April 6, 2017
Page 9

RICHARD WHITLEY, MS

Director

BRIAN SANDOVAL

Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

AGING AND DISABILITY SERVICES

3416 Goni Road, Suite D-132

Carson City, NV, 89706

Telephone (775) 687-4210 · Fax (775) 687-0574

http://adsd.nv.gov

DRAFT MINUTES

Name of Organization: Nevada Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC)

Date and Time of Meeting: February 16, 2017

10:00 a.m.

This meeting will be a Video Conference between the following:

Reno: Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center

1875 Plumas St., Suite 1

Reno, NV 89509

775-333-7878

Las Vegas: Nevada Disability Advocacy and Law Center

2820 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 11

Las Vegas, NV 89102

(702) 257-8150

The meeting will be conducted by video-conference. The public may observe this meeting and provide public comment at the Reno and Las Vegas Locations. To join this meeting by phone, dial 1-888-363-4735 then enter the Access Code 1228133 when prompted.

Meeting Materials Available at: http://adsd.nv.gov/Boards/SILC/Agendas/

1.  Welcome, Roll Call and Introductions

Lisa Bonie, Chairperson

Members: Mark Tadder (acting as Chair), Scott Youngs, Dora Uchel, Christi Hines-Coates, Mary Evilsizer, Kacy Curry (Lisa Bonie and Mechelle Merrill are Excused)

Guests: Dawn Lyons, Loni Salazar, Mary Jansen

Staff: Rique Robb, Desiree Bennett, John Rosenlund

2.  Approval of Meeting Minutes from December 15, 2016 Meeting (For Possible Action)

Lisa Bonie, Chairperson

Kacy motions to approve the meeting minutes. Dora seconds the motion. Motion passes.

3.  Public Comment (Members of the public will be invited to speak, however, 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).

Mr. Jack Mayes states that since legislature is in session, he has been tracking certain bills involving disabilities. He was unable to get on the agenda for today’s meeting, but would be more than happy to come to the next meeting to give an update on bills he has been tracking in relation to disabilities. Also, Mr. Jack Mayes would like to state that he released a report that he has been working on with ACLU regarding solitary confinement within the prison system and mental illness. Mr. Mayes states that he will be working with the State and prisons to result in great changes for prisoners with mental health issues.

Ms. Mary Jansen states that she is interested in becoming a member of the SILC council. She states that she put her application in last November and still has not heard back. Mary moved to Nevada about a year ago, and has been very involved with the independent living movement in Illinois and Missouri. She worked with six different centers for independent living, has been on the board for the Coalition of Citizens Disabilities and was the Vice-Chair of the Board of Directors.

Ms. Mary Evilsizer states that she would like to make a recommendation for item #4 on the agenda. She states that she would like to ask SILC to consider having reports and presentations from current grantees. Also, Mary states that her center did a transition presentation in Laughlin, and was able to make some good connections and get some commitment from the high school teachers to work with when the SPIL town hall meetings occur. Currently, they are scheduled for three years from now, but is trying to gear up to get more participation from that area.

Ms. Amy Smith states that she is working on transportation projects for people with disabilities, specifically for the Northern Nevada Region and would like to get that information to the SILC members. Also, Amy states that she is working with NNCIL on some community outreach approaches as well as board structure and oral collaboration.

4.  Reports and Presentations from Independent Living Network Partners. What is the definition of an Independent Living Partner?

Lisa Bonie, Chairperson

Ms. Rique Robb states that this item has actually been on the agenda for the last several meetings and part of the problem is that there is not an actual definition of what the SILC members are wanting. Without that, there is no directive at this point and the SILC members need to define what an independent living partner is. Also, she would like the members to take into account what public comment stated about current grantees. Rique also states, when the SILC members were working on the SPIL, they wanted to expand that, in the sense that there are many other partners throughout the state that actually either provide independent living services, or provide additional services and resources that support someone living independently in their community.

Mr. Mark Tadder asked if there would be anything else that that would be qualified that SILC would want to consider, besides speaking at meetings and making reports, like eligibility for funding or something in that manner.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that they are not talking about the Centers For Independent Living network, they are talking about any collaborative partners they might want to engage with a program or service or activity, to move to the SPIL forward and get the word out about what they are doing. Scott states that he would think that an independent living network partner has the Independent Living philosophy, and is trained on what they are supposed to be doing, which is in somewhat of agreement with that basic philosophy.

Mr. Mark Tadder states that it wouldn't just be people who are providing services but might be advocate groups or groups like that, who organize behind the scenes, such as Pro Independent Living.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that is how he sees that and does not think it would be everyone that provides services to people with disabilities because, it should be somebody that has an understanding of the IL philosophy and has a majority involvement with people with disabilities.

