 Okay. Since we have a quorum, let's go ahead and I'll call the meeting to order and we'll start with the, is there anything you need to do, Nicole, before we get rocking? No. You guys are good. We're recording the meeting, so it'll be uploaded as soon as we can within the next couple of days to YouTube and Longmont Public Media. Thank you, Steph, for helping out again tonight. There's Anne, so we'll continue to monitor the waiting room you guys and let people in. So if you need anything, just holler. Okay. All yours. Thank you. Okay. The meeting has been called to order, and is there any public to be heard? No. There is no public to be heard. Thank you. Then let's go ahead and move on to approving the minutes for both the August 13th, 2020 meeting and the September 3rd, 2020 meeting. Is there a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Thank you, Jake. Second. Anne raises her hand. Anne is seconding. Second. Any questions, corrections, anything like that? Yes, Graham. I had a question about, let's see, what is it? It's the motion that passed at the end of last meeting, where we approved adding a question to the agency applications about equity. That part I recall very vividly and this seems accurate. The part I'm not clear about which I would ask the board to verify for me is the adding equity goal area under the self-sufficiency and resilience priority area. That struck me as maybe a little bit different than what we were talking about. I thought we were saying adding an equity goal under each of the priority areas, not just the self-sufficiency. My recollection is that we were going to add the bolder equity area to self-sufficiency and not one individual. I thought, but that's my recollection. Anne, do you recall what the intention? I thought it was also under each area we were going to ask what they were doing to to support equity. We've got a split decision on the board right now. Anybody else have a recollection? Caitlin and then Jake. I think there were two different things we talked about and I think this is what Graham is thinking of as we talked about adding a separate bucket for equity. We also talked about adding a separate bucket under each of the categories. I think what we ended up deciding was to add that bolder question that Ellie Berto said there were those two areas where we were not allowing people to specify those in their application. We wanted to add a question to the application about how they would deliver it or multiple questions around that staff were going to research the best way to ask them how they were going to do that. That was separate from the question of the different buckets. We talked about that list of 14 areas. I think we did 14 out of 16 and we said we should add the other two that bolder also does. Jake. Yeah, that's roughly my recollection, Mr. Chair, as well, is that we had the long conversation about adding the bucket. We ultimately came to a split decision about that vote failed and what we decided to do was to add the equity issue to each individual bucket to use that term to each individual area and then to take the bolder question as well. But I think the intention of the board was to ensure that equity is measured in each one of our different areas. I think was the intention. Good catch, Graham. Okay. Any other feedback on that? And I noticed you had unmuted and then I spoke over you. No, it's fine. Okay. I don't actually remember, so I'm trusting Jake to be honest. Okay, so it sounds like the intention is different than what was captured in the minutes. I'm not sure. I looked to some direction on how to best reconcile this. We can amend the minutes and then approve them at the next meeting or we could have a motion to approve them with amended language. It's I'd rather not do that because I think it's confusing enough everything that we just walked through that probably the specific language is really going to matter. Ella Berto, do you have a sense of what might work best or Karen? So, I would say that if, when you look at the motion that we think we passed, so maybe we just clarify where there is confusion or so that we can figure out how to change it because I think it's probably best to make the changes to the minutes and adopt the approved amendments. It's probably the easiest way to do that. The longer we wait, the fuzzier we get. So it seems like that in looking at that particular set of minutes that it sounds like the first part of that is correct that we accept Ella Berto's suggestion of adding the equity goal area under self-sufficiency and resiliency priority. So that was, that was the bolder, the bolder option. Does that make sense? Yes. And then adding an equity question to the application which is what we really brought back tonight which we understood would be that instead of just having an area where we address equity that we include that in the application so that that we were looking at how they are providing all of their programs and services in an equitable manner. So I think we are aligned with the intent but maybe we didn't capture it in the minutes in the way that that is clear. Well, I would offer that. Maybe it is clear, I don't know. Perhaps we left, it might be okay that it's not precise because I think we are going to discuss that tonight and tonight we can give more specific direction to which you know that it's included it for instance in all the priority areas and it shall be included in this what you know. I think what we said is that we wanted someone to be able to apply for you know if what their program is doing is about equity that they can apply for that and what we said is this and there's an existing goal