Planning Meeting for an Eastern Monadnock Regional Coordinating Council MINUTES. February 11, 2010

Transcription

1 Planning Meeting for an Eastern Monadnock Regional Coordinating Council MINUTES February 11, 2010 Present: Ellen Avery, Monadnock United Way; Joanne Carr, Town of Jaffrey; Deb Clark, Monadnock Developmental Services (MDS); Ken Geraghty, Contoocook Valley Transportation Company (CVTC); Rebecca Harris, CVTC; Ken Hazeltine, Granite State Independent Living; Patrick Herlihy, NH Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); Owen Houghton, Monadnock at Home; Jack Nailor, Merit Care Transportation Service LLC; Chip O Brien, Thomas Transportation Services Inc.; Bob Perry, American Red Cross - NH West Chapter; Gail Robinson, CVTC; Missy Taylor, CVTC; Gary Welch, American Red Cross - NH West Chapter SWRPC Staff Present: J.B. Mack, Senior Planner; Tara Germond, Assistant Planner I. Welcome and Introductions J.B. Mack called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. and introductions were made. II. Minutes of January 21, 2010 The minutes of January 21, 2010 were approved by unanimous vote. III. Updates Patrick Herlihy provided an update on the progress of the State Coordinating Council for Community Transportation (SCC), which convened on February 4, Attending this meeting was Will Rodman, the new mobility manager for the SCC. Mr. Rodman will be assisting Regional Coordinating Councils (RCCs) in their effort to become officially recognized and will help establish pilot programs in regions operating without a RCC. A letter will be sent to each region introducing Mr. Rodman and his role at the state and regional level. Also at this meeting, the SCC approved the establishment of ACT (Alliance for Community Transportation), which is the composed of 38 towns and cities in the seacoast region. There are now 5 approved RCCs in NH. Mr. Herlihy gave an update on relevant legislation. The State Committee on Committees, which was established with House Bill 2, has been examining all State Committees to identify which should be reinstated, which should be repealed, and which should be put on hold for further consideration. Initially, the SCC had been placed on the hold list. However, after a public hearing on February 1, 2010, the SCC was moved onto the reinstate list. The SCC hopes that this amendment will be approved. Senate Bill 321 is another important piece of legislation for the SCC and RCCs. S.B. 321, which is still in committee, legally establishes RCCs and will give members immunity from liability. Mr. Herlihy also noted that during Kit Morgan s January 21 discussion about 5310 funding becoming available for RCCs, the original deadline of March looks like it will be pushed further back. An announcement and deadline date for these applications has yet to be decided. However, the NH

