RSC Commissioner Budget & Audit Committee Meeting Minutes

Orsc

Informations

• Publié par: Vuin
• Nombre de lectures: 38
• Langue: English

Extrait

RSC Commissioner Budget & Audit Committee Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. – Cols/Zanesville Room

400 E. Campus View Blvd., Columbus, OH

Commissioners:

Commissioner David Daugherty, Commissioner Jacqui Romer-Sensky,

Commissioner Joyce Young, Commissioner Bruce Growick

Staff:

Executive Director John Connelly, Christine Hansen, Michael Martz, Connie O’Brien,

Michael Hanes, Steve Ostrander, Faye Spratley, Marc Protsman, Bruce Mrofka, Christina

Wendell, Erik Williamson, Joe Dunn, Diane Taylor, Eileen Corson, Beverly Jennings

Guests:

Kelly Manns, Cincinnati OVGI, Mary Hiland, ACB, George Barnes, ACB, Eric Duffy,

NFB Ohio, Marty Goudiose, Linda Weyman, ACB, Brenda Hanes, Goodwill Columbus,

Christine Staccia, Jennifer Kuntz, Greenleaf JTS,

George Ackerman, Brian White, Julie Russell,

Jessica Hart, OAGWI , Dawn Christenson, Sight Center of NW Ohio Kevin Futryk, Ohio

Alliance of CCDs

The Budget and Audit Committee met on Wednesday, January 7, 2009 at 400 E. Campus View

Blvd., Columbus, Ohio.

Chair David Daugherty called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.

Approval of Minutes

Commissioner Growick moved to accept the minutes of the December 10, 2008 meeting.

Seconded by Commissioner Romer-Sensky.

Motion carried.

Public Comment

Kevin Futryck of the Ohio Alliance of Community Centers for the Deaf stated that Legislative

Director Joe Dunn has been keeping the alliance informed and if they have any specific

comments they will present those to the full Commission.

Eric Duffy, National Federation for the Blind expressed his desire to have the opportunity for

some of the same dialog at the last meeting regarding BSVI.

Old Business

Consumer/Partner Input:

CIO Michael Martz stated that arrangements have been made with

the Ohio Government Telecommunications (OGT) to enable RSC to webcast meetings.

OGT is

in the process of installing a videoconferencing system by the middle of this month. As soon as

they are ready, RSC will be testing its videoconferencing with OGT’s.

When testing is

completed, RSC will be able to make arrangements to live webcast at no cost.

This will happen,

hopefully, by the beginning of February.

2009 Budget Calendar:

CFO Hansen stated the only change to the Budget Calendar was

________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

2

Update on meetings with the Office of Budget & Management (OBM) and the Ohio Public

Employees Retirement System (OPERS):

CFO Hansen stated that since the last committee

meeting, meetings were scheduled with OBM to inform them of the options discussed.

A

meeting was held on December 15

th

with the Budget Analyst as well as the Analyst reviewing

the ERI proposals.

They expressed concern that RSC continue to work with partners and receive

their input.

Information was also shared from a conference call that Human Resources, Finance

and Budget had with OPERS regarding any layoffs anticipated in conjunction with ERI.

The

Staffing Analysis was also shared showing the results of the agency’s current staffing and what

may happen with the ERI.

OBM seemed pleased with the numbers.

The numbers are across the

board a 25% reduction, and they did not provide an answer.

They did, however, say they were in

agreement with the options but it is up to the Commissioners to make the final decision.

The

same information was shared with Amy McGee of the Governor’s Office, and she did not wish

to meet on it as she was satisfied with the information.

On December 19

th

OBM issued two

directives (#9 and #10).

Directive 9 was to revise the state revenue for the year, and Directive 10

notified agencies of the additional reductions they would have to take.

A request was made from

the State Independent Living Council (SILC) to provide the funds back that RSC paid to them,

and they did comply by returning a check for about $28,000.

The bottom line is that OBM is

looking for a commitment to staffing reductions and other reductions and/or actions RSC is

taking in addition to the ERI.

Commissioner Growick asked in terms of the ERI fulfillment vs. the overall deficit what the

approximate percentage filled with an ERI would be.

CFO Hansen stated the Impact Analysis

chart shows three scenarios, the middle scenario (with additional 5.75% reduction) reflects where

the agency stands right now.

The third scenario (with an additional 10% reduction) shows an

additional reduction since the agency is not sure of being out of the woods yet.

If OBM does

take the ERI into consideration, the middle box on the chart shows the deficit will go up to

approximately $11-12 million.