in under self-sufficiency and resiliency which is what the city of Boulder uses so that so I think as an example so if El Comite wanted to or Intercombeo or someone because that's kind of their purpose that they would have they would have an area in which to mark and say this is what our program addresses is this particular goal area so I think we said that was already in the application and that made sense and then what we wanted to bring back tonight was what kind of equity questions we want to include in the application so that we so that we're looking at how agencies are addressing equity in a more broad kind of across all aspects of their operation so I think that's really what we're going to bring back and talk about tonight. Okay Caitlin. I would just add I think as I'm reading the minutes and hearing what Karen is saying we said to add those two things from the Boulder area I don't think that I realized from the slides that we were looking at that those fell under self-sufficiency that they were part of that goal area which may be where the confusion is coming because they were it was like 14 goal areas but they weren't necessarily subdivided into our like big buckets I don't really have I mean we can talk about whether we want to change that I don't think I made the connection that it was that those were going to be subdivided and that this would be under that so maybe that is where the so the minutes are actually more precise than what we were talking about versus less precise which is fine I think that's so I'll just add that that was where my confusion oh hearing that helped identify that that's where I would be confused on it. Okay good too. Alberto. So just as a reminder the goal areas are what are the drop-down goals that the agencies can choose from on the program level of the application then the self-sufficiency is really the back end or back office for lack of a better word a bucket where we have categorized these goal areas that that's the relationship that exists between the two. Okay so the question related to the minutes really comes down to is the motion as it's reflected here inaccurate as to the intention of what we were voting on if not then we can just accept the minutes and we can make any modifications going forward to give precision or additional direction to what we voted on last week that's my take on it. Is anybody feeling like that is not a good way to move forward? Okay Jake I think you're like the parliamentary nerd so do you have any any thoughts on that? And I mean nerd in the kindest way most respect. Yeah no I think that that makes sense as a motion Mr. Chair if you wanted to move that that would I mean well I guess you're right we don't necessarily need a motion if we're all comfortable with with that because if the language in the minutes if the goal is that we're going to specifically clarify the language in the minutes tonight then I think we can move forward safely and I think also through this conversation just informally staff has a pretty good understanding of what our intention are is and what what our goals are so yeah I think moving forward would be perfectly in order. Great yeah I don't have any concerns that we're not going to get to our desired outcome if we accept the minutes as presented. And Brian I'm not the Roberts rules nerd but you do have a motion on the floor yes we'd be accepting the minutes and then we've had discussion about that and so it sounds like you would want to move forward and and see if that motion will pass. Yep let's go ahead and vote on the motion to approve the minutes as presented all those in favor please any opposed please raise your hand okay great we can move forward then thank you everybody so Karen or Ella Bertha who's going to take us through the next steps here it is em just to mend those up okay he doesn't look like he knows that it was em no no I was wondering can um um can I share my screen Nicole I just want them to see the the document that I created um and then reference back to it so they understand where this fits all right so I'm going to share the packet um okay so what you're looking at is the minutes that we just discussed and approved then so I want to start here um so I'm going to kind of set set the groundwork and Karen you can jump in whenever and if anyone has questions I can't see everybody so just speak up because I can only see four people on my little strip right now so um so basically I took that you know I went back and I listened to the meeting and I um took that mandate to add a question to the Human Services Funding Application and I will say that it is one of the most difficult things to do because adding a one question around racial equity or equity itself is a very challenging thing to do and after some back and forth with Karen I I did draft some some options and I sent it to Karen and then we had it back and forth the way that we decided to go is um we would like to use the GAIR racial equity tool that's in your packet we want to add that to the resource center of the application and in the instructions we want to ask agencies as they are answering the questions because one of the things I noticed is that in reality a lot of the questions in that racial equity tool are similar to the questions that we ask in the application there are some similarities the biggest difference of course is that the racial equity tool has a lens of racial equity in it um and so we want to share that with the agencies and ask them to consider that to inform their answers and ask them to think beyond just racial equity and think about equity in a broader term as they're answering these questions at the same time