2 Department of Transportation s (DOT) will be hosting a workshop on different rail and transit funding programs on February 22, 2010 at NH DOT from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. a. Eastern Monadnock RCC Stakeholders and Application Subcommittee J.B. Mack provided an update on the two subcommittees established at the last meeting. Of the stakeholder subcommittee, Ellen Avery and Bob Perry were able to contact a list of primary stakeholders developed by Tara Germond to solicit their support and to have them sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). J.B. Mack noted that the document review subcommittee reviewed the existing governing documents, edited them, and developed a draft work plan. He asked the group to offer any suggestions for changes or comments. J. B. Mack reminded the group that a goal of today s meeting would be to vote on whether to approve these documents for the Eastern Monadnock Regional Coordinating Council (EMRCC) application to the SCC. IV. Eastern Monadnock RCC Application a. Memorandum of Understanding Ellen Avery questioned whether the signing of a MOU needed to be voted on by an organization s board of directors. Missy Taylor, whom the question was primarily directed to due to her legal background, stated that she thinks a board must vote on this action. Ken Hazeltine noted that Granite State Independent Living (GSIL) has examined this issue and determined that a board vote was not required for GSIL as their board has granted the CEO the authority to sign certain contracts and documents. He suggested that organizations refer to their bylaws before signing a MOU. Ellen Avery asked Ken Hazeltine if GSIL would share this section of its bylaws with the committee. Missy Taylor added that individuals should consider seeking board approval before signing. Owen Houghton mentioned that the Monadnock at Home board of directors granted him the authority to sign a MOU with the condition that he attends the meetings. Ken Geraghty stated that some agencies or organizations may be hesitant to sign an MOU until SB 321 is passed. J.B. Mack responded that the principal concern about RCC member liability has been associated with decisions revolving around the SCC selecting brokers for the Region. Since we are not at that point anywhere in the State, and we are essentially continuing discussion on coordination opportunities, liability should not be a concern for anyone. The process of having stakeholders sign a MOU is a step towards formally organizing our group to develop consensus on coordination issues. J.B. Mack noted that some stakeholders, both existing and potential, have raised questions about the level of involvement required of an organization by signing a MOU. The Grapevine, which is a community resource center in Antrim that services surrounding towns, is interested in supporting the effort but is hesitant to sign a MOU. Kristin Vance, the Grapevine s executive director, is concerned that their small staff and limited budget would prevent them from fully participating in the process. They have asked if there is an alternative type of membership to show support. J.B. Mack raised Ms. Vance s question to the group, reiterating that each RCC has the flexibility to define its own membership structure. Rebecca Harris commented that the committee is asking for a minimal amount of effort from RCC members. If an organization is unable to attend meetings, they should have the option of staying informed via a mailing list. These ancillary members could be identified as Friends of the EMRCC. Ken Hazeltine stated that the SCC allows non-scc members to be involved as non-voting participants of SCC subcommittees. After reviewing the draft Bylaws, it was determined that they allow for non-voting members to participate in meetings.

3 Ellen Avery suggested that the Grapevine sign a document recognizing their role as a nonvoting member. J.B. Mack asked Ms. Avery if she would make a motion for the committee to create a form, separate from a MOU, for interested parties to sign. Ellen Avery responded that while she feels it is important to have people sign forms, she is more interested in developing a response to the Grapevine that indicates how they can be involved. Rebecca Harris suggested developing a separate application for groups or individuals to identify interest. She added that, hopefully, having individuals sign-on as interested parties and be in communication with the committee will lead to invested membership. Ken Hazeltine stated that in order to be eligible for federal transportation funding, an organization must be identified in a locally developed coordinated plan. He cautioned the committee that individuals or organizations that are not active members, may later say that they are tied to the RCC in order to apply for funding. He added that until the role of the RCC is better understood, it is the responsibility of the RCC to set standards for providers and establish priorities for the region. In addition, stakeholders must understand that in order to be eligible for potential funding they must be a part of the RCC process. Ken Geraghty asked whether Ms. Vance s concern is that she cannot regularly attend meetings or that she cannot attend any meetings. Bob Perry added that it may be possible for the Grapevine to designate a representative that can attend meetings on behalf of Ms. Vance. Owen Houghton stated that an organization can always resign from the RCC even after signing a MOU. J.B. Mack stated that he will get in touch with Ms. Vance and relay this discussion and resulting questions to her. To date, the following organizations have submitted signed MOUs: Merit Care Transportation Service LLC, Monadnock at Home, Monadnock United Way and Granite State Independent Living. CVTC, Thomas Transportation, and Adventure Limo will be sending their signed MOUs before the next meeting. Gary Welch stated that he believes Janet Kingsbury Warren, executive director of the American Red Cross-NH West Chapter, will sign the MOU with exceptions. She feels strongly that it is more appropriate for Jaffrey, Rindge, and Dublin to be included in RCC5. J.B. Mack stated that he had communicated with Ms. Warren about Jaffrey, Rindge and Dublin via . He described to her that the designation of these towns had been discussed at a prior meeting and that the committee came to a consensus that the towns should be included in RCC6. Representatives of the three towns that attended the meeting stated that they felt more attached to the RCC6 region. J.B. Mack also told Ms. Kingsbury- Warren that at all the meetings there has been consensus that Region 5 and 6 would be working very closely together. Ken Geraghty asked if a signed but modified MOU would still be viewed as valid by the SCC. Ken Hazeltine responded that the SCC will look at the signed MOUs as part of the RCC application; however, it is up to the RCC to determine if they will accept modified MOUs. Gary Welch asked what would happen if RCC5 decides that these three towns should be a part of RCC5. Ken Hazeltine stated that a similar situation happened in the North Country. There were six communities that two RCCs felt were important to include within their regional boundaries. In this situation, the SCC recommended that they become one RCC. Ellen Avery asked if the towns could decide their affiliation. Ken Hazeltine and Patrick Herlihy agreed that they could. Others in the group stated that the towns already decided at a past meeting. Joanne Carr stated that she has preliminary thoughts on this as a representative of Jaffrey. She is concerned that territory disputes will make it difficult for her to address this issue to the Selectmen. She questioned why the final decision should not rest with the Town of Jaffrey. Although the Town recognizes that the services provided by the American Red Cross are valuable, they also recognize the economic importance of the Route 202 corridor, which traverses Jaffrey and most of the RCC6 Region. Gary Welch stated that the American Red Cross feels that Jaffrey has as strong a connection to Keene as it does to Peterborough.

