Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority Meeting

11/15/01
          11/1501
          11/15/01
               -----Test Area-----
               MR. PAGE:  ,.
               MR. MALONE:  ,.
               MR. YOUNKER:  ,.
               MS. ROBINSON:  ,.
               MR. JESSEE:  ,.
               MR. HERMAN:  ,.
               MS. SORENSEN:  ,.
               MS. RIDER:  ,.
               Fellow Alaskans:  When foundations, 
government, communities and advocatings pool their 
efforts as partners, the result can be great 
improvements for people who need help.  The Trustees 
regard the Trust as a catalyst for forging partnerships 
to focus on Alaska's mental health issues.
               Foundations such as the Trust typically 
give funds to charitable causes to assist grantees in 
stemming the tide of social disorders.
               MS. CULPEPPER:  .  I'm back in 
stemming the tide of social disorders.  
Foundations are rarely involved in public policy, 
but they can be.  The Trust has chance send the 
traditional foundation role to create a new model 
in which Jay Lieferby.
               As I'm writing it's coming up just 
fine.
               I know they said they were going to 
be testing it Ken Ken CAT sum I Ken a stone, CAT sum 
I Ken a stone.
               MS. KENASTON:  Gery, gery, gery, 
gery moa hat, moa hat, moa hat, mow mow.  Jill, Ramsey, ram ram
               MR. PLANCHON:  , frank frank Frank 
Frank.
               MS. McCORMICK:  .
               MS. LABELLE:  ,.
               MR. HAWKINS:  
               ------Test Area------
               ------End Test Area-----
               MS. ROBINSON:  on is going to chair 
the meeting this morning, Bill.
               MR. PUGH:  It's my understanding 
that Nelson is unable to attend either personally 
or by teleconference.
               Why don't we go ahead and get 
started.  I call the budget committee meeting to 
order.
               Are there any announcements, Bill or 
Jeff in terms of the one et committee meeting?
               MR. HERMAN:  None from this end.
               MR. JESSEE:  The only announcement 
I'll make, Nelson sends his regreets, he had a 
settlement conference that ran over.  And he was 
not able to join us today.
               MR. PUGH:  Okay.  Let's take up the 
minutes next, approval of the September 26th 
minutes.  They're in your package.  Those of you 
who were attending.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I'll move the 
minutes of September 26th.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Second.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I don't think you 
can.
               John Malone probably ought to second.
               MR. MALONE:  I shall second.
               MR. PUGH:  Any corrections to the 
minutes?
               Hearing none.  Any objection to 
approval of the minutes.
               Hearing none.  They are adopted.
               Any changes to the agenda, Bill, 
Jeff.
               MR. HERMAN:  The only thing I want 
to remind you about is I believe there's a budget 
committee report at the end somewhere in here that 
talks about the previous meeting.  When we get to 
the budget committee report don't forget to also 
mention the actions that occurred on September 
26th.
               MR. PUGH:  That report is at the 
end of tab 4, right before tab 5, if people want 
to pull it out or look at it.
               MR. HERMAN:  That may not be 
necessary now.  I wanted to alert you, John, about 
it.
               There's an action item there.  A 
couple action items.
               MR. PUGH:  Good enough.
               Let's take the first agenda item FY02 
changes of intent, agenda items.
               Bill, you want to go through this 
real quickly.
               The letters are attached.  If you 
haven't read the letters, they're in the packet 
about change of intent that starts right after the 
minutes.
               MR. HERMAN:  Kate Webster is on 
line and Jay C. Bush too.
               Kay Webster is the planner at the 
mental health planner.
               A SPEAKER:  I staff the budget 
committee.
               MR. HERMAN:  The firs item here is 
with the project 0354 that we funded at 15,000 
esme tar for FY02, basically they want to change 
the intent of the public awareness intent.
               Kate, you want to speak to this.  
Kate Katy believe this would be Richard -- is 
Richard there.
               MR. JESSEE:  Richard is here, 
hiding in the corner here.
               MR. PUGH:  Thoilts of you on the 
audio conference, there's a request for you to 
speak up a little louder.
               We'll turn the volume up here.
               Be sure and say your name too.
               MR. HERMAN:  All right.
               Richard?
               MR. RAINERY:  Thank you, John.
               Richard rain riel, executive director 
Alaska Mental Health Board.  You have in your packet 
the letter dated October 29th from myself to nelson 
Page, budget committee chair outlining the reason 
behind our request for this change of intent.  Just 
briefly, this FY02 project was funded with 15,000 
MHTAAR by the Trust to continue an existing public 
education campaign for Mental Health Board 
beneficiaries.
               In May of this year, at the 
collaboration meeting of the bour -- the four boards 
jointly decided that a coordinated public education 
campaign was their No. 2 priority.
               At that time it immediately occurred 
to me, obviously, this is going to cost money, and 
obviously we have amoney available.
               MR. PUGH:  Are you having trouble 
hearing.
               Can we get a mic there.
               MR. HERMAN:  You have to be careful 
of papers.
               How about use this mic over here.
               That may be easier.
               Speak into the mic.
               MS. CULPEPPER:  Way up close, 
Richard.
               MR. RAINERY:  Is this better, Bill?
               MR. HERMAN:  Speak again, Richard.
               
               MR. RAINERY:  How about this?
               MR. HERMAN:  That's great.
               MR. RAINERY:  Just to quickly 
repeat what my first remarks.
               The four boards met at the 
collaboration meeting in May of this year and the 
second priority we agreed upon as a joint 
collaborative effort was coordinated public 
education, strategic communications planning, we 
calling it.
               At the time it occurred to me that 
this would obviously at some point need some 
funding.  In fact the mental Health Board added 
courtesy of the Trust added 15,000 of current MHTAAR 
seemed to me to be a good use of that money to turn 
it to the coordinated effort rather than the 
original intent which was a public education 
campaign for all the beneficiaries.
               We discussed that at the first 
meeting of the collaborative group, and the folks 
from the public relations industry who were there 
assured us that $15,000 was sufficient money to 
conduct the kind of baseline research you need to 
fill the strategic communications plan.  At that 
point I took the idea of the change of intent 
request to our board, and they approved it with the 
caveat you see there, that a public message is 
created with these funds must include messages 
specifically targeting MHB beneficiaries.
               For this money, we won't see public 
messages, we'll see the research that those messages 
will be based on in the future.
               MR. PUGH:  Any questions for 
Richard?
               MR. YOUNKER:  That was one of the 
questions, we exchanging product now, really for 
study now; is that correct, originally, the 15,000 
will include some products, some advertising?
               MR. RAINERY:  We had not yet 
settled what the 15,000 will produce.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Can you give us a 
projection of what the product is going to cost 
after this is complete and will you come back for 
the funds from MHTAAR?
               MR. RAINERY:  I don't have what the  
cost will be.  The joint planning board -- of the 
four boards has a meeting, I'm not sure off the 
top of my head.  At that point, we going to begin 
to put that together.  We don't have it right now.
               One more thing.  This public 
campaign.  What media do you plan to use or medias 
do you plan to use or have you not gotten that far?
               MR. RAINERY:  We had quite a bit of 
discussion on the use of radio, in fact, during 
our first meeting.  But, we have a couple folks 
that at this point have kind of volunteered to 
help us determine which media would be appropriate 
for which messages.  Beyond that, no, we haven't.  
Her her John, I have a question for Richard.
               MR. PUGH:  Go ahead, Bill.
               MR. HERMAN:  This is Bill.
               What about the FY03 money.  I think 
we've approved 49.7 MHTAAR for that for Mental 
Health Board, the public campaign.  That's year two 
of two is FY03.  How does that fit into this scheme 
here?
               MR. RAINERY:  Bill, at this point, 
as the change of intent request notes, we have 
not -- the Mental Health Board has not made a 
decision concerning the FY03 money.  This was just 
a change of intent for the FY02 money.  I might 
note that we did -- as the joint boards request in 
September 30,000 for the strategic communications 
effort for FY03 which the Trust did approve.
               MR. HERMAN:  You may maybe just 
wait to see how this comes out and may use that 
49.7 for mental health issues only key pending on 
how the planning goes, what your needs are.  For 
this FY03, right?
               MR. RAINERY:  I think we've left 
our options open.  I presume we'll look at that 
money again when the time comes.  It's entirely 
possible that it could go to the collaborative 
effort.  I'm just guessing here, but I think the 
collaborative effort will be local pursuit rather 
than a single focused effort.
               MR. HAWKINS:  I wondered, did we 
have a recommendation from staff?
               MR. PUGH:  Jeff?
               MR. JESSEE:  Bill, you can correct 
me.  I don't think we see any problem with this.  
I think we want to encourage the boards to work 
together and this seems like a very collaborative 
effort.  So I don't think we have any problem with 
it.
               MR. HERMAN:  Just getting this 
effort going early.  I think it's kind of great 
for the Mental Health Board to help out in that 
way and feel the assurance that they're going to 
be able to get their beneficiary group taken care 
of in this collaborative effort.  So, I think it's 
a good idea.
               MR. RAINERY:  We felt it was an 
opportunity to get the collaborative/strategic 
planning started sooner than we would have been 
able to.
               MR. PUGH:  Are there further 
questions?
               MR. HAWKINS:  I'd move approval of 
the change of intent.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I'll second.
               MR. PUGH:  Been moved and seconded.  
Are there any objections?
               Hearing no objections, the motion 
carries.
               The second item on here, and maybe, 
Richard, you're in this one too, services for people 
with brain injuries, there's a change of intent on 
this one.  Also the Governor's Council, I think, 
also sent in information.
               So, Richard?
               MR. RAINERY:  Now, we discovered 
subsequent to our discussion of the change of 
intent that perhaps this was not a change of 
intent, that it was in keeping with the tenor of 
the original project intent.
               We still felt that seeing as how it 
was a fairly significant change in direction on how 
the project was being carried out that we'd go ahead 
and send it to you.
               The grant currently -- or in the past 
has funded the brain injury Association of Alaska 
which has provide add number of services, outreach, 
and direct services.  I really wish someone else 
from the division was here to fill in a little bit 
more of the details on this, but that organization 
has gone through some changes and has -- we've been 
told lost its ability to continue to provide 
services.  So the intent here is to take that money,  
use it primarily as a match for a federal grant 
which would kick off the statewide planning effort 
for services in this area.  Also help us identify a 
lead agency for planning for this population, which 
I think is maybe the most important thing behind 
this grant.
               This is a population that has not had 
an identified advocate.  I think we need to do that.
               MR. PUGH:  Mary Elizabeth.
               MS. RIDER:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  
I'm going to speak loudly.  We have a shortage of 
microphones here.  Bill, can you hear?
               MR. HERMAN:  Fine.
               MS. RIDER:  When the Trust 
originally allocated these funds, I think you all 
remember Debbie Russell came to our board meeting 
and we were looking at a way of developing a 
system of services for people with brain injuries.  
A actually this was a successful project.  We 
funded it.  We started this project out.  We 
started direct services to people with head 
injury, and now that agency has split up, but it 
has generated a private practice for profit 
service delivery billing Medic aid for the brain 
injury services.  That's the beginning of where we 
need to go.
               The part of that intent language was 
always to match this grant and that's where this 
change of intent request while well intended was not 
now.  So we will continue to be matching the -- 
providing the state match to the federal grant -- 
can you guys hear on line okay?
               MR. HERMAN:  Yes.
               MS. RIDER:  We'll continue to 
provide technology -- technologies our friend 
again.
               We'll continue to provide the state 
match to the federal grant.  The state actually lost 
the federal grant this past year because of the way 
the planning grant wasn't working as it ought to.
               The Governors Council and the Mental 
Health Board sit on the steering committee, along 
with the Trust, to -- which the council and Mental 
Health Board will have representatives.
               We headed in the right direction.
               MR. PUGH:  Other questions of 
Richard?
               MR. YOUNKER:  In the letter of 
November 2nd down at the bottom, No. 2 it says 
convene the statewide advisory board.  My question 
is:  Will that be made up of totally 
professionals?
               MR. RAINERY:  Sounds like M. E. has 
a better handle on that than I do.
               MS. RIDER:  The federal grant 
requires that states that they're funding to 
develop these councils have 50 percent consumers 
of services.  There is a requirement that there be 
a professional, but mostly it's advocacy and 
planning so that state agencies start providing 
these services in a consistent way.  So that 
states allocate their funds in a consistent way.  
There will be professionals, but there will be 
consumers of services, since we have two boards 
that already have a statutory obligation, Mental 
Health Board and the Governor's Council.  They 
need to be part of that.
               MR. YOUNKER:  As I read this, and I 
will share an experience.  I had a nephew who had 
traumatic brain injury that was in a coma for 
months and is having a tremendously hard time 
readjusting back to a normal life.  The thing I 
saw in here that was missing is what my sister has 
gone through, the family support group seems to be 
absent here.  I would hope, if we going to do 
this, that an interest cal -- integral part of 
that would be some sort of training and support to 
families is absolutely unreal, what she's gone 
through and in talking with her and people that 
she has worked with back -- families tend to get 
left out of this and suffer the brunt of it 
without a lot of support at home.
               If we going to do this, I'd like to 
see that as a part of the program.
               MR. RAINERY:  I think all the 
beneficiary groups would like that to happen.
               MR. PUGH:  Milly, you want to come 
up.
               MS. RYAN:  Milly Ryan, Governor's 
Council on disabilities and Special Education.  
I've been involved in the planning group here 
trying to get the Federal grant together, and 
family members will also be a part of the overall 
planning board and stuff, that's one of the things 
that they're looking at, even on the planning 
group right now, there are family members.  I 
think that would be addressed.
               MR. PUGH:  Milly, why don't you 
stay?
               One quick question that I have has to 
do with the money.  It says 37,500 would be used as 
the match.  It was $100,000 request earlier.  What's 
the situation with -- how are we going to handle the 
money.  Are we only disbursing the amount for the 
the match or are we disbursing the entire amounts.  
I guess that's not completely clear to me.
               MS. RIDER:  Mr. Pugh, that's -- 
that was the reason I called in at the very tail 
in when I found out the Mental Health Board was 
meeting on this issue.  I didn't get a copy of 
this until it was time to coral some of this.
               DMHDD did give the brainin upgi 
association, a 20,000 grant.  During the first 
quarter, -- changed the staff.  They're not going to 
give them anymore.
               Where they say 37,500 for the Federal 
match, that would be for a full year.  But the 
federal grant won't be available to them until 
April.  They only need the federal grant match until 
April -- from April to June.  The real question 
that's going to be at hand with us, what do we want 
to do with the other 65,000 -- what is it $375?.  
They're not sure yet.  If the Brain Injury 
Association or some other organization steps forward 
and wants to provide advocacy and support services 
to people with brain injuries and their family 
unless the meantime, during the rest of this fiscal 
year, then DMHDD will come forward with a change of 
intent at that time for the $65,000.  In the 
meantime, that 65,000 is available for the clinical 
purpose only, and it is probably not likely to be 
used for that at this point.
               MR. PUGH:  Bill --
               MS. RYAN:  I think it would involve 
a change of intent as Mary Elizabeth was saying.  
I think perhaps some of the things that the 
planning board would like to see accomplished, 
could beup-started or something like that.  But it 
would involve coming back and asking for a change 
of intent.
               MS. RIDER:  If the planning group 
is prepared to do something before the federal 
grant begins in April, that would be true.
               MS. ROBINSON:  This is Caren.  It's 
kind of sad.  They really had not received very 
little outside dollars, the year that we gave them 
money is the year things started unraveling.  Does 
anybody have any idea -- this was definitely one 
that I felt we needed to get involved in, and I 
appreciate the fact that all of you are continuing 
to work on it.  I think no matter what happens to 
the original staff and organization that we need 
to do what we can to move forward and try to get a 
good support system for these families.  But what 
happened?
               MS. RIDER:  You know, it's a 
success story, really.  It worked well.  The Brain 
Injury Association lived out of Deborah Russell's 
basement and was funded by Deborah Russell and her 
husband, any donations they can scrape together, 
plus a small grant from the Trust, plus a copy 
machine that the Trust figured out how to get 
thing.  Things like that.  As many Tedy bears that 
they can get donated, and as much Xeroxing they 
could get together to pull materials together.  
When the Trust funded this project, one was the 
37,500 last year, that matched the federal grant.  
That went to the brain Injury Association.  The 
whole $100,000 went to the brain Injury 
association.  With that money they were able to 
secure Medic aid billing number.  They were able 
to start clinical services, office setting in an 
organized way.  Spun off, basically, they found 
out that this was something that was dable in a 
private practice setting, that there's a demand 
and capacity to do that.  So, it worked.  And now 
what we need to do is expand on that.
               We still need this planning grant.  
We still need an infrastructure for planning for 
services to people with brain injuries.  We don't 
have that in place and we don't have a consistent 
funding mechanism outside of Medicaid billing.  What 
we found out in that first year is it takes 
something like that to start up even a private 
practice for folks with brain injuries.
               MR. PUGH:  Are there other 
questions?
               I'm ready for a motion.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Is an action needed?
               So the staff recommends that we don't 
need an action.
               MS. RIDER:  This is an information 
item only.
               MR. PUGH:  Thanks for clarifying 
that, Mr. Hawk instance.
               Okay.  The nextite open the agenda is 
changes to FY03 budget recommendations.  And we 
considering changing the recommendation spring Creek 
Correctional initiative.  And Jeff, are you handling 
that?
               MR. JESSEE:  Since it was my foulup 
I guess I should handle it.
               This was a prog ect Dr. Spur back is 
here and could speak to the programmatic elements.  
The Spring Creek initiative which is actually a 
combination of an adult mental health subacute care 
unit and also a young adult program at Spring Creek.
               We had negotiated a structured 
funding package with Representative Muder in his 
role as correction subcommittee, which involved us 
initially matching General Fund dollars, 125,000 of 
MHTAAR and 125,000 of GF/MH, and then we were going 
to phase out as the State phased in.
               Got news is we have now started 
capturing all of these negotiations on paper which 
was very handy.
               I was down in Juneau a few weeks ago 
and stopped in rept aive Mulder's office and 
reminded them that we had made this commitment and 
intended to follow through and we knew they would.  
Denny said:  We didn't agree to fund that.
               Fortunately, I had the letter in 
hand.
               But the oversight was that we didn't 
tell you or remind you, I guess, that this needed to 
be in the '03 MHTAAR recommendations for $100,000.  
So if you have anymore questions about the financing 
package or the program, Dr. Spur back is here for 
that part.
               MR. PUGH:  This is a change in our 
recommendation that we sent to the governor's 
office.  That's what we talking about to go 
forward in the '03 budget?
               MR. JESSEE:  Yes.
               MR. PUGH:  Are there questions for 
Dr. Spurback or others?  On this or is this one -- 
anybody have any questions?
               No questions, you're off the hook.
               Okay.  I'll take a motion on this 
one.
               MR. HAWKINS:  I move approval, 
Mr. Chairman.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Second.
               MR. PUGH:  It's been moved and 
seconded.
               Any objections to the motion?
               Okay, hearing none, this motion 
passes.
               We at policies for handling request 
for Trust partnership funds.  I think it's under Tab 
2 -- no, where is it?
               MR. JESSEE:  It's on the Budget 
Committee memo.  It's about a three or four-page 
memo, right past the minutes.
               MR. PUGH:  There it is.  Okay.  
Starts at the bottom of the page.
               MR. JESSEE:  Just to sort of 
introduce.  What we've -- Bill, if you want to 
jump in, go ahead, but since I'm here, I guess.
               What we tried to do is hit some -- 
get something in front of you from Phil's initial 
concept papers that we got for you to take a look 
at.  I want to stress, though, that even internally 
we haven't gone through and had all the staff take a 
look at it and work it.  What will and I wanted to 
do was make sure we got you something to look at 
today.  I've also handed out a lapsed-funds policy 
draft.
               Basically, to get some feedback from 
you on whether we going in the right direction ooh 
these policies.  What we'll do is we'll go back and 
work them through the staff process and come back to 
the next budget committee with some proposed final 
drafts of policies in these areas for adoption at 
the February meeting.
               MR. PUGH:  Phil, did you have any?  
I know you were the one that initiated --
               MR. YOUNKER:  I'm looking for it.
               MR. PUGH:  Right after the minutes, 
at the bottom of the page there.
               Let's take a minute.  Some people 
have found it if they have a chance to read it.
               MR. HERMAN:  We taking a step at it 
here.  I did try to reflect the intent language 
that was in the FY02 description of the project, 
and also looked at some of the discussions that 
we've had as a staff and some of my notes from 
that, and notes from other people about what kinds 
of things we needed to cover to get this thing 
going.
               MR. JESSEE:  The key elements, if 
you want me to quickly give an overview, John.
               The key elements are trying to keep 
in mind the priorities of the Trustees, and the 
planning departments of insuring that any 
partnerships are reviewed by the budge et Committee 
and the full board before any commitment of funds.
               MR. PUGH:  Phil?
               MR. YOUNKER:  Just a couple of 
things.  On No. 3 in the third line it says as 
appropriate.  I take that to mean that if they 
have a direct interest in that particular 
partnership?
               MR. JESSEE:  Yes.
               MR. YOUNKER:  And then in No. 4, 
and I toss this out for at least some discussion.  
Some of these partnership things are going to be 
fairly small, fairly quick, and pretty cut and 
dry.  And it appears to me that we can set a limit 
that said that the budget Committee is authorized 
by the Trustees to approve any partnership program 
up to $50,000 without have together go back to the 
full Trust and have that action timely to do that.  
Just from the report from the Budget Committee 
that we particular partnership on this day.  And 
the money was disbursed.
               My opinion is that the Trustees 
should be able to delegate those smaller 
partnerships, especially those that have time limits 
tied to them and that are pretty cut and dry.
               MR. PUGH:  Any comments to Phil's 
recommendation?
               MR. HAWKINS:  Well it kind of flies 
in the face of our tradition which is to make 
small amounts really complicated and large amounts 
easy.
               (Laughter.)
               MR. HAWKINS:  I support it.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Somey, Tom.
               MR. MALONE:  Very good, Tom.
               MR. PUGH:  Jeff, do you have any 
comments about that kind of....
               MR. JESSEE:  Not really.  It's 
really a Trustee issue for us.  My only interest 
is in being able to get timely decisions where 
time is of the essence in trying to put something 
together.  I think we can work with whatever 
process you're comfortable with.
               MR. PUGH:  I guess one of the 
things is we do have an Executive Committee and by 
our by-laws the Securityive Committee has the 
authority.  It seems to me that can be called at 
any time.  It may be rather than approval -- in 
between meetings, we report to the Securityive 
Committee.  Doesn't have to be the approval.  It 
means we could go forward so the Securityive 
Committee has knowledge of that.  That would 
pretty much end up with the whole board knowing 
about the information.  I guess that might be one 
way of doing it just to ensure that.
               It wouldn't hold up the project, but 
it would just be a report back to the executive 
committee, or -- you know, or you could see or the 
next Trust meeting, whichever comes first.
               MR. HAWKINS:  You'd also sort of 
learn a rhythm and the nature of these projects, 
and then going all the way to Phil's rule probably 
would make sense.  So, I like that.
               MR. JESSEE:  So if I've got the 
direction -- well, Phil -- young young just one --
               MR. YOUNKER:  One comment, the 
budget economy hes, they're advertised, they're 
public, they're held the same.  At least most of 
the Trustees plug into them anyway.  So the 
trustedees really aren't in the dark on this.
               I just feel like it streamlines the 
whole process and certainly takes a load off of the 
staff not having to carry these things through to 
another set of meetings and present them.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I can agree with 
Tom.  I think maybe -- partly just because it's so 
new, we still identifying how we want to do these 
partnerships.  And so I think as many people as 
being involved in the beginning is probably good.  
And that I would rather kind of just get the 
policy, see how it work first, and then we can 
kind of add, you know, some amendments to it.  But 
it seems to me that working by-laws definitely 
allows for quick action if it's really ever needed 
to happen.
               MR. JESSEE:  Then I think -- I 
think I'm getting a direction here.  Let me read 
it back and see if I've got it.
               I think that I'm getting a direction 
that we going in the right direction, that if time 
is of the essence that a recommendation by the 
Budget Committee could be taken to the Securityive 
Committee of course, that would be public notice as 
all of our meetings or action takes place are.  
We'll review this policy perhaps in a year or so 
after we've had some experience with it and see if 
we can streamline a little further -- further 
violate Tom's policy and making other other -- am I 
getting -- is that --
               MR. HERMAN:  John, this is Bill.
               MR. PUGH:  Go ahead, Bill.
               MR. HERMAN:  One of the things we 
tied to work in here too is the administrative 
costs, consideration of that as we get into this 
partnering.  It's still kind of an unknown to us.  
So far we've been kind of lucky with our first 
couple of partnerships in that we've got other 
people doing the lion's share of the case.  That 
may not always be the case.  I want to alert you 
that we are trying to keep in line the 
administrative burden that it may bring upon us.
               MR. PUGH:  Thanks.
               MR. JESSEE:  That's a good point.  
I might point out that one of the things I've 
learned now in working with some of the 
foundations is many significant foundations 
administer very little of their money.  What they 
do is contract out to administrators that they 
then give a pool of funds to and they actually 
administer the funds.  I'm not proposing that at 
this point in time, but just to give you a heads 
up as to the industry standard sort of work.
               MR. HAWKINS:  So, since we the 
Budge elt Committee, are we recommending to the 
full Board adoption of this partnership policy as 
outlined by Jeff?
               MR. PUGH:  I think Mr. Jessee said 
they'd bring it back in February?
               MR. JESSEE:  Well in the Budget 
Committee between now and then and then for final 
approval in February.
               MR. PUGH:  This is not an action 
item but an information item.
               MR. JESSEE:  Correct.  And some 
guidance.
               MR. PUGH:  If there's some other 
comment, if people think of other things that 
should be in here, be sure and get back to Jeff 
and Bill about it in the meantime.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Just one thing, maybe 
this policy ought to have a fiscal note.  If there 
are going to be partnerships that have 
administrative cost to us, then maybe staff ought 
to give us a fiscal note of what those 
administrative costs are going to be in a 
partnership as it comes forward.
               I would be hesitant to give a $25,000 
partnership grant and find out that it costs $18,000 
in staff time.
               MR. HERMAN:  John, this is Bill 
again.
               MR. PUGH:  Yes, Bill.
               MR. HERMAN:  I sort of tried to get 
that probably phrased it fairly -- seems -- we did 
want to make sure that it was considered -- I 
believe it says No. 2 and 5, how the partnership 
will be administered by the Trust and the partner, 
and maybe we should expand that a little bit to 
say:  And the costing out of that administration.
               MR. PUGH:  Maybe we ought to have 
that even as a separate item.  One of the things, 
for example, there's an awful lot for some 
organizations that we partner with, have very high 
indirect cost breaks.  We ought to know how much 
is doleing to services of individuals and how much 
is going to indirect costs.  I guess I would be 
very interested in knowing those kinds of things 
as we come forward with partnering.  The idea is 
to maximize our money.  It could be that some 
partnerships just from the standpoint of what 
those administrative costs are are not good 
partnerships.  So, anyway, I think that's a good 
idea to add another item there on that coming 
forward.  Her her thank's, John, we'll do that.
               MR. PUGH:  Other comments before we 
move on?
               Okay.  Next item on the Budget Submit 
he is policies related to lapsed funds and matches.
               My understanding is this is a first 
cut at this one also?
               MR. JESSEE:  Yeah -- these are 
getting a little harder as we go.  So we expect a 
little more feedback.
               MR. PUGH:  The next item on here --
               MR. JESSEE:  Matching funds is the 
next one.
               MR. PUGH:  Page 2 of this memo.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Chairman I read the 
rough draft and if the general rule is stated in 
the first paragraph, the rest of the page is a tax 
on the general rule.  So, I'm trying to figure out 
how the weighting work.  Is the general rule 
generally the rule?  Or is the general rule really 
not the rule at all because the rest of the memo 
is -- you know, runs against the general rule?
               MR. MALONE:  It's written like an 
insurance contract, Tom.  Everything thereafter is 
the exception or the exclusions.
               (Laughter.)
               MR. JESSEE:  I can explain our 
thinking and you can certainly direct us as you 
will.
               In our minds, there are two stages to 
this matching funds discussion.  One that's 
relatively closed system is what happens during the 
negotiations with the Legislature in particular.  
Some of this takes place with the Governor's office 
as well, but it's less significant in the sense that 
just because the Governor fails to match in his 
proposed budget, that isn't a final determination by 
the State, if you will, that they will not match.  
And so, a fair amount of discussion goes on with the 
Ledge is late tur about these match es, which ones 
we insist on, which ones that we desire, but won't 
insist on, that sort of thing.
               The next stage is what happens after 
the session when the Legislature has made a final 
determination of what they will match and the 
governor has, of course, the line item vet o power, 
the governor could veto some of those matches.