I wanted to honor what the board had asked and so as Karen and I discussed where the question around equity in the application directly belonged we came down to adding a question to the number three target population so and unfortunately when I said to so in my when I look at my word document from the word please share that to me is in red because uh that is new that was not in the question before the question ended in the described the specific population served by the program and so I added the please share strategies the program will implement to ensure target populations are served equitably um it like again it it was a challenge to to boil down such a huge topic of equity into one question but I feel comfortable in having the agencies use the racial equity tool to inform their answers on the application as they're writing them to use that tool to help them understand the value of equity and I was going to add that to the instructions as well so that's kind of where we landed and I'd love to have feedback and discussion from the board. Thank you Eloberto. Okay feedback for Eloberto on uh I think there's two elements here one is using the government alliance on racial and equity form including that in the application uh to assist as a tool to assist applicants on evaluating the racial equity question or the equity question in general and then the second part is what do you think about the language of equity included in the application and where it is included on question three why don't we start go ahead Deanna so I was just going to say I like the language in question three that you've added I think it's nicely broad and open-ended and gives them a lot of opportunity to discuss their goals and I think my concept of the equity question was very broad as well and that we weren't limiting it to racial justice issues and that we I was contemplating you know are they equitably applied to you know the lgbtq community are they providing access to seniors people with disabilities so I was I'm happy to see that the question is open that way I think that leaves it um so that the plans or the programs can really develop that and I think providing them some guidance with the GAIR questionnaire is good as long as they don't think that the question is only about racial justice issues which is obviously huge and very important but not exclusive right and that's why my when I write the instructions I want to make sure that I make that very clear thank you yes Sam I don't know I'm just not sure if that's big enough for the question you know equitable I don't know if that can be perceived as financial or I mean I wanted to be more inclusive to other populations like race I don't know it just seems a little it is broad but I'm not sure if everyone is going to get it like if alco mette looked at that what are they going to think thanks Sam we've got Karen and then Caitlin and then councilmember christensen Nicole could you unmute oh I got I got it there you go Karen we need you to define what equitable means I would think we need like a definition what does equity what does it mean so does it mean you know everything or so it's like that's just such a broad word what does it mean exactly so that's what I'm asking okay thank you Caitlin um yeah I agree with Ann and Karen around that and one of the things I'm seeing in the the GAIR questions that might help inform that so right now we're saying the question is please describe how it will be delivered equitably and I wonder if the question in like step two number two what does it tell you about what does data tell you about existing inequities and how are you going to address root causes of that and I wonder if something that's a little more specific rather than making sure this is going to be delivered equitably asking them to talk about how the program may be addressing root causes of inequity and to describe what those inequities are so that it still leaves it open to talk about race, gender, LGBTQ issues, age, any any sort of that but really diving into like addressing the root causes of it because I think that's really what we're getting at is we want to deliver it equitably but we also want to see that folks are thinking about the root causes of some of those inequities and I think that's kind of why we were thinking that it fit under so many different things is that there are inequities in all of our different buckets so I wonder I'm just thinking that we could maybe be more specific there to get to what the inequities are that they're addressing thank you Caitlin councilmember christensen and then Jake and thank you Elevato for including this this document of the Gare document um my question is whether I because I think that having people look at this document and talking among themselves will help them focus on issues maybe that they have considered and haven't considered but at least they'll be able to convey them to us better I was wondering if they will be filling out this document or just using this as a something to inform themselves will they be turning in something like this or just using that to inform will everybody be getting this this two-page document so councilmember christensen um it'll be available to any every application applicant that applies I I didn't so I think I didn't think we were going to ask them to fill it out and send it back in for a couple of reasons one is I mean that would add extra burden to you all to if it was going to become a part of reviewing and then two you know it does add extra effort to the agency to have to fill out another document as along with all the things that we're asking already and then I think the third thing