Oregon State Independent Living Council

Draft Minutes

Oregon State Independent Living Council

SPIL Committee

9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. (PST) – February 2, 2018

In-Person & Conference Phone

Human Services Building (Room 351) – Salem, OR

Members

☒ / Barry Fox-Quamme (Co-Chair) / ☒ / Tanya DeHart / ☐ / Randy Samuelson
☒ / Tony Ellis (Co-Chair) / ☐ / Matt Droscher / ☒ / Sheila Thomas
☐ / Angie Butler / ☒ / Jack Howard (left shortly before 10:00) / ☒ / Kirt Toombs
☐ / Malinda Carlson / ☐ / Ruth McEwen / ☒ / Curtis Raines
☒ / Sherrin Coleman / ☒ / Greg Sublett (Arrived at 9:40) / ☐ / Vacant (SILC Member)

Other Attendees: Shelly Emery (SILC staff), Janet Allanach (AOCIL staff), Eli Ettinger (SPIL Development Work Group Co-Chair)

Minutes

1.  Introductions – Called to order at 10:12 a.m. Quorum identified.

2.  Options for SPIL development processes

This meeting is to discuss materials distributed, which were aimed at creating a contract to support SPIL development, as a next step to suggestions from ORBIS (Oregon Research Behavior Intervention Strategies).

The Development Work Group revised the Request for Proposal (RFP) and sent out the results to the SPIL Committee. In doing so, challenges were identified around getting the work done by September, after the initial draft of the revised SPIL would be needed. Other options for gathering some data for the pending draft were discussed, with consideration of using the RFP as more timely for gathering data for the following SPIL period.

The Work Group considered the following:

·  The availability of partner organization statewide listening sessions that might inform and help fine tune the approaching SPIL, such as those done by the Older Adults Initiative and Department of Transportation.

·  Could the known amount of funding that needs to be spent this year be used to obtain one or two tablets/iPads for each Centers for Independent Living (CILs) to use for some consumer surveying and perhaps get some data we need now, with a more relaxed time line for the RFP?

It was clarified that the RFP’s purpose is to gather proposals. It is not a contract. The RFP allows information about approaches certain things to be gathered, and then a contract would be negotiated.

The new option would perhaps use some data-gathering software Greg Sublett is aware of, with guidance received from ORBIS to help form some survey questions for now.

Discussion:

·  Would completion of the RFP get pushed off until 2019? The idea was to keep working on the RFP, knowing the work would not be completed until after September, 2018. The RFP presented by the Work Group to this body was completed first, as one option, so the date was not changed. After doing that work, the Work Group developed the new concept as a secondary option. It needs to be clear, after discussion, whether the decision will be to table the form of the RFP presented today and move in a different direction.

·  Sherrin preferred the new option.

·  Kirt had questions regarding things he heard about running out of time and money for needs assessment. If that is accurate, how did things break down? It was clarified that there is not a lack of money. There is less urgency to spend a large amount of money by September, 2018. As far as time, it took time to get all the original deliverables from ORBIS, and then the amount of time needed for work toward an additional contract was not known. We are definitely behind.

·  Kirt wants to see processes set up so that things are not always running up against time constraints, requiring what he views as a band-aid approach. Barry acknowledged the workload and process difficulties that apply to the SPIL Committee and its work groups. Debriefing is needed on that. Perhaps not today.

·  Is this other option an extension of ORBIS’s recommendations? Yes, it uses recommendations from ORBIS.

·  Was there any formal SPIL Committee action on the RFP that would need to be rescinded? Staff did not believe there was any formal RFP language adopted. The initial language presented was just given to the Development Work Group to rework and bring back. Jack has no objection to moving forward with the new recommendation, but asked for a poll of the members about that. To update Greg, who joined the meeting at this point, Barry provided the following summary of where things stand:

o  Original RFP was reviewed.

o  There is less of a spend down emergency for September.

o  The Development Work Group provided an additional option to move forward with getting some equipment to do surveys over time, review partner data collected from senior and people with disabilities to inform the new SPIL and potentially inform the RFP likely to be rolled out in the summer and completed in 2019 as a first step toward a future SPIL.

Poll responses as to whether there was agreement about not having to rescind any previous action on the RFP included the following. Tony, Sherrin, Curtis, Greg, Tanya, and Sheila agreed. Kirt Toombs did not agree with the process.