               And, for example, this year the 
budget committee wanted to take a look at those 
situations where the length is late tur had not 
matched Trust funds and make a further determination 
as to whether we should go forward with the MHTAAR 
funds or not.  So, the general policy is directed 
more towards the negotiation with the Legislature, 
and the procedure part is what to do after that has 
failed to garner all of the desired matches and we 
at the point of deciding what, if anything, we want 
to continue on with at a different funding level.
               I don't know if that enlightens you 
as to our thinking.  Have at it if you would like to 
see this done differently.
               MR. PUGH:  Can I ask, No. 1, do we 
really get letters from the Legislature?
               MR. JESSEE:  We do, actually.  And, 
in fact, on occasion they're very good letters 
that actually develop some policy arguments that 
are useful.
               One of the things that we would be 
doing if we were to adopt policy something like that 
is focusing the Legislature on the need for them to 
specifically talk about the match element in what 
they do.
               Now, whether we get them to respond 
to that in every instance remains to be seen.  But 
one thing that this policy or something like it 
would do is we can tell the Legislature, look, if 
you don't match this, the Trustees will be going 
back and evaluating where this project is without 
this match.
               So, it would be desirous for you to 
speak to the Trustees through this letter and 
explain, is it because you don't have the money or 
you think this is a waste of money or what would be 
very helpful.
               MR. YOUNKER:  John?
               MR. PUGH:  Phil?
               MR. YOUNKER:  A couple of things.  
First of all, should we limit this just to the 
Legislature?  Are they the only ones that provide 
us any type of match?  We get Federal matches, do 
we have other people matching?
               MR. JESSEE:  Occasionally there are 
other match else.  For example, you heard about 
the Brain Injury Association grant.  You know --
               MR. YOUNKER:  I guess my feeling 
would be, maybe the language read the Legislature 
or others requesting match else.
               MR. JESSEE:  That's good.
               MR. YOUNKER:  And then two, where 
it says change of intent or -- I would like to see 
the or to and.  I'd like to see both.  The way 
it's reading now.  If I was on the other side, I 
would give you the one that I thought was least 
damning.  I'd like to see both.
               That would apply that to A of 3 
below, instead of "or.."
               MR. HAWKINS:  Is it politic --
               MR. PUGH:  This is tomorrow hap 
skins speaking (Mark)
               MR. HAWKINS:  Is it possible an LB 
and A committee request is the least desirable 
option?
               MR. JESSEE:  I think that's okay 
because they're exhorted us to not resort to LB & 
A in the past.  We have assured them that we come 
to them only as a last redisortd and they would 
see that language in a positive light.
               MR. PUGH:  Could we say as a final 
resort.  There may be a way to putting that a 
little more positively in terms of rewriting that.
               We'll be seeing the -- the fine 
resort or whatever.
               This is John Pugh.  The other one 
that is concerning me.  We have got into a fair 
amount of issues with the governor's budget.  This 
does not resolve what happens when they come back to 
us and say we not putting the match in.  We've had 
that a number of times.  Should this policy deal 
with that?  I think that was an issue for Phil, why 
did we continue to have that in the governor's 
budget if there was no match.
               I guess I need to get back to that, 
should we, in this policy, determine to resolve 
that?  Should we drop those items.  Usually they 
will send us or you'll get a call or message sailing 
do you want to continue to have this in the budget.  
We not matching it.
               MR. HERMAN:  This is Bill.  What we 
do then we say the governor didn't match us on 
this, we'll go and talk to the Legislature.
               MR. JESSEE:  That's the dilemma 
you'll have to guide us on because if the governor 
says I'm not go to match this, and the Trustees 
say take our match out as well.  Then the 
legislature has neither in the governor's budget.  
That doesn't mean that you can't carry on your 
recommendations.  They're made to both the 
governor and the Legislature.  So, you know, 
that's -- I think we could play that either way, 
depending on how you want to do that.
               MR. PUGH:  I'm not saying I go with 
either one, but just to present the other side, 
and I think Nelson has made it in the past is by 
accepting the governor's budget without a match in 
a way we are saying we willing to do it this.'s a 
level of saying we willing to go forward with this 
without a match.  Whereas if we were to pull it 
out and bring it forward ourselves, then we seem 
to be in the stronger position to say absolutely, 
this project requires the match or it's not going 
forward.  It seems to me by having it in a public 
document in the governor's budget without the 
match, we are saying that this project is dable 
without a match by the fact that we said when they 
called us and said do you want to go forward with 
this without a match, we saying yes, we willing to 
do it.  Then what it takes is us to be on the 
negative to go to the Legislature and say we have 
to remove this from the governor's budget because 
there is no match.  In a way that's not totally 
honest because we've got an opportunity to remove 
it already without a match at the governor's 
level.  I guess that's the other side of it that I 
would like to put on the table.
               Caren.
               MS. ROBINSON:  The only kind of 
caveat with all of that is it's also easier for 
Jeff and the team to go and try to get the match 
if part of it's already in the budget.  I know you 
understand that.  It kind of leaves you now, 
you're trying to get both in where if it's -- half 
of it's there, then you're only trying to get the 
other half, not the whole.
               I think that's -- again, part of what 
puts us in this catch 22, you're absolutely right, 
by moving it forward, we've accepted the fact that 
governor's office has said they're not going to put 
their match in.  We also saying this is a priority, 
and I think it then comes to the point where we have 
to decide if the legislature, to me a more critical 
point is if the legislature decides not to put the 
half in whether or not we then want to pull, then 
say without the whole we don't want to move forward.
               But it's....
               MR. PUGH:  I'm going to recognize 
our former legislator, consultant.  I see his head 
shaking.
               MR. ROGERS:  There are good 
arguments, I think on both sides of this issue.  
In terms of the legislative process it seems to me 
that the Trustee Pugh's proposal puts us in a 
stronger position and that is:  If neither side is 
in the budget, you can go to the legislator and 
say you spend a dollar, you get two.  If one's 
already in there, then the argument to the 
legislator is you spend a dollar, you get a dollar 
or we'll take away the other doll around.  It 
seems like a weaker argument at the legislative 
level, and I don't see that you gain anything at 
the gyb nor y'all level because it's in there.  In 
fact, you said to some extent you're willing to 
accept that it's okay to have a budget with these 
matching funds that are unmatched.
               So, while it's not on the printouts, 
and there's a negative to that, I think you're in a 
stronger position with the legislature if you go in 
and say we haven't spent all of our MHTAAR, we 
prepared to match on these projects if you put in 
GF/MH to match it with.
               Jeff has been the one doing the 
negotiations and I'd want to -- I'd want you to 
weigh his arguments on that as well.
               From the legislative perspective, -- 
the other thing is, if it's not in the governor's 
budget and they add it, whoever is adding it is 
going to get credit for that appearing where it 
wasn't there before, that's that extra credit for 
whoever pops that back into the budget.
               MS. ROBINSON:  But, Brian, don't 
you think it's a lot more difficult, though, to 
get them to recognize that it needs to be there if 
it's not already in their face that it's been 
accepted as a priority?
               I kind of see what you're saying with 
MHTAAR, we also quite often dealing with the general  
fund fund.  There's two different areas, we ''re 
also also trying to get the legislature to put in 
more dollars than sometimes for general funds.
               I hear what you're saying about the 
MHTAAR, I don't know.  I think it's -- what I've 
seen, it's very difficult if you're not -- that 
project's not already in the budget.  It's really 
hard to get someone to identify that you want it in.
               MR. ROGERS:  If I can respond on 
that, Mr. Chair, I was speak together the point at 
which you're putting up MHTAAR to match general 
funds, and all the governor is willing to put in 
is your MHTAAR.  That's the point which I'm saying 
not having it is preferable to having it.
               If the governor's not willing to put 
it the general fund, that's a different case if you 
wanted it in there.
               MR. YOUNKER:  I'm a little bit 
confused.  We represent the beneficiaries of this 
program in this state.  We've gone through and 
developed a budget.  In my opinion, we did it at 
the best of our ability to serve the beneficiaries 
the best that we could.  Just because the governor 
doesn't agree doesn't mean that that changes our 
feelings and thoughts on that.
               I've been in this state ever since 
we've had a governor and I've not agreed with a hell 
of a lot of most of them, but that doesn't mean that 
they were wrong or I was wrong.
               My feeling is that if we say we not 
going to take anything forward that the governor 
doesn't put in the budget.  Why the hell does he 
need us.  Why don't we put in the budget and match 
it.  My belief is, he doesn't put it in, we take it 
to the legislature.  The legislature comes in.  It's 
up to the governor to veto that or not.  If we've 
got a policy, we've got to deal with this.  I don't 
see backing off just because the governor doesn't 
decide --
               MR. PUGH:  That's not the issue, 
Phil, everybody was saying to put it forward, the 
question was whether we leave it unmatched in the 
governor's budget which has been a question for a 
number of years because we've been asked by the 
governor's office do we.  And there have been some 
we've pulled and some we've left in.  Am I 
correct, Jeff?
               MR. JESSEE:  Yes.
               MR. PUGH:  We've made different 
decisions on different projects.  So, that was the 
question was do we on this policy -- you know, in 
some way deal with what happens when the governor 
doesn't match it.  We say that up here, but we 
sort of imply it's just going to forward move.  We 
not going to deal with it at that level.  We said 
we've got the Legislature still to deal with.
               Am I correct in that?
               MR. JESSEE:  Yes.
               MR. PUGH:  Gentlemen of do you want 
to speak -- Jeff do you want to speak to it?
               MR. JESSEE:  I've heard both 
arguments.  I think there is a lot to be said for 
both of them.  I don't mean to be indecisionive 
about it.  I think the most important thing that 
we doing here that I think is necessary for our 
success is we developing policy.  Whichever way we 
come down, then we have something we can point to 
and say this is why we're doing this.  We not 
trying to be difficult.  We not trying to be, you 
know, coercive or whatever, we have a policy and 
we following it.
               So, I guess that's the most important 
thing to me is that we get something down.
               Then we can -- you know, if it's 
going to go forward, fine.  We can say that to the 
governor and move forward into the Legislature.  If 
it's pull our match out at OMB that's what we'll do 
with OMB when we meet with them as we did with 
AnnaLee.
               I think whichever way we go, it 
requires a different strategic approach, but it's 
not clear to me that one is overwhelmingly superior 
to the other.  Having it in the governor's budget 
is -- certainly has some advantages in that often, 
as you all know, the Legislature startles with the 
governor's budget and work backwards.  At least they 
used to.
               They may, again, went they're of the 
same party, but right now they're sort of not doing 
that.  Praf and that kind of a scenario, having that 
in is an advantage.  On the other hand, not having 
it in allows you to go to the Legislature and in a 
sense make a fresh deal without having an unmatched 
scenario on the table for them to compare what 
you're offering them.
               Again, I guess, I'm more interested 
in just getting clear direction so that I can get a 
policy together and get it implemented than 
necessarily which way this particular argument goes.
               MR. HERMAN:  John, this is Bill.
               MR. PUGH:  Yes.
               MR. HERMAN:  I just wanted to 
mention that each year we do go over the 
governor's recommendations, his proposed budget, 
and we have, you know, I guess, in practice done 
exactly what you've talked about it.  We've looked 
at them project by project, and talked about our 
strated gis about forwarding it to the 
legislature.  I remember the first year or two, 
OMB tried to tell us, we didn't approve it, up 
can't take it to the legislature, that was kind of 
an interesting -- as we were learning our roles, 
that was an interesting thing for them to tell us.  
I think we do, in an informal way, do what you're 
suggesting.  Maybe we need to formalize it.
               MS. ROBINSON:  A similar thing, 
Bill, in some ways we doing that, but I also feel 
like we need to kind of like walk through a couple 
and see what we would do, you know, on those.  
Again, thinking it out because I hear what Brian's 
saying and then I kind of come back again and it 
is -- you know, as long as they accept the 
governor's budget, which sometimes they have and 
sometimes they haven't.  I really believe it has 
given us us an advantage to then go and say we had 
a match, the governor didn't put it in, in some 
ways we kind of put it on the governor, he was the 
bad person who didn't put the match in; we want 
the match.  If you don't put the match in, we are 
going to take our money elsewhere.
               And, up know, a lot of the 
negotiateing that Jeff has obviously done and Nelson 
and myself and John over the legislature, there's 
been a lot of that give and take with the 
understanding that our ultimate goal is to try to 
have good services for all of our beneficiaries in 
the end of the process.  Sometimes we've had to  give 
up some things to make sure other things occurred.  
I think the assisted living is a prime example of 
how we did I felt some really good negotiations, 
trialing to do that, and also the women's mental 
health unit at jail and trying to get our money  with 
their money and having them accept the whole at the 
end.
               So, I think we have to be real 
careful on having too hard after policy and we 
really maybe need to keep some flexibility here but 
try maybe in the future to have a litting more after 
work session of when the governor comes back and 
hasn't matched and we actually sit down and think 
about it.  What is this project?  What is it doing?  
Do we serve ourselves better for leaving it in the 
budget or should we remove it and consider trying to 
get it in on our own.
               I think it's harder work for Jeff 
trying to get it in on his only.
               MR. ROGERS:  I think this issue of 
looking at it project by project really does come 
down to what serves you and the beneficiaries the 
best.  While you're always trying to get general 
funds, leveraging your MHTAAR money, if you do on 
either side of this, like Jeff I'd say it's a 
close call which is the better strategy.  But 
either way, there are projects for which you don't 
want to go forward unless there's a match.  
Period.  And there are projects for which you will 
go forward whether or not there's a match, you 
want to get a match, but if you don't, you're not 
going to short the beneficiaries because it's 
something that has to happen this year.
               MR. PUGH:  There are also issues at 
the governor's level -- this is John Pugh -- 
issues at the governor's level where we've been 
kingsd by the governor's office to remove 
something.  They said this is not the way that we 
think this ought to go, this policy.  I can 
remember on the day care, the senior day care 
issues, we've been convinced.  It seems to me 
there are issue that come up at that level.
               Let me just offer a compromise.  It 
seems to me, Bill says we are already doing this.  I 
think it's not our policy and I think one of the 
things that I think is important is the  governor 
does not match, it seems to me we have the same 
reason to have a meeting and discuss which ones of 
these should go in in and which ones shouldn't.  I 
think that's the protection so that Jeff doesn't get 
in the middle, Jeff and Bill, somebody comes back 
and says why did you make that decision to pull that 
out of there.  Kind of thing, which we have pulled 
some out.
               It seems to me that maybe that's what 
this policy needs, we need to have an action from 
this board at each step.  Once the governor comes 
back and does not match ours, we need to have an 
emergency meeting.  Quick meeting.  Usually we don't 
have a lot of time, that's unfortunate lit maybe 
it's executive commit eme, chair of the budget 
committee, however.  Some contact with the board, 
the decision-making together with you Jeff.  I think 
that's difficult if you make that on your own in 
terms of where we go from there.
               So, I guess that's what's missing in 
here for me is that step.
               MS. ROBINSON:  You're right, that 
step is difficult because, for example, we left 
the meeting with Annalee this last time, Jeff was 
told to come back and immediately give our 
priorities, and we didn't have another meeting, 
and definitely Jeff and the staff, you know, did a 
great job of looking at the priorities of the 
individual boards and I mean that kind of became 
the priorities.  This is what our priorities are 
again, trying to follow the work that had already 
been done.  There is and said, this is what we 
decided and we told Annalee.  That was difficult 
to do.  To keep up with the timeline.  Praf.
               MR. JESSEE:  Not impossible.  I 
don't want to make it seem that we can't do that, 
if that's your desire.
               Caren is correct.  In a couple of 
cases, ill called the board and said this or that, 
you know.  When we were unsure from what we had, 
which way they were leaning.  You know --
               MR. PUGH:  I don't want to tie the 
hands, we have to have notice on that.  That's the 
problem you're probably struggling with.
               MR. JESSEE:  The notice is the big 
problem.  I come back to you --
               MR. PUGH:  On the other hand, I 
think that you alone should not make those 
decisions given that this board sets the 
priorities.  I think it's important for you --
               MR. JESSEE:  I don't like those 
calls from Annalee too much.
               MR. YOUNKER:  I agree, the two-step 
process with the governor.
               And I was thinking about public 
notice, if you know that schedule and you have a 
meeting with the administration.  Why can't you 
schedule a special meeting and if there's nothing, 
just report to us, really everything really went 
great.  If there's issues that the Trustees had to 
deal with, we can do it.  It can be a teleconference 
meeting.  I think that would be the simple way to do 
it.  But we just automatically schedule it as one of 
the meetings that we going to have every year when 
the negotiations with the governor's office is 
final.
               MR. JESSEE:  We do have one issue 
with that, though, and that is that the governor's 
office -- I think this is probably true of most 
administrations.  They don't want any -- any of 
their budget decisions out there until December 
15th when the governor gives a big press 
conference and says this is what I'm going to 
propose.
               So the dilemma is if they call us up 
and say okay, we going to match this one, not this 
one, we'll match this one and not this one, the 
understanding we have with them now is that we 
not -- we not taking that public in advance of them.  
So that's going to be a dilemma if we try to do it 
that way.
               Now, ill will say, though, that we 
do, and I think legitimately so conduct negotiations 
with the negotiating team you know, if it's 
understood that that group, which consists of the 
chair, the budget committee chair, and John, is  
similarly power to talk about these issues.
               I don't really see any qualitative 
difference between doing it in looking at what the 
governor's quietly telling us he's contemplating 
doing, versus doing it at the end of the legislative 
session when you're in the final moments.  If that's 
acceptable, that system could be utilized and maybe 
solve the governor's publicity problem.
               There's no perfect solution is the 
problem.  We like to be very public in what we do.
               MR. ROGERS:  There is an exemption 
from the ope metings act for matters the immediate 
knowledge would have an adverse impact on the 
finances of the organization.  Depending on how 
you would construe the immediate knowledge of that 
if you were to release information prematurely, it 
changes the finances of the organization.  Many 
boards use that as an opportunity under the 
exemptions to the Open Meetings Act for 
discussions during that negotiation period.
               MR. JESSEE:  Irthink I'm getting 
kind of the idea here.  What we want is a process 
that at two critical moments right before the 
governor comes out with what he's going to do, 
before the Legislature declares their final 
package, we want to convene, am I hearing the 
negotiating team or the executive committee.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Or the budget 
committed he.
               MR. JESSEE:  Budget mit he?
               MR. PUGH:  Can you have an 
executive session of a budget committee, Brian 
under the law?
               MR. ROGERS:  Yes.
               MR. PUGH:  It seems it's a good way 
to do that.  This is appropriate.  This is a 
matter that comes under that.
               MR. JESSEE:  We will work rework 
this.  Bringing up the current situation, I think 
what I should do Monday is give Annalee a call and 
say that, you know, as soon as they have some idea 
of what they think they're going to be doing on 
some of these matches, we need to have a 
conversation with them and intend to have an 
executive session of the budget committee to 
reflect on our matches.
               By the way, you alluded to it a 
minute ago, chairman that one of the economic 
taitors is that sometimes you get a partial match.
               MR. PUGH:  Right.
               MR. JESSEE:  In cases it was 
getting too simple.
               What do you do if they give you 80 
percent of the money, 40 percent of the money or 2 
percent of the money?  If that's acceptable -- I'll 
go write -- well, Bill, Bill will rewrite this.  But 
we will be telling Annalee on Monday that we would 
like to know enough in advance that we can give her 
feedback on what we want to do with our matches 
going in forward this year.
               MR. PUGH:  Phil?
               MR. YOUNKER:  Just one thing, maybe 
we ought to speak to partial matches and say that 
in the case of a margessal match that we will go 
back and review the intent and scope of the 
project.
               We may have to make adjustments.  We 
ought to be upfront with them if that's a 
possibility.
               MR. JESSEE:  There is one other 
factor I want to just three in here.  Off you 
scape is a little bit more.  What I want to avoid 
if we possibly can and that is making any of these 
matched decisions after the legislature is done.  
Once that money is in the budget, our money is in 
the budget, these agencies think they have a right 
to claim this money.  It doesn't mean that Betty 
can't close them out of it, but it's not a pretty 
process, and people get pretty wrapped around 
the --
               MS. ROBINSON:  I absolutely agree 
with you.  Let's be honest, in most cases some 
money is better than no money, that's why these 
decisions are so hard is to determine whether or 
not we can better spend our money and make this 
program work to its fullest at the same time 
making a decision we going to say this isn't the 
highest priority this year.
               Let's be honest, those are really 
hard decisions because usually every dollar we spend 
will be utilized and so I definitely agree with you 
that that was very difficult last year, you know, to 
start saying we not going to accept this one and 
this one and this one, because there wasn't a match, 
knowing that everybody already got excited about 
those dollars.
               MR. JESSEE:  Going back briefly to 
an observation we talked about -- one the problems 
is my observation that you as a body match in a 
number of instances, but in two pretty 
significantly different ones from a strategic 
philosophical standpoint, one is cases where your 
view of a project is that this isn't worth doing 
unless there's a match, in other words, a 
relatively low priority that is only worth 
investing in if other funds are made available.  
And the other end of the spectrum is a project 
that is so critical and so important that you're 
going to put whatever you can towards it and 
anything you can encourage others to put towards 
it is all to the good, but you're going to go 
ahead no matter what, and the problem is, it's not 
strategic for the beneficiaries to reveal, if you 
will, where you are on that at the front end of 
the game, because they figure that out in a hurry.  
And then you've got no leverage.  They  know your 
negotiateding position is.
               MR. PUGH:  This is John Pugh.  The 
one issue that I think this will help for us to do 
some clarification on and force us to have the 
governor's office clarify, as we have in the past 
on a couple of issues, if they are saying by not 
matching that they do not believe there should 
ever be a general fund expenditure in this area, 
we've got a policy difference because we saying 
that we will not fund ongoing state government 
requirements.  We funding pilots, we funding, you 
know -- so it seems to me that we have to drill 
down in some ways with the governor's office, we 
getting better at it, on what their intent is, if 
they're getting from their commissioners or 
whatever that this is not something that they want 
to take under their responsibility under the 
general portion of the budget, then it seems to me 
that we have to look at that very carefully.  We 
have in the past, when we heard that from Annalee, 
we thought maybe this is not one that we want to 
go forward with.  We have heard, this is a pilot 
and it will be picked up on the state.  It seems 
to me that that's the kind of thing that we can 
clarify in these kind of negotiations upfront.  
I'm reluctant to take to the legislature and push 
through the legislature something that the 
administrative branch of government is saying that 
they do not want to fund in the future.  I think, 
once again, we are setting our beneficiaries up 
for a failure in that sense.  It seems to me that 
that's one of the critical issues of look looking 
at this.  Match and unmatch.
               You've got enough to come back.  I 
think the last thing, I was a little concerned about 
the way this is written with your last statement 
which was you wanted this to take place in the 
legislature.  This is a post-legislative thing here.  
B of 3 says recommend of withdrawal of trust income 
from the project.  So it's a little -- if you're 
saying we shouldn't do that, you know, I didn't 
quite understand, Jeff, that once the negotiations 
were hammered out at the legislature, you seemed to 
indicate we should do the expenditure, maybe what we 
sailing is people have to change their scope or 
whatever, but we not -- maybe -- it would only be 
something that some kind of a really level where 
it's just not enough funding at all to do the 
project.  That seemed pretty broad there.
               MR. JESSEE:  That was -- you know, 
I would recommend against having that in here, but 
we were trying to be true to what we understood we 
were being directed to develop.
               MR. PUGH:  Okay.  Anything else on 
this?
               MS. ROBINSON:  I think that's a 
very important one for Nelson.  So I think be 
sure -- being he's not here.  I would talk this 
out with him before the final policy is drafted.  
I think he was the one who felt the strongest 
about continuing funding when there wasn't a 
match.
               MR. PUGH:  Okay.  We'll move on.
               MR. JESSEE:  The last one --
               MR. PUGH:  I wanted to know, it's 
exactly 10:00 o'clock, and we're exactly on the 
item.  Just so you guys like to have leadership.
               MR. HERMAN:  That was the agenda 
that I developed, John.
               (Laughter.)
               MR. PUGH:  Request for 
recommendation, RFR process.  Is there anything on 
that?
               MS. CULPEPPER:  We had gun to look 
at the RFR process fores next two years, and as 
pard of that process, I have been talking with 
some of the Trustees to look at what worked in the 
last two years, what things they'd like to relook 
at and trying to get a sense for priorities and -- 
that we going to be putting into this year's RFR.  
I had some short discussion with the executive 
directors at our strategic communications meeting 
trying to get more information together for them 
before their collaborative meeting which I will 
join them at when they have it, supposedly 
sometime in January, maybe.
               One of the things that came up when I 
talked with both Trustee Pugh and Trustee Page was 
that it might be a good idea to schedule a work 
session for the Board in December or one-day work 
session to go over some of the prioritization issues 
for the RFR person and get those down, make sure 
that we all agreed on what we'd like to see in the 
RFR, and I would like to propose that if we are 
interested in doing that that we do that the second 
week of December sometime, the week of December 
10th, maybe Tuesday the 11th.  It would be a one-day 
thing, start at maybe 10:00 in the morning so that 
people could come in and just make it a face-to-face 
meet together go over all these issue that I'm 
coming up with by talking with people.  What I plan 
to do is take all the notes from interviewing 
everyone and put together the issues and assemble 
the agenda for that meeting from there so we can set 
it out and let you know these are issues we need to 
talk out.
               Then the executive director  have 
requested that we produce the RFR as early as 
possible.  If we able to do this in December, then 
we can work on this and have the RFR ready by the 
middle of January, maybe for distribution.
               MR. PUGH:  Other questions for 
deLisa?
               MR. PUGH:  What about the prior 
tidessation meeting, would this be something that 
would be dable?  We have a connection in case it 
isn't for a one-day meeting in terms of travel.  
Do we want to do it audio conference?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Well, a couple 
things.  Of course, Jeff and I haven't had time to 
discuss this at all, that's No. 1.  Jeff and I 
need to talk about it.
               There was also some discussions after 
we look at our last retreat what were some of the 
decision that were made from our last retreat and 
whether or not we need to have a little longer 
retreat of all the Trustees, and whether or not we 
could couple this with also talking about the RFR.
               But, again, unfortunately Jeff and I 
haven't had time to talk about it and to kind of set 
a date.
               I think generally speaking, when it 
comes down to the RFR, what I've seen by having a 
teleconference.  I think it's harder to focus 
sometimes.  I think this is a very important issue, 
and I think we would do a little better if we were 
sitting around a table having more of a dialogue and 
discussion on it than haveing people scattered all 
over the state by teleconference.
               To me, I think it would be worth it.  
We moving into our next opportunity to do a two-year 
budget cycle.  We would hope that a lot of good work 
has already gone in the past, you know, regarding 
the RFR, so we may could take that for like a half a 
day, then have a half a day on a retreat or a day, 
day and a half, maybe -- fly in and maybe leave 
early the next day too.  That's kind of my thought.  
I need to like work with Jeff.
               MR. PUGH:  We want to come back to 
the full board meeting?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Yeah, discuss that.
               MR. PUGH:  Anything else in that 
area?
               Timeline for reviewing FY02 
implementation reports from the departments.
               MR. HERMAN:  John, this is Bill.
               MR. PUGH:  Where is that at, Bill?
               MR. HERMAN:  It's in the same memo 
that we've been talking about here with matching 
funds.
               MR. PUGH:  Okay.  I see it.
               MR. HERMAN:  Page 3.  Roman numeral 
IV.
               Basically all I'm saying, we working 
with the department, word documents that we e-mailed 
to them and they're working on them and sending them 
back.  My understanding is that things seem to be 
go -- day.  I haven't heard a lot of people having 
problems with it.  I just tried to set up a timeline 
here that would allow Trust staff time to review 
things, also allow kind of a ten-day period where we 
negotiate with the departments and kind of correct 
any errors or, up nope, discuss issues that maybe 
need revision in the document itself.
               And then file a report and then get a 
budget committee review sometime in January.
               MR. PUGH:  Bill, this is John.  
Have you gone through this with the department?
               MR. HERMAN:  We've always had this 
ten-day kind of period with them that we've 
negotiated, all I've read of really added here is 
just putting in time for the Trust staff to kind 
of know what their deadline is for reviewing the 
information that comes in.
               So, in a way this is kind of writing 
down what we've always done.
               MR. PUGH:  The initial deadline is 
the same as we've already negotiated with the 
departments?
               MR. HERMAN:  It was five days late 
this year due to some delays on my part.
               MR. PUGH:  Okay.  Are there any 
other questions on this?
               Do we need a motion to adopt this or 
is this just an internal process?
               MR. HERMAN:  No.
               MR. JESSEE:  No.
               MR. PUGH:  We have one final item  
which is not on the agenda, some action item that 
came out of the budget committee on September the 
26th, correct, Betty.