is when you actually look at the questions there are a lot of similarities um I think our questions in the applications are well thought through um and I think that they the while the Gare document definitely has some nuances around equity I think there there's still a lot of similarities that look at how well have your research how well for example there's a piece on engagement I will have you engage the clients in implementation or participants in implementation so I just think that that that the Gare document is a good tool but not necessarily a a requirement okay I understand that because you know we we're already giving them a lot of paperwork they don't need more paperwork but rather than have it available to them I would do the you know where they have to pull it out of us I would have a push thing where we give it to them so that everybody's got this so they can consider this I think Karen hit the nail on the head with the what do we how do we define equity and I think this helps people get that and and get that they don't have to go to this we're going to give it to them because we're really serious about it so I my suggestion would be to just send this along as a PDF to everybody so they get that we're not kidding we we mean it so Karen do you have a clarification on on council member Christian for this question not necessarily clarification but I think just to add so um so so Polly we did we did go back and forth about whether to um to have this be a required um to have them fill out the form you know so that we so it's ellie burton I we glad I went back and forth because we think that that gare document is probably the best one that we've seen that really helps um I mean it's it's a document that we are to be using a city of online employees for programs that we are offering to the community it's to be a guiding framework for as we are thinking about all the things that we offer in the city um how do we begin to think about you know is can everyone have access is the way that we're providing the service is how we're communicating about the service is it something is is are we doing that a way that everyone can access the service are we leaving anybody out by the way we are delivering the particular program our service so so we did go back and forth about whether we would make whether we would make this a requirement to complete that or or put that in and reference it and maybe we can reference it more strongly uh as as far as the the document itself because it it will be on the it will be in the resource center but we certainly can reference it or even send it out as a pdf if that would be helpful so we end up landing on it being a framework um and to give folks ideas because we do think that because we get we often get general answers to these the questions that we've asked in the past and and i think we do want more specific answers we do want to see evidence that folks really looked at the data and the data is informing how they are providing their service um in an equitable fashion so we went back and forth all way around as about the you know the best way to do this so we didn't rest so we are really interested in other in your feedback and what you think we really should be doing i i really don't think that we should require everybody to fill this out i've been saying just send it to them so they have it available so they don't have to hunt around for it more in their face yeah so so that they they have that everybody has it available and um they can use that to answer question number three and uh it'll be helpful to them and it'll be helpful for them to analyze things because you know not every agency some agencies are very very targeted on the people that they are going to help so inherently they are not uh broadly equitable maybe i mean they are not making sure they have got 50 things checked off they are a targeted uh they're taking care of a targeted group so they don't necessarily deal with transportation i mean all the things on this list so it doesn't make sense for everybody to have to fill out all this paperwork and in in addition it's more work for uh you and elberto and everybody else to fill out something that's not really necessary to be filled out in the first place thanks thank you jake thanks for your patience go ahead i appreciate it mr chair um i just want to circle back a little bit to katlyn's point because i think it's a great one and i really appreciate her her thoughts on this this was some of my concern in our conversation last week about the need for a separate bucket and all that and i won't re-litigate that conversation but but my concern was generally that by not doing that we make the issue a little small and we make the the way our process handles the issue a little bit small so i think that katlyn did a really good job of of getting to the point that i was going to make and i was going to ask somebody if they had wording um they could tackle kind of that specific issue that we aren't necessarily just at least for me i'm not just necessarily concerned about equitable delivery of services i want these agencies to be thinking about how their operation and how the service they provide generally impacts the equity issue so i think katlyn really got to the crux of what i was was going to mention and i would hope that she can can think about some specific wording changes uh to bring into the the question that she'd be willing to potentially move that i might be all over that so thanks mr. cure thanks jay graham um i would support that string of thought um and suggest the um step four question be slightly modified and ask what are your strategies for advancing