November 18, 2011 To:
Ryan White Planning Council
From:
Ed Uehling
Re: revisions.
Agenda Item #2b: Stakeholder meetings for Planning Council by-law
Last night I received copies of the responses by the grantee to a pair of grievances filed by Jeffery Hames (attached). Ironically, the source of information for making at least one of the decisions was Jennifer Morss. Given the long list of misrepresentations* and the abuse of the Ryan White Planning Council policies and procedures by its former co-chair, Jennifer Morss**, it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to rely on the word of this person—i.e., assuming that one is pursuing objective research and decision making. To be clear, this memo is not intended to dispute the letters or the investigative process. There are other forums to deal with these issues. I do, however, point to the letters for their reflection of how the by-laws of RWPC contribute to a fundamental misunderstanding of the intended relationship between RWPC and the Grantee. The RWPC is a legislative body, which sets policy and priorities; the Grantee has the responsibility of executing the decisions of the RWPC. Therefore, the Grantee has no business serving as the Co-Chair of the RWPC and members of the RWPC have no business trying, as AFAN did during the time Ms. Morss served as co-chair of RWPC***, to influence actual funding decisions. Funding decisions are the exclusive province of the Grantee and any member of RWPC who undermines this process should, like Ms. Morss, be removed from RWPC. While the actions and justifications of Morss and AFAN Board President Patricia Saavedra (** and ***) extend far beyond the limited scope of how the current RWPC bylaws encourage the unhealthy and illegal mixing of Grantee and RWPC authority, they highlight the urgency for amending the by-laws so that: 1.
2.
The Grantee shall only serve as co-chair of RWPC during the extreme (and hopefully very limited) times when no one else on the RWPC is willing to serve as co-chair. I also think that the Grantee should be prohibited from sitting on the RWPC (except in the above extreme circumstance) and certainly, under no circumstances should be given a vote. All members of RWPC (including the Grantee when serving as above on the RWPC) must state ALL of their possible conflicts of interest before all meetings (or immediately during the meeting if they should become aware of a conflict of which they were previously unaware). The conflicts must be noted in the minutes. If any member fails to disclose completely his (her) conflicts and/or refrain from voting or commenting on items impacted by the conflict, it shall be called to his (her) attention and the
3.
4.
third such incident must result in the dismissal of this member from RWPC. No RWPC member shall attempt to influence the Grantee’s decision making process about funding, except in the presence of representatives of ALL other agencies who could possibly be interested in that funding. The Grantee shall report all improper contacts. Any funding resulting from an improper contact shall be repaid by the agency receiving it, before that agency become eligible to receive any additional monies from the Grantee. The Grantee should be required to RWPC to issue more frequent RFP’s so that funding can be adapted naturally to current agency realities.
The letters to Hames by themselves point to the need for more involvement of Ryan White’s target population in RWPC processes. Therefore, I would additionally propose reinstatement of the original mandate imposed by the founder of the Las Vegas RWPC: that it have at least one co-chair who self-identifies as HIV+/AIDS as long as a person fitting this description is willing to serve. •
I can provide this list for those unaware of Ms. Morss’ history and MO.
** Her manipulation of the RWPC was dramatically confirmed and affirmed by AFAN Board President and spokesperson, Patricia Saavedra, at the AFAN-sponsored September 8 “town hall” meeting on the premises Community Counseling Center. This meeting was preceded by a call by AFAN to meet on August 25, but no one appeared, except for the four AFAN executive board members and a flock of crickets (you have to see the video on the internet to believe it; no one can make up these things!). Ms. Morss attracted about 25 people to the September 8 meeting by changing the venue (to Community Counseling Center), contracting with a third party (QVegas Magazine) to handle the videography and “guaranteeing” (through QVegas) that a complete video of the meeting would be posted immediately on the internet. Within hours after the video was posted, AFAN demanded its removal and took the video from QVegas before hiding or destroying it (in violation of the understanding of the participants). ***Ms. Saavedra not only defended Ms. Morss’ absolute right to influence Grantee allocations, but she stated that AFAN had the right to publish confidential and derogatory information “AND DO ANYTHING ELSE IN ITS CAPACITY” to punish the individuals, who “interfered with AFAN’s grant monies by testifying against the appointment of Jennifer Morss to the RWPC”!!!