               MR. HERMAN:  Save that for your 
committee report in the afternoon.
               MR. PUGH:  We'll do that with the 
full board.
               MR. HERMAN:  You can include the 
report from this morning and the 26th at the same 
time.
               MR. PUGH:  Any other items to come 
before the budget committee?
               MR. HERMAN:  I'm going to sign off 
and head over to the Drug & Alcohol Board meeting, 
is that okay, Jeff.
               MR. JESSEE:  .
               MR. PUGH:  Take a motion for 
adjournment.
               MR. HAWKINS:  So moved.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I'll second.  
Because Pugh any objections to adjournment.
               Budget committee is adjourned.  
Early.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Wrey'll see if John 
(time noted 10:08.
               MS. ROBINSON:  The next committee 
meetings will start at 10:30, everybody has about 
15 minutes to stretch.
               Talk.
               (Budget Committee Meeting adjourned 
at 10:08 a.m. )
               (Break.)
               (Stand by.)
               MR. MALONE:  Show time, folks.
               MR. JESSEE:  We into the thick part 
of the packet now.
               MR. MALONE:  Here we are.  This  won 
came in by weight.
               This is the scheduled meeting of the 
program and planning committee.  The time is 10:40 
on November 15th, here in Fairbanks, Alaska.  I'm 
calling this to order.
               I don't really have -- I guess I have 
one announcement, I'll kind of hold for the minutes, 
it pertains to the minutes.
               Are there any other announcements?
               Hearing none, we moving on to the 
minutes, by golly, we have three sets of minutes.
               Comments about -- just before I asked 
for a motion to approve, the word quf private" on 
the top of our minutes.
               MS. RIDER:  We'll take care of 
that.
               MR. MALONE:  Suggestions, having 
read through them -- it would be very helpful to 
me if we could not put the agenda item as a 
heading before the discussion so that we know the 
difference in the separation as we go through 
them.  I read my own dialogue, it was masterful, I 
didn't know what I was talking about a couple of 
times.  It was great.
               I guess I'm more used to minutes that 
way.  It would be more helpful to our record in the 
future, if we could do that.
               With that, we had three sets in front 
of us.  Members, would you prefer to take these one 
at a time or together?
               MS. ROBINSON:  I say probably one 
at a time.  You've got to make sure --
               MR. MALONE:  Minutes of August 
24th.
               MR. HAWKINS:  I'll move approval of 
the minutes of August 24th, Mr. Chairman.
               I have a motion.  Do I have a second?
               MR. PUGH:  So moved.
               MR. MALONE:  I have a second.
               MS. ROBINSON:  It would have to be 
Susan.
               MS. LABELLE:  August 24th.  I was 
there.  I'll second it.
               MR. MALONE:  Are there any 
objection to approving the members of August 24th?
               Notice, I've intentional left the 
year out.
               MS. RIDER:  Thank you.
               MR. MALONE:  August 24th, the year 
2000.
               MS. RIDER:  Mr. Chair, staff typo, 
that's the 25th, your agenda, that's me.
               MR. MALONE:  We have a correction, 
it's August 26th, the year 2000.
               Okay.
               Moving right along.  We have a motion 
to approve the minutes of September 21, 2001.
               It should be the second set of 
minutes in your packet.
               MS. ROBINSON:  It looks like you 
were the only one in attendance.
               MR. MALONE:  I was the only one at 
that meeting.  Except, Ms. Cohen, I'm sorry, 
Ms. Cohen.
               I guess the Chair could move to 
accept his own minutes, couldn't you.
               MR. HAWKINS:  You can ask if there 
are any objections?
               MR. MALONE:  Are there any 
objections to these minutes?
               Hearing none, we approve the minutes 
of September 21st, 2001 minutes.
               Lastly, we have the meeting of 
September 26th, '01, which I believe is our 
teleconference, wasn't it -- well, I was 
teleconferenced.
               MR. HAWKINS:  The duty falls to 
Phil and Caren.
               MR. YOUNKER:  I move we accept them 
as submitted.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I'll second it.
               MR. MALONE:  I have a motion to 
accept the minutes of the meeting of September 
26th, 2001.
               Are there any objections?
               Hearing none, we've accepted all the 
minutes.
               Thank you, folks.
               Moving briskly, along.  We have an 
agenda, approval of the agenda.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Move approval of the 
agenda, Mr. Chairman.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Second.
               MR. MALONE:  I have a motion and 
several seconds to approve the minutes.
               Moving on to our first item, 
individual development accounts update.  Mary eely 
begged has inundated with exrent information with us 
here.
               Yes.  In fact, I should -- I should 
probably do, Mary, Elizabeth, you want to turn us 
over to you.
               MS. RIDER:  If you'd like too, sir.
               Thank you, sir.  The first two pages 
are the staff summary.  I realize that this is 
somewhat dense information.  It's sort of a dense 
concept.  This is about individual development 
accounts which is a project that the Trustees funded 
for development this year and then implementation in 
'03 and so on.
               You have approved $25,000 for this 
year and $150,000 each year for FY03 through '07 and 
present.
               Individual develop president accounts 
are basically matched savings accounts that help a 
person get enough money to -- with interest to 
achieve some kind of a significant financial goal, 
and mostly individual development accounts pertain 
to homeownership starting a small business, 
post-secondary education.  They can also relate to 
some kind of vocational counseling.  In some places 
you could do transportation, health-care, things 
along those lines.
               When you all asked staff to work up a 
plane for an IDA project here in Alaska, we started 
looking at what it is -- what we going to try to 
promote from this project and who our potential 
funding partners are.  I prepared this little 
summary of what the values are, some of our 
potential target audiencings and what the topics are 
that our beneficiaries have expressed in in the 
past.  You recall in the Trust beneficiary survey we 
asked folks in 1998 what it is that's important to 
them, as well as what they didn't have, as well as 
what was working for them.
               One of those issue, 59.7 percent of 
people said there was a problem, their problem was 
taking care of paperwork or bills.  We not going to 
find that kind of service through an IDA or through 
a savings account, part of learning how to save is 
learning how to do your bills and how to do your own 
paperwork.  One thing that we fund when we fund 
therapies and other kinds of human services is we 
often don't look at what does it take to stay in 
your home, stay in your apartment, what does it take 
to do your everyday things, that's the stuff that 
piles up.
               So, if we working on financial 
literacy as part of a savings account program, we 
helping people learn how to save and why to save, 
and how to anticipate regular budget expenses such 
as your car insurance, your car payment, your 
mortgage, or the dental work thaw're going to have 
to have done every year.
               In IDA's financial literacy is a 
pretty essential component.  In the research so far, 
and this project -- there's a national demonstration 
project, the preliminary evaluation data is at the 
back end of that portion of your packet.  They're 
finding out that the cost and the amount of effort 
that needs to go into the financial literacy part is 
equivalent to the cost of the match that you want to 
put in to the IDA's themselves.  If you're going to 
do -- say if somebody is going to save $10 a week 
towards their car and we want to match them $10 a 
week towards their car, we should expect to put a 
similar level of effort financially and in terms of 
helping them learn how to do their own budgeting 
into that financial literacy.
               So that's a little different from 
what the feds expected when the Federal government 
put together their program for individual 
development accounts.
               I put some of that forward in the 
next couple of pages.
               We have several potential partners 
for funding and for programs.  There are a lot of 
agencies that are interested in helping with this 
financial lit raisey piece, but the thing is that 
there aren't a lot that are already doing this.  
Consumer credit counseling agencies, they do 
financial literacy.  They help people figure out how 
to deal with creedsittors, AHFC's housing program 
does something similar.  They don't do a match.  
That would be an easy place to put match into and 
they've also got the financial literacy there to a 
degree.
               Funding, we have -- Wells Fargo 
Foundation could put some money in, they haven't 
yet.  We in disdiscussion with the Rasmuson 
Foundation.  Still working with some of the banks.  
We going to look at pulling some of this stuff 
together in the next couple of months.  See who's 
interested and who can commit funding.
               We have a fuel things that we going 
to have to work out with our partners, it's not 
something that we can do on our own unless we find 
out we don't have any partners.  What are the 
implications in Alaska for Social Security and 
meteddic aid.  If we go with the Federal grant 
application to get some additional match, we have 
the advantage of getting their cash matched to the 
different savings account.  They don't put money in 
financial literacy.  We need a whole another funder 
to come in and cover that part of it.  And then at 
the same time, if we go with the Federal match, 
we -- the Federal grant funded IDAs are exempt from 
qualifying as an asset for Social Security and for 
Medic aid.
               If we don't use the Federal funds 
which we recognize have these limitations, those 
funds would count against somebody who has Social 
Security or Medic aid, and those are some pretty 
restrictive asset limits for Social Security.  So we 
don't want to bump anything off their Social 
Security just because we trying to save for money 
for a house or something along those lines.  We have 
on to figure a way to figure that out.
               I've put an indication of what the 
cost might be if we going to go through the full 
amount available through the Federal grant and what 
our funding partners might want to look at 
financially as well.
               As we progress in the discussion was  
the rails must on foundation and some of the banks, 
what people are interested in doing.  At this point 
you might find that First National Bank or some 
other banking entity has a significant interest in 
doing the financial literacy themselves.  That's 
what their bank staff can do, they can do the 
financial literacy and they can house the savings 
account right there.
               We might find out that's not where 
their interest level it.  We'd want to pay for the 
financial lit raisey another way.  I can't come 
forward to you with a recommendation for changing.  
I wanted to let you know there was some progress.
               We hoping to have a training just 
before our Trust meeting in February, probably held 
in Anchorage with potential program partners, I'm 
talking about the folks who can do financial 
literacy and are interested in that as well as some 
of our funding partners, potential funding partners.  
The corporation for economic Development is 
available to come up just at that point and help us 
figure out what our Alaska strategy is.
               That's where things stand.
               I added all this extra information is 
I know some of you have asked in the past for how 
these things are working in other states, how does 
it aaffected people with disabilities, and here's 
the background.
               MR. MALONE:  I see we have Milly in 
the room also in the back.  Milly, do you have 
anything you wish to add to this?  You don't have 
to.
               MS. RYAN:  Oh, I will.
               I'm just really pleased to see the 
Trust commitment to making this work in everything.  
It's really important for people in terms of being 
able to have some assets, being able to weather some 
of the storms that come up and stuff.  I think it's 
a real incentive for people to work and to get 
higher education and be able to really embark on 
some sort of a career ladder.  Mary eely begged and 
I were sort of talking about the pros and cons of 
the different approaches.  I think I would really 
like to see the Trust look at conveneing that sort 
of consortium to apply for the federal funds so that 
people who are on SSI and Medic aid can participate 
in the program.
               Maybe at the same time we may need to 
think about can we do some sort of a parallel 
program that would give people some additional 
options, the ones who did not want to save for those 
sort of three things that the feds alaw.  That's all 
for right now.  Looking forward to the workshop on 
the 5th and 6th.
               MR. PUGH:  Mr. Chairman.  John 
Pugh.  I had a question when I read through the 
materials there was a whole thing on tann, have we 
looked at that as another partner in the state 
giving they're coming due with some problems with 
their maintenance of effort ands the TANA law, 
this is this something we need to be looking at 
more carefully, have we, what's the situation on 
that.
               MS. RIDER:  Yes, sir.  I've been in 
discussion with Ron kraer in the division of 
public assistance and in the past a fair amount of 
discussion with Angela sa letter know with adult 
public assist answer.  You may recall when we 
originally proposed this project, we tried to 
housed this over at public assistance and they 
politely declined our offer.  Milly picked up.  
The governor's office again declined our offer.  
We cautiously going forward with them.  We don't 
want to put them in a position where they're going 
to be forced into committing assets that they 
weren't intenting -- intending to commit on this 
level.  They are coming on a real tight time krun 
much.  A lot of people are looking at -- the rest 
of the people having to drop off, are also Trust 
beneficiaries.  They're beginning to see where 
this can have some benefit.
               MR. MALONE:  John, was that your 
question?  Maybe I didn't understand your 
question.
               MR. PUGH:  My question was, 
involvement of the public assistance division in 
terms of looking at this since TANA has some 
provisions which allow IDA's and also allow for 
some exceptions if people are using IDA's as far 
as their asset, you know their asset ceiling.  It 
sounds like Mary Elizabeth is continuing.
               MS. RIDER:  It's a discussion item 
with them.  Hopefully they would be interested in 
participating financially and bringing forward the 
Tanive participants as well.  We'll see.  So far, 
it's just a discussion item.
               MR. MALONE:  Okay.  Any further 
comments or questions on the individual IDA's?
               Hearing none, it's a great memo, Mary 
eely being.  I really appreciate it.
               MS. RIDER:  Thanks.  If anybody on 
this topic particularly has any questions about 
this, I'm looking for better ways to present the 
material because this is kind of out of the normal 
scope for us.  And so if you can -- if you have 
questions, please let me know what they are.  See 
if I can come up with an information sheet that 
helps us out.
               MR. MALONE:  One of the things, 
when we get to the workshop we proposing, we may 
look through our partners for an implementation or 
procedures handbook, because it is becoming so 
wide, so diverse, the partners are equally 
diverse.
               Okay.  Moving right along.  The most 
exciting topic is the planning committee.  Title 47 
central reporting prog eblghtd.  We were hoping to 
have a representative to us or telephonically with 
us from DOC, but we seem to have neither.  Mary 
Elizabeth has prepared for us an updating 
memorandum.  Not the most encouraging.
               I can report from our last or my last 
meeting with the -- which was telephonically through 
the committee with Bill Herman, Dr. Wore el and dew 
ain't pebbles, the administrator officer of DOC, the 
outcome of that meeting which was about four weeks 
ago, maybe five weeks ago was that DOC was prepared 
to hire a temp position.  We had an -- outlined an 
implementation plan for this, if you will, 
first-year fundings.  Dr. Worrel el had stepped out 
and designed an intake form, just something 
basically for us to react to, and we sort of agreed 
that we -- one of the concerns that dew Wayne 
pebbles, the administrative office had was he was 
short MIS staff and he was afraid that this project 
was going to require the use or extensive use of his 
MIS staff.  We kind of resolved that by we just 
didn't need the information technology or management 
information system people from the department to 
implement the first phases of this.
               That was all kind of agreed to.  So 
far, we haven't had any response from the department 
on that agreement.
               My remembrance was that dew ain't 
peebles authorizes Beth si robeson to go ahead and 
advertise for this temp position.  Subsequently 
learned that Ms. Robeson has now passed it back to 
Mr. Pebbles.  Unforward innately, I don't have any 
good records from you.  I notice, all the DOC people 
ran out the door here.
               But it has been resolved of this 
Trust for three years now, that this one will move 
on.
               Any comments?
               MS. RIDER:  Mr. Chair?
               One thing that we could do, perhaps, 
is sit down with maybe Beth see robeson or dew Wayne 
peebless, first, a face-to-face meeting.  Sometimes 
these teleconference messages could be enhanced.
               MR. MALONE:  That's quite a 
peals-offering.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Mr. Chairman, maybe 
you could walk me through a little more -- Mary 
eely begged, what is it we need to do so that we 
can -- you know, I areally appreciate, Mr. 
Chairman, your lead on this, but we continuing -- 
nothing new.  I think I was mentioning last night, 
I remember the Cooper Administration was working 
on this issue and getting no where.  Any ideas to 
get us off the dime here, meet with Beth see and 
them.
               MR. MALONE:  We have an excellent 
scope of work that was drafted last spring, Mary 
eely begged's efforts and accepted by the 
department.  We took that scope of work in this 
teleconference about four weeks ago and took 
pieces of out of it as far as the initial 
implementation, what we would all agree on as 
initial implementation.  To relieve Mr. Peebles' 
concerns about the need for MIS staff, we stepped 
aside from the management information component of 
it.  Looked at just bringing a temporary employee 
onboard with our MHTAAR funds and start engaging 
the community eyes, because this whole project is 
focussed on community participation and community 
reporting.  It didn't seem like a big technical 
step, certainly in the project, but an effort, 
significant effort which would require, you know, 
a full-time person.
               That was all agreed to, and so it's 
basically, I think, it's just getting the department 
to just follow through with that person.  Advertise 
and recruit that person.
               My understanding, again, from that 
meeting, telephonically was that Ms. Robson had been 
given the authority to immediately advertise for 
that position.  I waited a few weeks, didn't hear 
anything.  Tried to make contact again.  Next thing 
I learned was that Ms. Robson had turned it back 
over to the administrative officer, Mr. Peepings.  
Rob rob pique pique this is dew Wayne pebbles.  
Pique pique is that you, John?
               MR. MALONE:  Okay.  Pique pique 
where we are right now, two things are coming 
together.  We have cut over to the department's 
new management information system.  We've got that 
up and going and going through the transition.  As 
of Tuesday this week, the old office system has 
been put to bed.
               The other thing that happened Tuesday 
morning is I've hired my research analyst and we've 
started getting our act together next week on the 
Title 47 project.  Mall mall wow, up saved yourself 
today.
               Mr. Pebbles:  All the money is 
sitting there, we'll sit down and work on the design 
and work on the 60,000, hot we going to work on 
collecting the information.
               MR. MALONE:  Beautiful timing, dew 
wage.  Biewtedful timing.  You don't know.
               Thank you for that.  I certainly 
appreciate that and --
               Mr. Pebbles:  I I'm in Anchorage, I 
get home tonight.  I haven't had a chance to meet 
with the new research and sift.
               MR. MALONE:  Who is she.
               Mr. Piques.  Carey col jinls.  She 
workd with alcohol and drug abuse as their analyst.  
She comes with a good background to help pull this 
thing together.
               MR. MALONE:  Absolutely silent 
here, dew Wayne.  We so encouraged.
               MS. ROBINSON:  This is Caren.  Is 
there anything you need from us.
               Mr. Peebless:  Let me get a focus 
group started.  We'll look back.  Mary and I haven't 
had a chance to working on it.  She started and I 
left town.  Give us the next week.
               MS. ROBINSON:  How are y'all 
involving the alcohol board and are they involved 
at all?
               Mr. Pebbles:  The only person we've 
had conversations with has been John.  I haven't -- 
however you want us to involve people, we are more 
than willing to do that.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Sounds like Mary 
eely bent might have an answer.
               MS. RIDER:  Caren, just to clarify 
a little bit.  This project is between dew Wayne 
and his staff and contract jails, maybe the police 
depart pals now the contract jails and noncontract 
jails.  The alcohol board is part of the record 
from August of 2000 that's in your packet that 
Steve Hamilton did.  Alcohol word and the mental 
health board helped with that.
               This project is a result of their 
work.
               MS. ROBINSON:  That's what I mean.  
My point is, are we keeping them informed and 
making sure that if they have any suggestions 
because of their work and those sort of things.  
That's my main point.  Now that we moving forward, 
which is great, we want to keep our other partners 
involved in what we doing and using their skills 
to make it work well.
               MR. MALONE:  As I reiterated, I 
think that's probably the first and information 
most the most if forwardable part, is making the 
contact with all the communities, particularly the 
public safety entities.  Mary Elizabeth had in the 
early part of the project, maybe two years ago.  
We have that list, of course, I think it's 
important to let these communities, particularly 
the purpose lick safety entities know that we are 
moving forward with this.
               MR. YOUNKER:  My meeting here in 
town, Dan Watts came up, I attended one of your 
teleconferences.  One of the questions I have, 
just in listen together what's happening here is 
what teeth do we have to get the communities 
involved in this and pursue it?  As I understood 
in Fairbanks, we don't even keep records anymore.  
We haven't for two years at the police station.
               MR. MALONE:  I guess, at -- 
initially I didn't approach it with the -- in a 
leveraged position, did the Trust have teeth, 
could we enforce something.  I approached it from 
the perspective that it was a huge -- aside from 
the treatment issues and the social issues 
involved in the beneficiary class, that it was 
such a misuse and time as real serious abuse 
because of the amount of commitment that public 
safety had to put in to handling these people.  He 
are absolutely probably the only entity throughout 
our system, community police, municipal police, as 
long as they're a commissioned police office that 
don't have a choice in interest dicting in people 
that have this level of contribution.  In 
communityies where it was a pervasive problem, a 
real problem as probably is in your community, is 
certainly is in mine in Bethel, public safety was 
directing a huge amount of resources and they were 
the only ones, really, and the jail, department of 
corrections and public safety.
               So, we didn't approach it from the 
fact or from the issue, again, that we would be 
leveraging.  We approached it from the fact of 
trying to relieve the community, particularly public 
safety entities in the communityy and find more 
appropriate dispositional place presidents that 
would get better results than the historical 12-hour 
internalment in the jail and out the door type of 
thing.
               That's the kind of way we looked at 
it initially.  I don't know if you had an 
opportunity, there is a very brief report in your 
pamphlet that was done by Commissioner Perdue when 
we first started the project, probably after the 
first year, would that be more like it Mary 
Elizabeth.
               MS. RIDER:  We started in '9D 8.
               MR. MALONE:  We had to get cranky 
about having this out.  We always cranky about 
this project.
               MS. RIDER:  People love us for 
that.
               MR. MALONE:  This is a good 
project.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Maybe leverage -- how 
do we get communities involved past -- in 
listening here in the police station is very 
interested in getting something done, but it stops 
there.
               MR. MALONE:  That's a good one.
               MR. YOUNKER:  What do we do to get 
past that.  I understand that Bethel took a lot of 
community meetings and a lot of leadership and 
probably you were individually a big part of that.  
Every community doesn't have a job, you know.
               MR. MALONE:  Well, -- a John.
               MR. MALONE:  But we have Phil in 
Fairbanks.  How many more Trustees do we need.
               There is no question about it.  Caren 
was sharing last night, her experiences with Juneau, 
with the Cooper Administration how long -- how long 
this problem -- of course, I walked into my earliest 
years a as a State Trooper, 30 years ago, I think 
many of you heard me say, I ended up with the 
largest single arrest record in the his try of the 
state, over 1,000 people of jail.  99 percent is 
because the they be -- is because they elected to be 
a distributor of alcohol in our communityy.
               It's an issue from a lot of policy 
perspectives.  I'm hoping as we move on with this -- 
again, DOC has stepped up to implement their motive 
and incentive is to implement is because we looking 
at better than 4,000 noncriminal intakes going into 
their system.  That certainly is an incentive.  
You'll note sills from our scope, communityy is the 
focus.  The only way we going to come up with 
effective or evaluate effective programs is from the 
communityy.  They're not going to fall into the 
fold, they're not going to be as equally responsive.  
We've had previous models like Juneau that has done 
excellent jobs with it.  Communities like Bethel 
that is doing a better job with it.
               One of the thing that Commissioner 
Pugh pointed out about two years ago.  She noticed a 
drop in hurt state institutions just from the fact 
that we are elevating this awareness.  We are 
elevating this focus.  I think it was at the 
teleconference you were on Phil, asked me about how 
did the numbers drop so much in Bethel.  I think 
what happens is when you get the community to a 
certain level of intoll answer of the behaviors that 
are associated often with these types of folks, I 
think there are people in Fairbanks indicated here 
that as typically you've got a small minority that 
constitute as high level recried vizzism.  The 
community system as a whole doesn't tolerate the 
level of behavior, but it takes persistent time to 
do that.
               I'm certainly not an expert on all 
the strategies.  But, again, when someone is taken 
into involuntary custody as in a Title 47 hold, they 
immediately under our stated ewts are elevated to 
the first level of priority of services.  Though we 
have a great scapegoat in the statutes just, if you 
will an intoxicated person, once they hit that jail, 
they  -- in 11 hours and 59 minutes they can put 
them back out.  There's no other responsibilityy to 
see that a more appropriate, if you will, 
disposition is warranted.
               It's a complex problem, but it's a 
big one.
               Again, we are talking about involume 
try status, we are talking about a huge of 
inappropriate resources between public safety and 
jail systems.  And all we trying to do at central 
reporting is to get a better idea of the actualities 
of the problem, where it's happening, what the 
frequency is.  If there are assistance, real 
focusing of resources that we could bring.  First we 
have to be able to see the whole problem that's all 
we trying to do with central reporting.
               MR. PUGH:  This is John Pugh.  I 
would answer, in addition to what John has just 
said, there are a couple of things that I think 
are critical.  One of them is that an awful lot of 
local policymakers look at this as an economic 
issue.  One of the things about data tracking is 
trying to get enough data is maybe to build up the 
argument that there may be cheaper models than 
what they're presently doing with the jail.  The 
problem we have with the state, as you and I have 
discussed at the break, is that we have a 
centralized facility, system, which is paid for by 
the state.  So, municipalities do not have to be 
charged for this.  In fact, the only one -- 
there's only been a couple of community that have 
been paying over the years, and Fairbanks isn't 
one of them, June o and Anchorage were paleing.  
In Juneau last year dropped paying for these 
things because they said, heck, we the only ones 
paying, we're not going to pay for it.  So you 
come back to the people say, wait a minute now, 
you mean we going to pick up a local service that 
costs such and such, right now we not paleing 
anything if they go to the jail.  So, this is 
really a very difficult issue from the economic 
standpoint.  Local communities don't see it as 
something where they really see the buy-off 
because heck, jails , that's coming out of a state 
budget over here.  Suddenly you're asking us on a 
local leave toll pick this up.
               From our standpoint is more of 
working with our beneficiaries and getting a more 
appropriate treatment or caring for these 
individuals.  It seems to me that that's the higher 
ground that you have to argue because it's difficult 
on just the economic issue unless you somehow begin 
to tax communities, you know, make them pay for not 
taking care of this local problem.  And right now we 
do not have a way to do that.  And so that's why you 
see this Fairbanks thing people get interested, 
there's a lot of interest and so on, then it all 
dies out, we go back to putting everybody in jail.  
Then people get interested, it goes back, because 
there isn't that economic incentive to keep it 
there.  It really is more after drain on the local 
coughers than to do this right.  So the only area 
you can stand on is sort of the moral high ground 
versus the local economic situation.  Am I reading 
this correctly, John?
               MR. MALONE:  Yeah, again, -- I 
think you're right on target.  Catch-22, I think 
for the local communityy has always been the fact 
that your public safety officers are paid through 
the same general funds as the rest of the 
services.  The fact that you don't step up or try 
to do other things, other alternatives besides, 
say the DOC state facility, that you access 
through this year, your public safety functions 
isn't relieved of the responsibilityy to these 
people.  Even though you're paying out one year, 
you're still getting your resource is being 
absorbed or being utilized, few will, on these 
types of interdictions.  They don't have a choice.  
It's not a choice issue with them.
               Looking at it from a community 
argument perspective, I always bring this back to 
the community.  I did it in Bethel also, the fact 
that you don't, if you will, as a politician, want 
to address alternatives, even though the resources 
are there, you're still paying for it through the 
use of your police officers, and you always will.
               And I understand that is one of the 
concerns here locally in the  downtown thrust of 
concerning.  And you have an excellent chief of 
police here.
               MR. MALONE:  Duane, did you leave?
               Mr. Pebbles:  No, I'll still here.
               MR. MALONE:  You can go.
               MS. RIDER:  Dy have one question, 
John, for people on line.  Is there anybody else 
on line besides dew Wayne?
               MR. BUSH:  This is Jay C. from the 
governor's council.
               MS. RIDER:  Right.
               MR. MALONE:  You have to slow down 
a little bit, folks.
               MS. RIDER:  I'm writing them down.  
Aloons o Henderson, great.
               You've got Kate Webster, okay.
               Anybody else on line?  Twf.
               It seems to me, aye loons gop, are 
you on for lind jo Dog.  Hende hende I'm standing h 
for Linda.  Mall.
               MS. RIDER:  You had asked that 
Linda Dog give us an update on the DOC program for 
people with dual diagnosis.
               MR. MALONE:  Right, you may 
remember from our last meeting, we had Linda who 
made a presentation, this was a new project that 
the Commissioner had just put together, had not 
formally presented toOMB at the time.  It was 
purely informational, and I assume it may still be 
that way now.  It was focusing on hiring 
specialized probation officers to deal with duly 
diagnosed folks in the field.  And who am I 
listening to.
               MS. RIDER:  Aloons o Henderson.
               MR. MALONE:  Aloons gop, did you 
hear that okay.
               A SPEAKER:  Yes.  Actually, the 
latest update is we have about 500,000 now that 
the governor had put in his budget to go forth for 
6POs and one mental health position.
               MR. MALONE:  That is good news.  
Did we know that?
               No.  You need to come back more 
often, aye loons o.  That has to be our first 
contribution a half million.
               Thank you for that, that is very 
encouraging, I think it certainly is a project that, 
you know, is very encouraging.  I think one of my 
earlier comments when I first hear it from 
Dr. Spurback is it's actually an extension of the 
program, which I think most of us agree over time. 
has been one of the most effective or more effective 
with dealing with the mentally offenders in the 
system and the discharge in the system.  This is 
very encouraging.