equity in all its forms um to make it broader more inclusive um and then it has teeth in virtue of the answers uh resulting in scores which result in in the distribution of funds my concern with the question three is as worded now is it qualifies it with target population which in and of itself sort of presents this backdoor so if we say well how are you equitably serving your target population well maybe the whole issue of target population in and of itself is an expression of inequity um in that particular case and so that that language worries me um a little bit but maybe i have an overly suspicious mind i mean what what if my target population was white anglo-sex and you know heterosexual males so like then yeah we're equitably distributing services to those people like i i'm not gonna want to give you points for that even if you're really doing a good job of equitably delivering content to that target population so i i think just make it super broad uh and you know how what are your strategies for um improving equity in all its ways and in everything you do something just really broad so thanks graham go ahead albert so i like that graham um i i i think the target population though the reason that we have that is because we understand that remember this is a pretty this is a pretty broad funding base right we're funding all sorts of things so for example boulder valley women's health and who they're funding is not going to be the same that um somebody else may be funding um for example hope right they may it's a it may be a very different population and so we understand that and what we want to know is that given what the program is intended to do and who is it intended to help how is the program ensuring that within that population for example let's say that it is intended to to to work with immigrants that are learning english how is that program being equitable that it's not only spanish-speaking immigrants but how are immigrants from nipal or germany or you know so it really is about ensuring that it's a target of it is people learning english how does everyone who is learning english get served in a way that that that changes their their situation thank you alberto and and then katelyn so i think that's good but are we going to be able to ask agencies questions during this funding round so you know i think we could say to that agency do you also serve people from other countries other than just spanish-speaking population i guess i don't even know how we're going to go forward with the funding stuff are we going to do it virtually like how is all that going to work maybe i just missed out on it but if we could ask questions then it would be better thank you and katelyn um yeah so i wanted to make a suggestion i don't think i'm ready to make a motion for this but um a suggestion for a way that we can incorporate some of the some of what we're talking about so for question two it currently says program description describe the specific activities that the program will provide and the anticipated benefits that will result for the program i was thinking something along the lines of please identify what if any historical or current inequities are being addressed and how the program addresses the root causes of these inequities and then to complement that in the program evaluation adding a sentence at the end so this is number seven please also include how you will measure or evaluate the impact on the inequities identified in the program description so we tie it both into describing the program but also in a value how they will evaluate that they are meeting that objective of the program um so i mostly wanted to throw that out there to see if others have thoughts on other ways we might incorporate it or if that maybe gets a little closer to what we're trying to get folks to answer um here yeah i just know from the past that's going to be complicated for agencies especially small agencies i think it's going to be difficult for them especially agencies that don't have a lot of money which part do you mean um the second part that you were talking about the how are they going to measure that i don't know elli bevto do you have a answer to that no not necessarily but i i i think the to your point and actually what i was going to add is so a couple of things one this will probably this will be the first time that we do this and so we'll we'll probably have to extend some grace um because folks mean they may be confused and i may be answering tons of questions from agencies during that time um and then two evaluation um i think that i that it is a good question to add and so i'll give you an example i've had some great conversations with second wind fund um that does and one and i had a meeting with them and their and their board chair um and um they showed me they they're doing a good job of tracking who's using their services and um you know they had a large latino population of youth that were contemplating suicide right i think it it was a large percentage and so when i asked them i said so what when you see this what are you thinking about as far as how you deliver services as where where do you recruit therapists what does it mean for for um your thoughts on how do you support these children these youth beyond the the the sessions and so i think that that made them think i i'm not sure if they're measuring it well but we didn't we didn't go into that deep of but i hope that what these will do it is make agencies think i think there will be confusion any way you look at it this is a new topic for a lot of folks not that they haven't been working on equity issues for a long time but to put it into words is