STATEWIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL
November 20, 2024
1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m.
FULL SILC Meeting
IN-PERSON AND ZOOM

Members and Ex-Officios Attending: Chair Randy Pierce, Second Vice-Chair Ryan Witterschein, Secretary Sarah Sweeney (Remote due to PCA issues), Immediate Past Chair Carrie Dudley, Member Jennifer Cook (Remote due to medical issues), Member Krystal Chase, Member Ryan Donnelly (Remote due to transportation issues), Member Andrew Harmon, and Member Michelle McConaghy.
Staff: Jennifer Beaulieu (SILC Assistant), Amy Clark (Older Blind Program Representative), and Scott Vittner (DSE Representative)
Guests: Isadora Rodriguez-Legendre (Applicant), Chase Eagleson (Member of the Public), Erin Hall (Member of the Public), Tracey Walbridge (Member of the Public), and Marissa Berg (Member of the Public)
Communication Access: Laurie Meyer (ASL Interpreter) and Bethany Hawkins (ASL Interpreter) 

Chair Randy Pierce called the SILC (Statewide Independent Living Council) meeting to order 1:02pm.

*Quorum was reached. 

Approval of Minutes of 9/18 Full SILC Meeting
* Second Vice-Chair Ryan Witterschein motioned for approval. 
Second: 		Member Michelle McConaghy		
Roll Call:
•	7 Ayes/Yes
•	2 Abstentions 
Discussion: 		None
All in Favor: 		Abstention: Members Krystal Chase and Andrew Harmon
Motion Carried.
Presentation of Part B Vendor Consumer Satisfaction Survey Results
Randy Pierce asked how the information from the surveys should be provided to Scott Vittner for the DSE records. Discussion ensued. Executive summaries of the survey results need to be sent to Scott Vittner by December 15th. A reminder email will be sent out by Scott Vittner. 

Randy Pierce reported out for Future in Sight. He noted that they typically do surveys via phone because it’s easier for their clientele. To remove bias, volunteers are used to make the phone calls. He reported that 459 of their clients received Part B funded services. Of that 459, only 119 surveys were completed. 100% of the survey participants were completely satisfied with their services and what use Future in Sight again. He noted it’s a point of pride because generally you hear from people who are unhappy with their services. 

Michelle McConaghy reported out for Northeast Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services, Inc. She doesn’t have the total number of how many surveys were sent out, but 36 surveys were completed and returned. Out of that 36, 13 were from individuals receiving interpreter services for social events, 21 were from individuals who received Information and referral services, and 2 were from deaf-blind individuals who accessed a Support Service Provider. For the interpreter services, 77% were completely satisfied, 15% were somewhat satisfied, and 8% were neutral. For information and referral, 57% were completely satisfied, 19% were somewhat satisfied, 10% were neutral, and 10% were somewhat dissatisfied. 100% of the individuals who had Support Service Providers were completely satisfied. She thinks that one of the challenges is that they are short on staff that can focus their time on the surveys. Andrew Harmon asked what their overall client size was. Michelle McConaghy noted that she will get in touch with him to provide that information. 

Erin Hall reported out for the Brain Injury Association of NH. Their surveys were done by mail and by survey monkey. She noted that the return rate wasn’t the best. They got a return rate of around 5 or 6. She noted that low return rates have always been an issue and the people who usually return the surveys are unhappy. They blame the association for being denied services that aren’t even provided by the association, but by a third party. She noted that they don’t have the capability to do phone calls due to not having enough staff. Any volunteers they use would need to be specifically trained because of the people they work with. 

Discussion ensued on how the surveys should be done as a follow-up to a service being provided. Erin Hall mentioned that with some of their programs, they survey quarterly. She noted that for that program, they have a very high success rate, and a lot of people are happy with the services they were provided. It was noted that follow up surveys could be more successful because people are more likely to remember the services they received. 

Randy Pierce mentioned that he received the results from GSIL’s surveys but would prefer Deborah Ritcey to present the data when she is next in attendance. 

There were questions on the DSE’s visits to the Part B vendors. Scott Vittner noted that he reached out to our contacts at ACL, but he didn’t get a good answer. Ther only requirement was for CILs, there was nothing for other Part B vendors. He noted that Daniel Frye, the previous DSE Representative, visited all the Part B vendors. 