               A SPEAKER:  I'm with the program 
here, local here in Anchorage, and I think that if 
we get assistance with getting additional staff 
for programs such as duly-diagnosis, that will 
assist us with checking us out with the Anchorage 
area and be able to spread it, you know, move it 
across the state.
               MR. MALONE:  Okay.
               Any further questions, comments about 
the duly diagnosed probation officer program?
               Aloons o, thank you very much.
               A SPEAKER:  You're welcome.
               MR. MALONE:  Moving right along.  
API2000 and community project updates.  In your 
packet.
               MR. JESSEE:  I can give you an 
update of where I think you're at.
               MR. MALONE:  We'll get a second to 
get my hands on --
               MR. JESSEE:  What you probably 
mostly need is you all should have gotten a letter 
fromless Webb to Caren Robinson and January 
Mcchair ens.
               MR. MALONE:  We have extra copies, 
marly Elizabeth.
               MS. RIDER:  I put copies out for 
the Trustees and I put them in the back of the 
room.
               MR. JESSEE:  I'll give you a kind 
of running start on sort of where that issue came 
from and then give you a little bit more on where 
we at with the API2000 implementation plan.
               Well, just when you thought it was 
safe to talk about API it came up again.  And I 
think the story probably goes back to the summer 
when API experiences a very serious spike in census.  
In fact, they ended up with I believe over 80 people 
in the hospital and had so many people in the 
hospital they actually had to temporarily close down 
the ad/less event unit in order to make space for 
the adults that were coming in.
               A couple of weeks ago, the governing 
board of API met and Randall Burns, the CEO 
presented them with a number of statistical pieces 
of information that you'll find in your packet right 
before Tab 3 that lays out some of what API has 
experienced, some going back quite a number of 
years.
               A couple of, I think, pretty 
important thing that jump out at me from looking at 
that information, one is, remember that the role of 
API in the state continuum of care is designed to be 
the tertiary care facility, meaning people whose 
illness is so serious and difficult to manage or 
their behaviors are so difficult to manage that they 
cannot be cared for in a local community system of 
care and may require significant hospitalization to 
get them stabilized and hopefully back out into the 
community.
               You'll notice that 50 percent of 
their admissions end up staying in the hospital 
three days or less, and 90 percent of their 
admissions stay 30 days or less.
               This is particularly are because 
generally we view those relatively short lengths of 
stay as suitable for community-based designated 
evaluation and treatment facilities such as we have 
here in Fairbanks, Juneau, Bethel has some beds.
               So, that's been the thrust of the 
API2000 project is to try to get particularly to the 
extent that those beds at API are used for those 
types of clients in Anchorage can develop a 
continuum of Anchorage community-based services that 
would remove that burden from API.
               All of that led to the decision that 
you all know was much time in the making of con 
strukteding and getting funding for a 54-bed 
facility expandable to 72 beds.
               When Randall presented this to the 
governing board, he proposed to them that they 
needed to add to that eight beds of sort of 
emergency crisis nature to deem deal with these 
periodic speaks spikes in population.  My 
understanding is that members of the governing board 
didn't really know that this was going to come up 
and they were going to be asked to support this.  It 
did, they were, and they did support it.
               It then went -- also without 
notice -- to the Mental Health Board.  They reviewed 
it at their meeting.  A week or so later, they also, 
although it's a little unclear exactly what the 
Board endorsed, they also supported this.
               Where the problem came in is, what I 
kind of consider a bootstrapping argument that 
Randall made which was:  Well, if we going to get a 
certificate of need for 80 beds to include these 
eight crisis beds, then our Jake o accreditation 
standards require that we have so many square  feet 
per bed.  We have to add the square footage for 
these eight beds into the hospital.  That makes it 
an 80-bed hospital.  This isn't what we told 
everybody that we were doing.
               And it seemed to fly in the face of 
what we've been trying to do which is deal with the 
crisis population at API bill focusing on the 
community programs, not just building a bigger  
hospital to try to deal with the problem.
               When we found out that this had 
happened, I made some calls to Russ Webb and 
discovered that, in fact, the department's policy 
had not changed.  That they didn't intend to build 
an 80-bed hospital.  That the policy was the same as 
it's been throughout our partnership which is 
they're building a 72-bed hospital.
               We talked about the need for looking 
at a certificate of need that might be in excess of 
72 beds, but didn't believe that a certificate of 
need for 80 beds necessitated actually constructing 
square footage for 80 beds.
               In other words, you could, if you had 
to in a pinch, put people in to the hospital on 
emergency crisis basis that may not be in conforming 
with the JAC O acreed tiltation standard, but it 
wouldn't be illegal if your certificate of need was 
sufficient to cover.
               The reason that seemed reasonable is 
because that then put some pressure on the system to 
try and solve the problem in another way rather than 
just expanding the hospital.
               So, Russ and ill talked a little bit 
more about, well, okay, if we go down that path what 
happens with the 73rd person?  How do you deal with 
the 73rd person that comes in the door?  And in 
talking about it, you know, we realized that what 
you really need is a system of strategies to deal 
with these population crises in the hospital.  In 
other words, when the hospital starts to get full, 
what strategies does the hospital and the system use 
to try and contain the emergency without just 
admitting more and more people into the hospital?
               And so Russ, you know, as you'll see 
from the letter, realizes that they need to develop 
that set of strategies for how to deal with that.
               One of them that I think is very 
forward-thinking and very positive is the idea that 
given how many of these admissions are really more 
appropriate for community-based designated 
evaluation treatment, that one of the options that 
needs to be considered before you just add people to 
the State Hospital is to find designated evaluation 
and treatment beds even if they exist in other 
communities.
               This is a very significant change 
from the past where the revolving door to API only 
worked one way.  You only sort of came in, no one 
really got diverted back to the community.
               So, the idea would be under some 
circumstances when you reach the 72-bed maximum, 
there would be some attempt to find designated 
evaluation and treatment beds that were available in 
another community and actually transport somebody to 
those programs.
               You wouldn't want to do this if the 
hospital was under capacity, because this is not 
necessarily a good thing for the consumer all the 
way around being transported around, we used to call 
it -- maybe still do, airplane therapy.  This isn't 
really our goal of moving people long distances to 
get services, but it certainly then would get 
people's attention that we needed to deal with the 
population.
               So being reassured that the 
department had not changed its position and that, in 
fact, these events had led to some further strategic 
thinking on the department's part about how to 
handle this, Russ put together this letter and has 
handed that out.
               Just briefly, it talked about where 
we are with the community programs.  The single 
point of entry at providence is in the process of 
development.  I believe it's scheduled to come 
on-line sometime after the first of the year and 
start bringing people in.  What they're doing now, 
if you remember the concept is the single point of 
entry will essentially triage people and evaluate 
them and then try to decide where they are most 
appropriately served, whether that be enhanced  
detox, the crisis/rest pitted facility, -- rest 
pitted facility, whether it's at API.  These sorts 
of things.
               They're now working up with the 
community providers, what the criteria are for these 
various services so that everyone is on the same 
page for what types of situations will warrant a 
referral to a particular agency.
               So, I think that's going to come on 
and will be very helpful.
               Those of you that were at the Asset 
Management Committee meeting will recall that Steve 
and I were directed to redouble our efforts with 
Prove dense to work on designated evaluation 
treatment.  That's been the big whole, if you will, 
in developing this continuum of community services 
in Anchorage.
               I'm pleased to report that we got 
some, I think, pretty positive feedback on that.  
First Steve ran into -- actually, they had a 
scheduled meeting with the facilities manager for 
Providence and he relaid the Trustees' concerns 
about getting DET on on line to him.  Vince pledged 
to go back and start talk together the Providence 
hierarchy and I ran into Jerome seal by at the Medic 
aid hearing that Senator Green put on.  Jerl open is 
Doug Bruce's, the COE's, assistant or governmental 
relations vice president or something.  And I talked 
with Jerome in the hallway and he said he would go 
back and check with Doug but it was his 
understanding that Doug's intention was to move 
forward with a plan to develop DET within the 
hospital context.
               There are a lot of caveats to that.  
They got to get the land.  They have to have a plan.  
They have to fit it into their long-term physical 
plan -- development plan, but I thought it was a 
pretty positive response.
               Now, he did say he had to check with 
Doug and we'll have to have a number of additional 
meetings, but this is a much more positive response 
than we sort of have been getting along the way.
               I then called Russ back and said:Ee, 
rules, we going to meet with Providence, the Trust, 
Steve and I just to pat the book on the path that 
they intend to go down this road.  Once we get this 
reassurance, which we now have reason to think we 
going to get, we want to draw the department into 
the discussion because it's going to have to be a 
promise and a pledge.  The designated evaluation and 
treatment beds rntsds going to open for service 
probably, and almost certainly by the time we turn 
the deed over to the land.
               So, what level of assurance we need 
to be reasonably confident that the service will end 
up being delivered is something that we want to 
engage the department in as our partners so that we 
all in agreement that we've got what it is that we 
need to go forward.
               So, a parallel track, I had occasion 
to go to rept aive Sharon Cessna's U med District 
meeting where all the hospitals were represented and 
brought this issue up at that meeting.  Also present 
was Dr. Ee be from Southcentral Foundation, because 
as you know, one of the issues has been why the 
Native Hospital and Southcentral Foundation haven't 
stepped forward either to pick up a piece of this 
short-term intervention service, and I talked to him 
a little bit and he felt there might be a more 
responsive interest in this and encouraged me to get 
some one-on-one time with Katherine Gottlieb from 
Southcentral Foundation who I found to be very 
interested in mental health and substance abuse 
issues in the past and has tries to be quite a 
leader in trying to pull stuff together on this.   
This that is certainly an attractive opportunity 
that I'll follow up on.
               In short, I think that the building 
issue is on track and the community program looks 
more encouraging than it has for a while.
               I'll let you ask any questions.
               John?
               MR. PUGH:  Well, I just think that 
the one comment I'd like to make, just I think we 
need to keep the pressure on.  I think it's very 
destructive, again, admissions bill region, if you 
look at No. 7 of that report.  You have 1 percent 
coming out of the Southeast region which has 12, 
13 percent of the population.  Once again, this -- 
we need to challenge Anchorage to get their act 
together.  You know, I mean, again, it's that 
issue of this is a free service.  It's state-run, 
state-operated, free service to the local police, 
to others to drop people off.  And you're not 
going to get there unless you challenge it.  I 
think that was part of our plan in reducing the 
size of the hospital was to challenge Anchorage to 
get their act together.  And we have put an 
enormous amount of money into this Anchorage 
treatment system, much more than anywhere else in 
the entire state who already have their acts 
together much better than Anchorage, and we 
beginning to get pressure from folks sailing why  
are we continue together put this amount in to 
that Anchorage area.
               So, I guess I definitely want to go 
on record as let's keep the pressure on because 
we've got a situation in which it's misused at times 
by the local community.  And unless they come to the 
table, I'm glad to hear some of them are beginning 
to sound like they may come to the table, but it's 
not going to get resolved.  And it's not in the best 
interest of our beneficiaries not to have it 
resolved and have the hospital misused for 
inappropriate admissions.  Hawk hawk what happened 
to 5  4?
               MR. JESSEE:  Well, 54 -- you know,.
               MR. MALONE:  It was a good year.
               MR. JESSEE:  I think what's from us 
trait together me, ut know me, I'm not one to be 
too shy.  One of the frustrations I have.  One of 
the parts of the API2000 project is the university 
is doing an evaluation of the process, and one of 
the things they've done as part of that is they've 
gone out and asked people in the community and 
around the state, gee, what do you think of the 
downsizing of API?  It's tunneling to me how many 
community provide evers say, oh, my God that's a 
terrible idea.  In fact, we need a bigger 
hospital.
               I wonder if they've seen the 
information, if they understand what happens like, 
John says in communities that have their act 
together like Southeast.  I'm just baffled by how 
some of our community providers respond to this 
issue, because, frankly, when lie at the numbers, we 
have the community services that we should have and, 
in fact, do have in different places.  I honestly 
think a 54-bed hospital is going to have a vacancy 
rate.
               You know, the trouble is trying to 
sell that to people when the serve sis isn't yet 
there. -- the service isn't yet there.  And getting 
people to have the confidence that if we stay the 
course and continue to move forward on what we know 
is the right answer to the problem that we going to 
get there.  I admit it's difficult looking ahead and 
saying the single point of entry won't be there 
until February, DET isn't going to be there for a 
couple of years, and they've got 80 people in the 
hospital today.
               It's pretty hard to talk about a 
54-bed hospital when they've got 80, 85 people in 
the building today.  That's a very real issue, and I 
have a lot of sympathy for Randall and his staff in 
trying to deal with that.
               I honestly think that if we can get 
the DET beds on board and get the single point of 
event try in, when you look at how many of these 
admissions are coming from Anchorage, and how many 
of them are three days and less, let alone, 30 days 
and less, that we can get down to where the 54-bed 
facility is not an unworkable solution.  But part of 
it is there are a lot of people out there that don't 
believe it.  They just don't believe it.  And, you 
know, I'm sort of tired of trying to convince them 
now.  It's just we have to make it happen.  We have 
to get the services in place and have people realize 
that we can do it.
               There will be some, you know, 
changes.  I mean, you know, there is a sense that 
maybe API is pushing people out a little early 
because they've got to try to maintain their krerch 
suls.  I expect for the people that end up remaining 
in API, we may see an incremental increase in length 
of stay that's not necessarily a bad thing.  If they 
need to be there until they're stable enough to move 
on.
               I'm not saying that API isn't 
providing adequate care now.  They are struggling 
with -- at times a crisis census problem.
               So, the short answer is we've not 
given up on 54 beds.  We still think 54 beds will 
work.  But we have to -- we going to have to prove 
it to people by having the services in place that 
will make it happen.
               MR. YOUNKER:  A couple questions, 
Jeff.  This is Phil.
               I read this letter several times the 
other day just to make sure I understood what I was 
reading, I guess.  But November where can I ide -- 
November where can I identify the difference in the 
square feet being build between the 72 plus eight 8.  
I guess if the certificate of need says 80.  That 
means they can add 80.  Are they going to build the 
72 plus 8.  Is there an additional cost.  How much 
square feet have they added?
               MR. JESSEE:  They are not aideing 
square feet.  They are building a 72-bed hospital.  
They will have a certificate of need for 80, and 
what this may mean is you may have, say, a room 
that's part of the 72 that has two beds in it.  
You may, in a crisis situation, have to put three 
people in that room.  That's the type of -- I'm 
not getting literal on the number that's the 
scenario we looking at.  The bed space will be 
geared to a 72-bed hospital, and if you put any of 
those extra eight people in that hospital, they're 
going to have to fit in to that 72-bed space.  
Because that was one of the mediate questions.  If 
we can build the square footage we need for  80 
beds, fully -- you know, build out all the square 
footage for all 80 beds, with the same money that 
we told everybody was barely going to build 72 
beds, how do you -- you know, were we lying then 
or are we lying now kind of deal?
               If we could squeeze 8 in, why 
couldn't we squeeze 8 in before for half a million 
dollars less?  It's baffling how you can make the 
math work.
               But, again, you know, in Randall's 
defense somewhat, he's got a problem.  He's got a 
hospital that is bursing at the seems to -- seams 
today.  He lacks confidence and I believe a lot of 
his staff does as well, that these community 
services are going to pick up the slack and make a 
72-bed hospital work.  But I understand that because 
he's on the butt end of the joke today.  But, you 
know, we have to take a bigger picture view of the 
interest of the beneficiaries in the long run.
               Back to your issue, the department's 
position has never waiverd.  You know, when I got to 
Russ, the answer was the same answer that we had 
with each other when we went hand in hand to the 
Legislature last year, we build ago 72-bed hospital 
with square footage for 72 beds.  If we have an 
80-bed CON, we put additional eight people in, yes 
our accreditation through JAC O is going to be 
reflective of failing to meet those standards.  
That's not a good thing.  No one wants a crowded 
hospital, but we've made these commitments that 
that's as big a hospital as we going to build.
               There are some other things they may 
try to do that I don't think are bad.  You know, one 
of the things we learned in looking at Charter 
North, one of the things they did in the design is 
they ran a lot of the utilities to a point in the 
structure where if at some point you added on, you 
could open the wall and there would be your utility 
corridor, or able to be accessed.  That seems like a 
prudent thing to do.  It doesn't really cost very 
much more.  If anything, the course of construction 
of design, but it does give you flexibility in 15, 
20 years, 25 years, hopefully this building will 
have a life of 30 or 40 years.
               You can't predict the future.
               But I am at least reassured that we 
build that we said we going to build, a 72-bed 
hospital.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Well, one of those 
things that came to mind to me is that we shipping 
people from jails to Arizona because the court 
case says the facility was limited to a certain 
size.  We not going to be in compliance with those 
extra eight beds, we take that same risk that some 
judge somewhere will say, you can't use those 
eight beds.
               MR. JESSEE:  Well, I haven't done 
the legal analysis.  I don't know that being in 
violation of the JAC O accreditation standards by 
itself would probably generate that kind of a 
court order.  I think that the hope is that if you 
get into that situation -- you know, there's a 
tension, there's no doubt there's a tension 
between not wanting to build so much capacity that 
it becomes easy to put people in the hospital 
because it's there, it's got bed space, it's got 
staff, you just -- you know, it's an easy answer 
to a lot of people's problems or at least 
perceived that way, versus at the other end, 
creating a situation where the beneficiaries are 
in a very crowded fa silty that met their 
treatment, the outcomes are damaged because 
they've got way too many people for the space that 
they've got.  But unless you create some tension 
in that direction, you know, it's like I used to 
say, build the beds and they will come.
               If you have the bed space, they  -- 
in general, my belief is they will find a way to 
fill them.  The community services will not pick up 
some of these people.
               So, I don't know that we can get a 
court order, but I think if you chronically went 
right up to the limit that might be part of the 
tension that in a way would be desirable to 
demonstrate that we have to have an answer.
               The frustrating part of this is that 
the answer for some people tends to be build a 
bigger hospital instead of the answer that I 
understand this Board and other Boards have taken 
which is, no, when you have 50 percent of these 
admissions coming in and staying for three days or 
less, this is not what our State Hospital is for.  
This is why we have designated evaluation and 
treatment beds in Fairbanks, Memorial, Bart let and 
Bethel and other places in the state.
               MR. YOUNKER:  One last thing, and 
then follow up with Mr. Pugh.
               If we go along with this, are we 
really enhancing Anchorage's position with the cost 
of the rest of the communities which may end unwith 
DET's, not sending people to API, and said we have a 
staff we have to get this filled.  Anchorage has the 
problem at the State's cost, where the other 
communities solve the problem with the local cost.
               It seems to me like if you look at 
this draft and you look at the long-term, that we 
want the DET's around and Anchorage has already -- 
if you take Anchorage and Southcentral which is, I 
assume the bowl around Anchorage, we simply solve 
their problem with State money at the expens of the  
North and the Southeast and Southwest regions, 
wherever else, they're doing the DEET and coming in 
compliance with what I think our philosophy should 
be.
               MR. JESSEE:  I think you make a 
very good point.  Mat-Su should be looking at DET.  
I understand Homer is, Kenai/Soldotna has no 
interest whatsoever.  One of the dilemmas in this 
about Anchorage that is pretty fascinating from a 
public policy standpoint is take Juneau and 
Fairbanks, they have one hospital.  It's a 
community hospital.  When people need a service 
from a hospital there's one place to go.  And the 
hospital knows that they have an obligation in the 
community to meet that community's needs.
               When you have three or four 
hospitals, they can all kind of look at each other 
and say why can't they do it?  You know, we don't 
want to do it.  Somebody else can do it.
               That was the problem I had at the Med 
District, you look around the room, you look at the 
regional hospital, they don't have any psychiatric 
in their hospital.  I guess that's pretty dumb that 
they're going to take DET.  Then you look at the 
native Hospital people and say you guys have 
concluded that this is a State responsibility, that 
you don't have any responsibility here, it's not on 
your ten-year plan.  You're not going to do it.
               You look at Providence, they try to 
look behind themselves, there's November body else 
to point to, and thankfully they need our land.  
Because I think otherwise their answer would likely 
be we not interested in this business either.
               You know, it's very frustrating when 
what appears to be a benefit to the community of 
having a number of providers actually corrects to 
the pointing the finger in the other directions and 
saying let somebody else do it.  We're not the 
responsible party.
               Young young so by default we bail 
Anchorage out.
               MR. JESSEE:  Our hope is that when 
DET comes on board that as Tom, I think, is 
pointing out we need to be paying attention and 
making sure that we properly utilizing API and 
that it gets scaled back to its appropriate size 
which, you know, should still be in the 54-bed 
range, if not less.
               I know, I'm sure there respect people 
in this room that are saying he's out of his mind 
saying that this place can operate with less than a 
54-bed hospital.  But I'll tell you, you look at 
Randall's own data and you look at how many of these 
people are going in there and staleing for less than 
30 days.  I don't get it.  I don't understand why 
some people think this is unrelation inable.  June 
reasonable )
               MR. MALONE:  Any questions from 
Jeff.  Any further discussion from the audience?
               Okay.  That's the end of or/end 
gentleman of the program and planning committee.
               With that the Chair would accept a 
motion to adjourn.
               Jeff, that was very good.
               A SPEAKER:  Could I say something, 
John?
               MR. MALONE:  Certainly.
               A SPEAKER:  This is Janet gras 
contact.  I just wanted to tell you guys how 
important your role is in advocating for the 
people with mental illness, because I notice 
that -- as soon as the land was transferred, then 
the State had the land to build the hospital, it 
seemed as though the stakeholder input decreased 
and we going to get this hospital.  I just -- I 
like what you said about keeping up the pressure.  
My greatest fear is that we going to get this 
hospital and we not going to wordy about 
community-based services.
               In Fairbanks, we saying what about 
us, and I attendd the State word meeting and Kenai 
is saying what about us.  Areyone else saying API is 
great for Anchorage.  We waiting and we want some 
too.  My greatest fear is we going to get this 
hospital and let up the pressure on Communityy-based 
services where that really is where the national 
trend is going.  NAMI is at the table and in the 
planning -- we've been at the table all along.  
We've offered a lot, like Vicky used to say, we 
don't just come to the table, maybe we -- many times 
we bring the lunch.  We have ideas.  We have 
national resources.
               I guess I just want you to know how 
important it is for you to keep your pressure on.  
You really are primary advocates in this business of 
mental health services.
               MS. ROBINSON:  John.  You know, 
what I just want to say is what I think most of 
the Trustees believe here is that getting API 
built means our focus now can be on the 
communities.  We have spent so much time and 
energy and money on trying to get what is 
desperately needed, a new facility in Anchorage 
for the whole state of an API facility.  But now 
we've made it very clear, definitely to our 
executive director that our priority is now 
turning to making sure and that's why Jeff is 
always on top of it, making sure that that 
community piece and right now that's where we 
putting most energy, the community piece in 
Anchorage, that's where we know is going to bring 
down the numbers, if that is in place, so that the 
rest of us can get better services.  I want to 
assure you that we hoping with getting API built 
that we can do exactly what you want us to do and 
focus on that community service issue.
               A SPEAKER:  If providence needs 
your land, you know, you have some leverage.  As 
soon as -- maybe you can work it into DET beds.  
As soon as they have the land -- I mean, I just 
hate to see us accept this larger institution when 
the trend nationwide is really towards 
communityy-based and less and less 
institutionalized care.
               It's only going to be moreso, not 
less so.
               So, thank you.
               MR. MALONE:  Question.
               MS. KENASTON:  Hello, my name is 
cats sym I, Kenaston, I'm a beneficiary in 
Anchorage.  In Anchorage every week so many people 
are released to the API from the jail and judge 
ordered them to API, but API released them too 
quick.  Then they go outside, then incarcerated 
again, just revolving door.  And lots of days we 
don't have enough bed -- this is the realistic 
every day this year and last year.  And we call 
crisis center, there is no bed, and especially 
some on a very hot day, you don't believe, 
everybody's in API, and right now they say they 
can make room to three bed and four bed, but when 
you become new code, new building, you can't keep 
adding a bed in one room, so if we don't -- you 
know, I really understand the idea is really -- I 
deally, zero API is ideal, but every -- you know, 
we see everyday, what are we going to do if we 
don't have a bed in API and no other hospital take 
us?  It's very realistic fear for us, and the 
people -- if you go to go to jail, people 
incarcerated, people not given the proper 
medication or services in jail.  If you see them, 
you know, it's very, very scary to me to -- the 
reason I agree to bed 80, I observed API board 
meeting, all the stuff came to the board, told the 
board we can handle licensewise up to 80.  80, 81 
we cannot handle it.  So I supported 80 bed.
               Thank you.
               MR. MALONE:  Thank you, Katsumi.
               Jill.
               MS. RAMSEY:  Do you have time for 
me or should I wait for public testimony?
               MR. MALONE:  Well, we just about 
one minute.
               MS. RAMSEY:  I need more than a 
minute.
               You want to make a comment.
               MS. ROBINSON:  If it's on the 
subject.  We actually do have a little time.
               MR. MALONE:  All we have is Jeff's 
evaluation coming up at lunch hour, anything that 
would information go that, I'm sure.
               MS. RAMSEY:  Well, I kind of want 
to go through this letter a little bit.  I'm not 
quite so clear on its content, I don't think.  I 
don't think I agree that the department hasn't 
changed their position.  When did the language 
change from 54 expandable to 72 to 72 expandable 
to 80?  When did that happen?  How did that 
happen, and who was there?
               The thing that you haven't addressed 
really this morning is the fact that these changes 
have been made unilaterally without stakeholders 
present, although we can catch up and we can 
recognize the need to have done that and it's really 
not the process that we all understood.
               So, I think the position has changed 
and we trying to -- we kind of realing from it and I 
don't think it's not quite accurate to say that it 
it hasn't.
               The contingency plan on the second 
page is a little confusing to me too.  The first 
contingency says that the plan will divert services 
beyond 72 beds to D?
    A.    T wherever available.  The second come sink 
ensy says that should the need exceed 72 beds then 
they'll create room for more at API.  I'm assuming 
that means if they have struggled and can't find DET 
then they'll reorganize the space.  I'm not quite 
sure how that would work.
               I think what bothers me is what's 
missing from this is the criteria for these things.  
What's the criteria for the 73rd person to go to the 
DET in the communityy .  What's the criteria for the 
73rd person to stay at API and double-up with someone 
else.  Those things aren't clearly delineated 
anywhere.  I don't think if anybody has thought it 
through.  That would be something very important to 
differentiate.
               We talking about DET, we talk about 50 
percent of the population being turned out in one to 
three days.  We also talking about crisis/respite.  
So, is API saying they want to provide eight 
crisis/respite beds?  Because we taught very hard, as 
you know, to keep the singing point of entry and 
crisis/respite, some of these other ancillary 
services out of API, and it sounds like it jumped 
right back in.
               I guess we would also like to see as.  
Conviction towards crisis/respite beds as we hearing 
about focusing on DET, because they're ekely 
necessary, ekely important and equally a means ofdy 
vertding from hospitalization that's probably not 
necessary.
               I guess my biggest and most difficult 
question to you is:  What respect you willing to do 
to get DET?  And what can advocates get behind you in 
doing to get behind DET and crisis/respite, whatever 
else?  What are we willing to do to get DET at Prove 
dense.  Are you willing to put restrictions in the 
deed for land, make the deal contingent on DET.  You 
have that card to play.  If that's the card we have 
to play, it's the card we have to play.
               But as long as the private sector is 
allowed to discriminate -- and they can -- they will.  
And we won't have the communityy services, we won't 
have alternatives to hospitalization in Anchorage 
where half the state's population lives.
               You're right, they haven't got it 
together like the rest of the state has in that way.
               So, I don't know if you could answer 
that question, it's a question on our minds and it's 
a question of you know, NAMI has been fairly 
successful on local levels, approaching hospitals and 
getting discussions around DET and we do that, but we 
don't have the teeth.  We don't have the card to  play 
that you do.
               So I guess we asking you to use it.
               MR. PUGH:  John?
               MR. MALONE:  Yeah.
               MR. PUGH:  I guess I'm not opposed 
to that piece, but I guess I would challenge you 
that this is an Anchorage problem that needs to be 
worked out.  Sort ever working out with the title 
47 program in Fairbanks.  These problems don't get 
worked out unless the local area is working with.  
I would challenge the Anchorage bole, they have a 
real problem to work on.  I think the trusted -- 
I'm not convinced, my background is originally 
communityy organization, I'm not convinced what we 
have done has helped with this process.  It's been 
fairly top down, we've put the money and interest 
in, that has let the community escape at some 
level.  I would say, the second piece of what 
you're asking, I think we can't do it for 
Anchorage.  All we can do is continue to try to 
get this done, but we've got a serious problem in 
Anchorage of them not coming to the table and 
doing the services that are required for a 
community mental health system in Anchorage.  And 
I guess I just go back to saying they're going to 
have to do it.  We cannot do it for them.