going to be new for many of the agencies um so i think we'll have to have some grace and at the same time you know i don't know who said it but yeah we do mean business about this and we want you to think about it uh even if we do extend grace and thank you for that alberto and i i share your uh your recognition that this is a new track and we're going to learn a lot you know we're probably going to learn 60 of what we wish we would have known in the first year and then have incremental improvements over the rest of the time um so we i we know that perfection is not what we're going to get no matter how much we want it uh i do just want to say i share grams thought on the idea of the semantics of target population and so i wonder if in question three target population where we say describe the specific population served by the program if maybe that's not a place to say somehow tease out the question of um how did you know how do you evaluate your target through the lens of equity so for instance if if grams program came back with i'm targeting a 56 year old uh white angle sacks and mail that lives on carolina street in longmont uh which if there's a big check you know we can talk about uh might apply but that that would not he'd have a hard time answering through the lens of equity how he defined his population so that's just i don't have a solution to the thought but councilmember christensen um i do think it's important i i think maybe the the term target population is kind of weird and implies that i mean i i see what graham is saying here it's sort of implies that um i think it's an odd term to be using but i i do but it is true that um maybe we could use a different term um we fund as eleberto said we fund such a variety of groups and they do have a population that they're going to serve that is not necessarily um well these are agencies they are not businesses they don't go out and drum up services they don't go out and drum up business because you know people come to them because they need help they don't go out and try to find people who need help and different groups different cultures different groups have very different ways of asking for help most people don't ask for help we know this from surveys that have been done about one out of people one out of eight people we did a survey um with housing and human services a few years ago that's that uh or caron did a survey i'm not sure what was through this um one out of eight people who are eligible for services applies the rest don't apply because most americans of all groups have been taught that it's weak to ask for help that it's shameful to ask for help it's shameful to need help so in many ways um you're not getting it an overview of the culture of of america anyway you're asking getting people who really are i think quite desperate for help or they wouldn't be asking for help in the first place and so to try to put a layer of um expecting it to be equally distributed is a little odd if you see what i mean in that um i come from a long line of farmers we never ask for help no matter how far down we get there are a lot of cultures where for instance um a lot of very traditional cultures would never ask for help with their elderly because they would feel ashamed that they couldn't take care of their parents and yet there are elderly people who need care and uh their their kids can't take care of them the way they need to be taken care of and yet they won't ask for help so i do think it's important for us to keep in mind that um these are agencies that are not businesses they're not going out and drumming up business so to expect them to have an absolutely equal distribution of um different races different cultures different genders different religions is a lot but we want them to try we want them to really think about this and be sure that they are trying that they're not discriminating against anybody and that they are actually trying to find people who need help and um it is difficult to figure out how uh how to do this and be fair to them and be you know given that not everybody asks for help even though they desperately need it sorry thank you paulie ann and then katelyn karen did you raise your hand okay and i think we just need to move on on this because i think we can get bogged down a lot on this and i think i really trust ali berto to come up with a question that will make sense and i think his question is good but just a little bit more teeth in it um if you can just do something with a little bit more ali berto but i trust that you can do that and then i think we should just move on okay thank you and katelyn i definitely hear the need to to move on i want to i think something that councilwoman christianson said there at the end is that these organizations um they're not businesses they're not going out and recruiting but these types of questions point to things that are structural inequities in terms of how services are delivered so if for example um you know i just think about the large spanish-speaking population in longmont and if an organization is targeting for example um low income or children but they are way out of whack comparatively to longmont's population in terms of spanish speakers that are served by it that points to a potential issue and how they are delivering that program if they're not providing spanish translation services they're not provide you know and i don't necessarily expect that every organization is going to do everything but if you know if we have a whole bunch of agencies that are primarily serving um you know the white anglo-saxon you know population because they don't have the structural pieces to