Where’s the Evidence?: NYC Health Department Can’t Bother to Substantiate PWA Policy

Posted by , February 11, 2010 at 6:39pm

Housing Works Update writer Diana Scholl explains her outrage after a Planning Council advisory board taskforce recommended reversing a Planning Council decision without properly explaining their motives.

I’ve sat through many a New York City Ryan White Planning Council meeting for almost three years, and usually quietly observed. But I was so shaken by what occurred at the February 4 meeting that I spoke up during the public comment period.

A special taskforce composed of Planning Council members recommended overturning a Council resolution that requires non-profit organizations receiving Ryan White Part A funds to include at least one HIV-positive consumer on their boards of directors. The special task force’s reasoning for overturning the resolution? It was “the opinion of the taskforce that the resolution’s implementation was unworkable.” The advisory board approved the special task force’s recommendation, with only one person abstaining and one person voting no. While this recommendation, is just that, a recommendation, it’s disturbing to me that so little analysis appeared to go into making what should have been a thoughtful and careful decision.

I spoke up because it was far too unclear what “unworkable” means. I am in favor of the Denver Principles and people with AIDS having a seat at the table of boards of directors, but I am also in favor of a process that objectively assesses the issue. The Planning Council passed a resolution. The Council sets all sorts of requirements on groups receiving Ryan White Part A. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) didn’t present charts, graphs or any information explaining why the resolution was “unworkable.” The only evidence of unworkability came in the form of a one-paragraph memo from DOHMH counsel to Monica Sweeney. The memo claimed the Planning Council overstepped its authority, according to Planning Council guidelines. Unfortunately for them, the federal government’s Health Resources and Services administration (HRSA) told the DOHMH that they didn’t want to get involved.

“We can’t mandate anything about the board of directors. That’s a purview of micromanagement,” said Jan Carl Park, grantee co-chair, in what was the closest thing to thoughtful analysis that came out of the meeting.

See Poz.com’s video of the meeting to see for yourself what went down.

It’s unfortunate that many members of the task force went from supporting the resolution requiring HIV-positive board members to opposing it when they saw the DOHMH’s strong opposition. One consumer even said, “I voted with my heart before, not my brain.” But my brain didn’t see any evidence that made the resolution “unworkable.”

Here’s the back-story behind the resolution: Spurred by members of Gay Men’s Health Crisis’s client advisory board (CAB), in June the full New York City Ryan White Planning Council passed a resolution, written by the PLWHA Advisory Group, mandating consumers be seated on the boards of directors of non-profits receiving Ryan White Part A funding. The DOHMH claimed that HRSA would overturn this ruling, but they never contacted them to check. I did contact HRSA, which said HRSA didn’t have any rules governing this decision.

While this was all going on, GMHC stepped up, and at long last allowed a consumer, Manny Rivera, on its board of directors. But by DOHMH estimates at least one-third of groups receiving Ryan White Part A funding still don’t have HIV-positive representation on their boards of directors.

Seeing Both Sides

The issue of including HIV-positive consumers on organization board’s is not entirely clear cut, and I understand that someone who opposes the resolution isn’t necessarily against PWA empowerment. In addition, it’s clear to me that many of the self-appointed PWA “leaders” are doing a good job advocating for their individual, personal goals, without always advocating for the larger community of people with HIV/AIDS in New York City.

But if the Planning Council believes, philosophically, that organizations should choose their own members of their boards of directors without interference, then they should just stand up and say so. But it appears that the DOHMH is fearful of saying what they really think, and the majority of Planning Council members are as well.

This resolution is the symptom of a larger problem. We have is a weak Planning Council that trusts the DOHMH to make decisions that it is all too happy to make. There aren’t adequate checks and balances in place given that $100 million a year is being spent on the care and treatment of people with AIDS in New York. We saw this when the Planning Council voted to spend one-third of its money on a still untested coordination of care model, and we’re seeing it again with this resolution. I hope the full Planning Council addresses the issue—and all issues—more thoughtfully.

blog comments powered by Disqus

OUR MISSION Housing Works is a healing community of people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS. Our mission is to end the dual crises of homelessness and AIDS through relentless advocacy, the provision of lifesaving services, and entrepreneurial businesses that sustain our efforts.

Stay in Touch

Intranet HIV/AIDS Notice Privacy Policy