DSE Request for PPR of Part B Vendors
Scott Vittner noted that he has sent over an invitation. This invitation was sent out to all the Part B vendors, asking for them to share their organizations’ information for this year’s PPR. He mentioned that there haven’t been any changes in the reporting portal. The one thing that he thinks will happen again will be the gender issue that they dealt with last year. There is a table in the PPR that requires the amount of people who received Part B funded services be separated by gender. The problem was there was no option for people who identify as neither male nor female. Scott Vittner asked our contacts at the federal government for guidance. They told him that they will update the PPR in the future to include other options for gender. They also provided him a workaround solution. It’s a bit of a complicated workaround. He saved all the emails between him and the contacts. He will review the emails to get the specific guidance from our contacts at the federal government. 

Discussion ensued on when the Part B data and the SILC data for the PPR be submitted to Scott Vittner. It was agreed to have the data in by the end of December. This will give them time to do a final review. Scott Vittner lastly asked for the Part B vendors to send him any information regarding any outreach activities their organization participates in. He would need information such as the date, the purpose, and the group they were targeting for their outreach activities.  

SPIL Implementation Planning
Randy Pierce noted that he would like to go through each objective and discuss if the assigned owner needs to be changed. The council first went through the objectives of Goal 1 which concerns increasing the availability of and awareness of independent living. Objectives 1.1 and 1.4 were originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Objective 1.2 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. Randy Pierce asked for that objective to be marked with a p for priority. Randy Pierce mentioned that he is going to review it and give the Advocacy Committee a list that they can use to give the council their priorities after the Advocacy Committee meeting. Objective 1.3 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee and the Executive Committee. Randy Pierce noted that it should probably be just assigned to the Executive Committee because the Advocacy Committee already has enough on their plate. Andrew Harmon was okay with that. Sarah Sweeney raised concerns over the amount of work it will take and wondered if it can be broken down. Randy Pierce noted that is what is going to be done, and we are going to lean on Ryan Donnelly because it's part of what he does for his job. 

The council next went through the objectives of Goal 2 which concerns promoting accessible and affordable transportation options statewide. Objective 2.1 was assigned to the Executive Committee and an Ad hoc committee. Randy Pierce asked if it should be assigned to the Executive Committee or an Ad hoc committee. Andrew Harmon mentioned that it should be assigned to the Executive Committee because of Deborah Ritcey’s work on the SCC. Objective 2.2 was originally assigned to the Executive Committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Objective 2.3 was originally assigned to an Ad hoc committee and to Erin Hall and Deborah Ritcey. Erin Hall mentioned that she talked with Deborah Ritcey about that objective and that they are okay with that assignment. 

The council next went through the objectives of Goal 3 which concerns improving and sustaining the SILC. Objective 3.1 was originally assigned to the Governance Committee. It was decided to change the objective assignment to the Membership Committee. Objectives 3.2 and 3.6 were originally assigned to the Membership Committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Objective 3.3 was originally assigned to the Membership Committee and the Governance Committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Objectives 3.4 and 3.5 were originally assigned to the Executive Committee. Everyone agreed that it should stay with the Executive Committee. 

The council next went through the objectives of Goal 4 which concerns working with various agencies in NH to identify barriers to employment for individuals living with a disability and begin to collaboratively address ways to overcome these barriers. Objective 4.1 was originally assigned to the Executive Committee, an Ad hoc committee, and Amy Clark. Randy Pierce asked for the Executive Committee to be removed from that objective’s assignment. Objective 4.2 was originally assigned to the Executive Committee. Everyone agreed that it should stay with the Executive Committee. Objective 4.3 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Objective 4.4 was originally assigned to an Ad hoc committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Amy Clark mentioned that we could also lean on VR with that objective. 
The council lastly went through the objectives of Goal 5 which concerns access to affordable and accessible housing. Objective 5.1 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. Andrew Harmon mentioned that the committee had some questions about that objective. They don’t know if they are supposed to be gathering information from what already exists or if they are trying to create that information. Randy Pierce responded that he envisions the committee working with NH housing on the objective. He noted that it could mean that it would need to be assigned to an Ad hoc. He asked for a p for priority to placed in the objective. Objective 5.2 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. No one raised concerns over that assignment. Objective 5.3 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. Randy Pierce asked for a p for priority to be added to that objective. Objective 5.4 was originally assigned to the Executive Committee. It was mentioned that it should be an Ad hoc committee. Objective 5.5 was originally assigned to the Advocacy Committee. Randy Pierce asked for a p for priority to be added to that objective. 
Randy Pierce reminded everyone that if their committee looks at the SPIL tracking tool and realize they are unable to do an objective they were assigned, they can kick it back to the council.  
Randy Pierce lastly asked how often we should review progress of the SPIL. He noted that it was talked about a bit at the last Executive Committee. They were thinking quarterly. 
Committee Updates
Membership
Ryan Witterschein mentioned that the committee has completed the mentorship survey. Jennifer Beaulieu will be sending out the survey after today’s meeting. He asked for everyone to fill out the survey and send it back to Jennifer Beaulieu once they are done. He would like it by the next Full SILC meeting. Randy Pierce asked what the Membership Committee was hoping to do with the data they get from the surveys. Ryan Witterschein responded that he hopes they will start to assign mentors and mentees based off their skill levels and preferences. He mentioned that they can use that information to build on the membership matrix. 

