Minutes
Name of Organization:State Plan for Independent Living (Monitoring) Workgroup [SPIL] of Nevada Statewide Independent Living Council [SILC] of Nevada Department of Aging and Disability Services [ADSD]
Date and Time of Meeting:July 18, 2017
10:30 a.m.
This meeting will be a videoconference between the following:
Reno:Deaf Centers of Nevada
6490 South McCarran Blvd
Building F Suite 46 & 47
Reno, NV 89509
Las Vegas:Deaf Centers of Nevada
3120 South Durango Drive Suite 301
Las Vegas, NV 89117
The meeting will be conducted by videoconference. The public may observe this meeting and provide public comment at either location.
To join this meeting by phone, dial 1-702-805-8228then enter the Conference ID: 25544799#
Meeting Materials Available at:
Agenda
- Welcome, Roll Call, and Introductions
Mark Tadder, SPIL Chairperson
Members Present: Lisa Bonie, Kacy Curry, Mary Evilsizer, Mary Jansen Parrent, George McKinlay, Mark Tadder,
Members Absent: Sam Lieberman, Scott Youngs
Guests:
Staff: Dawn Lyons, Rique Robb, Wendy Thornley
- Verification of Posting
Mark Tadder, SPIL Chairperson
Wendy Thornley verified the posting.
- Public Comment(Members of the public will be invited to speakhowever; no action may be taken on a matter during public comment until the matter itself has been included on an agenda as an item for possible action. Please clearly state and spell your name. Public comment may be limited to 3 minutes, per person at the discretion of the chair).
Kacy stated that she wondered about the progress of the workgroup. She feels that the group is doing well.
- Approval of MeetingMinutes from June 6 and June 20, 2017 (For Possible Action)
Mark Tadder, SPIL Chairperson
George motioned to approve the minutes. Lisa seconded. The motion carried.
- Review, Discussion and Make Recommendations for SILC By Laws
(For Possible Action)
Mary Evilsizer, SPIL Member
Kacy Curry, SPIL Member
Kacy stated that she had contacted all the members and that they had all said that they were pleased with the work done.
Dawn stated that she had feedback from two people and she had included it in the current version.
Mark asked if the current version is the one that the SPIL members had received.
Dawn stated that it was the one the members had received.
Kacy motioned for the SPIL workgroup forward the current version to the SILC at the next SILC meeting. Lisa seconded.
Mary Jansen suggested, during discussion, that the SPIL workgroup look into having a vision statement. She stated that a vision statement would unite the group more as a council because they would have all agreed on it and had input into it and it could be used as a tagline since they are very short. She stated that it would be a good tagline for use on booths, tables and banners telling people who the SILC is.
Dawn stated that she felt that Mary’s idea is a great one and something to look into for the future. She stated that since there had been a motion, there should now be a vote. The motion was voted and it carried.
- Review, Discussion and Make Recommendations for SILC Executive Order (For Possible Action)
Dawn Lyons, Program Specialist, ADSD
Kacy Curry, SPIL Member
Dawn stated that she and Kacy had gone through the Executive Order after getting feedback and that they felt it was ready to go. She reminded the group that once the Governor’s office had it and made any changes, the SPIL workgroup will no longer be able to rework the document. She asked if anyone had any changes they would like made. No one offered ideas on any changes.
Mary E. motioned to accept the Executive Order as submitted. Kacy Curry seconded.
Mark asked what was next in the process.
Dawn stated that she believed that the SILC wanted the SPIL Workgroup to make the final decisions. She thought that it would then go the Governor’s office for approval. Next, the SPIL would bring it to the SILC to announce and give the final copy.
George stated that, “On the first page under the to achieve a balanced membership council, that part of the paragraph, it just says due consideration to geographic representation, gender, ethnicity and culture diversity, there's no mention of disability. I know later it specifies that, but it would probably be wise to say to achieve a balanced with that first on that list, that people with disabilities, consideration given to disability, geographic representation, gender, and ethnicity. Just it's not included there. Seems like if you're stating that it's probably wise to put it there. I know later, you do say majority of council members should be.”
Dawn stated that she could put it in right after gender, right before ethnic and culture diversity.
George stated that he felt that it is a center for disability, first and foremost.