4 Ken Hazeltine stated that there is nothing preventing Jaffrey from signing a MOU with both regions. Ellen Avery added that there will be a number of stakeholders signing MOUs with both RCC5 and RCC6. Mr. Hazeltine cautioned the group to avoid letting boundary disputes deter the process of providing services and coordinating efforts. He added that adjustments can be made in the process. J.B. Mack stated that he will follow up with Ms. Warren. Ellen Avery and Owen Houghton also stated that they would contact her. Ken Geraghty suggested that the committee wait until they hear back from the American Red Cross to discuss whether the committee will accept modified MOUs. Owen Houghton stated that he has been in contact with Chris Selmer of Monadnock Family Services (MFS). Although, Ms. Selmer is very interested in the RCC, MFS is undergoing a transition that has impeded it from becoming more involved as an organization. Ms. Selmer noted that maintenance costs for MFS vehicles have been a tremendous burden. J.B. Mack mentioned that he has spoken with Susan Ashworth of Home Healthcare, Hospice, and Community Services. She is currently looking for someone who works in the Eastern Monadnock Region to sit on the committee and represent HCS. Mr. Houghton suggested adding more information on the benefits of becoming involved with the RCC in the stakeholder talking points. J.B. Mack added that the talking points should clarify that organizations can send a representative on behalf of the organization to meetings. J.B. Mack noted his concern that the group has yet to identify a citizen member. A citizen member is a requirement of the RCC application. Ken Hazeltine stated that the citizen stakeholder can be someone who represents a specific group, a user of transportation services, or someone who strictly represents the citizen population. Rebecca Harris responded that she has been speaking with Jaffrey resident Joann Martin, a user of both CVTC and American Red Cross services, about serving as a citizen stakeholder. Owen Houghton stated that he will contact individuals from the Jaffrey Seniors Group about becoming citizen members. Patrick Herlihy explained that even in the absence of a citizen member the group could still move forward with their application to the SCC. However, at the least, the application should include a strategy to identify and gain participation of a citizen member. He added that there should be no more than 3 citizen members. J. B. Mack asked for a vote on whether to approve the language in the MOU document. There was consensus that the MOU document be the one that is used for EMRCC members and submitted to the SCC as part of the EMRCC application. b. Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Policy Ken Hazeltine commented that the draft EMRCC Conflict of Interest Policy should be very specific. The NH Charitable Foundation (NHCF), in particular, requires that the conflict of interest policy of grant applicants meet a specific standard. Pat Crocker of Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission has gone through this process with Sullivan County RCC. The Sullivan County RCC conflict of interest statement meets the standard set by NHCF. J.B. Mack stated that the draft EMRCC Conflict of Interest Policy is based on the one developed by Sullivan County RCC with the exception of some minor changes. Rebecca Harris suggested eliminating the last line of subsection d.iii of section C.3.Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest of the draft EMRCC Conflict of Interest Policy that makes references to noticing the Office of Attorney General, Charitable Trusts Union. The Grafton/Coos RCC eliminated this statement from its conflict of interest policy. Rebecca Harris recommended that the aforementioned clause be removed from the Draft Conflict of Interest policy. The group approved this recommendation by unanimous vote.