               So I would challenge NAMI to make 
this an issue in the Anchorage area because it has 
been made issues in other areas and it has worked, 
and it seems to me that this is what's going to have 
to happen -- have to happen in the next year or two 
is some real pressure put on in the community of 
Anchorage to change the way in which we delivering 
mental health services, which continue to be fairly 
fragmented, there's not a plan in place despite the 
fact of us working on it for many, many years and I 
just think that, again, it indicates that you can't 
do it top down.  Communities and folks in the 
service arena have to get together and do this or it 
doesn't work.
               MS. RAMSEY:  I would agree with 
that.  I'm not suggesting that everyone dump this 
entire issue on the Trust, as much as we probably 
would all like to.  I guess what I am saying is 
we've seen the power of those negotiations where 
you call people back to the table and say, look, 
you're breaking the deal here.  People listen to 
that.  People respond to that, and it's happened.
               So, again, I think that's something 
that bothers us more than anything else is the lack 
of input in this whole process since the legislative 
session.  There's been really nothing.  And the 
response to that from the division has been, well, 
we've got two consumers on the governing board.  
That's not representative to us.  It's not 
acceptable to not have input from all the 
stakeholders and have this move along in consensus.
               You could do that, but you have to 
include people.
               The message that it's been giving us 
is that consumer and family input is very important 
and it's very valued as long as it's agreeing with 
the current plan.  The minute that it isn't, you're 
not asked to the table anymore.  And I don't think 
that's what the Trust intends to happen, I don't 
think that that's what the stakeholders understand 
to be the process.  I can tell you that that's what 
advocatings are feeling about this.
               That's all.
               MR. YOUNKER:  John, just really 
quickly.  I had a conversation with Jeff, oh, it's 
been a couple of weeks ago, we discussed this 
whole thing.  I'm not sure how realistic it is we 
did discuss putting in a failure to perform clause 
in the sale, the problem is you put in a failure 
to perform, you transfer the law to Providence and 
they don't build DET, how do you enforce it?  They 
already put something on the land, you take the 
land back?  It's a difficult thing, but I have 
asked to at least explore that and see if there's 
a possibility that we can put something in the 
transfer that says:  This is what we want out of 
it.
               MR. MALONE:  Tom?
               MR. HAWKINS:  Tom hawk jinls.
               The Prove dense acquired its campus, 
as did APU pursuant to a Federal land lock called 
the Recreation Purpose lick Purposes Act, you get 
free land from the government if your recreation or 
your public purpose is kept.  So, you come in with a 
plan and you show them how you're going to use the 
land and they give you the land, but it has 
reversionry clause.  Oddly enough, Alaska's first 
senators were real active in this RNP business and 
the law changed from time to time where there would 
be a vee versionry clause, and then next year there 
wouldn't be a revergzry clause, and then the f
following year there there would be a reversery 
clause.
               I haven't done research on 
Providence.  A reversionary clause where you did 
your plan is not a strange animal in land law.  When 
APU dug a large lake to make a gravel sale off the 
site of their campus the Bureau ofland management 
did an investigation.  Was this lake in their plan?  
Did their plan include the sale of gravel?  And it 
ended up in a settlement that cleared the Lee 
versionry clause from their title, but it's not a 
natural thing in the land business to have a 
reversionary clause (an unnatural ) and the APU's 
and the Providences of the world are familiar with 
the technique.
               MR. MALONE:  I had a similar 
experience in Bethel, I first went out with my 
present job.  BLM said they were taking it back 
for a reversionary clause, which the city decided 
to do something else.  9D 0 days, they already 
sent the letter.  Jeez geeings jeltion I certainly 
will  --
               MR. JESSEE:  I certainly will work 
with Steve.  Steve has got the land piece with 
this.
               MR. HAWKINS:  The committee 
suggested we figure a strategy.
               MR. JESSEE:  I'll work with Steve 
on a vee versionry clause is aprop approximate and 
how it might be structured.
               I wanted to respond to a couple of 
things Jill brought up.  I think she's right that -- 
well, I know she's right that we used to talk 54, 
72, now we're talking 72 to 80.  She's right about 
that.  That is a shift.  We never talked about a COM 
that was 80.  So I think her observation about that 
is right on.
               I guess having been in this business 
for a while, being able to contain them at 72 seemed 
like a victory to me.
               Given where this thing's always ended 
up going, and I guess because I still have this 
confidence that at the end of the day if we stay on 
this we going to get significantly under 72.  You 
know, on the other hand, I have to admit, it becomes 
very difficult in the face of the numbers that they 
actually have on the building to just keep harping 
on 54, 54.  How do you keep harping on 54 when, you 
know, whatever Often dense is indicating now 
November body has said they're going to do this and 
they've got 80 people in the hospital.
               But I think her point is right on.
               As far as the cry tier gentleman, I 
think that's also right on.  There's no criteria 
here.  You know, but let's also be honest, this is a 
response that Russ and the department had to make 
because they had a little internal alignment problem 
and he had to get something out there that, you 
know, helped reassure people that at the highest 
levels of the department they were going to stay 
with at least a variation of the deal.  I just want 
to reflect that I do understand what she's talking 
about, and, you know, some of these things are 
exactly as she describes them.
               MR. MALONE:  One thing I'd like to 
add -- one of the things I shared with Jeff a week 
or so ago about the whole concept of not having 
DTDET.  If DET would become available in 
Anchorage, I think it would be such a demand, it 
would be the first priority demand.  So it is 
really kind of tragic that we haven't been able to 
accomplish a true DET access system within the 
valley, the larger bole, I understand negotiations 
are going on now up in the Mat-Su area with the 
hospital there.  As Jeff characterized, the Kenai 
Hospital, that's going to remain a tough nut to 
crack for a long time to come.  Very bad 
experience with the State of Alaska in the early 
'9D 0s.
               Very pleased to know that Homer is 
talking about it.  I didn't know Homer Hospital was 
talking about it.
               Jill was -- you raising a finger.
               MR. JESSEE:  She also mentioned 
crease sis/respite, this dies into another budget 
issue.  Which is that we've recommended some 
planning money for another crisis/respite 
facility.  This is critical that we hammer away on 
this.  Jill is exactly right, this is another 
critical piece of that diversion and they've 
actually had a pretty low utilization rate at the 
crisis/respite facility that now sit ols the API 
property, and part of that, although I don't think 
it's totally attributable to this, part of that is 
if you remember, Katherine Cohen grew up in that 
building well her father was the superintendent of 
API.  It's a former residence and it is not 
designed in a very effective way to maximize 
outliation.  If you get a difficult mix of folks 
in there at a given time, you can't get to full 
utilization because it's actually two different 
buildings and you canted have people everywhere at 
once.
               So I think, you know, that will help 
get  -- moving that capital project forward and 
getting a more effective facility in which to 
provide the service, because Jill's right, that's a 
pretty critical part of the picture.  Right now it's 
underutilized.
               MR. MALONE:  Okay.
               MR. HAWKINS:  I'd move for 
adjournment, Mr. Chairman.
               MR. MALONE:  Seuss hand has one 
comment.
               MS. LABELLE:  It's old now, I 
should have jumped in immediately after Jeff, it's 
just a suggestion.  We concerned about 
community-based services and DET.  Southcentral 
Foundation being a major provider in Anchorage, it 
might be beneficial to explore their interest in 
developing these types of services.  I do know 
Kathy Gottlieb does have sincere concern and 
interest as does her staff.  And I think it would 
be real beneficial for the Board and staff to 
maybe meet with their Board and their key staff.  
They do have a five-member board, and not only to 
explore this, but to yead catted what the mental 
health system, state system -- the comment was 
made to me by one of their VP's when I was 
traveling to Tuscon that they had not -- she 
didn't use the word "explored" but have not sought 
state funding for some reasons that I had to, you 
know, correct a misperception.  So it might be 
beneficial to meet with them at some time, and, 
Roy, would probably be of most help in getting 
this together.
               MR. MALONE:  Thank you for that, 
Susan.
               I will accept Tom's motion.  Pugh.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Second.
               MR. MALONE:  I have a second.  We 
adjourned, Madam charm.
               MR. JESSEE:  I want to announce.... 
praf praf (program & planning Committee meeting 
adjourned at 12:17 p.m.
               )Stand by.)
               (Stand by.)
               ----test area--Jim Allen, gym gym, 
Allen, Annette Fridayburger, Friday Friday, krind I 
Nation, nation nation, krind I Nation, nation 
nation, seas eel gentleman Nation, seas eel 
gentleman nation, witten, witten, witten, witten, 
witten.  Sees sees sees sees, sees sees, sees sees wit even, wit even, wit even, witsen, wit sent, wit sent,.
               -----End Test Area--.
               MS. ROBINSON:  We will call  the 
meeting of the full Board of Trustees on November 
15th to order.  If be can just do a few of our 
formalities here before you guys get started, I 
appreciate that.  First we want to do a roll call 
and John Malone,.
               MR. MALONE:  Present.  Susan 
Labelle.  Here, Phil Younker,.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Here.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Here.
               MS. ROBINSON:  John Pugh is here, 
I'm Caren Robinson.
               I have no announcements that point.
               Are there any ethics disclosures that 
need to be brought forward by the Trustees.  Seeing 
none, we have no problems with ethic at this 
meeting.
               Review of meeting agenda.  I'm not 
going to have to tell you, we have a little change 
in our agenda, we going to take our presentation 
from the UAF first and then we'll come down and do 
the committee reports later.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Move approval of the 
revised agenda.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Been approved, do I 
have a second.
               MS. LABELLE:  Second.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Seconded by Susan.  
It's been moved and approved to revise our agenda.
               Last but not least, approval of 
minutes, there are no minutes, there are no approval 
of our minutes at this meeting at this time.  We 
will then go straight to our presentation.  I'll 
just turn it over to you.
               MR. JESSEE:  I'll start by 
introducing Annette Freiburger the executive 
director of the Fairbanks Native association.  I 
had been contacted a few weeks ago by Caren Perdue 
in her new capacity with the university, and she 
said that there were some exciting things 
happening up here between the university and some 
community programs, and would the Trustees be 
interested and have time to hear a little 
presentation on it.  I checked with Caren and it 
sounded like a great idea.  So I'll turn it over 
to Annette and introduce your crew and leap in.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  First off, I want 
to thank the Trust for giving us this time this 
afternoon, I know you have a busy schedule.  We 
really excited about having an opportunity to 
present this program to you, and I'll let 
everybody introduce themselves.  Sim sim I'm tier 
gentleman sim onls, I'm the new program director.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  Tier gentleman is 
a new hire.
               MS. CECILIA NATION:  I'm sees eel 
gentleman Nation, I'm part of the steering 
committee.  For krirk 8s of care.
               MS. CINDI NATION:  I'm si seal 
gentleman's mom.
               MS. SMITH:  I'm --
               MR. ALLEN:  I'm Jimalen from the 
department of psychology at the department of 
Fairbanks.  Tier gentleman is one of our graduates.
               MS. CULPEPPER:  We try and use the 
Mike so people in the back can hear you better.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  This will be fine.  
The first thing I want to stress this afternoon is 
that wit sent is a true collaboration between the 
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Tanana Chiefs 
Conference and Fairbanks Native Association.  And 
it is a partnership in the development and the 
implementation of this project.
               MS. CINDI NATION:  Cecilia and I 
would like to do, we part of the planning council.  
We've been from the very beginning of Krirk 8s of 
Care, we have our own story.  It was about a year 
ago I came in and talked to, -- you guys awithout 
what our story is.  And C. C. was 14 years old, 
she was on the streets of Fairbanks.  Most of you 
know me when I was doing home care for Tanana 
Chiefs, you know how outspoken I am.  I'll get in 
somebody's face if I need something.  Especially 
like my child.
               Most Native women are not like I am.  
Getting this child services in this state was 
totally nonexistent.  I had the mayor calling the 
police:  Why aren't you helping this woman, she 
won't leave me alone.
               We ended up in care trying to get her 
committed to Live Givers.  That didn't happen.  They 
gave her Paul Canada airs ski.  C. C. got him to 
protect her rights so that she couldn't be 
involuntarily committed anywhere.
               DFYS said -- the Attorney General was 
there and she said we'll take over and put her as a 
delinquent child.  And I said:  Are you going to 
walk through crack houses looking for my kid?  When 
she leave as foflter home are you going to go out 
and pound on doors and pick up other kids and stick 
them in the car and tell them they're going to help 
you find my daughter?
               No one said a word.  I said:  You are 
not taking my child as a delinquent child.
               I heard about a program that was 
Outside.  It was so expensive.  There was no way I 
could afford it.  My parents, you know, who are 
retired said that they'd pitch in.  We were trying 
to get different people to pitch in, we just 
couldn't come up with enough money.
               Tanana Chiefs had some money, C. C. 
was sent out of state.  That was the hardest thing I 
ever done.  Her last words to me on that trip was:  
I hate you.  I hate you.  I hate you.
               And then she took off to a program I 
knew nothing about except from word of mouth.  I 
couldn't talk to her for three months, two months?
               And then I finally got to see her in 
December and talk to her.  When I got to talk to her 
on the phone:  She said thank you for loving me 
enough to care about me.
               You look at her now, she's a 
beautiful young woman and she's going to provide a 
lot.  She has.  Not only to Circles of Care, but to 
other kids in this community.  This is a success 
story.
               One thing that I learned, when she 
was on the streets -- I mean, I never drank.  
Iroccasionally, social drinker when they were 
growing up.  Had a inition home for them.  Was a 
single parent.  The only things that were important 
to me was my job and my kids.  My kid ended up on 
the streets.  Huh-uh would be so surprised how many 
kids starting at age 9 are on the streets of 
Fairbanks.  They go from place to place to sleep.
               You would be surprised on how many 
predators of these kids are out there, that give 
them alcohol and drugs and let people use their 
bodies.  It is just a real growing concern.
               You need to add.
               MS. CECILIA NATION:  Well, three 
years ago I got involved with the Circles of Care 
planning council because there are a lot of kids 
and I saw a lot of my friends go down -- I 
always -- and a lot of them died, and or are in 
jail.  And that really upsets me, you know.  I got 
involved because, you know, a lot of them, they 
didn't have, you know, parents who would care 
enough for them.  They don't have the money to 
send them out of state, you know, and there needs 
to be services available that will help these 
kids.  That's why I got involved.
               MS. CINDI NATION:  When we got 
involved in Circles of Care, it was already 
started.  The Circles of Care project was to serve 
all these areas in the  interior, C. C. grew up in 
Fairbanks and hers was an identity crisis.  We 
have so many families moving into Fairbanks or 
moving into urban areas, these kids are out of 
their element.  Schools are harder, neighborhoods 
are harder, the whole way of life is different.  
And so the wits sent idea is to help not only kids 
in Fairbanks, but especially kids out in the Bush 
who don't have access.  If you are in town, if you 
get scared enough about your kid, you can go and 
scream at somebody.  Out there there is no one to 
scream to.  There are no services.  There's no way  
to get help for your kids.  Patch.
               Circles of Care started as a strew 
tedgic planning initiative, it was 1.5 million.  The 
goal was to plan, design and assess the feasibility 
of implementing a culturally appropriate system of 
care for children.  And part of the process, after 
they had a director and stuff was to put together 
Alaska Native planning council.
               For us as Native people, we've always 
had people outside us and don't understand our 
culture.  Even if you grow up or you're part of 
Fairbanks there is still a lot of cultural things 
that we have that don't go into the plan when the 
plan is being developed for our services.  So the 
idea behinds Circles of Care was to use Native 
people to develop this plan, and there was a 10 to 
12 planning council group, advisory group that 
helped develop the plan and continues to oversee it 
to make sure that it's going to hit the needs of 
Alaska Native people and their children.
               MR. ALLEN:  Our involvement at the 
university was to provide technical assistance in 
the grant-writing and also technical assistance in 
the development of the strategic plan.  One of the 
problems tribal entities have been facing in the 
United States when they attempt to apply for sham 
sha funding is they do not have the technical 
infrastructure to compete on an even playing field 
with, say, L. A. County.  Therefore, what the 
university became involved in was in the research 
to develop the strategic plan, and just in moment 
just a moment Cecilia is sharing with you some 
materials that we would like to share with you 
from the strategic planning process.  The first 
thing we'll be sharing with you is something we 
did, a service system description.  It's three 
volumes, and C. C. will be handing it out to you 
in just a second.
               These materials will be given to you 
by and on behalf of our Alaska Native Planning 
Council.  They ask that you review them if you would 
like, but they ask if you would like to release any 
information from any of these reports to please 
apply in writing to the planning council for 
permission to release the information to a third 
party.  The information contains some sensitive 
information about the villages here in Alaska.
               The strategic planning effort -- back 
up -- included a service system description.  It 
includes a first volume executive summary.
               The second volume is actually the 
service system description, and the third volume 
includes something called geographic information 
mapping.  It allowed a way to share complex data on 
how the service system, the system of care for 
children in the Interior work to a village audience 
that might not be technically able to swallow a big 
data printout.
               The next thing we did is a 
comprehensive need assessment to establish need for 
services in the interior for Alaska Native children.  
After after after these documents were completed, as 
evaluated we worked for the Alaska Native Planning 
Council, and the planning council, then convened and 
developed a strategic plan, developed a plan for 
services that would be culturally congruent with the 
needs of Interior Alaska Native people.
               That -- after that, this plan 
occurred with the input of all the villages, the 
staff traveled to all the villages in the service 
region.  Then after the plan was put together, the 
evaluators went back to many of the villages and to 
all the tribal government entities and reviewed the 
plan with them.
               These entities gave their input.  We 
revised the strategic plan.
               The next thing we'll be handing out 
to you is the feasibility assessment that the 
project did.  It included an economic analysis of 
the plan and it included a writeup of the feedback 
received from the tribal entities.  And we at the 
stage right now in the strategic planning process 
where this December the planning council will again 
meet and we'll do a final revision of the 
intervention model after reviewing the feasibility 
assessment.
               The last thing we've done is, of 
course, accountability is very important for SAMHSA 
grant programs and we have built program outcomes 
which you can find in the back of the feasibility 
assessment.
               That's the process of how Circles of 
Care worked.
               Could I have the next slide, please.
               This is just a little -- this is one 
example of something that may interest the Trust.  
You can't view it from the distance.  The maps are 
in volume 3.
               To understand this, this is an 
outline of this service area and this is how service 
works, those red lines indicate regional00s.
               The map on the left lists all the 
personnel involved with the general health care 
delivery system in the Interior of Alaska.  The map 
on the right lists all the personnel involved with 
the mental health service delivery system for Native 
people in the Interior.  And you can quickly see 
this service disparity we have in the Interior 
between physical, general hair provision and mental 
health provision.
               Next slide, please.
               Sim sim part of the procious sells 
for the krirks of care was the needs assessment.  
There are four finds of the needs assessment.
               No. 1 is that services for SED youth 
which is what -- the story C. C. fell under are 
almost nonexistent in rural villages and inadd 
quitely funded in the urban area.  In Fairbanks 
services for adolescents such as C. C. were put on 
the nonexist tent if her mom hadn't gone and tried 
to help her as much as she could.  She would have 
fallen through the cracks.
               Cindi said it's worse for rural 
because those services are nonexistence.  They are 
taken out of their homes and villages, but also 
taken out of urban areas.
               No. two, high rural provider turnover 
causes continuity and credibility to suffer.
               There isn't kind of continuity in 
service providers for Alaska Native SED youth.  I 
think just in this past year there's been over a 100 
percent turnover rate?
               MR. ALLEN:  During one year we 
invited in the providers and the directors from 
all the rural regions, this is the first year of 
the project.
               The next year we came back and every 
one of the people was different.
               A SPEAKER:  The turnover rate was 
amazing for mental health providers.  There are 
few adequately traind and supervised providers, 
especially Native providers.  Part of this is 
training professional Alaska Native mental health 
providers.  The fact that the turnover rate is 
high, there is not even professionally trained 
providers.  That's another major need.
               Western mental health service models 
are culturally inappropriate and do not engage 
Native people.
               The services here in Fairbanks that 
the youth from rural villages come from those aren't 
culturally appropriate.  They're taken further out 
of the state away from their culture is even worse 
in that they're not getting -- they're basically 
taken out of their context, put into a new context 
to get better and then put back in the old context 
with these coping skills that aren't culturally 
appropriate.  So it's not really going to be too 
effective.
               Could you go to the next slide, 
please.
               This is the SED fief inition that the 
planning council came up with.  I'm going to read 
over it and I'll go back and highlight a few things 
out of it.  Serious emotional disturbance is a 
temporary disharmony involving the community, school 
and family that aaffecteds the physical, emotional, 
spiritual and intellectual well being of its 
members.  The healing of our children, family and 
communities is a flexible, ee involving process that 
returns us to our most basic belief that child 
remember are precious.  Wit sent, it's one of the 
basic values of the Agent bass can culture that 
children are presh our.
               They emphasized, SED is a temporary 
thing, we don't stick a label on our children, such 
as C. C. and say, okay, C. C. you are chronically 
SED, you're never going to get better.  We'll do and 
that, you're SED forever.  The council said this is 
very temporary.  If we provide these services, these 
problems will go away.
               It's also looked at in the wholistic 
fashion, it involves not only the youth and 
identifies them as a problem, but the disharmony 
between the community, the school and the family.  
The whole complex surrounding the youth.  You don't 
fix one, you fix all three to work together to help 
the child.
               It affects not only one aspect of the 
child, it's the physical emotional, spiritual or 
intellectual.  You can't have three healthy parts 
and one unhealthy part.  If one is unhealthy it's 
going to affect the child.  Focus on the entire 
child and look at the person as a whole person and 
work on that.
               The children of children, families 
and communityies is a flexible, ee involving 
process.
               That kind of goes back to the whole, 
looking at providing these services to the children 
in a different way, instead of saying, this is what 
work for other groups, this is going to work for the 
Athabaskan group also.
               So, that is the planning council's 
definition of SED.
               The next slide will show you the 
behavioral indicators of SED.  No. 1 is suicide 
attempts.  Suicide rate is just astronomical here in 
Alaska.
               Substance abuse, FAS/ARND which is 
like the new acronym for FED.  Alcohol related neuro 
developmental disorders.
               Sexual abuse, not only -- sexual 
abuse and violence, the council was very specific in 
wanting to say that not only youth victims of sexual 
abuse and violence, but youth perpetrators of those 
two categories also.
               Individual and 
collective/generational trauma.  What that refers to 
is the Alaska Native culture has suffered from a lot 
of historical trauma in just losing the culture in 
itself is historical trauma that affects not only 
the culture at the time, the generation at the time 
that lost -- went through that, but also the 
following generations of those people.  Those 
respect the behavioral indicators that the program 
will be looking at in SED.
               Go to the next slide, please, then 
I'll turn it over to Jim.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  I want to 
highlight the structure.  This structure that 
you're looking at here is the ideal and this is 
what we first proposed and it was a large 
all-encompassing model that would have taken, you 
know, six and a half million dollars to implement.  
And right on top of that is the Che'ghutsen.  What 
the council is is centered around child consumer 
and their parents, their family, and it's very 
important for this model to work in a culturally 
sensitive way for it to involve Elders from the 
community and the way it was structured at first 
is there was going to be people representing all 
of the communities that we first envisioned 
setting up centers in, and that would have been in 
the Galena area which is the Yukon area, the Fort 
Yukon Area, the Tok area, and Fairbanks.
               Of course, we didn't get the funding 
to do all that, so we couldn't.
               What's center and core to this whole 
model is that it is the people that know the child, 
that know the issues that know the community that 
would be helping through this healing process.
               The Che'ghutsen center is -- it's to 
be a central place where people -- we talking about 
the children -- can come in and tell their story 
once and this message will get out to all the 
different providers that might be able to become 
involved instead of child having to go from agency 
to agency and being retrauma tiesd everytime they 
have to tell their story.  If we can do it in 
central intake and process where the information is 
spread out without having the child go through and 
developing an audio -- what do you call that system.
               MR. ALLEN:  Telepsychiatry --
               MS. FREIBURGER:  Telepsychiatry 
where a person could sit in their home village and 
be able to talk to providers right there and not 
have to even leave their hometown to get their 
story out and start the assessment process.
               That's going to be really central in 
helping a child and helping them stay where they 
belong, to be able to get the services.  The beauty 
of this whole system is that the child doesn't have 
to leave home.  Right now, -- when a child commits 
suicide that is -- that's just -- they've reached 
the end of knowing how to ask for help, where to get 
it, where to go, who to call, and not feeling like 
they even have the option.  You know, a lot of them 
don't want to come to Fairbanks and go into a 
sterile office environment and talk to people they 
can't relate to at all and try to seek help for 
themselves.
               This way they are staying at home -- 
the people that are going to be selected for this 
project are from their home area.  They have a very 
deep understanding of what the issues are.  And then 
when they call up for help, people will be there.  
They will come to them.  And there are people that 
already have an in in-depth knowledge of what the 
issues are.  So, when they call for help, help will 
come right to them.
               That's, I think, going to be very key 
in the success of this.
               The regional sharing time is pretty 
much what people in this culture do anywayyings.  
It's kind of based around the whole potlatch themes 
where people gather annually or by-annually to get 
together, to get together, to share food, dance, 
tell stories, share problems, share ideas and share 
healing.  The regional sharing is going to be built 
into this whole process too where people can come 
together and share their ideas, share the successes, 
share what work.
               The reg nail Che'ghutsen teams and 
care teams are the whole idea of selecting people 
that are already involved.  They live in these areas 
and they are going to be selected by not only the 
professionals that are already involved, but by the 
Elders, by the people that live in these regions, 
that know these people, are caring people, that have 
already reached out and help.  What we going to be 
able to do is train them and give them the capacity 
that they need to know that they're helps in an 
appropriate way.  And they will have all the backup 
that they need.
               They'll have professionals at the 
university in Fairbanks with the mental health 
centers.  They'll have the backup when they go to 
help somebody, they don't have to have all the 
answers because they'll have a built-in support 
system.
               The Old Mint o Family Recovery Camp 
is already in place.  It is a traditional-type 
healing camp and the original system was going to 
provide family therapy in the camp to help the 
children so when the parents come in for their 
recovery, the children will also get therapy and 
everybody in the whole family can move towards 
wellness.
               Dual diagnosis residential treatment.  
This project was going to help support with staffing 
and the dual-diagnosis residential treatment center, 
we've got one set up in Fairbanks.
               And the long-term residential 
treatment.  It was also a hope that we could get 
someplace for children who are at the extreme for 
needing services that we could have a child 
psychiatrist on board that would be able to do 
one-on-one treatment.  And the training component in 
this whole model is key.  What we are going to do is 
have training and support at every step of the way.
               The people that we hire into this 
project are going to be trained as therapists at 
different levels.  People with no degrees right now 
will receive training in the rural -- rural services 
grant -- I mean, I can't remember what that two-year 
degree is called, but that will really help and 
support them.
               The team leaders will be encouraged 
to go through the Masters's program at the 
university.  Jim will talk about the whole training 
concept.  We are not going to just hire these people 
and expect them to take over and do all this 
training, all this healing without support.  It's 
going to have a very, very, very strong training and 
support network.
               MR. ALLEN:  One of the things that 
became really clear in our description or our 
needs assessment was the high turnover rate and so 
the council made the decision that significant 
resources needed to be invested in training and 
retention of staff hired to provide children's 
services.
               The idea is to create a Che'ghutsen 
training center with a significant portion of the 
grant money, and to hire people -- and part of the 
job will be to get a degree.  And to build practicum 
experience and graduated levels of responsibility in 
terms of children's services all the way up to 
clinical services as part of this training 
experience.
               The intent is to build upon proven 
successful training programs with Native people at 
the university.  One of those is the rural human 
services program which offers an associate's degree.  
Really, very interesting melding of traditional 
Alaska Native approaches to learning and indigenous 
knowledge systems with west even knowledge in terms 
of service provision.
               The supervisors, we would seek people 
with bachelor's degrees and as part of their job 
would be to get a master's degree, and the grant 
funding would provide a children's specialty 
training track at the university which will develop 
a curriculum base odd Alaska Native principles that 
both the human services program and community 
psychology program people would take.  They'd learn 
everything from the model of the Che'ghutsen 
intervention and its techniques to MIS system and 
how to use it.
               Next slide, please.
               A final thing, but the SAMHSA grants 
are so -- accountability is so important, also built 
in a large evaluation component which would include 
bold formative and process evaluation where there 
would be very strict monitoring of goals and be 
onives as well as a manage president information 
system.
               Next slide, please.
               And then outcome measures.  Clear, 
measurable outcomes.  One of the problems with a lot 
of the system work with Native people is that the 
measures aren't culturally appropriate.  They don't 
have a lot to do with the sub sis tense lifestyle in 
the villages.  They don't evaluate whether the 
services the person received were culturally are.