Mark stated, “I think it's actually important to add this because whereas later, it addresses the need for 50percent plus one person to be have a disability it doesn’t actually suggest a good mixture of different types of disabilities. We want to have good representation so including it here because that's where this line in the document addresses that. I think putting it first would be a good idea. If it doesn't sound right, don't do it.”
Kacy stated, “
And semantics, if you put it first given to disability, disability what? Because where Dawn would put it, it would be and disability ethnic and culture diversity. Are you looking for diversity or representation?”
Lisa Bonie stated, “Why couldn't you say consideration given to people with disabilities, geographic representation, gender, and ethnic gender, ethnic and cultural diversity. That way you're only added words, comma and taking an and out.”
Dawn agreed with Lisa’s statement and stated that she could add that.
Rique stated, “I just wanted to add to Dawn's comment regarding the process so there is an individual within the governor's office that we will work directly with and they will guide the process of the executive order. Once we have that, the details to him, he will work us through that process. We can keep you updated as it goes through we have no idea what a timeline or anyone of that would take.”
Kacy stated that she was hoping that there could be a nice state seal like the previous Executive Order.
Rique stated that the current document was simply a WORD document and that the final version would have whatever the current seal is.
Mark asked for an amended motion to include George’s suggestion.
Mary E. motioned to accept the Executive Order as amended. George seconded. The motion carried.
- Discussion and Make Recommendations for Membership Recruitment and Onboarding Process (For Possible Action)
George McKinley, NATRC
Mary Jansen Parrent, Public Consultant
Mary stated that she had presented the membership criteria at the last SILC meeting and that the SILC her to take the SILC’s input back to the SPIL. Next, she was to bring it back to the SILC for a final vote. Some of the feedback is concern about the number of meetings mentioned in the checklist. The checklist mentions a prospective member attend all meetings until they are formally appointed to the SILC at the annual meeting. She suggested that the checklist ends that item with the appointment to the SILC, without waiting for the next annual meeting. There was also discussion at the SILC meeting of different numbers of meetings to attend. She then asked for input.
Mark stated that he felt that if someone is very familiar with the SILC and its differences compared to other states, they wouldn’t be expected to attend many meetings. Someone who was not familiar would be expected to attend more.
Kacy suggested attending and having a presence at SILC meetings until formally appointed.
Dawn stated that she remembered speaking with someone who suggested at least one meeting and suggested that the wording be changed to reflect that.
Mark stated that having a presence at a meeting would only include commenting during public comment. He also stated that it seemed that it was implied that the person had to attend the meetings in person when, some people could not attend in person.
Dawn stated that she didn’t feel that it implied “in person”, was necessary. She also stated, “Some of the concerns were that we Lisa and Rique both feel that our board, our council, recruitment should be a standing agenda item. I know that we have a nominating committee right now that's an ad hoc committee. And what I would be proposing to with a standing agenda item is that we rename the nominating committee to the council development committee, put it on the agenda so that we always have it before us to recruit members and to consider new members.”
Mary E. stated, “I'm just going to throw something out, that it just occurred to me as we were speaking and a new member really doesn't have the opportunity to say anything during a meeting. Perhaps something we might want to consider is when someone is interested in membership, that our executive committee, the chair and vice chair, could perhaps do a small interview by phone with the individual to determine what their expectations are to determine one of the critical points is time, would they be able to serve on the SILC, would they be able to serve on some of the subcommittees. So that's just something, food for thought, a way for the SILC to also get to know individuals as they come on and a way for the individuals to learn a little bit about the SILC.”
George stated, “I think that it's important that potential members serve at least on subcommittees to get a feel of what it's like and to get to know some of the people and what the workload is like and what some of the discussion topics are. The only fear I have is timing, as you're recruiting process, this once a year admission after the annual meeting, I always wonder if someone joins up the month later, they've got to wait ten months.” He also stated that the Bylaws do not say that a new member should be voted in during the annual meeting.
Dawn stated, “Here's what I thought this meant when we put this in the bylaws. The nominating committee would meet as needed not very often, but as needed, to do exactly what George was suggesting, to interview the potential new member and then bring that person forward to the SILC, introduce them, put them on the agenda so that they can say they're interested and maybe that the maybe at that time or maybe suggest that they get to know them better or figure it out on the way depending on that person and how much experience they have if they need to attend more meetings or what. And bring that to the SILC. Does that make sense?”
