STATEMENT OF ISSUE
On December 4, 2007, the City Commission approved an agenda item entitled “Appointment of members to the Community Human Service Partnership Joint Planning Board,” which resulted in the reactivation of the board and the appointment of a commissioner and senior-level staff person. The JPB initially adopted the bylaws on July 23, 2008; subsequently, the bylaws were approved for amendment on November 7, 2008. The bylaws provide a formal record of the structure, function, and purpose of the JPB; this formal record will aid in formalizing the partnership and ensuring consistency in the overall governance of the Community Human Service Partnership. This governance role is particularly important as the system undergoes a comprehensive process evaluation and community needs analysis.
Although the attached bylaws were approved based on a majority vote, it is important to note that representatives of the United Way of the Big Bend voted against the recommendation and recommended another option. Their recommendation includes the following: reduce the JPB to three members, with one member representing each funding partner, and vote utilizing a consensus model. This recommendation specifically relates to sections B and F of the bylaws regarding board composition, terms and parliamentary procedures.
The purpose of this item is to provide an opportunity for the Commission to discuss the available options presented and provide staff with further direction. On January 29, the Leon County Commission will also address this matter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Discuss the available options and provide staff with further direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
Thomas H. Lewis, Economic & Community Development
Anita Favors Thompson, City Manager
For information, please contact: Human Services/Pat Holliday, Department of Economic and Community Development, 891-6524
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL/ISSUE ANALYSIS
HISTORY/FACTS & ISSUES
The Community Human Service Partnership (CHSP) is a 13-year collaborative grant distribution process between the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, and the United Way of the Big Bend. The overall purpose of the partnership is to provide a more efficient and effective method for allocating human services grant funds. This community driven approach to fund human services was approved in concept at a special joint City and County Commission meeting held on November 15, 1995; whereby a subcommittee was established in an effort to make the concept operational. At a subsequent special joint Commission session conducted on January 28, 1997, the Commission formally approved the adoption of the process and transition year procedures, which included policies and procedures for the partnership. A literature review of the organizing documents reveals it was those policies and procedures that established the JPB and defined its purpose and function.
The original membership of the JPB consisted of two representatives from each funding source, totaling six members. During this period of operation, Leon County and the City appointed a commissioner and a senior staff person to serve on the board. On December 4, 2007, the Joint Planning Board was reactivated after several years of dormancy. During this period, the CHSP staff continued to operate and mange the process. Through the JPB, with assistance from the City Attorney’s Office, the funding partners have met on several occasions to draft the bylaws being presented to the Commission for further consideration. The bylaws include adding an additional member, a community representative, to serve on the Joint Planning Board, thereby, increasing the membership to seven. Furthermore, the bylaws contain the following specification: “Nothing in this document shall infringe upon the existing rights of the three parties.” This particular clause was included to protect the autonomy of each funding partner, recognizing that each partner has to adhere to its respective governing body. Furthermore, the bylaws note that the board members are responsible for obtaining endorsements of the goals, objectives, and recommendations set forth by the Joint Planning Board. On November 7, 2008, the bylaws were amended and approved by a majority vote; however, it is important to note that representatives of the United Way of the Big Bend voted against the recommendation.
According to the CHSP organizing documents, the JPB serves as the governing body of the CHSP. This body is also responsible for establishing funding priorities based on needs assessment data; defining any limits or constraints on funding; determining initial funding allocations for the human services funding categories; and assigning joint staff. The Joint Planning Board also adopted the following goal statement and objectives:
The goal of the CHSP fund distribution process is to review agencies' capabilities, performance and match requests for program funding to community needs, then distribute the available funds in a manner that assures a balanced, effective, and efficient human services delivery system.
Objectives adopted by the Joint Planning Board are as follows:
1. To assure that a majority of CHSP funds are allocated to the lowest socio-economic areas where the most difficult social conditions exist.
2. Through the Citizens Review Teams, the partnership will assure that 100% of the funds are allocated towards the areas of greatest need and opportunity.
3. To support and maintain the optimal level of human services possible with the amount of resources available.
4. To provide a service delivery system that best matches identified community needs.
5. To focus spending of CHSP funds toward a long-range perspective, which incorporates changing needs and trends relative to how needs should be met.