·  Barry is open to the possibility of moving forward if there is a clear plan and timeline for obtaining the other information. He doesn’t necessarily feel the RFP would undermine the current SPIL Development process, and that if data could be gathered by September it might still be able to be used in the upcoming SPIL.

·  Jack supported the new proposal, but suggested the RFP not be walked away from.

o  The RFP needs to be referred on to a process that will take care of it, so there isn’t need for a re-write in 6-9 months.

o  The new option should not supplant the RFP process and should remain a tight and focused stop gap to address funding issues and significant gaps in available data.

o  There is a concern about yielding too much authority for the SPIL’s formation.

·  Kirt agreed with Jack. [Administrative Note: Jack Howard left for another meeting.]

·  Barry asked if there were downsides to having two parallel processes, the RFP as well as the new proposal, since there is no commitment to sign a contract with a September 30, 2018 deadline.

o  Curtis sees this as trying to set up a cycle and process for the future, with a needs assessment in year one of a SPIL, and an intermediate process to get more information from listening sessions, when needed.

o  Kirt’s understanding is that this means listening sessions would not be held to inform the upcoming SPIL, and he doesn’t agree with that.

o  Sherrin questioned why listening sessions could not be done, as well as using tablets to collect information. Barry explained that the issue is only not having time to do the sessions using the best practice methods suggested by ORBIS, and guided by a contractor.

·  Is it reasonable to do listening sessions without the upgraded process?

o  Sheila was concerned about limiting the number of listening sessions, according to the proposal, and what was done for the last SPIL.

·  Barry asked if reviewing partner data, a short-term survey on the tablets/iPads, and possibly two or three self-run listening sessions would be sufficient to move forward for current SPIL Development, with the RFP focused on informing the next SPIL after this? Thoughts about this and what would make it more sufficient included:

o  Greg finds it sufficient and wants to move forward.

o  Tanya wants to be respectful of the Development Work Group’s efforts and the working knowledge they have from doing a deep dive, and would suggest moving forward with its recommendations.

o  Tony is comfortable with it, including two or three listening sessions, following the suggestions ORBIS has already provided. He is willing to volunteer time to help gather information from consumers. [Administrative Note: The connection to Kirt Toombs was lost at this point.]

o  Sheila said yes, in the interest of time and moving forward. [Administrative Note: Several others lost connection at this point, and all reconnected. It was verified that all were back on the call.]

o  Sherrin supports what is being discussed, and suggested recording listening sessions. She is willing to help with them and the consumer survey.

o  Curtis is good with this, except the part around listening sessions. He feels jumping to listening sessions is not taking the advice received from ORBIS. He feels information gaps may be able to be filled through the partner data and surveys.

·  Barry noted that there has been conversation about the project filling gaps. Do we know what those gaps are?

o  Curtis believes filling gaps can be a process of asking questions, then drilling down for more. He also clarified that doing limited listening sessions each period was the recommendation of ORBIS to get full statewide information, but doing parts of it in each SPIL period. There hasn’t been opportunity to learn from ORBIS’s suggestions about doing focus groups before listening sessions. He feels it is important to get that information.

·  Kirt acknowledged being okay with moving forward, including valuing listening sessions or focus groups to get input from people with disabilities (both served and unserved by CILs). He feels there just needs to be acknowledgement that it is not a scientific process. He wants to see things move toward a scientific approach, but doesn’t want to hold things up now. He is concerned about the use of a variety of surveys from different groups. When he spoke to a researcher, they said that process is flawed as a scientific process, though that was one person’s opinion.

·  Sheila is not opposed to following what ORBIS suggested, but was just thinking about losing the longitudinal data gained from returning to the same areas. She is concerned about hearing different information about whether there is a critical need to spend a large or small amount of funds.

[Administrative Note: There was another brief phone service interruption and verification that all were reconnected.]

ACTION: Motion by Coleman, second by Raines, to implement a parallel process that includes 1) conducting a short-term survey project (referring to Development Work Group’s Needs Assessment Proposal), 2) while at the same time, continuing to work on the Request for Proposal for the new SPIL development, without condition of it being completed by September 2018. In favor: Sublett, DeHart, Ellis, Coleman and Raines. Opposed: Toombs. Abstaining: Fox-Quamme and Thomas. With 5 of 8 in favor, the motion carried.

3.  Adjourned.

Draft SC Minutes - Page 5 of 5