Finance ranking, because she doesn’t think youth can be in tier 2.
(d) Liza said there shouldn’t be PSH projects in tier 2, so she suggested voting on scenario 2.
(i) Liza specified that there should not be an establish PSH program in tier two.
(ii) Cathy asked if PSH 2 could be carried out if partially funded.
1.
Joan said she doesn’t see that happening.
(iii) Susan noted the city switched PSH2 and RRH, so the board could just swap PSH 2 and RRH.
1.
Katrina said the community needs the RRH program.
2.
Julie said that scenario 2 basically upholds what the Finance committee discussed.
(e) Su’Alyn withdrew her support for the motion. iii) Susan asked NCA to speak a bit about the situation, trying to anticipate HUD’s analysis of their project.
(1) Michelle LaVoy said that the data shows NCA is underperforming, but does not show the progress their clients are making, while in treatment or via case management.
(2) Michelle said they haven’t been able to do as much outreach, but would like to move from TH to PSH.
(a) Liza asked about the timeframe for that process.
(i) Susan said that reallocation would have needed to occur back in May, which Katrina confirmed.
(ii) Susan noted that Pat Wheeler was ill at that point, and we don’t know what Pat would have done. It has to remain to TH, but NCA could work to make the project more of a PSH.
(iii) Matt noted that they have had a project change type midyear.
1.
Mark Criss confirmed it happened, but the change was not the plan going into the year.
2.
Katrina said the agency had to get special permission from HUD to have that happen. a.
Toni Young reiterated that HUD gave the CoC a special opportunity to do that.
(b) Susan said it would likely stay TH, but HUD may prefer it if a transition plan is included in exhibit 1.
(i) Toni noted it will score better if it is higher on tier 2, and Katrina agreed based on the formula.
(ii) Susan stated it is important to have brief language indicating how Sober Center will work.
(iii) Joan said that NCA needs to get with the city, CMH, and other partners.
1.
Al explained how CMH’s situation changed to become more regional.
2.
Joan said CMH’s Recovery Center has empty bed issues too, and spoke on the need to see what the community is missing.
3.
Katrina said that NCA is very valuable and cooperative, and Joan said she missed calling Pat.
(c) Mark M noted that there is language in the NOFA to support TH for substance abuse.
(i) Katrina said the continuum needs to look at HUD’s measures.
(d) Susan noted that next year the CoC projects will be almost all PSH.
(e) Mark C asked if NCA moving to PSH would be beyond their core competency.

(i) Susan said that no agency has single room occupancy PSH, which is basically the Sober Center.
1.
Susan Ziegler said NCA would put one person in a room instead.
(f) Mark C, Liza, and Susan had a discussion on PSH.
(g) Susan talked about looking for key language.
(h) Su’Alyn said she likes the cooperation, and would like the CoC to improve its referral system.
(i) Joan asked how Medicaid fits into the picture.
(i) Al said CMH’s coordinated agency uses both Medicaid and block grants for substance abuse.
(j) Susan talked about the need to get the right program information to the right people.
(k) Joan noted there are several places with good intent, but not part of the continuum.
(l) Liza motioned to accept scenario 2, Su’Alyn seconded.
(i) Mark M recused himself, and the vote was unanimous. e) Susan said the board needed to look at policies for the NOFA, some of which would be foundation for the HARA. i) Toni gave an overview of what HUD is looking for and how it could affect the CoC’s score.
(1) Toni said the HARA policies submitted for the past three years were examined and updated by Julie,
David, and HRCS.
(2) Katrina said the goal is to be broad with policies, and have them be followed across the continuum.
(3) Susan noted the language is “coordinated,” not centralized.
(4) Katrina asked the board to look at this policy manual, which includes the HARA document.
(5) Susan stated that this is a working document.
(6) Liza thought GLHRN policies should include the new proposed grievance policies from CQI.
(a) Susan asked the board if they were comfortable voting on the new grievance procedure.
(7) Doris suggested removing “GLHRN” from the table of contents.
(8) Toni asked if the bylaws should be incorporated.
(a) Liza said if they are entered together, it makes sense to include the bylaws in the manual.
(b) Katrina said this is just putting policies together in one spot.
(c) Mark M said he would send them to David to include.
(9) Susan asked about voting on the grievance procedure.
(a) Doris moved to approve it, Su’Alyn seconded. The vote was unanimous.
(10) David explained that HUD would like the CoC to explicitly require board agendas to be distributed.
(a) Liza motioned to add it to the board governance manual, Vicki seconded. The vote was unanimous.
