Attendees

Kelleigh Eastman

Scott Kashnow

JR Lee

Patricia Hogan

 

Diana Geis

Edith Gilliard-Canty

Dan Morrison

Lou Packett

Dan Rodenburg

Jane Shaab

Ashley Valis

Chuck Callahan

Sonia Eaddy

Richard Parker

 

Michael Seipp

 

  • Welcome and Introductions

 

Kelleigh opened the meeting and all the guests introduced themselves.

 

 

  • Approval of the Minutes

 

Add Sonia to the attendees from July

Motion by Jane to approve the minutes from June, 2nd by Dan R. All in Favor – the motion passes.

 

 

  • Report from University of Maryland Medical Center – Chuck Callahan

 

    • One Medical Center two campuses (now includes Midtown campus as well) 
    • They were a partner in reopening the Harlem Park Rec Center (opened in August) and are looking to do more in rec centers as they see rec centers as a place to deliver medical services directly to the community.
    • They are focusing on mobile integrated healthcare including:
      1. Health care access
      2. Health care equity
    • They are working with Thread
    • And with Health Care for the Homeless on an initiative to provide homes for chronically homeless people (approx. 200 homes)
    • JR – how do the homeless get care now –
      1. Many in the emergency room – It’s the most expensive way to deliver healthcare.
    • How do they get linked to housing?
      1. Common access system
    • Chris Redwood – What is happening with moving the clinic from Pratt and Arlington
      1. They are still exploring options – so far none of the options they have looked at have worked out. For example, the Royal Furniture Building – they would have to take the whole building down and rebuild it because it has deteriorated so much and had several fires.

 

  • Governance Committee – Khandra Sears

 

    • Kelleigh reviewed the rules for discussion
    • Khandra reviewed the process for new organizations to apply for SWP membership as the Governance Committee is recommending it.
      1. Dan R. Have the anchors weighed in on the process
        1. They have not – but right now we are only taking about the process not a specific decision regarding any particular group or application
      2. Dan M. Financial Health of the applying organization should be included it looks like it is missing from the application questions
      3. Jane S. – Make number 8 number 1 and reword number 19 to be more clear – legal proceedings
      4. Jane B. – Demographics are important
      5. JR – How do we grapple with the really hard issues?
      6. Sonia – We have more on our plate then we can handle already
      7. Edith – Why do they want to be a part of SWP
      8. Bif – number 8 should include ‘How do they support our goal – specifically the implementation of the vision plan – help us reach our goal’
    • Scott: Let’s try to move this forward by separating the process from the application: motion to approve the process as presented…
    • Richard motion to take all this back to the governance committee and come back with a clear process and application. 2nd by Dan M.
    • Jane S. Add a statement that our vision is the implementation of the vision plan.
    • All in favor of the motion to take back to Governance passes.
    • Michael – we have been talking about this issue for quite a while but have never crossed the bridge. Let’s take a quick straw poll to see who is open to the idea of new members in concept – The membership is divided.
    • Be more clear with the term ‘board’ if meaning the group applying or the SWP board.

 

  • Community Schools – Lou Packett

 

    • The Education Committee is strongly in favor of SWP applying to be a host organization for the community school coordinators in our area.
    • All 8 of our schools will be community schools – 3 of them do not have host organizations selected and have requested SWP provide that service for them.
    • Lou has secured a private equity commitment for any gap or funding shortfall
    • The united way will be a partner
    • The consultant – Sheila – that has worked with SWP for several years has been hired by City Schools to implement the community schools program
    • Michael provided an impact statement (attached) from the staff perspective and a probable budget.
    • The three schools would be:
      1. Charles Carroll Barrister
      2. Steuart Hill
      3. Vivian T Thomas
    • Dan M. – how will we cover the costs for the missing funds?
      1. Will need to be fundraised for but Lou has a commitment if the fundraising is unsuccessful
      2. He has computers that could be used for the coordinators
    • Diana – Why is Elizabeth doing anything if there is a manager for the program? – Does the office need to be in our office or could the manager have one in one of the schools.
      1. It is better for the manager to be independent of the schools.
    • Much more discussion: 
      1. Most of it focused on the gap in funding Some of the others were:
        1. Do we have any candidates in mind? – yes for two of the schools
        2. The SWP should not be in the business of providing direct services? – This is not providing direct service as the coordinators are in many ways advocates for the school similar to how SWP Ed Committee already operates.
        3. Do we really know what we are up against?
        4. What happens after 2 years? – It ends
        5. How long does it generally take to show results? – 2 years
        6. When will we know? We are not sure. Likely somewhere between Oct 22- Nov 12
        7. How will we pay for it until City Schools actually gives us the funding? – Line of Credit
    • Lou Motion: that SWP apply to be a lead agency for the community school initiative. Chuck 2nd:
      1. Scott, Patty, and JR opposed. All others in favor – The motion passes.
  1. New Business/ Old Business
    •  
  2. Community Announcements
  • 10/6 – SOWEBO 5K
  • Sunday Sounds in the Park

 

 

  • Adjourn

 

Motion to Adjourn by Scott

Scroll to Top