6. To provide a means for an ongoing review of the program and the financial needs of agencies participating in the CHSP process through program monitoring.
7. To provide a method for measuring the cost and effectiveness of programs addressing multiple community needs.
8. To use CHSP money to complement and supplement the agencies' budgets for the provision of comprehensive services, including all tax-supported and voluntary agency activities.
9. To ensure that funds are distributed to human service agencies without unnecessarily duplicating program funding at the expense of others.
10. To eliminate duplicate preparation of applications and reviews/interviews by agencies.
11. To maximize the level of state and federal funds coming into the community through match opportunities.
12. To provide a forum for information sharing and an opportunity to find common ground in defining terms, goals and objectives.
13. To ensure that CHSP funded agencies adhere to American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Standard of Accounting for Non-Profits.
The newly reconstituted Joint Planning Board has been meeting regularly, working diligently to develop bylaws, finalizing the process evaluation and the needs analysis study, and addressing other pertinent business matters and issues currently impacting the CHSP process. This body directly coordinates its efforts with the Health and Human Services Target Issue Committee, which set forth the recommendation to reestablish the JPB after recognizing that there were several policy-related matters that needed to be addressed by a CHSP governance body. For example, the CHSP agency eligibility criteria are now being reexamined; and once the study is completed, the results will directly impact how the CHSP process will be implemented.
To that end, the JPB has developed and adopted bylaws that will help to provide a formal record of the structure, function, and purpose of the JPB. This formal record will aid in formalizing the partnership and ensuring consistency in the overall governance of the CHSP. The JPB initially adopted these bylaws at a regular meeting on July 23, 2008; subsequently, they were approved for amendment at the November 7, 2008 meeting. However, as required, prior to finalizing the adoption of these bylaws, they are being presented to the appropriate governing bodies–the City Commission and the County Commission–for input and final approval. The following section represents a comprehensive listing of possible options.
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
N/A
OPTIONS
1. Approve the attached bylaws of the Community Human Service Partnership Joint Planning Board
PROS:
• Provides a formal record of the structure, function, and purpose of the JPB
• Aids in the formalization of the CHSP partnership
• Insures consistency in the overall governance of the CHSP
• Provides a formal process for analyzing and recommending policy
• Facilitates public input
• Current structure endorsed by the communityCONS:
• Adopted by majority vote, but not by all funding partners
2. Do not approve the attached bylaws of the Community Human Service Partnership Joint Planning Board
PROS:
• Provides an opportunity for the partnership to develop bylaws that are in agreement with the full partnershipCONS:
• Does not provide a formal record of the structure, function, and purpose of the JPB
• Does not aid in the formalization of the CHSP partnership
• Does not insure consistency in the overall governance of the CHSP
• Leadership and direction of the CHSP process will not be formalized
• Hinders the opportunity for public input
• May cause community dissension
3. Modify the bylaws to include the United Way’s recommendation: decrease the board’s membership to three members, with one member from each funding partner, and utilize a consensus voting methodology.
PROS:
• May promote partnership cohesiveness
• Satisfies the recommendation of the United Way’s Board of Directors
• Maintains the representation of each funding partner
CONS:
• Eliminates representation of the United Partners for Human Services (UPHS) on the board.
• Limits community participation
• Minimizes human services and other types of expertise on the board
• Utilizing the consensus voting methodology may challenge the system’s ability to make significant progress
4. Modify the membership of the Joint Planning Board as follows: Maintain the current
membership of seven, with 3 of the 7 seven members maintaining voting rights, while the other 4 members serve as nonvoting members. The 3 voting members would represent each of the funding partners.
PROS:
• Maintains the diversity of the boardCONS:
• Loss of voting members
5. Terminate the Joint Planning Board and allow CHSP staff to continue to manage the
process.
PROS:
• Staff has more flexibility to implement the grant-funding process
• Staff has a long history of administering the process without such guidanceCONS:
• Eliminates an oversight, governance board for the overall CHSP process
• Reduces the opportunity for community input
• Does not provide a system for addressing CHSP related concerns, including long-
range planning or special projects; for example, coordinating efforts to conduct the needs assessment and process evaluation
• Inability for the system to actualize the goals and objectives identified by the
partnership
ATTACHMENTS/REFERENCES