               Four prongs to the outcomes 
assessment that the evaluators designed in 
collaboration with a sub group with providers from 
the council.  Cultural relevance, consumer 
evaluation of services, fidelity to Che'ghutsen 
model, and service satisfaction.
               We've also developed a four-component 
model of wellness.  It's patterned a bit after the 
global assessment functioning from the DSM except it 
evaluates behavioral indicators associated with the 
principles of the Elder's group when they defined 
what are the virtues and values of Agent bass can 
culture.
               We have another GAF scale.  That 
looks at the Che'ghutsen indicators and progress on 
those indicators.
               Next slide, please.  Aneat will 
describe pilot impledgeddation.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  What I described 
was the ideal and this is what's going to be our 
reality.  We were awarded 1.5 million for the 
startup of this grant, and so the council had to 
go through and choose what were the areas that 
were most important that we thought that we could 
start off with, and certainly we hope, you know 
torque get continued funding so that we can, you 
know, go into our next year's implementation of 
this grant.
               So, what we are going to do rather 
than have all the sub regions covered that we had 
hoped to, we going to start a project in Galena and 
in Fairbanks and the reason that we picked the 
Galena area is because they have had an extremely 
high incidents of suicides in the past few years.  
There are initiatives out there now to work on the 
suicide, and people recognize that, you know, there 
are deep-seated reasons for suicide and, you know, 
we going to be training people to deal with all the 
problems that would lead up to that.
               We going to also be implementing a 
center here in Fairbanks and since we just hired 
Tisha on as director, we right at the very first 
start of implementation.
               The Che'ghutsen Council is -- the 
council itself is not in place yet, but we still 
have the planning council.  What we doing now is 
transitioning from the planning phase of this into 
actually implementation.  What we'll be doing is 
we'll be looking at space rental and we'll have room 
for a training center in there, and Tisha will get 
her offices set up and start hiring all the key 
staff right away.
               And then we will be selecting a team 
helder and hiring, you know, trainees in the 
Fairbanks area and in Galena.
               From there, like I say, I think the 
planning council will kind of evolve into the 
Che'ghutsen Council which will have consumers, their 
families, providers, and Elders.  And it's extremely 
important to this model to keep the input of the 
Elders in.
               We are not going to be able to fund 
the assessment Center that time, so that got 
scratched off the list.
               We not going to be able to fun the 
regional shareing times, although we do have, you 
know, time that's similar built into this grant and 
surely the training time and going out and talking 
to the communities, those kind of times will still 
be build in.  They just won't be as encompassing as 
the original plan.
               The two teams that we going to hire 
are the two team leaders in the Galena area, team 
leader in Fairbanks and then we'll start hiring the 
other staff and start training.
               The training will be -- will have a 
training director hired.  We going to have a 
training center and we'll be working in conjunction 
with the university to get people not only the kind 
of training that's already in place at the 
university, but we'll be doing distance delivery, we 
be doing training that's specific to this -- to get, 
you know, the people that we get on board 
comfortable with the role they're going to be doing 
later and the first year is going to -- we're not 
going to be doing a lot of therapy the first year.  
We going to be doing a lot of training.  So that 
everybody will feel like they have the tools that 
they need to reach the consumers when it's time to 
go out.
               There will be some prevention work 
going on.  There will be information-gathering, 
prevention, things like that, but we not going to 
expect people to go out and start getting real 
intense with our clients quite yet.  Gym gym if I 
could just --
               MR. ALLEN:  If I could just add, 
one of the approaches is the community-readiness 
frame.  The idea is really assessing is the 
village ready yet in the past I think we've thrown 
a counselor into a village, and the village is 
saying:  What do we do with this person?
               They work in different ways, and we 
want to assess awareness about children's issues and 
the communityy's readiness to make use of our system 
before we put a person in place.
               The other thing we wanted to point 
out is the 1.5 million first-year startup we looking 
at is pilot implementation.  We anticipate in 
February or March SAMHSA will announce the next 
found of systems care grants, which are six-year $10 
million grants which will go along way for 
forproviding implementation of the children's 
system.  The next challenge is sustainability, how 
do you sustain a system like this.  You can often 
get one renewal, six, 12 years later, the people 
would like this to continue to provide services to 
their children.  Explore everything from Medicaid 
funding to the State to other sources of funding.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  I pretty much 
covered a lot of this in the other model part.  
But we are starting off right away we'll be 
starting to recruit for staff which will be really 
key for the success of this also.  We already have 
some people interested.  Since people in the 
planning grant went out and talked to people in 
different communities, you know, the whole region 
is aware and waiting for this grant to come to the 
reality.  It hopefully will start getting off the 
ground real quickly.
               And then, you know, working with  the 
university.  The training on this is really exciting 
because, like I said, we've got things in place 
already, staff -- the training is build into the 
project.  We'll be doing, you know, group training 
here in Fairbanks that's -- that's part of the 
project and the requirement for it.  And then people 
will be doing the distance delivery, supervised 
practicum, and community read Iness, working for 
children's services and going into actual clinical.
               Through Tanana Chief's mental health 
programs and mental health and drug programs, we 
going to have clinical staff hired that will be 
trained professionals that will be able to reach out 
and give assistance to all the people that are in 
the different care teams, and they will be able to 
travel as needed.
               And we are also involving systems 
that are already in place.  We'll be working with 
Fairbanks Communityy Mental Health and Tanana 
Chiefs' programs, and hope to build a real 
collaboration with everybody.  So, it will be very 
encompassing for everybody.
               I think we ready to go on to the last 
slide, and sees eel gentleman is going to finish us 
off with just kind of a little bit of perspective of 
how it would have made a difference in her life if 
this project had been in place when she was seeking 
help.
               MS. CECILIA NATION:  Well, first 
I'd like to say that it's been really exciting to 
work with the Circles of Care project and being 
involved in this planning process for Che'ghutsen, 
and for me had Che'ghutsen been in place when I 
was about nine, 10 and 11 years old, I don't think 
that my needs would have been as severe as they 
were when I was 13 and 14 years old, and had I had 
this type of intervention and prevention, I, you 
know -- I wouldn't have had to have gone through 
as much as I had to.  I wouldn't have had to be 
sent out of state to get help.  And so for me I'm 
really excited for this program to get started so 
that it can help other kids so that they don't 
have to get -- go as far down the whole as I had 
gone or further.
               MR. ALLEN:  Thank you.  If you can 
move over to the next single slide and another 
presentation.
               There you go.  Pull down window.
               On the top pull down window.
               There you go.
               MS. CULPEPPER:  I'm not used to 
your mouse.
               MR. ALLEN:  In terms of what we 
doing in psychology.
               C. C. could you hand out -- hand out 
those, please.
               What the university is doing for the 
community, I realize this isn't large enough to see, 
it's also on the handout we'll be giving you in a 
second.  Very quickly in two minutes I wanted to 
talk about how Che'ghutsen fits into our training 
and our research program at the university through 
the department of psychology.
               The Circles represent programs where 
we are in the process of submitting grant 
applications.  The squares represent funded programs 
of research supporting our training mission and our 
research mission for the community, and I'll talk 
mostly about projects that are directed to the 
interest of the beneficiaries of the Trust.
               The first on the left is a program 
called and psyche is funded through purse gentleman.  
Health services research agency.  Hand schick is a 
pipeline recruitment -- recruitment and retention 
program to train Alaskan Native mental health 
providers and those interested in studies, and other 
areas including psychology.
               This started up this year.
               We have four SAMHSA grant concerns 
right now.  Circles of Care, we are completing.  We 
provided the evaluation services for that grant.  We 
are also providing training and evaluation for the 
startup, and we will be involved in the six-year 
training and evaluation part of the Che'ghutsen 
actual service system implementation which we hope 
will be funded.  And we would probably be working 
with one-third -- to about one-third of the budget 
of that project providing training and evaluation 
services.
               We also collaborating with AFN, with 
the children's grant program called Cher itch the 
children providing evaluation services.
               In the center we have the national 
Institute of alcoholism RO1.  That's probably one of 
our most prestige gas award.  People awakening 
project is a studies of pathways of Alaska Natives 
sobriety.  We also have a minority supplemental 
award.  Katherine Rider has been studying 
spiritualty and suicide in the nene and sna region.
               We have been given a minor health bio 
med research center.  This is to really become a key 
player in the United States in bio medical research.  
This is about genetics associated with diabetes 
among Alaska Native people.
               We are working with a supplemental 
grant which will study pathways of Alaska Natives 
adolescents and residential treatment for substance 
abuse.  We interested in those adless events with 
co-occurring psychiatric disorder and how that 
affects the pathway recovery for those children.
               We are in the process, probably 
submitting in March, a suicide prevention grant to 
NIMH.  We'll work with four rural Alaska Native 
communities, the idea is really to create research 
infrastructure so the communities are developing 
research expert ease about their suicide problem, 
collaborating with national experts and designing 
interventions where they really call the shots 
instead of having people from outside study their 
problem and define the solution for them.
               So we this is what we doing at the 
department of psychology, and that's what the 
university is doing right now in areas that would 
have assistance to the beneficiaries.
               We'd like to open it up for 
questions.  The Che'ghutsen will be happy to talk 
about the program.  We thank you very much for 
inviting us to do this presentation.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any questions?  I 
think you've been extremely thorough, we do 
appreciate the presentation and what an exciting 
project.
               MR. PUGH:  Can I ask a quick 
question in terms of what you said sharing with  
other providers, I did not see Tanana Chiefs on 
there.  I thought they had mental health service 
funding in some way at this point.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  Tanana Chiefs is a 
partner.  We listed them at the front.  They are 
actually going to be helping with the hiring of 
the clinical staff, and their part is really the 
supervision of the clinical.
               MR. PUGH:  At the end, you 
mentioned Fairbanks Mental Health center, and not 
Tanana Chiefs.  I wasn't sure when I cut back.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  I'm sorry.  I 
thought I did mention them.  We listed them as a 
partner.
               MS. CINDI NATION:  We going to try 
to work with the schools, with anybody who is 
dealing with these kids.  Otherwise we not going 
to be able to find a whole kind of service or 
healing process for them.
               MR. ALLEN:  Mark snipes usually 
comes with us to do this presentation.  He's the 
director of mental health services at TCC.  He's 
at the mental health sum it.  One of the things 
about having this depth.  Also, Jerry Mohatt was 
going to be here for the presentation and came 
down with the flu today.  We usually co-present.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  Cindy has been 
sick.  She got out of her sick bed to visit with 
you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any other questions?
               We thank you.  We look forward to 
this time next year hearing how much further you've 
moved on getting the project up and operating.
               MS. FREIBURGER:  Thank you for the 
time.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Thank you.
               Do we need to reorganize anything.
               MR. JESSEE:  It will take a couple 
minutes.
               MS. ROBINSON:  If everybody, unless 
you need to go somewhere, hang out right here, 
we'll give ate few minutes to get set up.
               (Short break.)
               (Stand by.)
               MS. ROBINSON:  We will go ahead and 
take the asset management committee's record, and 
I will turn it over to the chair, Tom Hawkins.  
Lok hawk Steve Planchon is here to help us, Leeann 
is hear to help us, Mike frangeer is here to help 
us.
               The agenda of the asset management 
committee is behind a short report that summarizes 
what we covered.  I've decided and talked about.
               As you flip further into Tab 4, you 
will find one page for -- or two-page summaries of 
all of the consultation items that are going to come 
in front of us this morning.
               Do you want to do a little general 
report, things are good.
               MR. PLANCHON:  Things are good.  
The Trust, most people were at the asset 
management committee meeting, we'll go over a 
quick review, if you want.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Any need for that?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any need.  I don't 
have a need unless anyone else has a need.
               We got your monthly reports, and I 
think John was the only one able to make that 
meeting.
               MR. HAWKINS:  The first action item 
are our Spring Loan gas lease sale.  Are you going 
to talk about that Mike?
               MR. FRANGER:  I can, few'd like.  
What we propose together do is offer 5 tracts on 
the west side of Cook inlet that have previously 
been leased to other oil companies who have not 
developed them.  These leases are due to expire in 
January of 2002, and what we'd like to do is 
reoffer these leases, these tracts for lease.  
We've had expressions of interest, especially from 
the companies who participated in our recently 
completed lease sale.  They have an interest in 
possibly offering to use these tracts, and so we 
propose together get these on the market.
               MR. HAWKINS:  And after discussion 
and consideration, the asset management committee 
recommends to the full board that this spring loan 
gas lease sale be approved.  That's a motion.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Is there any 
objection to the motion?
               We don't need a second since it's 
already seconded in the committee.
               Hearing no objection, it's been 
approves.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Excellent.
               The next is not quite as exciting.  
It's the replacement land process, and it's a 
negotiated document that covers all of those little 
situations where it turned out what they gave us we 
couldn't get or we couldn't take what they gave us, 
and this is kind of an update of that replacement 
process.
               Steve, do you want to describe it a 
little better.
               MR. PLANCHON:  The process has been 
in place for a while.  What we wanted to do was 
bring it back to the Trust Authority so you  
remembered it because we going to start putting it 
to use now.  Wendy wool of is back on permanent 
nentd staff with us and she will be offering up 
parcels to DNR for consideration for replacement.  
What we proposing here is that we not bring back 
in to you for consideration the small parcels, 
insignificant parcels that are clearly a mistake 
and we will be going to the replacement pool which 
you know about and we've consulted about to get a 
replacement from.  If there's something 
significant that you understand that of course 
will be back in front of you, booking for 
consultation and maybe going out for public notice 
on certain cases, but we just wanted to refresh 
your memory of the process and tell you we going 
to be processing several parcels through it and 
don't think you want to hear about it, unless you 
do.
               MR. HAWKINS:  In the as -- and the 
asset management committee recommended for full 
board approval that they pro creed with keeping us 
informed and particularly the issues that they 
want to bring up to the whole board.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any objection moving 
forward?
               Hearing no objection, it's been 
approved.
               MR. HAWKINS:  The next item is 
actually the first one in your packed and it is 
stamped confidential so I hope that you all 
protect it.  Protect it carefully.
               MR. PLANCHON:  This is a fast -- 
owe this is a fast one also.  What we don't want 
to talk about in public are the terms and 
conditions, that's all.  The royalty rate and the 
bonus that's being offered.  In a nutshell, 
without going into all the details we went through 
in the asset management committee, this is a 
skatedering of Trust parcels on the Kenai 
Peninsula that are surrounded by one particular 
oil company's position in all the lands around it.  
They're proposing to going into an exploration 
program in all those lands around it.  A 
production and development program.  They would 
like to secure all the lands in the area.  We the 
last holdout.  If we didn't negotiate the lease 
with, and go to the competitive bid.  We putting a 
speculator between us and them.  In this place, we 
putting us in the best position possible.  This is 
a place where we actually see a well drilled.  
It's on the pipeline system, if they do discover 
gas, they can go in the pipeline and make 
royalties.  The royalty rates are higher that are 
offered, than we get in a normal competitive 
offering.  The bonuses we receive is significantly 
higher, this is good for the Trust.
               MR. HAWKINS:  The asset committee 
recommended that the full board approve it.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Is there any 
objection?
               Hearing no objection, it's been 
approved.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Digging deeper in 
your packet, you'll find another opportunity to 
talk about API.
               MR. PLANCHON:  It's the last 
briefing document of the Trust materials policy 
replacement land.  Tract A sale.  Once again, 
we've spent quite a bit of time talking about this 
with the asset management committee.  I understand 
there are some discussions about this to day at 
the committee meeting.  What we proposed was 
moving forward with the negotiations with 
Providence on Tract A consistent with our 
memorandum of understandings with all the parties 
in the neighborhood there.  We tried to get the 
best real estate possible as well as continuing to 
go with the ancillary project, on this time the 
focus is on the DET beds.  What the asset 
management committee recommended at that is that 
we do proceed, that we do secure a clear 
commitment from Providence to make a good-faith 
effort to incorporate the DET beds into something 
on the land they get from us or they get from the 
university in the exchange from the university 
that's contemplated in the MOU, or something 
better than that.  That would be something we 
would have to come back and talk to us during the 
negotiation's it's not DET.
               Other things that were brought up we 
somehow what if they promise but don't fulfill.  
We'll be looking at that in negotiations also.  The 
penalty clause was called in our asset management 
committee meeting, recommendation for a penalty 
clause, could be incentive clause, I understand 
there was discussion over a reversionry deed 
provision, maybe.  All of those things would be 
considered.  I think at this point in time, both 
Jeff and I are getting signals from Providence that 
they do intend to go down this road and we hope to 
bring you an agreement that convinces you of that.
               The other thing that was brought up 
which was an excellent point, today's economic 
environment is the interest rate.  If we do an 
agreement with them on a purchase contract which 
they'll pay over time. which actually work well for 
this because none of the land is available for use 
yet, we at a very low point at interest rates.  We 
sitting on interest rate from our earlier land 
sales, 12, 12 and a half percent.  Now, our interest 
rates with land sales are around 9 percent.  12 
percent deals were only two and a half years ago.  
If we lock into something for 20 years at the lower 
interest rate we probably are doing the Trust a 
disservice.  My understanding with Providence, as 
with any party that signs up on a deal like this, if 
it turns out they could do better, they'll cash us 
out and there won't be a prepayment penalty.  Right 
now it work well if we on the purchase contract.  
Most of the money we getting with interest in the 
years which is fully distributable.
               So, what we were seeking from the 
asset management committee.
               MR. PUGH:  My question was:  What 
happen's we don't get the money to abolish API 
which you said was one of the risks in there.
               MR. PLANCHON:  What we contemplate 
right now, we still working that out with DNR is 
the -- if you look at the way to -- the way to 
describe this, if you look at the map that's 
associated with the briefing document, and it has 
an A-1, A-2, A-3, you have that in front of you?  
What we would do is we would try to capture the 
API footprint on as small a parcel as possible and 
that would be considered unproductive we would do 
something with the State where they would pay us 
rent for that portion of the property.  Providence 
would be the owner actually and they would be 
paying Providence rent.  The rent they would be 
paying Providence would be about the same amount 
of money that Providence is paying us with that 
same footprint.  What we attempt together do there 
is keep the value whole as to the purchase and 
sale agreement, but the State is going to have to 
come up with whatever money is necessary.  We 
doing that under the hazardous substance 
production.  The only thing keeping that 
building -- is the asbestos.
               We trying to get other people 
involved in the problem-solving process in building 
the building down or doing something wit, it's 
likely in six-years time that's a problem.  
Universityy has a longer term view, they need money 
and Providence has money.
               Does that answer the question?
               MR. HAWKINS:  So the asset 
management committee recommended that the full 
board approve them, the Trust Land Office moving 
down this path as outlined in your documents.
               Do I hear any objection?
               Hearing no objection, it's been 
approved.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Here's another one 
that will bring tears to your eyes (Mark)
               We had directed the Trust Land Office 
to refresh and improve our MOU with the department 
of Natural Resources and the Trustland office laid 
out an approach to revising this MOU, and you can 
see the list of steps, the five steps that they're 
going to follow and they're going to be bringing a 
revised MOU to us in our February meeting.
               Are there any other suggestions in 
changes to that MOU?  It's kind of fun to go back 
and read it.  I had Leeann fax me a copy because it 
starts with a little history of the whole mental 
health lawsuit and so it's kind of an interesting 
document.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Is it long?
               MR. HAWKINS:  No, six, seven pages.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Can I get on the 
list?
               MS. McGINNIS:  Okay.
               MR. PLANCHON:  We'll just get it 
out to everybody again.  Uk hawk we were pleased 
with the direction that we've been headed in that 
arena.
               The governor's office supports the 
Trust Authorityy's goal of exempt status for the 
Land Office but expects the Trust Authority to find 
their own sponsor.  And so we've tasked Jeff with 
that job, and then we did cash for a while.
               And I think Phil, Sr. has handed you 
a new colored model of how it all work.
               It's useful, we find, to just talk 
out loud about the system and how it work.  
Periodically, just so that you can say it out loud 
to people who might ask, because it's not 
necessarily something that you keep right in the 
front of the load ready to pop out with.
               Then we turned our attention to the 
investment policy statement and we noted that there 
were a number of simple changes needed, and also 
some, perhaps, more meaty topics, and we want to see 
the integration of more of the Trust Land Office's 
activities into that IPS so we'll be doing some 
drafting and upgrayling of that--upgrayling of that.
               We talked a little bit about asset 
allocation issues, and Trust Land Office is going to 
provide the Trustees with some allocations that 
realy make more sense in terms of which go to 
principal and which go to income as to the nature of 
the resource.
               You might talk a little bit about the 
Trust Land Capital research account.
               MR. PLANCHON:  The Trust Authority 
office, and we will be doing is trying to put 
together or putting together a recommendation to 
you on how to set up a better process for using 
Trust funds for capital improvements.  Right now 
we using income and our thinking is that it would 
be better to be using principal instead, because 
essentially we converting the cash corpus into 
land corpus by investing into land, and we get 
that back out of it through the sale or disposal 
of the land.  We don't have a concrete pro prosal 
for you yet, something Jeff and I discussed is 
something similar to the bucket, some of the lands 
before they get to the Permanent Fund they 
actually stop in a reserve of sorts that is 
capped, we borrow from it.  The only way we'd be 
able to borrow from it is that we clearly have to 
demonstrate that we would be able to meet or beat 
the rate of return than you would get out of the 
fund.
               We will be doing that probably, Jeff, 
what, within the next two months or so, I would 
imagine.
               MR. JESSEE:  Yeah, I think it would 
make sense to try to have it to an asset 
management committee meeting before the February 
meeting and see if we can't bring something to 
them then.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Next issue that we 
wrestled with is income property acquisition.  And 
the committee directed the Land  office to proceed 
with the development of a policy paper on income 
property acquisition.  We thought we might use the  
Alaska Mental Health Consumer Web building 
purchase request as a test application, but 
there's a lot of issues to work out as to when and 
how this is going to apply, how it fits in with 
the Permanent Fund real estate portfolio and the 
Trust Land Office has to do a little work on it 
before we ready to make any recommendations.
               Finally, we talked about tracking 
Trust Land Revenue, in the permanent Fund account.  
For the life of me, I can't remember what we 
decided.
               MR. PLANCHON:  We did not go into 
detail.  This is your point, John at the last 
meeting, where it was a good idea that we start 
doing that.  We want to make sure that you know 
it's still on our radar screen, and we'll come 
back to you with some suggestions on how to do 
that.  Tell the story, better.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Mated am Chair, I 
believe we've done the consultations and we've 
shared the other topics that we've provided 
direction to the various staff, and we done.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Thank you.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Just a quick comment 
on the diagram I passed out, Jeff and I talked 
about this several times.
               I think it's important that Trustees 
understand that the principal reserve account and 
the principal account will fluctuate in net asset 
value from day to day based on economic conditions.  
And what we were doing was taking all of the 
downturn out of the principal reserve in order to 
make sure that the principal didn't change.  I 
thought a long time about how we explain that, and 
then it just dawned on me that I have a pension 
account which is invested in a lot of equities, I 
have a checking account that I pay my bills with, 
which is like our cash account, and then I have a 
little bit of money that's sort of in between that I 
can't get tax preference on to get to my pension.
               My pension last year lost a couple 
hundred thousand dollars in economic shrinkage, but 
I didn't take it out of my checking account and put 
it back there.  If I did, then it would effect me 
because I couldn't pay my bills.
               Those go up and down by economic 
conditions, as long as we understand that, the 
concept of the principal reserve being set up to 
hold 400 percent of last year's payout will pretty 
much always guarantee the beneficiaries a level 
stream of funds.  If we go the other way, as Jeff 
says, we have a 14 percent loss, we only paying out 
3 and a half press of percent, we have a 14 percent 
market correction, we don't pay anything.  That 
defeated the whole purpose of having a principal 
reserve.
               MR. JESSEE:  One more thing I want 
to add to that.  This was such a timely series of 
discussions because soon after Benny and I talked 
to the Phils as we now call them, Wilson condone, 
the Commissioner of the department of revenue was 
trying to put together the revenue book for the 
State and had a CIRI's of meetings with Wilson 
trying to help him understand how we manage the 
fund, and our conversations were very timely 
because I was so much more articulate having been 
tutored by the Phils than I would have been 
otherwise.
               But it is important that we develop a 
way of explaining how the fund operates that's very 
clear and understandable and confident, because it 
was taking Commissioner Con done a while to catch on 
to how income first flows into the reserve and then 
into the principal and how they both respond to 
market corrections.
               So, it's very timely and I suspect 
that as the Permanent Fund pursues some change that 
they have in mind for the fund that actually pattern 
pretty closely the way that we operating our fund, I 
expect we'll get even more questions and people 
wanting to understand how we handling this.
               One of the things that this is -- 
also I think very important is that right now, 
another fund that has not been managed that way, the 
science and technology fund is going base -- 
basically going under, and cannot pay their bills as 
Phil says.
               MR. PUGH:  One question I do have 
is this goes all the way back to like the first 
year of our existence.  We went over the laws for 
essentially the Trust like this and how you go 
into looking at natural resource kinds of areas 
when we sell timber or oil and gas, an example 
here, you change from 27.5 percent to 100 percent.  
Okay.  Does that mean that in those cases because 
of the law, that has to go into principal, or are 
we still sticking that in principal reserve?  And 
if we are, are we following the law by sticking it 
into principal reserve and then possibly later 
distributing it rather than ever getting it to the 
actual principal?
               I think there's an issue here if we 
are, because -- and so it seems to me there's some 
income that can go in there, but I'm not so sure -- 
at least I'd like a legal opinion on that, because 
what we doing is taking the land, those resources 
that are in -- they're essentially our principal..  
They're no different than the Permit meant Fund, 
untouchable principal, those land resources, if we 
suddenly converting them and using them for our 
annual distribution, we may have a problem.  I guess  
that that one needs to be clearer.
               MR. JESSEE:  Well, actually right 
now the way we do this is when we look at land 
office revenue, if it's designated as principal, 
it goes into the principal account.  What's 
designated as income goes into the principal 
reserve, basically.  The income account.  
Actually, it doesn't go into principal, it goes 
into the income account because it's available for 
spending.
               MS. ROBINSON:  The next year.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Basically, that's the 
way it should be.  Awe all you're doing is 
exchanging one asset for another when you sell.  
Steve's question now, when we get into natural 
resources, oil reserves, how much of that is 
really a principal asset versus how much of it is 
an income stream off of it.  Sometime we going to 
have to make some pretty hard decisions about what 
part of that is really the principal that we need 
to preserve and what part of it is an income 
stream that we can spend.
               MR. PLANCHON:  The law, we went 
back and looked at it.  It essentially says here's 
how it work, but if you have a Trust instrument 
that clearly shows that you made some thoughtful 
decisions otherwise, you don't have to do it like 
this.  And so that's what we going to be doing is 
coming back to you with some thoughtful policy 
recommendations on things such like oil and gas if 
it's oil and gas royalty coming from subsurface 
only, we should be putting 100 percent into the 
corpus, not 27 and a half percent.  The rents and 
the bonus bits will continue to be distributable 
income.  If all we have is the oil and gas and 
we're pumping out of the ground, we depleting 
corpus 100 percent.  It shied all go that.  
According to that it was 27 and a half percent.  
We did the thoughtful exercise on timber.  So we 
covered there.  This gets back to the IPS and how 
we going to incorporate some of the Trust Land 
office stuff into that.  That will be part of our 
instrument on that.  John educated us how many 
years ago?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Anything else on the 
asset management committee.
               Moving right along, Mr. Ma loam, are 
there any items that the program and planning 
committee needs to bring forward for full board 
approval?
               MR. MALONE:  There were none, Madam 
Chair.  We had a very pro duckeddive meeting and 
there were no action items.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Thank you, then.  
Moving right along to the budget committee.  
Mr. Acting Chair, I know we had a couple of item 
that we needed to be brought forward.
               MR. PUGH:  That's correct.
               MS. ROBINSON:  So I will turn those 
over to you.  Pule Pugh first, the committee 
brings forward from the two recommendations,s 
change of intent on the No. 1021034 public 
awareness campaign, came forward from the mental 
health Board, MHTAAR, 15,000 MHTAAR, recommend 
approval of that change of intent.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Is there any 
objection?
               Hearing no objection, it's been 
approved.
               MR. PUGH:  The second one, I guess 
this is your spring Creek one, we didn't need a  
motion?
               MS. ROBINSON:  No.
               MR. PUGH:  Going right down.
               Final action items, it looks to me, 
would be handling of funds from corpus interest rate 
adjustment.
               Okay?  And the action item which come 
presence the September 26th meeting is --
               MS. ROBINSON:  Again, if people 
need to -- if they have not pulled it out.  I 
think it was in the very back.
               MR. PUGH:  Last before Tab 5.
               MR. JESSEE:  Before Tab 5.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Budget committee 
report to the Trustees.  One page.