5 Joanne Carr asked if the EMRCC will have the ability to receive grant monies and administer them once it adopts bylaws. Ken Hazeltine responded that RCCs will not have this ability. Eventually, the RCC will begin working with a regional broker that is selected for the Region that will receive and administer funds. He added that the RCC will remain an advisory group to the SCC and will have oversight abilities. Rebecca Harris recommended deleting section E.2. of the draft EMRCC Conflict of Interest Policy from the start of the phrase The EMRCC shall report this list to the Director of Charitable Trusts each year as part of the EMRCC charitable report to the end of the paragraph. The group approved this recommendation by unanimous vote. J.B. Mack asked the group to address Article III of the draft EMRCC Bylaws regarding membership of the EMRCC. Patrick Herlihy stated that no other RCC has voting members and that the average membership is around 10. He advised the committee to revise the draft Bylaws to state that there shall be no more than members. He added that it is the decision of the RCC to determine if there should be a minimum number of voting members. Ken Hazeltine stated that the SCC would like to see no less than 8 members. Deb Clark recommended setting a minimum of 9 members for the EMRCC. This recommendation was approved by unanimous vote, but was later rescinded after the group determined there should not be a minimum number of members. Joanne Carr recommended establishing a maximum membership by replacing no less than with no more than 21 members in this section of the Bylaws. The group approved this recommendation by unanimous vote. Rebecca Harris asked the group to review Article V.5 of the draft EMRCC Bylaws regarding the issue of Quorum. She stated that she finds the language of this article item to be confusing and suggested changing it to state A majority of the membership of the EMRCC must be physically present to constitute a quorum for conducting business. A majority of the standing committee must be physically present to constitute a quorum for conducting business. Rebecca Harris recommended that the committee accept this rephrasing. The group approved the recommendation by unanimous vote. J.B. Mack asked for a group vote on whether to accept the Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Statement as written. The majority of the group voted in favor of the Bylaws and Conflict of Interest Statement. c. Work Plan J.B. Mack stated that the EMRCC is required to submit a work plan as part of its application to the SCC. The draft work plan created by J.B. Mack and the document review subcommittee includes an introduction, the EMRCC mission and vision, and a series of bulleted tasks to be completed before the end of the calendar year. J.B. Mack reviewed each of these bullets with the committee. He asked the group to provide any comments or suggestions. J.B. Mack incorporated the group s feedback and edits into the final work plan. The following amendments were recommended: Bullet #5 Change to: Engage in dialogue with other RCCs, NH DOT and other relevant stakeholders regarding opportunities for East-West NH Route 101 and US Route 202 corridor shared ride transportation improvements and connections. Bullet #7 Change fifth sub-bullet to work plan item that begins with: Assess the current level of coordination and reach consensus on short, medium and long term coordination improvements. Coordination topics can include but are not limited to: 5 th bullet change: Bringing together disparate organizations for the greater greatest good of their clientele by promoting cooperative, coordinated transportation.

6 Rebecca Harris recommended approving the work plan as amended. The group approved the work plan by unanimous vote. d. Other Bob Perry questioned how specific the Coordinated Plan should be. Ken Hazeltine responded that as this process evolves, the State will begin requiring what the Coordinated Plan should look like but until then there is no required format. J. B. Mack stated that he has reviewed the Coordinated Plan and provided Kit Morgan from NHDOT passages that discuss volunteer driver needs for the Region. He has asked Kit Morgan to comment as to whether the passages are appropriate for applying for the RCC 5310 funds that were discussed at the January meeting. J.B. Mack stated that he will move forward and submit the EMRCC application to the SCC pending additional MOUs. Ellen Avery stated that she will continue to help collect signed MOUs. J.B. Mack will inform the committee of when he plans to submit the application. A representative from the committee will need to be present at the SCC meeting to review the application, which will most likely be in April of V. Next Meeting The next meeting will take place on March 11, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. The location is to be determined. VI. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 11:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tara Germond Assistant Planner