(11) Susan asked about prioritization of clients next.
(a) Toni suggested including application priorities as well.
(i) Susan said that application priorities would change, and Toni agreed.
(b) Liza said that this could be in the ranking
(i) Toni stated that HUD needs the order of priority, and the ranking priorities can come later.
(c) Liza moved: “The GLHRN-CoC is formally adopting the “HUD CPD-14-012 Notice on Prioritizing
Persons Experiencing Chronic Homelessness and Other Vulnerable Homeless Persons in PSH and
Recordkeeping Requirements for Documenting Chronic Homeless Status” for the purposes of prioritizing chronically homeless persons with the longest history of homelessness and most severe service needs.” Susan seconded, and the vote was unanimous. (Cathy had to leave the meeting)
(12) Susan said next would be the HARA manual and the ESG monitoring policies, both currently in effect.
(a) Susan said GLHRN will have a policy for coordinated entry, and it will become more detailed.
(i) Doris moved to accept the HARA policies, Su’Alyn seconded. The vote was unanimous.
(b) Susan said next is the ESG monitoring.
(i) Katrina said it is already done for city MSHDA ESG, HUD just asked for formalized procedure.
(ii) Katrina motioned to accept the policies, and Al seconded. All are in favor.
(13) Doris moved to accept the combined policy manual. Vicki seconded, and all were in favor. f) Susan thanked HRCS for spending a lot of hours on this. i) Katrina thanked Susan for her work as well. ii) Susan said it is important to talk through these issues, and to keep working on them. g) Susan asked if that was everything required for the NOFA. i) Toni and Katrina said that was it for today, but they may ask for an executive committee meeting later.
4) Executive Committee Elections

a) Susan announced the only necessary election is secretary, which Cathy Calkins and Katrina Urista are up for. b) Cathy said she is very excited to be on the board, and she knows that partnership is key to getting things done. c) All board members voted. i) David counted the votes, and announced that Katrina won. ii) Everyone congratulated Katrina.
5) MSHDA PBV and HCV wait list a) Julie announced that based on quarterly reports, the HARA has reached over 3 times as many people over the same period of time last year. b) Julie said the PBV sites are full and the wait list numbers are lower, so the HARA staff has been doing well. c) Julie also said she likes the “enhanced and improved” language. d) Julie said the HARA met with other HARAs, and MSHDA added them as a referring agent, so they can refer people to TCOA e) Mark C asked if, for recertification, the HARA could do a blind check on HMIS instead of making contact. i) Julie said it can be discussed, but HMIS doesn’t necessarily have all the necessary information. ii) She said there was discussion at the Homeless Summit about how much Michigan’s homeless move around. iii) Julie said it is worth thinking about, but that move would really change their process. iv) Mark C asked if families are prioritized on the HCV list, because he thought the numbers might be down due to CRM not giving verification. v) Mark C said he talked to MSHDA and they seemed to be ok with HMIS certification, which Matt agreed with.
(1) Julie said she is concerned about the folks not on HMIS.
(2) Mark C said he is going to get CRM’s Men’s shelter data on HMIS. f) Vicki said she would like someone to come to JIMHO and ask if they could issue a homeless verification. i) Matt said Richard’s Place could. ii) Vicki said that Project Stay can’t, and they need to know about that. iii) Julie said she will follow up with that. iv) Vicki also said she does a little assessment, but not SPDAT, so she would like to be trained on SPDAT.
6) Performance Reports a) Matt said he would defer until next month.
7) Regional Report a) Liza said they met, but nothing critical was presented.
8) Committees a) Membership i) Susan said that nothing critical had happened at the meeting. b) CQI i) Liza said nothing major had been discussed. c) Human Services i) Al said they met at the Men’s Shelter at CRM, and it went very well. The next location is still being discussed. ii) Doris asked about discharge planning, which Al said it hadn’t been discussed.
9) Ad-hoc Committees a) HARA i) Susan said they had been discussing HUD requirements and RRH policies. ii) Julie said she likes the direction the continuum and HARA are moving toward.
10) Old Business
11) New Business a) Doris said that PND is working on the next five year plan for 2016 to 2021. i) She said the FY 2017 begins July 1, 2016, and she will talk about the plan at the next network meeting. ii) There is also a public hearing that will be scheduled on 12/1. iii) Doris will be sending out information to start the planning process. b) The room discussed how nice the Mission is to meet at. c) Susan thanked all participants for being so patient. i) Joan thanked Susan for a great job, and everyone applauded.
12) Adjournment
Next Board Meeting: Tuesday, December 1 at 9:00 am