Lisa agreed.
There was some discussion about what recruiting documents would be developed and used.
George stated that he felt that one meeting would not allow the group to get to know the potential member. He suggested that they be part of a subcommittee first. He also suggested the group look at the New York SILC’s online tutorial for its onboarding process.
Dawn stated that she would change the wording to attend at least one meeting, participate in a mentor relationship that the Nominating Committee would appoint, and then the mentor will let the nominating committee know that the person is ready for nominating.
Mary J. suggested that the person could have a choice of which committee they would like to work on.
George and Mary E. both agree.
Mary E. stated that, “I like that, to have the choice or the option to have the individual not as a mandate but as a voluntary practice to participate in contributing whatever strengths or skills that individual has. The interview wouldn't be part of the recruiting process but it would be part of the onboarding process.
I believe the vision is someone shows an interest in the SILC and next they would and I really like the mentor idea because I really think if there's a mentor, that's a connection. If a mentor could try to assess from the individual what they're looking for, what their expectations are from the SILC, and what if they have any ideas what role they can see themselves playing in the membership of the SILC, so I think that with the interviewing process, with the mentor, if the mentor is willing to accept the responsibility for that. Also, I do know some other groups when individuals are interested in volunteering, I know we have the governor's application. But and I could send George and Mary this. We have a volunteer application at the center where we ask individuals what they want to contribute, what where we ask them what role they see themselves playing, we ask them exactly what do they want to do. A lot of them will say learn, but they also come with a lot of skills that they can contribute right away. That's something to consider for onboarding. “
Dawn stated that she could bring an etiquette form that could be signed by everyone including new recruits along with a questionnaire that either the person or the Nominating Committee could use to interview the person.
Mary E. stated that her CIL has forms for volunteering, clerical support, mentoring etc. that could be used.
Rique stated that there is already a code of ethics through the Governor’s office that all Disability committees will be signing. She also stated that the gubernatorial application is already completed in the Governor’s office.
Mary E. asked Rique if the gubernatorial application has a signatory location for conflict of interest.
Rique confirmed that it did and that she had made some additions regarding that.
Mark stated that his idea of onboarding included training after the person had been put on a council and then as needed.
Mary J. stated that this is what she tried to do with having a checklist. Things like, read the Bylaws, the Title VII, watch videos, read the summaries of disability rights legislation, read about IL and its philosophy and the SILC’s mission, vision and purpose.
Mark would like to have some webinars included.
Dawn stated that the mentor could suggest certain training videos or trainings, webinars if it seemed appropriate.
Lisa asked if all the resources would be on the website.
Mary J. confirm they would be.
Kacy motioned to accept the onboarding process and documents with the suggested changes. Dawn seconded. The motion carried.
- Present for Approval: Website Proposal (For Possible Action)
George McKinley, NATRC
George cautioned the group about creating a website that is a repository of materials that is not updated and results in a “dead’ website. He views it as a working platform. He stated that people commonly have no content, choose the cheapest platform available, create more “fill” that is not timely and put in a calendar that is not updates.
He discussed a working website as one that has a purpose and a goal. It has a “Conversion Moment”, what takes a casual visitor to become a committed member. This kind of website would have a newsletter, contributions by members, a calendar. A working document. It has “usability”, invites the userbase to give feedback. He suggested putting the agendas on the website. Accessibility, training for contributors. He then asked the group for feedback.
Mark asked what part would Open Meeting Law play on a website with multiple contributors?
Dawn stated that contributor content would be approved.
Rique stated that the DAGs (Deputy Attorney Generals), could be asked for guidance. There would need to be no deliberation or interaction.
Mark suggested that people who sign up could get other things as well, like the RSS email subscription to whatever is posted on the website, like a blog.
George agreed and stated that he uses WordPress because of the extent of the accessibility available. He stated that he also feels that there should be multiple editors who can check spelling, grammar etc.
Lisa asked if this would be a position that would be contracted out. She had seen in the past, websites created by someone who then goes away and the website then dies.
George stated that it would be multiple people sharing the responsibilities. These people would have training that is then supported. They would be cross-trained to overlap responsibilities. He suggested subscribing to a security management company to oversee the technical issues so that the multiple editors could focus on content.
Lisa asked what the cost would be and how to go about doing it.