Commissioner Daugherty stated that if the ERI is not approved

the deficits continue to grow, so the sooner they are approved, the better the agency will be.

CFO Hansen stated the chart does show the impact of the ERI.

There were also additional

options in reducing technology costs which aren’t shown.

The technology savings for 2009 will

take care of a good portion of the deficit.

Commissioner Growick expressed concern with the

Maintenance of Effort (MOE) shortfall line item and asked if there are any updates on requesting

a variance from this.

CFO Hansen stated that generally this is not requested until it is absolutely

known for sure there will be a shortfall.

The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) is

hoping agencies will try to create a situation where there isn’t a shortfall.

Cash Transfer Agreements with State Agencies:

Commissioner Growick stated the agency is in

an excellent position to provide services to other state agencies that might need RSC’s services.

If these agreements can be enacted, it may help.

Executive Director Connelly stated that the

challenge with Cash Transfer Agreements is they come from other agencies also funded with the

General Revenue Fund (GRF).

RSC has been informed by the Department of Mental Health that

they would like to do agreements, but do not have money.

The Department of MRDD said they

are developing a proposal and when ready to present they will contact us.

Negotiations are still

underway with the Board of Regents.

Three or four meetings have been held with them, and an

agreement is likely.

RSC has a small transfer agreement with Rehabilitation and Corrections but

their budget is also in dire straits.

The Bureau of Workers Compensation and RSC currently

have an agreement which is the only one not zeroed out.

Some challenges with the reporting

mechanism are continuing. A meeting is scheduled for January 15

th

with their director.

The

3

Department of Job and Family Services called yesterday to say they want to renegotiate their

agreement to go to a month-month basis because of the budget situation. A meeting was held the

week of December 25

th

with the Department of Education. They want to continue to work with

RSC.

Commissioner Growick asked if there is any assistance RSC can request from the Governor’s

Office or if legislative assistance is available when it comes to negotiating with other state

agencies.

Executive Director Connelly replied that the first time RSC had Cash Transfer

Agreements, they were done under OBM, so OBM is very aware of that possibility. Talks have

been held with the Governor’s Office about this as well.

The legislature was very supportive of

it the last time it was done.

Legislative Director Joe Dunn added that the opportunity for

legislative action would come with opposition from the other state agencies.

The agencies would

also have budget problems and will need to keep this money for other programs. Commissioner

Growick asked if there are any thoughts of working with BWC since it is not GRF?

Executive

Director Connelly stated the meeting scheduled on January 15

th

with the BWC director will

include exploring that possibility. Commissioner Growick asked about negotiating with the

Veterans Services.

Executive Director Connelly responded that a meeting with the Director of

Department of Veterans Services was held and they did not feel they could move forward with a

Cash Transfer Agreement at this time.

Chair Daugherty suggested given his experience with the

BWC that Commissioner Growick attend the meeting scheduled with their director on January

15

th

along with Executive Director Connelly.

Administrative Management Layoffs and Cost Reductions:

Commissioner Growick stated that

the line item regarding Administrative Cost was not broken out at the last Committee meeting in

terms of the cost savings per line item. There was some discussion that perhaps the GRF can be

positively affected by reducing some of the Administrative cost.

Executive Director Connelly

briefed on things that have been done in the last 4-5 years to reduce Administrative Cost such as

reducing square footage of office space and streamlining support, management and supervisory

staff across VR Bureaus.

At the director’s level, staff has been reduced to 4 assistant directors,

and the executive director’s office has eliminated the assistant executive director’s position.

The

vacancy for HR team leader will not be filled.

Going forward with ERI, there will be 2 senior

positions where folks have indicated they will take the ERI if approved, and those positions will

not be filled.

Commissioner Daugherty asked if this has been quantified in terms of dollars.

CFO Hansen stated some is dependent on ERI, and meetings have been held with bureaus and

teams that looked at the structure of life after ERI.

Executive Director Connelly added that the

agency has also been in compliance with the hiring control, and eliminated equipment purchases

for the remainder of the year, and out of state travel. RSC has the largest telecommuting program

of any other state agency which has resulted in a significant savings.

Commissioner Growick

asked if there is any feeling of how Administration may change in the future with all the budget

cuts.

Executive Director Connelly responded that two or three folks on the Executive Team will

be taking the ERI and all RSC staff will be given the opportunity to provide feedback regarding

life after ERI. CFO Hansen stated that regarding the centralized or shared services with other

state agencies, OBM and DAS have looked at various functions across the state that are similar

among agencies.

They have found there are certain functions that are similar, and OBM has

developed a shared services operation and looking at certain functions that can be streamlined.