               MR. PUGH:  Everybody got it?
               MR. PUGH:  The action item is crude 
unpaid interest, $4,606,274 will go to the 
principal reserve account and the balance, which 
is approximately 500,000 will be considered 
earnings available this year.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any discussion?
               Any objection?
               Okay.  Hearing no objection, it's 
been approved.
               MR. PUGH:  And the second item has 
to do in reviewing that '03 budged 
recommendations, increase -- this has to do with 
FY03, increase the coordinated transportation 
general fund mental health match to 250,000, an 
amount similar to previous years.
               The MHTAAR amount remains at 150,000.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any discussion?
               Any objection?
               Hearing no objection, it 's been 
approved.
               MR. PUGH:  Madam Chair, I think 
those are the only action items we had coming out 
of the committee.
               MR. JESSEE:  Actually, Mr. Acting 
Chair, I think we do need a motion on the spring 
creek initiative.  That is modified or FY03 
recommendations.
               MR. PUGH:  That being the case, the 
committee would recommend that the Spring Creek 
Correctional Center initiative, year two of two be 
changed from -- this is in the FY03 budget be 
changed from 125,000 GF/MH to 100,000 MHTAAR and 
25,000 GF/MH.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Hearing no -- 
is there any objection?
               Hearing no objection, it's been 
approved, then.
               Any other budget committee items 
coming before us?
               MR. PUGH:  That's all Madam Chair.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Moving down to the 
rural outreach ad hoc committee.  Trustedee 
Labelle did we have any action items for your 
committee.
               MS. LABELLE:  Don't have any action 
items, just informational stuff.
               We met on Tuesday the 13th and 
received several presentations, one was from the 
AFN, Sheila Selkregg provided information -- updated 
on AFN $15 million money.
               They have come up with a formula and 
have prepared plans to distribute the money to the 
12 anynail nonprofitss.  That will provide services 
of enhance presidents VPSOs, supporting.
               There were four areas.
               Sheila announces that there is 
another 15 million that AFN has received, so that 
will be another pot of money that they'll be working 
on planning to get out to the tribes and regions.
               And then we got an update from Roy 
Huhndorf our contractor on the rural funding 
coordination.  Their report is in your packet.  So 
he went through that pretty much all the categories.
               The contract is now involving only 
Roy Huhndorf as die and Kaplan has taken a position 
with Rasmuson Foundation full-time as of October 
1st, I think it is.  So, there's a need to work on 
modifying the contract and the idea now is to -- 
going to exploring how to develop a technical 
assistance contract along with consultation.
               We did not have the time to actually 
go in to that as time was too short.
               Then we received an update from 
Arnold Liebelt, DHSS on facilities for rural -- 
rural facilities and deferred meant fans, and then 
we talked a little bit about rural outreach just 
that we have decided and selected on site, Bristol 
Bay, Dillingham area was chosen, and a tentative 
date of January -- somewhere on around January 23rd.  
At least that was accomplished.  Date and place.
               Then we were to work on -- again, 
definition of "rural" but we ran out of town.  
That's deferred.  That was pretty much all the -- we 
covered for the last committee.
               No action items.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any questions of 
Susan?
               Okay.  Any other items for the rural 
outreach ad hoc committee?
               Go ahead, John?
               MR. PUGH:  This was done November 
13th.  I guess -- I guess the one item that I'm 
interested in where it stands is the behavioral 
health aide concept, and where is that sitting 
with -- in the federal budget or have we made 
request in terms of that behavioral health aide?
               MR. JESSEE:  We have.  We know that 
1.5 million is in the budget right now for the 
university for the rural human services program.  
It doesn't appear right now that the behavioral 
health aides will  -- sorry, I'm having trouble 
today -- will be in the budget this year.  Part 
thave's because a number of the regional health 
corporations are trying to get a number of other 
initiatives that Senator Stevens had funded in 
previous years that are also expiring.  They're 
trying to get them in the base this year.  So I 
wouldn't give up all hope.
               We also expect that some of the 
regional corporations that are receiving some of the 
$15 million, they have to submit a plan to AFN for 
how they're going to spend that money.  We hopeful 
that some of them will include some behavioral 
health aide services and how they're going to use 
that money.
               MS. LABELLE:  Also in Roy and 
Diane's report there is a section on -- I don't 
know what page that is, talks about private 
foundations.  There is a proposal that was 
presented to the National Rural Funders  
collaborative which is looking like a good 
possibility it will happen, and that will take 
care some of the behavioral health aide project 
issues.
               And also I was part of the AFN human 
resources committee meeting a couple of weeks ago 
where we had a working session on prioritizing 
issues throughout the state and one of the -- one of 
the issues, what was brought up by several people 
was the need for good village-based kownsz elors to 
indress the number of village-base the counselors, 
so I was assigned to work on that piece and I talked 
to the rural committee and staff about is to use 
this behavioral health aide model to submit for AFN 
to bring to the federal ledge is lative work.
               So, I think there's good 
possibilities there that it will happen.  It will 
just take time in the process.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any other questions?
               Okay.
               Then I think what we going to do, we, 
of course,00 running a bit behind here.  We do have 
a CIRI's of people who have already signed up to 
testify, and the next agenda item is to talk about 
our retreat and the review of the priorities and 
things that we came up with at our last retreat.  
Unfortunately they did not get in our packet, so 
Brian's trying to get a copy for us right now so 
that we can all have it.
               If it's okay with everybody, you 
know, I thought maybe we'd take like about a 
three- to four-minute break, if anybody needs to get 
some 
water or go to the bathroom, we'll be right back.  
If we can start with Jill and Susan, have you go 
ahead and do your public testimony early, does that 
work okay with you?
               And then we can come back at 4:00 if, 
you know, after we do our public testimony, we can 
go ahead and do the -- talk with Brian about our 
retreat work and then come back again if somebody 
else has signed up.
               Does that work for everybody?
               MR. MALONE:  What was significant 
in the retreat -- we going to take a five-minute 
break.  No more.
               (Short break.)
               (Stand by.)
               MS. ROBINSON:  We can come back to 
order again.
               Whale we waiting for the other 
Trustees to return, some of you may not realize but 
today we are working with Brian on trying a new 
process in which our meetings are being transmitted 
onto a website and evidently, Brian just receive the 
an e-mail message that someone in England has been 
receiving the website clearly.  And I do think 
that's really exciting.
               I guess just because they're also 
from England, but Brian, do we like respond back to 
them or anything to say great that you're listening 
or --
               MR. ROGERS:  This is actually the 
first test of software that was developed by Third 
Secretaryor Technologies working with Sandi to 
webscribe meetings, and so all of the transcript 
that you're used to seeing roll up on the screen 
here while I was attending another meeting by 
audio conference this morning I was also watching 
your meeting and able to see that going on as were 
others, and so this --
               MS. ROBINSON:  You can be a double 
agent, huh?
               MR. ROGERS:  This allows people who 
can't attend, and don't want the audio line with 
the rustling of papers to participate in meetings.  
The company has great hopes for opportunityies 
that this may create for Sandi and other 
transcribers around who do this unique live 
transcribing to make it available to a broader 
audience.
               This is the beta test today, and it's 
working.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Another real quick 
question.  While you were out we had decided to 
take some public testimony while we waiting for 
the Xeroxes.  Does that work for you?
               MR. ROGERS:  Yes.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Thank you, the first 
person that signed up was Jill.
               MS. RAMSEY:  I'm passing to Janet.
               MS. ROBINSON:  After Janet, it will 
be Susan prise.
               A SPEAKER:  How again, my name is 
Janet gras co, I'm still involved with NAMI in 
Fairbanks.  I just want to thank you for coming 
even though we didn't get much of a morning, we 
did manage to get into the news letter to try to 
get our members out to testify.
               I'd like to talk to you atoday about 
one of our citizens that we'd taken on as kind of a 
project.  He's 54 years old and he's always in jail.  
I called his mother every month to come to our 
support meetings and she'll just say:  Roger is in 
jail again.
               I'll said, what did he do this time.
               This time he tried to get on the bore 
jo bus, -- bore ow bus, a month ago he went into 
Fred my Earl.  He has four mental illnesses, seizure 
disorder, alcoholism and his mother says he's deaf 
in one ear.  He's also been beaten up by some thugs, 
figured out where he lives.  He's got nothing in his 
home.  If he had anything of value, it's been 
stolen.
               The only community support he has is 
the Fairbanks Lutheran church and his 83-year-old 
man.  I took her to meet with rand I Meyer and 
Suzanne Price, we tried the Title 47 team.  They 
went to jail and said he's perfectly fine and he's 
not a danger to himself or anybody else.
               His mother has applied for a guardian 
with our support.
               Last time he got out of jail, his 
brother said to his mom, why did you work to get him 
out of jail, that's where he's safe.
               What kind of a community is this 
where we let somebody with multiple disabilities 
stay in jail rather than provide them community  
support?
               When he's in jail, they change his 
seizure medication, and they put him on one that I 
think it's dye landin that doesn't work so good for 
him, he comes out and they give him -- I forgot the 
name of it.  They give him one that does work for 
him.  One of the newer ones.
               So, he's constantly in between his 
medes, so he'll -- that will never be under control 
until he can get out of jail and get some community 
support.
               He's also losing his social security.  
If he doesn't get a paper signed on the 20th, 
because he's in jail so much.
               I just wanted to let you know the 
kind of people we trying to help here.
               I see my role as really just 
supporting his mom and trying to get help for her 
son.  She's 83 years old.  She won't be able to do 
it forever.
               Some of the unmet needs I see in 
Fairbanks are the need for dual diagnosis staff 
training, if we can get this man into a 
dual-diagnosis treatment center.  We need less of a 
heavy caseload for our case managers at community 
mental health.  I heard they have 35.  40-hour week, 
that means each person gets an hour, that's if 
November body is in crisis.
               We really need an outreach team here 
in Fairbanks, a mobile outreach team that would go 
to the person that's in crisis and not wait for them 
to -- for the police -- for it to get to a level  
with where police need to get called.  To make 
contact.  Maybe to bring them food.  Boots.  Who 
knows.  Whatever they need.
               We need a quicker intake process, 
community mental health center.  I'm just wondering 
if he would walk up to the counter and say, I need a 
case manager if they would tell him he can have an 
appointment in three weeks.  That won't work, 
because he won't be back.
               He did thrive when he did have a case 
manager.  That's probably the best he's ever done.  
And we also have a shortage of psychiatrists in 
Fairbanks.  We just lost one of our private 
psychiatrists again.  That seems to be a continual 
need.  And it is -- there was a time last year when 
it didn't matter how much money you had, you were 
not going to get a doctor in this town.
               You'd have to probably look at 
Anchorage or Seattle if that was one of your needs.
               And I guess that's all I have to say 
today.  I just hope that next November something has 
happened with this young man because one of these 
days he's just going to get lost in jail, he'll 
never get out.
               In fact,eer thing his mom told me is 
that the people that are there, the long-term people 
have said to him:  Boy, you must have committed a 
murder, you're here as long as we are.  His crime 
was getting on a bore ow bus.  They think he's a 
really bad dude because of the amount of time he's 
spending in there.  He's a person with four 
disabilities.  That's his big crime.
               Thank you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any questions?
               Thank you for keeping up your work.
               Susan -- Suzanne, I'm sorry.
               A SPEAKER:  Suzanne Police, 
executive director of Fairbanks Community Mental 
Health Center.  We've been working regularly with 
NAMI, we agree with him on the issues they've 
brought forth.  Some of them are very difficult to 
solve.  Some of them we have been working on very 
diligently all year and I think we've come a long 
ways.
               The co-occurring facility is open.  
If any of you have time I'd really like to invite 
you to come by and see it.  It's right near the 
hospital.  It's a brand-new facility.  We put into 
the Trust for money to help operate that facility.  
Unforward innately we not high enough on the 
priority list to be funded yet, but we don't have a 
program.  We have a facility.  So, what we've done 
is we've moved people in the facility, what Janet is 
revving to, we have no money to train the stuff so 
we have a facility with no program.  But it's a 
start.  And it's a beautiful new building.
               We agree that outreach is vital in 
our community.  It's very difficult to help people 
bring -- help to bring them in when we don't have 
the staff to go out and meet with them in their own 
settings.
               We have tried with the borrow every 
year for about six years now to get funding for 
outreach without success, and we'll try again this 
year and we'll use some other avenues.  Hopefully 
we'll be successful the next year or so.
               Another area that we really excited 
that we working on and if any of you come to visit 
Fairbanks, please let us know, we'd love to take ow 
a tour of some of our new facilities.  We've 
restructured all of our newer programs.  It's very 
exciting.  We trying to move into the future where 
we serving the consumers with what they need and 
what they're asking for.
               One area that we saw that was really 
making a difference is senior population.  In the 
past, and I don't mean to be cruel, I'm just being 
realistic -- in the past seriously mentally il 
people often didn't live past their 40s or 50s, now 
we have seriously mentally il people who are 
physically healthy and living into their 60s and 
70s.  They have special medical needs some of them 
are in wheelchairs, some of them are frail.  We had 
no place to put them.  There is no facility in the 
state.  We opened the first one in the last two 
months.  We acquired the building from Fairbanks 
Native Association, it's an assisted living home.  
We in the licensing process.  We have licensing 
right now.  We filled to capacity the day we opened 
and the building is set up for the severely mentally 
ill who are disabled, that's physically disabled, 
elderly, and/or extremely fragile and vulnerable.  
We found this population should be in a comfortable 
residential setting and I think you'd enjoy seeing 
the facility.
               So, those are some of the things that 
we've been working on to try and bring new programs 
to people by reconfiguring, by using what we have 
instead of going out and getting more.
               I think that building your service 
capacity from what you have already is a first step 
before you go ask for more.
               I'd encourage you, if you have time 
torque let me know and we'll be happy to show you 
our co-occurring building.  It isn't landscaped yet, 
there's no everywhere so you won't know the 
difference.
               And January et referred to 
transportation.  I'm not going to talk at length 
now.  I think you can see from what she's saying, 
some of our consumers are not allowed to use 
coordinated transportation.  This is an issue I'd 
like to talk to the Trust about in the way the funds 
are handed out.  Coordinate the transportation is a 
wonderful concept.  We have a good coordinated 
system of transportation.
               However, when a person is psychotic 
and/or has been banned from the transportation 
system, then that doesn't work for them.  And there 
is a core group of folks that that happens to.
               And I thank you very much for being 
here.  We really appreciate your visits to 
Fairbanks, and I'm glad that it wasn't very cold.
               Thank you.
               MR. PUGH:  Souse an, last -- 
Suzanne, during the budget cycle there was a 
request for the new mental health center, we 
you're talking about the.
               MS. COHEN:  -occurring, that is not 
related to the mental health building that you 
requested in the budget?
               A SPEAKER:  The co-occurring 
project we requested a couple of years ago it got 
on to the '03 budget line, it wasn't a high enough 
priority to get funded.  So we were in there, but 
we just didn't receive any cash.
               The other project we're working on is 
building an agency building.  We've been renting for 
many, many year pals.  We've always rented.  Our 
facilities are scattered out about town so our 
children's facility, for instance, is full to 
capacity.  There's no more room.  I've got 40 kids 
on the waiting list.  They need to be in with us and 
we need to have more room, more parking, and we need 
to own the building.  We need a permanent home.
               Right now for those of you who are in 
town and need to come by or want to come by and 
visit the mental health center, we are in the TCC, 
Tanana Chiefs Conference building, we rent space 
from them.  We the 4th floor, and everyone in town 
knows we the 4th floor.
               MS. ROBINSON:  We have a schedule 
for tomorrow.  What we can do is remember this for 
the next trip.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Are we going to the 
hospital?
               MR. JESSEE:  Yes, we are.
               Actually, there might be a 
possibility right after that.  I think that meeting 
ends at 2:00.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Okay.
               MR. JESSEE:  If anybody is not 
leaving immediately.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Make sure you give 
Jeff or Mary eely begged, the phone number how to 
reach you, so as we start our process tomorrow of 
visiting programs, if we have some time, we can 
squeeze it in.
               A SPEAKER:  I'll write the address 
on the card too.  It's right near the hospital.
               We've reconfigured our residential 
programs so that they're in positioning to be close 
to what they should be close to.  So that's where we 
bought property and built.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Great.  Thank you.
               Any other questions?
               MR. JESSEE:  I had a couple quick 
ones.  What do you estimate the cost of operating 
that program to be?
               A SPEAKER:  I believe when we first 
started the process, we estimated at around a 
couple hundred thousand a year.  We've 
reconfigured our residential programming.  Even 
though it will cost that much, I think we've 
figured out how to pay for about half of it.  What 
we really hurting for right now is training.  We 
don't have the money to train our staff.  This is 
specialized training.  There is no treatment in 
this state for co-occurring -- to speak of, for 
adults.  So we've got to find some training for 
these people.
               MR. MALONE:  Where would you go for 
that?
               A SPEAKER:  There are some programs 
Outside.  I believe if we brought someone here as 
a trainer and then worked within -- there's a few 
people in Anchorage, I think, that have some 
pretty good training in the area as well.
               Yeah, and probably a couple of extra 
relief kind of staff people so that we can maintain 
the services while we training the other people.
               MR. MALONE:  Is there a staffing 
requirement for such a facility now?
               A SPEAKER:  No, but our own 
staffing requirement is we have maintained two 
staff members in the building at all times.  The 
people who are in that program are often 
incarcerate often hospitalized, they are the most 
problematic, symptomatology that we have.  So we 
never operate that facility without two staff 
members in it at all times.
               MR. MALONE:  RN services available 
too?
               A SPEAKER:  R. N. and psychiatric 
services available.  Yes.  From our main center.
               MR. MALONE:  Have you ever thought 
about writing standards for that?
               A SPEAKER:  I think you're right.
               MR. MALONE:  How much training 
dollars would you need?
               A SPEAKER:  I'm thinking that in 
the next eight months, it's probably going to run 
us somewhere between 50 and 100,000 to train 
everybody toon cover the building while we 
training everybody and to get the materials that 
we need, too.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any other questions?
               Thank you.  Maybe we'll see you 
tomorrow.
               A SPEAKER:  Thank you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Katsumi?
               MS. KENASTON:  My name is Katsumi 
Kenaston, I'm a beneficiary from Anchorage, and 
almost four years ago we were lucky to have a 
small project grant and we started our website and 
with one computer accessible to all consumer who 
don't have any experience or computer in their own 
life.  Right now, last quarter I know at the 
division, we have 16 computer, all newest, window 
2000, XP, and all the new softwares, and you can 
imagine just top of the cream, and we are very, 
very thankful.  We have a quality of activity, 
quality of people, and beneficiary publishing a 
book, and finding a job, finding a place to live, 
and every couple months people are moving and 
going their own life and then new faces come.
               So, we are very having a good 
outcomes and we take everybody -- November body take 
right from the jails and the mental health code and 
regular code, API and from street.
               And more than 50 percent of reg stars 
are Native people, plus Hispanic, ation, ation 
Islandsers, and we do a diversity without any plan.  
We just do it everyday.
               We have a wonderful thing inside but 
we don't have anyplace to put it in because 
yesterday we -- I mean, even today we are almost 
losing one great grant which we worked very hard to 
get one lawyer because people in the jail they 
really need immediate help from -- legal help, 
because pretty soon, the homeless people, they're 
getting all the bench warrant, and they were 
incarcerated not because they committed a crime,, but 
because they are ill.  November body, no legal help 
is available for this population.  And people become 
homeless, but when they get kicked out, if we had a 
lawyer, we can immediately intercept becoming 
homeless.  We have special fund to buy immediately 
like glasses and shoes so that they can be safe and  
functional to be legal, not just medically, but 
socially, and legally so they can defend themselves 
before they go way, way down while they are waiting 
the system kick in.
               We have a great, great system, but 
the people are psychotic, they just don't function 
without immediate attention and huge arrow owe 
usually when you call case worker, you have to wait 
until tomorrow afternoon.  So, having a lawyer 
available when we need it very, very important, and 
we work grant very, very hard.  We with respect 
given the grant but the disability center contested 
because our building does not have accessibility and 
we don't have the 25 cent to match.  We have been 
working very hard to get accessibility but we are 
not successful because of the old building, and so 
we finally decided abandon the building.  We have 
looked around last four months, we finally asked -- 
we found ideal building, but the -- we wanted to do, 
but we didn't have Social Security to pay for it, so 
we asked for help.  So, I'm just wondering, until 
you abandon -- you know, I have no idea how much you 
could pursue it, not to pursue it, at this moment, I 
have no idea.
               But until you abandon I wonder if you 
can write a letter to the Division to hold this 
$70,000 grant to hire a lawyer because this is very 
critical for lots and lots of needy people.
               Last month we had 1344 visitor in one 
month, and we have the 36,000 successful hit in the 
website from all over the world.  And this is -- 
this is amazing number in comparison with the money 
we were spending.  If one person in the jail, our 
entire year budget, our entire year budget, one 
person is incarcerated.  I encourage, why this all 
kind of program, because everybody in jail.  And 
it's very, very expensive.
               So, we really need this grant, so 
maybe you could tell, we are doing the very best we 
can to get accessibility and match in good months we 
make $1,000 profit.  So, to make 25 percent is about 
14, $15,000.  If we move to this building, I don't 
know, it's a any building, close to shopping center, 
more visible, and I am sure we can sell, you know, 
independently enough to match the 25 percent of this 
legal grant.
               So, I don't know.  It may -- you 
know, anywap, anybody could help us, just to hold -- 
to comply with the State standard.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Is there a question?  
I'm still a little confusiond on what we can do.  
I'm wondering if this --
               MR. JESSEE:  Well, I'm looking at 
disability Law Center's appeal, and they allege a 
number of things.  Accessibility being one, the 
match being another, volunteers.  I mean, it goes 
on and on and on.
               Frankly, I don't think it would 
necessarily be appropriate for us to try to 
intervene in this process.  John might have a 
different point of view -- I mean not a different 
one, but this is the department's PEC process that's 
being challenged.  I think people have to go through 
the process.
               MS. ROBINSON:  The process and see 
what happen pals.
               MR. PUGH:  You're saying this was 
challenged by disability Law Center.
               MR. JESSEE:  Apparently there was 
an RFP, Consumer Web and Disability lawwere both 
responders, Consumer Webb received a grant award 
and Disability lawCenter was objecting the appeal.  
For how much?  Speak.
               MS. KENASTON:  73,000.
               MR. JESSEE:  Is this new money?
               MS. KENASTON:  It's a state funding 
for leagueal help.
               MR. JESSEE:  Used to go to them?
               MS. KENASTON:  But so many 
populations are not served, so we asked them many, 
many times, many consumers given the run-around.  
We did not get any legal service, PEC  
recommendation ignored.  There's not one consumer 
in the board.  It's 51 percent recommendation, but 
the last four years they have never included even 
one consumer in the board member, and we have 
never gotten -- we have referred lots of people, 
myself, I had a problem, but we had never got the 
services.  So, to -- to take care of this -- this 
class of people, we challenged it and honestly, we 
want it.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Katsumi what it 
sounds like, it's kind of been the legal thrust of 
the process that's been developed through, you no, 
the PC, and so it's probably best that, you know, 
we let the process work.  And, you know, it sounds 
like to start with, congratulations.
               MS. KENASTON:  14 lawyers and 
assist anted.  We are 100 percent 
consumer-operated, and I feel it's extremely 
unfair.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Well, you know, 
again, if I understand correctly, there's still a 
possibility you can end up with the money.  Am I 
correct.
               MR. JESSEE:  They just now filed 
this on November 12th.
               MS. ROBINSON:  It's part of the 
process.  I'm understanding correctly.  You have 
been awarded.  Notice of intent to award.
               Unless there's some reason if not 
found otherwise, you should be receiving these 
dollars.  I think that's right now, even that you 
got this far, congratulations.  This is part of 
the -- unfortunate process and kind of sometimes the 
ugliness of going after state and federal dollars is 
that people have the right to appeal that they 
believe that they deserve those dollars and not 
another person.
               MS. KENASTON:  We get this 
building, we can be self-sufficient, we won't have 
to go out this other money.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Good luck.  We 
probably should move on.  We have more people to 
come forward and testify.  You know, I'm sure that 
Jeff would be more than willing to talk to you if 
you have any questions about that process.
               MS. KENASTON:  Thank you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Next on the list is 
Jackie.  Is Jackie still here?
               A SPEAKER:  She'll be back.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I'll come back to 
her since we starting a little early.
               It sounds like -- do I have names at 
this point?  If not, it sounds like we have a couple 
of students who are graduates from the Interior 
Aleutian Campus here in Fairbanks; is that correct?
               Maybe if you can go ahead and come 
forward, we can maybe get another chair.  Looks like 
we have quite a group here.  It will be really 
interesting to find out about what you're doing.
               We very informal, we are having 
someone who is transcribing the meeting, so, again, 
few don't mind for the record just, you know, 
stating your name and who you're representing and we 
definitely kind of just have a dialogue here.  Look 
forward the to hearing about what you guys are 
doing?
               A SPEAKER:  My name is Judy sim 
onic, I'm a community health representative from 
the south end of Kodiak Island, a village called 
Alaska yok and I'm here to represent our rural 
human services.  I'd like to kind of start out 
with the things that we've learned.  And we'll 
just go down the line.
               The first thing that I would like to 
say is our communities are becoming health year 
through the RHS program.  Western and Native 
cultures are all beneficiaries of the RHS.  Our 
shared resources are used and some are being 
rediscovered from the eld Es who share our cultures 
and ask us of our own to talk to our own Elders to 
find out about our own cultures.
               Chuck?
               A SPEAKER:  My name is Chuck 
Miller, I'm from Sitka.  I work for Ravers ' Way 
program, I'm currently enrolled at the rural human 
services program also.  I'd like to share a thing 
that our classmates have put together.  These 
thoughts and feelings are from them and we 
represent them today.
               Some of the things they would like me 
to share with all of you is that in our program we 
have learned in our villages and the roles that we 
play at our capacity that we've become 
self-supportive and self-sufficient meaning that the 
counselors and in the communities are not relying so 
heavily on outside resources as much as they used to 
such as clinl iss, the knowledge that we getting 
through the university of Alaska-Fairbanks helps us 
in that way to help our own communities to be 
self-sufficient.
               Another aspect is the rural human 
service program provides tools to empower its 
students to take responsibility for bringing western 
and Alaska Native values and counseling skills to 
our communities.  Walking hand in hand and hailing 
each of our communities, and at this time, one of 
our students who is completing this course would 
like to share some of her thing that she's been 
doing in her practicum and in her village, kind of 
sums up what we talking about, both Judy and myself.  
Speak speak good afternoon, I'm Patty contact tell I 
cough, I'm from Larson Bay on the Kodiak island.  I 
would like to share one of many accomplishments  that 
RHS has contributed to.
               In my community there are 120 people 
and almost everyone is related in one way or the 
other.  We have lost many Elders in a few short 
years.  This has left young, inexperienced adults to 
manage vilage needs.  There have been many unhealthy 
choices made politically, professionally, and 
personally.
               Because of these problems, the 
community has pulled apart.  There has been -- there 
has not been togetherness since our Elders have 
passed on.
               I have set out to reunite the 
community through various activities and events in 
hope that we can be a healthy, active community once 
again.
               I put together a short survey that 
covers different activities that I know in the past 
were successful and left it open for any 
suggestions.  I went to each home in the village and 
sat with both parents and children.  There were many 
very -- there were some very pro duckeddive 
interviews.
               After finding what the village was 
most interested in, I went to work to find funding 
to get art supplies, games and permission to use 
tribal hall.
               I went to the Larson Bay Tribal 
Council meeting.  The tribal council meeting and 
asked for a donation for this project.  I informed 
them that Kodiak area Native Association would match 
their donation and was successful in receiving 
$1200.
               While this was taking place I started 
making amends with a few community members that 
had -- that had differences with me in the past so 
that our village response team would be able to be 
active.  In doing this, it has had a positive effect 
and then attending city council meetings I have -- I 
asked that the village response team be in charge of 
vilage gym nights and a paid position that gave us a 
bank account that we could use for community needs.
               We are now getting participation 
in -- from community members and we are doing well 
working together as a team.  The VRT put together a 
Father's Day Surprise potluck dinner.  The children 
had a speech contest.  They wrote their own speeches 
about why they felt their dad was the best and read 
them to the parents.
               13 outstanding presentations were 
given and I don't believe there was a dry eye in the 
room.
               We have plans for community -- for a 
community greenhouse in the spring of 2002.  We also 
have used the tribal barn that has been inactive for 
many years.  We will have some small barnyard 
animals for the village to learn about and care for.
               Also, we are in the beginning stages 
of opening a woodshop for those that like working 
with wood.
               At this time, activities include 
basket-making stained glass, bead work, hook latch 
and games.
