City Non-Profit Contracting Task Force
April 16, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Corrected
Minutes
(Corrections, consisting ofadditions noted in bold type and underlined, and deletions noted in bold typewith strikethroughs.)
Present:
Representing Non-Profit Community:
Jim Illig, Project Open Hand
Salvador Menjivar, Hamilton Family Center
Tony Michelini, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco
Tiffany Mock-Goeman, Continuum
Sandy Mori, Kimochi, Inc.
Judith Stevenson, Baker Places, Inc. (representing Nancy Rubin, Edgewood Center)
Representing City Departments:
Judith Blackwell, Office of Contract Administration
Gene Coleman, Mayor's Office of Community Development
Dave Curto, Human Services
Winna Davis, Dept. of Children, Youth, & Their Families
John Haskell, Controller's Office (representing Ed Harrington)
Galen Leung (representing Anne Okubo, Dept. of Public Health)
David Newcomer (representing Larry Ross, Dept. of Aging and Adult Services)
Others: Staff:
Sybil Boutillier, Public Library Bob Davis, Dept. of Admin. Services
Debbi Lerman, S.F. Human Services Network Henny Lee, Dept .of Admin. Services Carmen LeFranc, Controller's Office
Michelle Long Dixon, Dept of Public Health
Bruce Rice, Huckleberry Youths
Rich Waller, Office of Contract Administration
Mike Ward, Office of Contract Administration
Winnie Xie, Dept. on the Status of Women
Co-Chair Judith Blackwell called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m.
Consent Calendar
Motioned, seconded, and approved as amended the April 9 Meeting Minutes - see attached
Co-Chair Judith Blackwell reported that there is pending legislation being heard at the Finance Committee today requiring departments to seek approval from the Board of Supervisors before applying for grants. Ms. Blackwell suggested that any non-profit representatives with opinions on this matter should make it known to the Finance Committee.
Ms. Blackwell led a discussion on the end product of the task force when it sunsets. The task force's report to the Board of Supervisors dated September 27, 2002 requested an additional six months to continue on the issues and to develop an implementation plan for their proposed recommendations. The task force should seek consensus on the plan's format, contents and methodology. Completing this task will then frame the discussions and actions for the ten remaining meetings.
It was suggested that the plan should identify any fiscal savings, while being cognizant of the difficulties of applying standards across departments and agencies, eliminate duplication, and in the form of recommendations to departments. It was also suggested, for consistency, that the implementation plan should identify specific implementation objectives and/or methods for each of the recommendations previously made in the September 27, 2002 report.
Ms Blackwell indicated that this topic would be calendared for the next meeting - see April 26 Meeting Agenda Item 5.1.
Discussion & Possible Action Items:
Agenda Item 5.3, Recommendation #11 Whenever possible, coordinate one joint program monitoring visit per year per contract by a lead City department. Departments will provide timely written notice of 14 days as well as a timely written report back within 30 days, if possible, but not beyond 90 days. Fiscal site visits should utilize other City department visits within a twelve-month period.
- Motioned, seconded and approved that the each of the departmental representative will provide the following information to the task force for discussion - see April 26 Meeting Agenda Item 5.2:
· Number of full time city employees engaged in fiscal and program monitoring
· Number of professional services contracts with non-profits
· Number of non-profit contractors with professional service contracts
- Joint monitoring across divisions within a department, and across departments should take place where there are multiple contracts and/or similar contracts within the same category of services with one contractor.
- Fiscal vs. Program monitoring: Program monitoring is more difficult to define because of variations of services provided, e.g.; meal served at sites versus meals delivered to the clients' residences.
- Lead monitoring entity to perform one single visit to contractor with multiple contracts with various departments for the same program and location(s).
- At the request of the departments represented, lead monitoring entity will bring personnel and/or checklists specific to each department on the site visit.
- Contractor should provide information to the lead monitoring entity where the same program being provided is funded by multiple departments and a candidate for joint monitoring.
- Incorporate into program reports written by departments the dates when the site visits were noticed, conducted and reported.
- If the program report is not completed within the specified timeframe noted above, then the department conducting the site visit shall issue a notice indicating that the program report was not completed as scheduled.
- Criteria for selection of lead monitoring entity - to be continued, see April 26 Meeting Agenda Item 5.2.
Agenda Item 6, Agenda Items for April 23 Meeting
Motioned, Seconded and Approved April 23 Meeting Agenda - see attached
Public Comment
Public comments were solicited at the end of each discussion topic and before the start of the next agenda item.
The Public Library representative indicated that with reference to joint monitoring, Agenda Item 5, Recommendation #11, some sites may have diverse and different programs which may not lend it- self to joint site monitoring. The task force should factor in flexibility in their discussions individual versus joint monitoring to ensure that joint monitoring does not adversely impact the requirements for site visits oversight of very different program types operating at a single site.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 P.M.
Attachments:
A. Corrected April 9 Meeting Minutes