Travel requests, for example, is one area being discussed right now.

RSC is represented on the

committee with the shared services team, and will continue working with them.

Commissioner

Romer-Sensky stated she supports efforts to come up with fewer staff on the organizational

chart.

4

Presentation of White Paper Options

Financial Needs Testing for VR Services:

BSVI Director Mike Hanes and BVR Director

Williamson explained the Financial Needs Testing for VR Services option:

The option of

implementing a financial needs test for vocational rehabilitation services would enable RSC to

use the case service dollars available more efficiently and effectively for its consumers.

RSC did

have a financial needs test applicable to services in the 1980s, but was withdrawn when it was no

longer needed.

Federal Regulations permit the state to implement a financial needs test for

services or specific services, however, the state must detail how the financial needs policy works

in writing, the test must be reasonable, consider the individual’s disability related expenses, and

not deny individuals services.

Implementation of a financial needs test would require an

administrative rule and the process would take an average of six months to implementation.

Given the current and anticipated continuing need to seriously reduce spending within the

agency, it is recommended that RSC move forward with a financial needs test with the intention

of implementing on or about October 1, 2009.

In developing the financial needs test, RSC will

conduct additional research with states that currently have such a test. A plan for stakeholder

input and education will be developed to assure all concerns are appropriately considered.

Commissioner Growick expressed support for a financial needs test.

It is an option worthy of

exploring further and should be across the board and selective.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky

expressed support of the option and Commissioner Joyce Young stated it is a responsible way of

dealing with the current budget crisis the agency is facing.

Motion:

Commissioner Romer-Sensky moved that the Financial Needs Testing has

merit, and a staff should prepare a formal motion to present to the full Commission.

Seconded by Commissioner Growick.

Motion carried.

Personal Care Assistance (PCA) Program & Community Centers for the Deaf (CCD):

Team

Leader O’Brien stated that the PCA program was established as a pilot project by Senate Bill 522

in the 114

th

General Assembly in 198l to provide funds to pay for personal assistance services to

enable persons with severe physical disabilities to work and/or live independently.

The Ohio

Administrative Code rules 3304-4-01 through 3304-4-04 govern the administration of the PCA

program with rule 3304-4-02 outlining the specific requirements and structure for the program.

The program began servicing participants in FFY 1983 with $500,000 in GRF for the pilot

project.

The program is currently funded solely through RSC’s Social Security Reimbursement

(SSR) funds at just below $3.375M.

The initial administrative rules divided the program into four priority levels to establish the order

in which consumers would be served.

Administrative Rule 3304-4-02(A)(1) says “when

sufficient funds are available, those found eligible shall be served based on the rank order of

priority groups….”

The priority levels established under this administrative rule are:

Priority 1,

consumers who are employed; Priority 2, consumers who are in an active job search; Priority 3,

consumers who are engaged in training to lead to employment; and Priority 4, maintenance of

independent living.

Through various rule changes, a verbal commitment was made to legislators

that RSC would not eliminate serving individuals through Priority 4. However with the current

budget constraints it is imperative to consider this program’s administrative rules which include

the grandfather provision for Priority 4 were established based on the above noted rule, “when

sufficient funds are available….”

The paper recommends that RSC maintain Priority 1 and reduce the other 3 priority levels. It is

recommended the program be closed to new participants in all priority levels and maintain

5

assistance for the current participants who meet the definition of competitive employment

(Priority 1) until attrition eventually completely phases out the program.

These participants are

currently being served without any time limit as long as competitive employment is maintained.

When employment is lost, provide participant with a three-month grace period in which they can

still receive assistance while they network for other resources.

The cost of service delivery for

the current participants in Priority 1 who are competitively employed would be approximately

$1.4M for FFY 2010 including administrative costs.

If funding for this program is not adequate

to meet the demands of keeping services intact for Priority 1 participants, it is recommended to

close out the program to all participants at the end of FFY2009.

By implementing the

recommendation to close out the program to future participants and continue to serve only those

participants who are competitively employed, RSC will eventually save the total cost of the

program ($3.8M).

Chair Daugherty asked if these are dollars used for federal match.

Team Leader O’Brien stated

because they are SS dollars they cannot be matched to federal funds. Commissioner Romer-

Sensky asked if there has been any further discussion regarding making this a service under

Medicaid.

Team Leader O’Brien stated there is the Home Choice Program, but individuals must

be already living in an institution before funds can be withdrawn.

Commissioner Growick asked

if once a consumer in the PCA program is employed if there is a tax benefit.

Guest, Chris

Staccia, responded there is a tax benefit if someone has medical and related expenses and has

been prescribed services.

