Main Forums > Living With HIV

Form 700, Financial Disclosure of Planning Counsil members

(1/2) > >>

I was talking to Zephyr today re: Form 700. 

Every Planning Counsil member has to fill out this form during each fiscal year.  How does a Planning Counsil member not benefit from Planning Counsil activities if he/she is on RWCA funded benefits?  Should that member even be allowed to vote?  OR, should only members who are not infected be allowed to vote on issues which affect the quality of life and benefits programs for persons living with HIV/AIDS?  Sounds like a real Catch 22.

I have long been of the opinion that HIV creates jobs and those jobs are primarily for people who are not infected.  Imagine, if you will...  The file clerk who handles each of the forms that are not seen after they are signed and returned.

If that file clerk was to file Form 700 Numerically, they would have to start filing Form 1 through 700.  If they were to file alphabetically, they would start with Alanbama, through Sonomabeach and finally to Zephyr.  If that same person were to file alpha-numerically, there is a full time job and it is not likely that job would go to a person living with HIV.

Apologies to Alanbama, I needed a member name that started with "A" to make my point and although Alan was not in the original conversation, his name came to mind.  Have the best day

Hi Michael,

I think this might be just a little confusing to the casual reader here, due to the fact that I have only run up against this very disturbing requirement in California.  The RWCA, never asks or requires anywhere in the legislation that I can find, a requirement for Consumers of services to be accountable financially for having a voting seat on any Planning Council.  This is very disturbing, and I think needs to be looked into, and questioned.  I think it actually might be illegal.  There is no reason for anyone, outside of the RWCA contractor, to see any financial information from any consumers.  This is done to confirm "need for service" and need only.  Anything beyond that is tantamount to a breach of confidentiality. 

I would strongly suggest that you and Zephyr get a group of HIV+ individuals together and go to the Council and make sure to confront them with this.  In the RWCA manual, conflict of interest is plainly dealt with, concerning Consumers, and so this should be the section that is studied and applied.  I think some attorney in Sacramento is getting way to powerful and causing the council to be defensive in the extreme here.  This one will have to be done face to face, and a plan of action will have to be created to fight this one off.  I cannot think of one good reason why the HIV/AIDS Planning Council must know anything about Consumers and their private business, other than whether or not they are HIV+.  End of story.  I must tell you, if I still lived in California, I would already be networking this one, as this form will surely keep HIV+ people away from any activism at all, and maybe in the end, this is why they do this.  Thankfully, Zephyr is the first to maybe question the efficacy of such an inquisition.

I wish you all the best of good fortune in getting to the bottom of this one.

IN Love and Support.

Hi Michael,

I have seen no such question here in Kansas City.  As a matter of fact, consumers are highly regarded here.  The nation's standard for percentages of consumer membership in Planning Council is 33%.  Here in KC, the standards are set to 37%.  Most of the consumer members of the council do receive Ryan White funding.  It is never questioned.

Hi Guys,

It is easier for me to get the information because I am already on the Funding Allocation Working Group, have taken my oath of office with the Planning Counsil and the Fiscal Agent is getting used to getting questions from me on costs and expenditures.

Personally, I have been on the edge lately with our Planning Counsil and all of its sub-committees because I work as hard as any of those paid county employees (maybe harder) and for all my work, I get to line up for charities such as the AIDS Food Bank and AIDS Emergency Fund.  Because of my involvement with the FAWG, I already have fiscal agent reports on every RWCA funded organization.

Since the reauthorization has not reached the floor of the full House or full Senate, it probably will not be this year and we can expect another year of flat funding with another 15% decrease in funding levels.  If the current legislation is passed, with all of it's flaws in legislative language, Sacramento, Santa Clara, and Sonoma County will all be losing their Title I status in 3 years.

I posted a letter to Congress (here on the forums), in my web site and have been hand distributing locally.  That letter asks to fully fund needed services in all states.  One hundred copies disapeared from the HIV clinic, there has not been any support from Face-to-Face and the copies of the letter and flyers for the site left at Food for Thought, Sonoma Counties AIDS Food Bank are proudly displayed at the front door table (under boxes).  When I put a flyer up on any bulletin board of the same organizations, it is removed by staff within the same day.  AIDS Inc. is in business and persons living with HIV/AIDS are an asset as long as we are dependent upon their services.

I spent the last 9 months on the Re-Entry Task Force, trying to help get the program started.  Four of those months were spent dallying about linguistics on "psychosocial" needs of persons living with HIV.  This was just to get it listed as a non-funded service category with the COA.  A disabled Professor and Sonoma State University have really gone out of their way in efforts to get a funding grant from the NIH.  Now there is a possible grant available, all the ASO's are lining up to be the provider of services.  Rick Dean, Executive Director of Face-to-Face has started showing up personnaly at the new "Community Re-Connect Task Force" meetings.  It is a 5 year grant in the approximate amount of $648,000.00.  How many people has Face-to-Face taken from dependence upon services to self-sufficiency?  How about none?  Not 1 person in the history of that organization.  Mr. Dean did not even know the potential dollar amount because that was disclosed by the disabled Professor in another meeting.  Guys, I am so tired and as usual, I work alone.  Have the best day

PS.  The other persons living with HIV/AIDS on the Planning Counsil never invite me to join them in social activities or to ride with them on fact finding trips.  I hear about the trips to the Positive Resource Center and the personal meetings with the Director of, at the monthly COA meetings.

Hi Gentlemen...

I spent 3 hours yesterday studying the legal language of the entire Form 700, the definition of 'Conflict of Interest' in my (newly) acquired Sacramento Health Services Planning Council Policy and Procedure Manual.

Phone calls to the Fair Political Practices Commission got me passed to the Sacramento Board of Supervisors Office, who then passed me back to the FPPC, who told me to talk to other members of the Planning Council, who told me to talk to Staff.

My eyes got crossed, my frustration mounted, and finally, I called Michael (sonomabeach). I have checked the box on the lower part of the form, indicating that I held no 'interests' in anything.

It will have to suffice. I told Michael that I needed to hire a lawyer just to wade through that crap!

I appreciated all your help, too, dear. And yours as well, Moffie. I never would have questioned this had it not been for you.

My best, always,



[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version