Loading...
1995-19337-Minutes for Meeting October 11,1983 Recorded 11/2/1983V 24 AN3 95-19337 VOL 50 wf 918 BOARD OF COM§y J$I�. &A!!" TATE MENTAL HEALTH DIVISION OCTOBER 11,Iv�2'9"8 Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioners' Conference Room. Present were: Commission Chairman Abe Young; Commissioner Lois Prante; Commissioner Larry Tuttle; Dr. Joseph Treleaven, State Mental Health Director; Melinda Woodward, Dick Vohs and Dave Isom, all three are Mental Health Division staff; Jane Kirkpatrick, Deschutes County Family Counseling Director; Hyale Smith, Deschutes County Family Counseling staff member; and Rick Isham, County Counsel. The meeting had been called to resolve problems arising from the contracts offered to the County by the State for the delivery of mental health services in Deschutes County. Chairman Young felt that the contracts themselves contained excessive verbage and that they did not adequately define the County's obligations and responsibilities. Also, because of frequent contract modifica- tions it appears that the rules are being changed all the time. Mr. Isham stated that in going over the contract language there had been several illegal provisions and well as a lack of definition of the County's duties and obligations. He felt that the contract had been presented to the County in a "take it or leave it" manner, with a feeling of a retalitory attitude on the part of the State. He suggested that the State should not take a such a rigid posture, but be more amenable to negotiating with the County as the contractor also has needs and requirements that should be considered by the contract itself. Commissioner Prante outlined the budget cutbacks the County had undergone, explaining that an additional burden had been placed by the increased demands on the County through the Mental Health Division contract. Commissioner Tuttle stated that the contracting process is continuing to assume more and more time and has become a major focus of their Advisory Board meetings. He wondered if the County would be more effective in providing only a small amount of out- patient care and drop the rest. He stated his unwillingness to continue to participate if the contracts themselves continue to be a major function. Hyale Smith felt that the County's major role should be to deliver the service and the State's major role was to assist the County. She noted that in the past the State provided services to the County but no longer does so. Her feeling is that the relation- ship is no longer cooperative but adversarial stemming from power/control issues. Jane Kirkpatrick stated that she had recently attended a ting also attended by Division staff and discussed so of t se P .;i1E 5 Page 1 J VOL 50 fAvf 919 problems. She felt that there was a mutual desire to work together in an effort to resolve them. Dr. Treleaven acknowledged the frustration experienced by the County, explaining that the Division is now having to comply with more administrative rules with less money to administer the programs and this is in turn passed on at the County level. He also pointed out that there is a question whether these services should be channeled through the Counties or kept at the State level. A committee with no vested interest has been appointed to make a recommendation on this. He stated that he is in favor of maintaining delivery at the County level. He felt that local delivery was an advantage when funding allocations are before the legislature, but also noted that it is difficult to have funds allocated for administrative expenses. This lack of funding at the legislative level forces the Counties to shoulder the expense. There was some discussion on the contract itself. The state had changed the reporting requirements for interest funds from previous contracts because they have a new data system. There was some discussion on this because the County's accounting system does not provide the same accountability as is apparently required by the contract. There was some confusion on exactly what this provision requires. The subcontractor will have the responsibi- lity of providing some accounting information, but the County is ultimately responsible in the event that the subcontractor fails to perform as the contract stipulates. The County also is respon- sible if the State disallows an expense on the subcontractors cost statement. This issue was also discussed. Although the State will assist the County in recovering any loss it suffers through subcontracting, it will not remove the County from the legal liability. With regard to the accounting requirement, Mr. Vohs agreed to send a letter explaining this provision further. It was later agreed to sign a letter of understanding outlining what both parties interpret that particular provision to mean. This letter would replace the paragraph contained in the contract that is so confusing. Commissioner Tuttle stated that because the County is required by State law to provide accounting, the provision was not necessary and suggested that the County sign the contract with the omission of that provision. Ms. Woodward stated that they would prefer to execute a letter of understanding and leave the original language in the contract. At this time a Letter of Understanding was drafted. Mr. Isham read aloud the proposed letter, which stated that "the reporting requirement was only for those funds identified in that section and have no other purpose whatever". It was agreed by both parties to sign such a letter in conjuction with the contract. MOTION: PRANTE moved the contract with the inclusion of the language in Section 11 put with the other provisions subject to the letter of understanding. TUTTLE: Second. This approves the Mental Health Division contract with the Page 2 a ' VOL 50 FA 920 ri inclusion of Section 11 A. and with the wording definitions subject to a letter of understanding on the meaning of Section 11. Commissioner Tuttle expressed his reluctance to sign this contract, noting this does not necessarily mean the County will sign the contract next year. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ALBER A. YOUNG HA IRM OYS BRISTOW PRANTE, COMMISSIONER L ENCE A. TUTT E, COMMISSIONER /ss Page 3