Governance
Erin Hall reported out for the Governance Committee. She noted that their next meeting will be on December 4th.  She also noted that the last meeting was canceled but at the meeting before, the committee went over the surveys and the executive summaries. The committee hopes to get back to reviewing and updating the policies and procedures now that the surveys are done. She lastly noted that the updates are mostly done but there needs to be a few edits before it can go before the Full SILC. 

Advocacy
Andrew Harmon noted that the committee had one meeting in October. The next meeting will be in November where they will try to figure out what their priorities from the SPIL will be.

Other Business
There were questions on if a remote participant needs to have their video on to make a vote. Randy Pierce responded that he looked briefly at the law and thinks if they are occasionally visible, they can still vote. Discussion ensued. Randy Pierce asked for Jennfier Cook to have her video on during the roll call votes. 

Ryan Witterschein presented Robert Kallin  and Joshua Gehling to the Full SILC. The Membership Committee has already questioned the two about their interest in the SILC and have recommended that the applicants move forward to the Full SILC for a possible vote.  He mentioned that he wanted to open the floor to allow the council members to ask questions of the applicants. Joshua Gehling introduced himself as a Clinical Services Administrator for the Bureau of Developmental Services. A lot of his role with the bureau is focused on connecting individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities or acquired brain injuries with specialized clinical supports such as residential supports. He is excited for the opportunity to join the SILC and help individuals on the other end of the service continuum. He noted that he is a homecare provider and has worked with an area agency and Easterseals in the past. He is also a parent of a five-year-old who has disabilities.  

Robert Kallin introduced himself as an environmental consultant. He has knowledge about regulations and the law, how government agencies work, and how government agencies work together. He looked more into the SILC at the behest of Ryan Witterschein and became interested in our work. Ryan Witterschein felt that he would be of benefit to the SILC because of his skills in finding efficiencies and overcoming regulatory hurdles. 

Jennifer Beaulieu asked what committee they would be interested in joining. Joshua Gehling noted that all three appeal to him. He is interested in Advocacy but is okay with joining any committee at the behest of the council. Robert Kallin noted that based on what he heard described and have seen in the SPIL, he thinks the existing skills he gained from consulting could be of use to the Governance Committee. He is also willing to join any of the committees at the direction of the council. 

Randy Pierce kindly asked for Robert Kallin and Joshua Gehling to leave so the council can vote on them. He asked for a motion to approve the applicants.  

* Member Andrew Harmon moved to accept both applicants. 
Second: Second Vice-Chair Ryan Witterschein 				 
Roll Call:
•	8 Ayes/Yes 
•	1 Abstention by absence 
Discussion: 		None 		
All in Favor:  Yes	Abstention: Member Jennifer Cook
Motion Carried.

Krystal Chase was officially appointed to the Governance Committee. 

* Member Andrew Harmon moved to adjourn. 
Second: Second Vice-Chair Ryan Witterschein 				 

Roll Call:
•	6 Ayes/Yes
•	3 Abstention by absence 
Discussion: 		None 		
All in Favor: 	Yes	Abstention: Member Jennifer Cook, Secretary Sarah Sweeney, and Immediate Past Chair Carrie Dudley
Motion Carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:22pm

Minutes Recorded by Jennifer Beaulieu