Motion:

Commissioner Romer-Sensky moved to close the PCA program to all new

participants and that staff bring recommendations for time limitations for Priority 1 to the

full Commission.

Seconded by Commissioner Growick.

Motion carried.

Community Centers for the Deaf (CCDs):

BVR Director Williamson stated the CCDs have

been strong advocates of RSC, including providing testimony for the agency during budget

hearings.

Ohio CCDs provide access to communication services enabling deaf, heard of hearing

and deaf-blind individuals to communicate with their hearing peers.

RSC funds an average of

32.5% of the CCDs budgets, with some relying on 70% from RSC.

Any reductions in the budget

would provide a commensurate impact on services available to the deaf community.

Changing

the funding structure from GRF to SSR would be a win-win situation for both entities.

Currently

$50,000 of the funding is GRS, with $750,000 in SSR.

Switching the additional $50,000 to SSR

would allow RSC to draw down an additional $184,742 in federal matching funds. BVR Director

Williamson stated it is recommended that RSC not reduce funding of the CCDs and that all of

the CCDs funding be moved to Social Security Reimbursement so that more GRF dollars can be

used to draw down federal matching dollars.

This would preserve services and the relationship

RSC enjoys with the CCDs.

Kevin Futryck of the Alliance of CCDs stated that at this time, the

CCDs have no objection with this recommendation.

Motion:

Commissioner Romer-Sensky moved that RSC pursue using Social Security

Reimbursement funding instead of GRF for the $50,000 allocated to the CCDs with the

caveat to re-examine this with the current budget.

Seconded by Commissioner Growick.

Third Party Cooperative Agreements: California Model/Pathways Expansion:

Team Leader

O’Brien stated that since Pathways has been so successful, it was decided to take a look around

the country to see what other states are doing regarding Cooperative Agreements. The California

Model provides a mechanism for partnership on both state and political subdivisions to bring

together funding and services to provide services to people with disabilities. The California

6

Model employs a funding formula in which the partner (local political subdivision) and the

Designated State Unit (DSU) share the federal match delineated by in-kind or cash match.

For

every dollar of in-kind match the partner provides, they receive one dollar of the federal match.

Executive Director Connelly stated that the California Model is currently going through their

monitoring review by the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA).

There is some question

as to whether RSA is going to approve the California Model continuing the in-kind match.

RSA

has been very adamant about having hard cash for match.

Team Leader O’Brien stated it is recommended RSC proceed with the implementation of the

third party cooperative agreement model.

Regardless of the type of match received, either in-

kind or cash, the funding formula supports the person with a disability via specialized partner

services and DSU services.

Decisions must be made in concert with the existing Pathways

Program.

This includes an increase by RSC to the pathways Program contracts to cover the full

programmatic oversight costs. In addition, the continuation and responsible expansion of the

Pathways II program is recommended.

An increase in federal match split should be considered

to provide more statewide services to more diverse populations of Ohioans with disabilities, and

cap of 30% of case services budgets should be allocated to third party agreements.

Commissioner Growick stated it is an excellent, creative recommendation and asked if the

Commission supports this kind of model would this be more attractive to other state entities.

Legislative Director Dunn replied it would be and, legislatively, it would be popular.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky asked when RSC enters into these agreements, who would hold

the ultimate liability on audit finance.

Team Leader O’Brien said the monitoring of the

agreements is a lot more intense.

California has about 200 agreements and 12 people assigned to

monitor the programs at all times.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky stated that RSC should

continue to explore the possibility of cooperative agreements and to articulate it is pending

federal approval.

Guest, Kelly Manns, stated that many of the CRPs would be interested in the

in-kind match, but there needs to be much more information available.

Executive Director

Connelly stated that the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR)

has not taken a position on this yet.

One of the things they have taken position on, however is

the Economic Stimulus--Job Retention and Creation for Workers with Disabilities. More

discussion should be held on this over the next day or two at the CSAVR Executive Committee

Meeting in Phoenix.

Chair Daugherty suggested to continue to pursue this and find out what is

going to happen with the California Model as far as RSA is concerned.

Legislative Director

Dunn asked that his office be authorized to actively seek in-kind language in the Stimulus Bill.

Motion:

Commissioner Growick moved that a recommendation be made to the full

Commission that RSC be empowered to further explore cooperative agreements with in-

kind benefits and that legislative action be looked into that might be helpful in

incorporating that into any Economic Stimulus package.

Seconded by Commissioner

Romer-Sensky.

Motion carried.