Mr. John Rosenlund states perhaps what Scott is bringing up is almost describing the network of centers. John states that you don't have to be federally funded to be a Center for Independent Living, but you have to meet the criteria of being the independent living philosophy and having a board that is consumer controlled, which does seem as if you are talking about two different groups. The network of people providing disability services that may not have the philosophy, but have a different mission providing some type of disability service, and then you also have the network that's driving the philosophy as well. So, the question is: What is your network of centers, and who fits into that pod with the Independent Living network?

Ms. Rique Robb states that there is also the philosophy piece of it and SILC did request an ongoing report from the Centers For Independent Living, which will be separate from the network. When thinking of grantees, there is Community Care Chest and Easter Seals of Nevada, who are actually providing the Independent Living program statewide. They are part of that network, but it is bigger than just the grantee piece of it. They are filling a roll in one of the objectives to provide a specific service versus the entire plan.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that CIL network would be responsible for ensuring that, or getting the word out about IL philosophy, which would somehow be intertwined with a partnership with other community members. The SILC could actually go out and do this training with a partner, or the center could do it. The basic thing is that SILC needs to make sure that who they partner with understands the IL philosophy. If there is specific language in the law that says what an independent living network partner is versus what a CIL network is. There is ILRU training for board members and training for partnerships, etc. Scott states that there is a course starting on the 20th of February on IL, which is $100.00 and believes it is important. SILC needs to know what they are doing, so that they can tell other people what they are about and how it all flows together. In order for people to understand how independent living services are delivered statewide, which connects with a lot of different programs and partnerships.

Ms. Rique Robb states that one of the things that came out of the SPIL is that Centers For Independent Living is not directly funded with the SILC, but they are responsible as a CIL to report to the SILC. Therefore; it is not just the SILC going and getting their information out of the 704 report, it is them actually reporting to the SILC and collaboratively making sure that those partnerships are spidering out statewide. It seems as if they have worked more as separate entities versus collaborative partners. Training is going to be an ongoing conversation with all of the SILC members which is something that is important to put money aside for in SPIL. When trainings are being brought up, it is really the SILC members responsibility to research and find out what they define as the need. SILC can bring that to staff and staff will make sure what training is available and SILC can discuss the budgeting.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that there has to be some language in the law or direction from the ILRU that says what the definitions are and feels that those definitions are included in a training, which the members of SILC have been discussing for quite some time.

Ms. Rique Robb states that an online training was done and there were only a couple of members who completed the training, and there has not been a real big drive for membership on actually completing.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that an IL network as defined in the law are the centers in your state, but what SILC is talking about is the other people that they collaborate with that don't need meet that federal definition.

Mr. John Rosenlund states that is what was discussed in the development of the SPIL. There is your network of centers and then there's your network ofindependent living network partners and the discussion was that there is two different bodies. One could be an organization that doesn't meet those criteria.

Mr. Mark Tadder states that the partners would be adjacent, such as, entities that either provide services for independent living who also believe in independent living philosophy or advocacy groups that encourage and promote that who are not the centers.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that he would propose members to take training for Boards of Directors in Independent Living, which starts February20th, 2017, and ends March10th, 2017. Scott states that it should be fully accessible and usable by all of the members who have visual impairments. Scott believes it will fulfill some of the other goals and objectives and put the board in a better position to understand what is going on.

Ms. Kacy Curry states that she would like to make a motion to get training for ILRU. Kacy states that she has done some roles and responsibility training and there is more training coming up. Kacy would also like to make a motion that we finance the board for SILC members to have this training.

Dora seconds the motion.

Ms. Rique Robb states that she has discussion. Rique states that one of the things to keep in mind is today’s date, which is February16th, and the training starts February20th, which is a really quick turnaround to ask the State to be able to be registered and have the registration paid for by the 20th, which is a State holiday. That leaves one business day. Rique recommends to amend or remove the motion and change it to talk about how each board member would review the trainings on ILRU, to choose at least one, based on funding, and make sure that staff is aware of what that one is and to go through the process to sign up.

Mr. John Rosenlund states that SILC needs to make that decision and ask, “What's your priority? Is everybody going to learn the same thing?” Everybody does need to be on the same page, or at least get in the same SILC book.

Ms. Kacy Curry states that she would like to amend her motion that each of the board members subsequently go on to the ILRU and register to find one or more of the trainings. Kacy states that she would like each member to be trained by the next meeting and also asks that at the next meeting there is a report from each of the members on what ILRU training has been done.

Ms. Rique Robb states that there is not an agenda item devoted on training and would like SILC members to clarify that prior to being able to define the network partners definition, training is needed.

Ms. Kacy Curry states that the definition should be an entity that advocates or stipulates the IL philosophy and provides for the disability communities of Nevada.

Mr. Mark Tadder asked if the definition provides services or just advocates or provides services and advocates, but also supports the philosophy.

Mr. Scott Youngs states that the whole point of this discussion is to make sure that as members, SILC knows who they are reaching out to and who they want to partner with. The discussion through the SPIL process was to make sure that SILC engages in a service or an activity with a partner, they know the independent living philosophy, they are consumer controlled, and they agree with all the basics that an independent living partner would have.