support a large percentage of our population then that's a problem and so i think the idea of these questions is really to get folks thinking about you know is is your target population or are the demographics of who you're serving really the full demographics of who could be served based on what you say your program goals are um you know if you say your program goals are to serve you know low-income children but then the only low-income children you're hitting is you know such a small percentage and it's very racially or ethnically or language you know skewed compared to the population there might be something that needs to be improved in terms of that program delivery to make sure it's getting to the folks who need it even you know there's cultural things there may be ways that they're thinking about it so um i think that it's really important to ask the questions to get folks thinking about it this is the first year no one's going to get a perfect i don't think anyone is expecting perfection i think it's really just to start these conversations and to get folks thinking about how both the agencies and we and the city can be thinking about these um deeper questions of how how we make sure that the right folks are getting access to services thank you kaitlyn karen so um in the spirit of and's urging um you know it seems like what what i have heard is that um generally there has been a suggestion to modify questions two four and seven um so kaitlyn had some specific language for questions two and seven i think graham threw out some general question general suggestion for item number four question number four um and that we not try to just have in that we actually keep the target population question as it as it was as and and not put the share the strategies for equitable equity serving the target population so it sounded like we want to have more equity questions or equity follow-up in questions two four and seven and that we also take a stab at defining what we mean by equity in kind of in that overview and that we have the the GAIR framework documents available for agencies to really reference and get some more ideas about the the framework so that's kind of what i heard people i heard your board members really um you know talk about thank you um one comment and then a question the only thing that occurred to me is on question three you know i think what's challenging with target population is it is a relatively accurate term because we think of it in terms of needs agencies target populations of specific needs and so typically we don't think about it in terms of race ethnicity gender so i was almost wondering if really that second part of that question wouldn't be something more like please share strategies the program will implement to ensure target populations are served regardless of race ethnicity and gender or something like that right really just calling it out okay i that is not a point for discussion i just wanted to throw that out there um is in terms of what you Karen and Ella Berto are wanting from us in this meeting is the guidance Karen that you're hearing adequate do you need a decision or what do you need so i'll go first and all that Karen so what i would need i mean i actually agree with with Karen i think um the suggested verbiage that was suggested by Graham and Caitlin are is helpful um i would just need that verbiage so that i could put it into the application i think those questions with the understanding that folks are not going to get it perfect um i'm fine adding those questions to you know to the to or adding those additions to those questions i just need the verbiage um and i would imagine um so either we could have well i think we've captured it in the recording you know so Nicole can weigh in on whether so so i think we're recording this we have that we could certainly ask Caitlin to um and Graham to um and probably has written down her comments i i don't know whether Graham has or or not but we certainly have that in the um you know in the recordings that we can just take that information um and and make the revisions to those three questions um you know based on the input that you provided and and because i think because i think it does get to because we talked about the importance of you know having whatever those strategies be more data informed and then you know you know because and program evaluation is something that we're paying more attention to and um and you know how are they continuing to look at um program evaluation as it relates to equity so i think we've captured it um in the notes i'm going to say and Nicole has captured that i'm sure she has and um and if if you are all good with us taking that and moving forward then i think we just want to make sure that we are asking what will be helpful for the advisory board to really evaluate and get a better idea of how agencies that we are funding are are providing service with an equity lens they're planning for it they know something about it they're looking at it they're paying attention to it so we want to do what you think will be helpful okay thank you so from my perspective um this has really been a helpful discussion because this is our first foray into including this kind of topic so i think it's important that we really kind of think through how that happens i also know we don't want to micromanage staff and it is going to be an imperfect process and there does have to be a lot of grace given to everybody to really move this thing forward and make sure it has an impact so sounds like we're at a good place jake are you just stretching or do you uh you're good okay all right okay any other discussion i think