               The participants in these activities 
are planning a craft sale during the first two weeks 
of November to buy more supplies.
               I am now working with the community 
health aides in setting up support groups for the 
stop grant.  We are starting an exercise glass for 
diabetic high blood pressure and overweight patients 
in our village.
               The rural human service program has 
been helpful to me in achieving these goal the for 
my village.  I have learned communication skills, 
self-development and group cooperation skills.  I 
have the tools it takes to talk in front of large 
crowds, although it's still not my favorite, I am 
very thankful for being a part of this program.
               A SPEAKER:  Thank you for your 
time.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  I don't 
know if it might be kind of fun to have the others 
stand and let us know where they're from and 
apreesht -- the fact that all of you came down, 
the hard work that you do for the communities.
               I don't know if feel people felt 
comfortable.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Can I ask one 
question?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Yes.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Did you come here to 
Fairbanks to take these classes or were they 
delivered to you in your communities?
               A SPEAKER:  There's several of us 
from all over the state of Alaska that come to 
Fairbanks to do our meetings through month -- 
three weeks every six months.
               MR. HAWKINS:  Okay.  Thank you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Maybe just, again, 
for our transcriber here, if you can talk loudly, 
but we'd love to know where you're from.  Done 
gentleman may column tone, I'm from Tana.  John 
young from Sitka.  Vicky signature your gentleman 
from Kenai.  Lore ain't kaes kele from Haines.  
Rhonda ew any from Kotzebue.  Liz Dalton from 
Kenai.  Julia sigh monde frommal a kake kaes.  
Marsha shoe lieu from am being.  Joyce Robinson 
from Tanana.  La vernal compender, I'm from mind 
o.  Rita vi landy, I'm from Holy cross.  Article 
la cheferb even point, sand point.  Jersey geld 
Earl Elder from Sitka.
               Welcome everyone, we really 
appreciate.
               (Applause.)
               MS. ROBINSON:  Susan, I think had a 
question here.
               MS. LABELLE:  I don't have a 
question here, I'm most familiar with rural human 
services having taught some years ago for one 
week, I know how dedicated and hard-working you 
all are.  I just want to mention and make sure 
that you all are aware of the AFN money that 
they've gotten like 30 million and hope that 
you'll all be part of that process in planning how 
to utilize that money in the villages.  That's 
going to be quite a very important process and 
hopefully you'll have input into that.  Speaks 
speaks thank you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Next on the list is 
Alan Aaron.
               You're welcome to stay, if you need 
to go, we understand.
               A SPEAKER:  High, I just wanted to 
back up the need for proper training.  It makes so 
much difference.  The physical facilities, they 
are fine, but if you have people who don't know 
what they're dealing with and don't know how to 
deal with it, it becomes completely 
counterproductive.  It's very, very important to 
have people who are properly trained and 
understand what they are doing and what their 
effect is on the people they should be trial 
together help.  Unfortunately, some of them don't 
even realize that they should be trial together 
help these people.
               My own son is an example, he had a 
person who was a caseworker was helping him who 
understood what had to be done, was sympathetic, was 
working in a positive way building on positive 
compasstys and it made so much difference, when the 
person left and was replaced by people who didn't 
understand and began in a negative way treating this 
as if it were something to be punished instead of 
something that needed help, someone that needed 
help, someone who needed punishment, it made all the 
dif rensz, and that immediately destroyed a lot of 
the things thats other person had built up by 
working in a positive way.
               So, training a absolutely essential, 
otherwise the other funds are just wasted.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any questions foal.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Training is very 
critical.  We appreciate you reminding us.
               Did Jackie return yet?
               Hi, Jackie.
               MS. ROBINSON:  We started a little 
early, so....
               A SPEAKER:  I'm Jackie Pan andin, 
I'd like to welcome you to Fairbanks, I'm 
currently president of NAMI of Fairbanks and our 
people covered most of the things but some of the 
problems that we've seen come up, I know it came 
up when our son was ill 12 years ago, we just had 
a family recently is not knowing where to turn.  I 
would like to see something with community mental 
health, whether it requires more funding.  I know 
they're always working under cost restraints, 
limited funding.  There is a little ad in the 
personals column in the paper that tells people 
where to call.  I would never when our child got 
sick, there is no way I would look there, if I 
lost a dog or wanted a boyfriend, I would look 
there.  My husband wouldn't approve either.
               (Laughter )
               A SPEAKER:  These are devastating 
times when you're facing this illness, it's not 
something we prepared for when we raising our 
children, it's not something we think about.  You 
get concerned over the measles, you don't think 
what if they have a mental illness when they're 
older.  It happens.  We need to where know where 
to go.  We wound up with a family that called 911 
and ended up with a son in jail that wasn't what 
they intended.  It wasn't the type of issue that 
should have resulted in that, I think, again, it's 
something that they need to work.  You don't 
always know about NAMI, I didn't know it existed.  
We are trying also to get ourselves more known in 
the community.
               The first thing you're looking for is 
the professionals, in this case it's going to be the 
hospital or if they know the community mental health 
does exist and has this type of care available, 
maybe it's just a small thing that -- in their 
budget that would help.  There are a lot of things I 
think I would like to see in their budget.
               When we work more together they've 
included us in a lot of meetings, it's very helpful.  
From a parents' pearls pektsdsive, sometimes we feel 
like we really lost in the shuffle.  I think with 
our working together we can accomplish more.  It's 
going to be limited to budgets.  We need a community 
outreach.  We're doing our parts.  I know they're 
doing theirs.  We'd like to keep our people out of 
jail and help the families.  Rob rouble any 
questions of Jackie?
               The only one I have, maybe that's 
your group and Jill, the statewide NAMI group, is 
working -- as a Trust or definitely given money to 
the Mental Health Board and looking at kind of an 
education media campaign, and they're looking out to 
collaborate with the other boards.  I don't know, 
you may want to talk with them a little bit about 
how you can participate in that making sure that 
some of the kinds of things which sounds like real 
basic information and outreach of where to turn for 
help.
               A SPEAKER:  I know they need more 
than that, they need staff and doctors.
               MS. ROBINSON:  I'm talking about 
for this one campaign that you might want to 
consider that.
               A SPEAKER:  We try to get  -- we 
put that same ad, that information into our 
newsletter but that's like speak together the 
quierm.  This is going to people who are already 
involved in the whole mental illness issue.  And 
it's the new ones that really concern me, because 
I've been there, and I just think it's important 
to really have it out so people know, okay, now I 
know where I can go, where I can get help without 
going to jail.  Or whatever.
               MR. PUGH:  Thank you.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Okay.  I think the 
last I have on my list right here is Mary sine owe 
Virginia Ron.
               A SPEAKER:  Caren.  Vicky, do you 
need to go ahead.  I'm fine as long as I'm on the 
list.
               MS. ROBINSON:  You are on the list.
               A SPEAKER:  Hello, I'm Mary sin a 
green, I'm with Fairbanks Mental Health.  I have 
schizophrenia.  I haven't had an attack since '89, 
but that's because I've tooken care of me.  I've 
had trouble with my counselors and stuff, but I've 
had some good counselors.  Susan has only been 
there a year, but she's done wonders with nothing, 
and she needs more money.  And I am -- belong to 
NAMI, and I know we at NAMI need money to -- for 
things too.
               I just come up as a consumer to let 
you know that I try and help beings I have not had 
any attacks or anything, I want to Susan all I can, 
help NAMI all I can.  But I broke mill ankle and I 
had to be in a cast and the doctor made me keep my 
leg up so I couldn't go to my NAMI meetings, so I 
don't know what's going on at NAMI right now.
               But I do know I've been going to the 
club and it's really improved, and we've got a great 
cook, and you ought to all try and go have dinner 
over at the club tomorrow if you're still here.
               Susan can call Lisa and let her 
known, because our cook's so good, one time she made 
up, I think, 60 stuffed peppers, and she had to find 
something else to feed half of us because the 
peppers was gone, and we don't have that many people 
very often.
               (Laughter.) spike speak so they need 
to know they're going to have some people, bankrupt 
if you're going to go over there, I think Susan can 
let them know that you're coming and they'll make 
sure whatever they got on the men umbe, there's 
enough for you.
               And Susan has hired some pretty nice 
people in the last year sinks she's been there.  I 
have a counselor now I wouldn't trade for anything.  
But I doubt if they'll stay if the money problem for 
the counselors and the people that work for mental 
health don't start getting raises, getting their pay 
up a little bit.  I wanted to go to the Bridges 
Campaign this year, I was having an operation 
because I had my hip broke.  I was in the hospital 
and couldn't get to Juneau, but I used the telephone 
and told them they better try and find a way, but 
they said:  Well, somebody made the regulations, and 
they couldn't do nothing about it.  But I think 
somehow they better try and find out how to do 
something about seeing that mental health counselors 
and stuff get a little more money because you get a 
good counselor like I got now, you don't find them 
very often.  And when they go, then up have problems 
with your patience.  They all go heywire.
               If you can find a way to help, 
whatever they need, I'm with them 100 percent, 
because I know Susan is working awful hard trying to 
do what's right and I know Jackie and Jean et are 
trialing awful hard with NAMI.  I haven't been able 
to go to NAMI because I've had my foot up and I 
wasn't able to go downstairs.  I'm table go 
downstairs now so I'll probably be going to 
meetings.
               That's all I have to say.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any questions for 
Mary?
               Okay.  Vicky, I don't show anyone 
else signed up.  Is there another list of anyone in 
the audience who wants to testify.
               Okay.  Turn to you Vicky.
               A SPEAKER:  For the record this is 
Vicky Malone testifying from Bethel Alaska, and I 
have to tell you I'm really excited, I've been 
following the trainings corruption of this meeting 
on the website.  I don't know whether anyone else 
has mentioned this.  There isn't much of a delay, 
it's fabulous because I was able to listen to your 
rather pro duckeddive discussion on API this 
morning and save myself the embarrassment of 
testifying out of context.
               (Laughter.)
               MS. ROBINSON:  Vicky, you'll be 
happy to know that there is also a person in 
England also listening through the webside, so you 
were with good company.
               A SPEAKER:  It's incredible, it's 
just incredible, there are thing, like Jay 
costandards came out of JAKE and then a little O.  
I'd like to make a couple comments.  First of all, 
I'd like to know that Bethel has recently 
undergone some surgery.  I'm hoping that somebody 
there will find the time to write a letter 
commending her for the work that she did the 
APIA QA committee.  She was diligent, did the most 
work, most preparation and really did deliver a 
quality product.  That report wasn't really well 
received in terms of the governor's issues.  Beth, 
however, was appointed to the API, quote, govern 
nanls, unquote, board, I emball it owe committee, 
I think she made a wonderful contribution there.  
However I'm afraid we have some unrewarded 
competency and she was not reappoint.
               MS. EDMANDS:  .
               I'm hoping the trusted will find a 
way to maybe recognize the work that she's done.  I 
think she certainly deserves it.
               Again, I was thrilled with our rather 
pro duckeddive discussion this morning on API and 
the whole issue around capacity in- patient capacity 
at API, and I noted that Trustee Malone opened the 
door for old stories when he represented to you that 
some 30 years ago when he was a young trooper which 
I calculate to be more like 36 years ago.
               (Laughter.)
               A SPEAKER:  That he did -- he had 
some experience here.  And I wanted to remind the 
Trust that in 1989 that -- of the department, 
under the division of mental health commissioned a 
study to be done around what percentage of people 
who are admitted to API could be admitted to a 
community bed.  And we developed a research, I was 
the person who did the bulk of the work and wrote 
the record, we developed a criteria.  We did some 
follow-up on people that were hospitalized after 
we had called which way we would have called it at 
the time of admission, we were present during the 
admission process and the follow-up, we would rule 
out people that had some kind of severe or -- a 
medical or a psychiatric incident during the 
hospitalization which would have contra indicated 
a community placement.
               And we were running -- our accuracy 
rate seemed to be running really high.  And I'd also 
like to remind the Trust that around that same time 
in the late '80s, we started developing 
crisis/respite beds and many studies vertical filed 
that the development of community beds reduced the 
hospitalization rate by 50 percent and that 50 
percent became accurately predictive of what would 
happen.
               So I'm using that data to kind of 
support some of the things that Jeff pointed out in 
his remarks to the Trust.  I feel that those numbers 
are still good.  I would like to see that study 
replicated by someone who is competent in community 
psychiatry and is committed to community psychiatry, 
it would be in my opinion that probably 50 percent 
of the admissions today could be diverted to 
community beds.
               Obviously, having made those remarks, 
I am passionately not in favor of extending the 
certificate to 80 beds if the if for some reason we 
feel we need more beds I would passionately like to 
see those beds purchased in the private sector by 
patients who would voluntarily be admitted that 
would also give an opportunity to reach real pairty 
in the treatment of reaching the mentally ill so 
they would be admitted to the same kind of facility 
that other people who are not public states.
               They would find out that public-paid 
patients were not seen as any different as anyone 
else that went into a private hospital with mental 
illness.
               That concludes my remarks, I 
congratulate you about your innovative ability to  
extend your participation of your meeting through 
the script there's -- owe we able to read.  There's 
only a few-second delay.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Thank you, Vicky for 
one taking the time to go on the website and check 
it out for today and letting us know how important 
it is and all the work that you do.
               Any questions for Vicky?
               And also reminding us how old John 
is.
               A SPEAKER:  I did didn't say that.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Anyone else in the 
audience who has not signed up who would like to 
give public testimony?
               Okay.  Then we will close public 
testimony and unless people believe they need a 
break, I'm going to go ahead and we will go back to 
our last agenda item which a review of our last 
retreat of the Trustees, and I thought being in 
Fairbanks that we would have Brian who was our 
consultant who worked with us and being that we 
getting close to moving into year 2002, ill thought 
it was probably important to review the last work 
that we did and we are talking about having another 
retreat and de Lisa and I did have a chance to talk 
and unless it's a problem for the Trustees and I 
know some of you may have to look back at your 
schedule, we would like to set that for December 
11th.
               And we thought that we could probably 
get the work of the RFR and also the work of, you 
know, looking at our future and doing some retreat 
work at the same time which I kind of see the RFR 
work is kind of retreat work is that we could do 
everything on the 11th, and you know we'll have to 
think a little bit more about the time that we start 
and the time that we quit to see whether or not 
people would prefer to try to fly in that morning or 
if it's possible we should try and fly in the night 
before so we can get a good aerialy start and be 
able to get the work done.
               All of you should have a copy and my 
apologies for the fact that you didn't have it in 
your package to review before now, but maybe Brian 
can kind of give us some words of wisdom where he 
sees a rat and kind of take us through it.
               MR. ROGERS:  To start out, this 
retreat, to refresh your memory was one held on 
June 11th by the Trustees, coincidentally, exactly 
six months before what will be your next retreat.
               You went over your priorities that 
you had set at two retreats in late '99 and early 
2000 to say how did we do?  And then you used the 
second portion of the retreat to say what do we want 
to set as our priorities for next year.
               In the first part, how did you do?  
You had four areas of priorities that you had set in 
late '99 and early 2000.  Priories for programs, for 
administrative priorities for communication 
priorities, and for asset management, a total of 15 
areas, some with several points under them, and you 
graded yourselves.  You gave yourselves As, Bs, Cs, 
and one F.
               Overall, if you want to know what 
your GPA is, it was a 3.13 GPA, it's above a B 
average.  Your priorities that you had set at that 
point.  Let me just go through those, partly for the 
benefit of the audience and the record.
               Your program priorities were where 
you did best.  You scored ver -- you scored 
yourselves very high on the accomplishment of the be 
onives you have set, which is the API process.  Few 
steps on that.  Comprehensive plan, rural services 
and changes in the budget with some specific budget 
items.
               The ad'rive priorities did not score 
quite as well.  You felt you had done a good job on 
implementing the -- beginning the transition to the 
two-year budget process, staff personnel 
restructuring, and implementation evaluation of 
quality assurance.  A little bit less well on 
getting the executive committee structured and 
tasked.  Two areas that you scored yourselves down 
somewhat were on prioritizing staff workload, and 
the chain of command communication from the Trust to 
the staff, and the area that you felt you had failed 
was on completing the regulation and Trust policies 
and procedures.  The regulation process.
               So that was an area where you had 
expressed some concerns.
               Communication priorities, you had on 
electronic communications improving the website, 
e-mailing the agendas out, getting information out 
on the website, scored yourselves a B on that as 
well as on public speaking, getting out and speak 
together groups, but felt you didn't do quite as 
well on your listening that is the town meetings 
committee work and the area you were concerned about 
was your own participation in board activities.
               Finally in the as teated management 
area, you thought you did a good job on leveraging 
Trust resources to achieve your goals and on 
segregating -- begin together look at how you 
leverage your land assets for the beneficiaries.
               So, that would be your review of 
where you were.  You're now halfway or you're five 
months into the process from your lasted retreat and 
let's go over what were the priorities for the 
2001-2002 or really the fiscal year.
               You reduced from 15 to 12 priority 
areas.  But, again, following the same groupings.  
Program priorities, administrative priorities, 
external communications and as teated management.
               In the program priorities, these are 
not in any specific order, but rather your overall 
priorities, first on the comprehensive plan, you 
want to finish the plan, take it on the road for 
public hearings, articulate what the vision is for 
the plan, create a relationship between the 
comprehensive plan and the board plans, and then 
follow the plan once that is complete.
               The second one in the area of 
community-based services, this really come unless 
part out of your API2000 creating the 
community-based services, sup or theing crisis 
intervention teams, working on the team for services 
throughout the state, sup or theing DET and 
emergency services in the context of your land 
negotiations and working on Title 7 and 
decriminalization of the mentally ill.
               The third priority area within 
program priorities is in rural services, continuing 
your outreach, looking at integration of service 
systems, developing rural facilities and services, 
addressing behavioral health aideible umbe, and 
working on the family wellness centers as part of 
the Denali Commission work.
               In the budget, the fourth program 
priority, evaluating the base budget as part of your 
process this year, continuing to support basic 
supports, Medicaid, hosing and transportation for 
beneficiaries and then monitoring and eel valuating 
your own two-year budget process.
               And finally, in the program area, 
corrections, transitioning the pilot programs and 
expanding jail alternative services.
               Three priorities in administrative 
area:  Organizational restructuring and integration; 
internal communication; and back before you for 
remedial work, regulations and policies.
               In the organizational restructuring 
and integration as you can see you're already 
underway on that one with hiring the deputy 
director, accounting supervisor, delegating regs and 
policy and staff workload balancing to the deputy.  
Integrating the long-term care ombudsman, revolving 
the integration of trustedland office and developing 
organizational development of responsibilityy.
               You had followup work on that as a 
restreet, and the staff has been working in this 
area.
               Internal communication, beefing up 
internal communication with staff meetings, monthly 
written executive director report.  And then on the 
regulations and policies, just do it was your first 
recommendation.  Completing the regulations Trust 
policies and procedures including policies for 
redress and QA for individual beneficiaries.
               External communication, this really 
is in alignment with the Board collaborative meeting 
which had occurred a couple weeks earlier, public 
awareness in terms of raising public perception of 
beneficiary needs and accomplishments.  You wanted 
to use hearings on the comp plan to get the word 
out.  Hearing the public's response to the 
department's plans, getting the boards involved and 
participateing in the beneficiary board meetings and 
activities.
               Finally, three areas in asset 
management.  Again, leveraging, partnering with 
grant-makers and other funding sources and looking 
for ways to leverage your resources to achieve Trust 
and beneficiary goals.  You wanted to review the 
investment policy statement in the area of finance 
and investment.  In the land area, resolve the Trust 
Land Office and Trust organizational issue.  
Continue the community enhance president issue and 
adopt an asset manage president strategy.
               That's where you are and one of the 
things you may want to review halfway through the 
year in your December 11th, but those were your 
priorities.
               On the third page of this were staff 
work assignments that you had.  I believe this is 
actually a draft as of June, and I think some 
changes have already been made in this.  This is 
less meaningful now than it was at the time it was 
sent out to the Chair and Executive Director.
               With that, I think that's a reminder 
of where you were, what you set as a goal, maybe 
something that you want to look to in the spring 
again to see if you're still on track with what you 
set.
               MR. HAWKINS:  It's a good thing 
they have six months left.
               MR. ROGERS:  The real message that 
came out of this, if you look, the fact thaw set 
priorities, most of those you did pretty well on.  
And this process of setting goals is a way for you 
to communicate to each other and to your staff 
where it is you want to go.  No board is ever 
going to achieve everything it sets out to do.
               But particularly if you look at the 
program issues, which are the one that also most 
affect your beneficiaries, you're working pretty 
hard and I think we justifiably proud of what you've 
accomplished in the last year and yes you have seven 
months left to go in this year to accomplish just as 
much.
               That completes my report, Madam 
Chair.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Any comments or 
questions?
               MR. PUGH:  You said in December we 
going to go over this.  What do you mean by that 
and follow up from the retreat?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Again, I need to 
fork with both deLisa and with Jeff more on that, 
I think it's probably good anytime we have a 
retreat to relook at what we've put out and when 
possible, you know, take things off or add things 
to the list if we need to, and at least evaluate, 
again, what have we accomplished.  I mean, we can 
certainly say we've hire add deputy director.  
And, you know, some of the things too, we've got 
policies, there have been some good things that 
have been happening since we did this work.
               And so I think it's constantly good 
for us to look at it, grade ourss, reevaluate where 
we are, add to the list, take from the list.  That's 
what I think we'll be doing.  Today I wanted us to 
start thinking in that direction again.  Looking, 
constantly remembering what we said we were going to 
do, reminding staff what we said we were going to 
do, and then from there I think we'll feel like we 
accomplished things better.
               MR. MALONE:  I'd like to make a 
comment about what we did in our accomplishments.  
You'll recall from the Ms. Cohen's comment to also 
the written comment that came in on the plan, she 
made I thought an excellent point of the absence 
of the mental health data throughout the system, 
no -- couldn't even draw any viable or good or 
conclusions because of the absence of that 
information.
               And I remember the MIS system, I 
can't remember who brought it forward during our 
retreat, but suggested that MIS would be one of the 
priorities we should look at.  I think it ended up 
owe owe.
               MR. JESSEE:  Well, I guess I can 
respond to that.
               MR. MALONE:  You don't have to.
               MR. JESSEE:  I think I should 
because with all due respect, I don't think that's 
exactly correct.  What happened was the Department 
wanted, I believe, quite a bit of money, perhaps a 
million dollars for MIS and the advisory Board on 
Alcohol & drug aboous came out and said in fact, 
the division of Alcohol and drug abuse had some 
seed money that they had available to them to 
begin the process of developing an MIS and that 
they didn't need additional Trust money.
               In the last two weeks I've had an 
exchange of e-mails with the division of alcohol and 
drug abuse.  My first e-mail wasee you got your 
money to start an MIS program, what's the plan, is 
it going to be an integrated MIS or is it just 
alcohol and drug abuse MIS?
               The first response I got back from 
the division is oh, yes, we going to have a plan, we 
don't have one yet, but there will be a plan.
               I wrote back and I said:  Well, 
that's great, is it going to be an integrated MIS or 
is it just an alcohol and drug abuse MIS?
               I got another response that said, oh, 
yes, it is going to be integrated.
               Then I started copying those e-mails 
to Walter and Richard so that they could start to 
see that they were contemplated as partners in this 
MIS development.  And then wrote back and said 
that's great, let me know when you figure out how 
you're going to involve both the Mental Health 
Board, the Alcohol Board, the mental health 
providers, the alcohol providers and come up with 
some sort of reasonable approach to getting MIS.
               So, I think there isal be it --al be 
it not with great speed some looking at getting an 
integrated MIS.  I certainly agree with Katherine's 
comments, ill talked with Susan, just yesterday, we 
were talking about the lack of outcome data, the 
lack of any effective integrated MIS, so I'm not 
saying that we there, but I don't think that we've 
relegated it, at least at the staff level to a 
nonentity.  We are continueing --
               MR. MALONE:  I didn't intend for to 
you put up your defense.  I thought it was a hell 
of a defense for them.  You don't need to defend 
yourself that's not the issue.  The issue first 
was the trustedees and the policy question.  We 
didn't drive it home, did we?
               MR. JESSEE:  I got the message.
               MR. MALONE:  Not in the priorities 
at the retreated.  I was not surprised at all that 
Katherine would end up with this type of 
unfortunate commentary.  I don't think we've moved 
much further.
               MR. JESSEE:  I don't think we 
moving.  Path Earl.
               MR. MALONE:  If we don't establish 
it as a priority, it ain't going November where.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Phil.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Madam Chairman, I 
want to be on the record that I had not seen this 
report guard when I started writing suggested 
policies.
               (Laughter.)
               MR. YOUNKER:  I might have wrote 
more.
               MS. ROBINSON:  How many weeks do 
you have before December?
               MS. ROBINSON:  Is there -- is there 
any other questions of Brian or any other comments 
from the group?
               I guess there's one thing we have 
kind of failed to do and maybe I should turn that 
over to Jeff.  We do have a new staff person with us 
today, and I guess you can kind much see how quickly 
people are integrated into our system.  Because it 
seems like she's already been with us for months and 
it's only been weeks.  Maybe Jeff, you might 
introduce our new staff.
               MR. JESSEE:  My apologize.  I'm so 
used to having DeLisa around.  This is De Lisa cul 
pep E our new deputy director.  We stole her -- I 
mean we helped get her from public health where 
she was working as a special assistant.  
Previously, she had a number of years working with 
the municipality and brings a strong public health 
background to the Trust, very good management 
skills.  Lots of energy.  And is the incoming 
president of the Alaska Public Health Association.
               I do have the title right?
               MS. CULPEPPER:  Yes.
               MR. JESSEE:  We just very pleased 
to have her.  She's already hit the ground running 
and contributing quite a bit to the group.
               MS. ROBINSON:  We want to say 
welcome and I've been fortunate to work with  
deLisa for quite a few years, was very thrilled 
that the decision came down the way it did, and I 
think we going to have a lot of fun and have 
already seen the kind of work.  Even last night 
she was willing to get on the plane, came here, 
set up these Mikes, that kind of shows the kind of 
commitment, willingness to kind of roll up your 
sleeves and do anything that's needed.  We really 
do appreciate that and look forward to meeting 
with you.
               Any other -- and also.
               MR. PUGH:  One other comment.  Just 
one of the things on that list was the 
comprehensive plan.  I hope all of you caught the 
comprehensive plan.  It is being printed as we 
speak and will be out.  I think that is an 
accomplishment for us for the last couple of 
years.  There are certainly from the comments that 
John says one -- many things we need to could.  
But I think the comprehensive plan is an 
improvement of what we had before.  And the next 
iteration will be even better.
               I think Katherine Cohen's comments to 
a lot of the comments back gave us really good 
guidance of where we need to go, I guess that's 
something we need to get with Katherine and look at 
what will be the next meetings to start looking at 
that.  I know she probably would kill me if I called 
her this week, but we'll get on it.
               MS. RIDER:  She took her vacation 
already.
               MR. PUGH:  I'll go ahead and call 
her.
               MS. ROBINSON:  If other Trustees 
have not seen the Trust worth I news letter, I 
can't get on the list to get that one.  I had not 
seen it until I got here.  It's excellent.  I took 
it last night to read it.
               MS. SORENSEN:  Just went out, 
probably crossed in the mail.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Another excellent 
news letter and I know that we also begin together 
work on the annual plan so if any of the Trustees 
have any suggestions or ideas of how you would 
like it to be formatted or any suggestions on what 
you don't want to see in there that we've had in 
the past, be sure and talk with Jeff or de Lisa or 
other staff regarding it.
               Jeff.  Jeez jeltion gees two things.  
If any of you want us to mail your stuff back to 
you, leave it at your seat and we'll mail it back so 
up don't have to lug it around on the plane.
               And then to important o morning we 
were going to start the tours at 8:00.  We sort of 
looked at the schedule and decided that was pretty 
early to start cruiseing downtown.  So what we going 
to do is get transported from here to the 
correctional center at about 8:45.  Then between the 
correctional center and going to FNA we'll do a 
quick tour of the downtown area where some more 
beneficiaries are hanging out.  If that's 
acceptable, that will give people a little bit more 
time in the morning to have breakfast.
               It was a pretty early morning.
               MS. ROBINSON:  You know, I think --
               MR. MALONE:  Tom, save us.
               MS. ROBINSON:  The structural 
change we made, welcome the Trust Lands Office to 
our table, I think it's grated to see also how 
that transition has been working and, you know, we 
appreciated the phone calls regarding the meetings 
and following up when I didn't respond and other 
kinds of things.
               Thanks.
               Okay.  If not, I'll entertain a 
motion to adjourn.
               MR. HAWKINS:  So moved, Madam 
Chair.
               MR. YOUNKER:  Second.
               MS. ROBINSON:  Moved and second to  
aadjourn.
               (Trust Board meeting adjourned at 
4:49D p.m. )