we can move on if it's good with staff okay let's go ahead and move on then thank you so i think moving on is going to the next to other business question five so unless there's any so unless there's anything else i'm you know an asked about so how the heck are we gonna do it you know approach it this year um you know we really haven't talked about that i imagine that we are doing um we've probably been doing some kind of zoom meetings i mean we don't know um but so we we're just trying to get the application completed and out the door and um and then certainly i think we can come back for our what are we this is in september so for our october meeting um and and kind of pound out what that hearing orders are at that point in time so can i share my screen chair so i can share the it's not updated but i want to remind folks of the original time yeah yeah can i do that please all right i'm gonna go ahead and share uh so this i and i was supposed to and i haven't updated um so as you can see we're not too far off of time um we wanted to get this out by this friday and and that has not happened so we might have to push this date a little back um and really this we has already decided this was going to be pushed back we weren't going to be too concerned about this 115 date um so give us more time for uh this process right here right we were gonna we were gonna give ourselves more time maybe even into december to do this um so i i i think it will probably be a zoom meeting um i think that zoom allows us to have waiting rooms which is helpful um and we can bring people in it'll be more work for nicole as she brings people in and out due to the the timing um but i think that that is is what we can do but i just want to show that we are we are not necessarily um too off on the original time frame that we set so i can probably get everything done by mid week next week and maybe send it out by or have it i'm going to be out next week thursday and friday but i could probably have it set in the system to be sent out on the on friday and we just push things back a week because how will that work with people who are if we approve the recommendations on january i will no longer be here and new people may be coming on does that matter well we don't approve the recommendation that's the that's council who approves recommendations okay okay so we we we will have our deliberation meeting in december well we can still try to aim for that um but yeah okay that makes sense yeah i i would ask that we i think the schedule looks good let's try to you know i know we're going to lose a few days here and there and where we can we'll try to compress that to stick to the schedule as much as possible and all the remaining blocks uh i'm certain we're not going to be meeting in december in person so uh nicole will have incredible zoom skills after this year yeah you're definitely pushed for that raise nicole for the holiday bonus yeah and just to reiterate the you know are really critical because these the the big piece of this then is to make sure that our evaluations align with these questions so making sure that we're we're good with how these questions are asked becomes really important but um this is great so the there's no need to talk about the evaluation portion of this is that correct so so i think that will be something i mean elliberto we i mean we've already worked at aligning the evaluation i think we talked about that earlier with the advisory board so we wanted to make it easier to evaluate so that the evaluation tool that you use follows along with the you know with the actual application so they make it easier to rate it given we've made a few modifications in the application we'll have to go back and look at modifying the evaluation tool but i think we did bring that back to y'all earlier and i think we were good with those with those changes so i would say that probably what um what we'll be asking nicole to do in the fairly near future is to start um working on calendars and and getting the um the hearing schedule set up so that you can get that on your calendars and and and we can um we can be ready to you know to rock and roll and lock in those those dates because we realize that we are doing this during november and december which is you know usually a pretty busy time for folks yeah yeah not this year okay get your flu shots yeah thank you thank you for the reminder an okay so is there shakita your one board member we haven't had a chance to hear from you any thoughts or questions before we start closing it up no i think um and i agree with uh katelyn and graham and i totally believe that ellie burto will arrange it to how we want it to be said he know where we're coming from he knows what the outcome we are looking for so i i believe he can do it i have faith in you thanks shakita and no pressure no pressure i i will try i will try my hardest to get it right listen if if you don't get it exactly like we want it's no big deal we will just be silently disappointed he will get it done this end of year bonus will go to nicole this is it's going to be bad office dynamics don't eat any banana bread from nicole okay okay thank you uh so any other business no okay with no other business i'm revisiting my agenda here is there a motion to adjourn so moved second okay with that the meeting is adjourned thank you oh and by the way i just wanted to thank you all for for making time for this meeting i know you're all busy and but it's so valuable and i love hearing your feedback so thank you very much for for attending and being part of it all right everybody have a great rest of your week thanks everybody thank you thanks Karen