Merger of BVR/BSVI:

BSVI Director Hanes discussed some of the VR Bureau efficiencies that

have been put into place to date including, reducing the number of geographical areas from 8 to

4; cross supervision between the bureaus, resources shared between the Bureaus including

support staff, equipment, office space, supplies, etc., and BSVI has developed strong

partnerships with the American Council of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind to

serve consumers and educate BSVI counselors and the general public on blindness issues.

Future efficiencies for consideration include expansion of telecommuting, increased use of

caseload assistants, financial needs test for consumers, increased provision of in-house services,

7

and returning the Independent Living Older Blind and Homemaker program to the areas vs. it

being a separate program.

BVR Director Hanes stated that based on the available research,

literature, consumer group positions, and experiences of other state vocational rehabilitation

programs and RSC’s Northwest model, it is not recommended that the Commissioners pursue

merging BSVI and BVR into one single bureau to serve all disability groups.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky asked how many people there are in Central Office for BVR and

BSVI.

BVR Director Williamson stated there are a total of 7 for both bureaus.

Executive

Director Connelly added there were 22 in the 1990s.

Commissioner Growick asked for more

specifics regarding the potential future efficiencies.

BSVI Director Hanes stated that some of the

future efficiencies are already under way, for example, expanding telecommuting.

There are

some areas with offices that only have 1 or 2 counselors.

These counselors can work from home.

The use of caseload assistants can be increased to perform more of the pre-vocational work and

financial needs testing.

Chair Daugherty asked if there would there be savings if the two Bureaus were combined?

BSVI

Director Hanes stated that the agency would end up losing some of the quality monitoring and

there would probably not be significant savings.

CFO Hansen added that a fiscal analysis on this

has not been done, but the bureaus have defined the services and costs savings that would be

provided.

Many of the bureaus and teams are looking at streamlining.

Chair Daugherty stated it

would then be modest savings, if at all, in combining the Bureaus.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky

stated there would be no major fiscal impairments in combining the Bureaus, but perhaps some

service provision problems.

Commissioner Growick said he would like to see some figures that

articulate where the current overlap is, how success of the NW Model can be extended to the

other 3 areas, and what the positions and monetary issues are.

Guest, Brian White stated that the NW Model works because the managers call other BSVI area

managers and talk to them about situations.

If the BSVI area managers are deleted from the state

the NW Model will no longer work.

Motion:

Commissioner Romer-Sensky moved to maintain the two Bureaus but continue to urge

the Bureaus to pursue joint administration and supervisory services when possible and to

quantify them for full Commission enlightenment.

Seconded by Commissioner Growick.

Motion carried.

Restructuring Consumer Affairs:

Team Leader O’Brien stated the current structure of the

Consumer Affairs programs has been reviewed.

The Consumer Affairs unit and the state

Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) are required by the Ohio Revised Code.

The agency has

the discretion to create additional advisory committees as it has with the local CACs.

The

average cost of a state CAC meeting is $2,152, while a local meeting costs approximately $175.

It is recommended to reduce the number of local CACs from 12 to 6 to be located in each of the

four local areas; develop an agency best practice for when focus groups should be initiated;

revise the current practice of processing Status 26 closure surveys to include analysis by

consumer affairs to review for statewide trends, successes and concerns; and re-establish the

grant writer responsibilities to search for alternative funding sources through RSA and other

entities where 501 3C status is not required, assist the agency leadership in monitoring grant

outcomes and compliance requirements.

Commissioner Growick asked for more information on the grant writing aspect.

Team Leader

O’Brien stated that one coordinator had previously been designated as fulltime grant writer

8

which was not good use of the position.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky stated this is not much of

a budget consideration and the most compelling issue was regarding CAC attendance in certain

areas. She will be attending this Saturday’s CAC meeting and would like to get input from the

members and bring back more information to the Committee.

Replacing GRF with Social Security Reimbursement Dollars:

A paper was prepared to

consider the option of shifting non-matching GRFs of approximately $460,000 currently

appropriated to the CCDs, the SILC and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) to the VR program and

replacing funds with federal Social SSR funds.

If done, the GRF could then be used by the VR

program as non-federal match which could generate $1.7 million in federal funds.

Legislative

Director Dunn stated it is not recommended to seek a change for the 2011 Biennial Budget in the

GRF Dollars and to move the $460,000 so it can be matched and shift it to SSR.

Commissioner Growick stated concern regarding the SILCs and he would like to hear from them

as to what kinds of opportunities there would be by moving this to the SSR and how it would

affect the SILCs.

CFO Hansen stated she did ask Brenda Curtiss to provide any information

possible.

Information received was that there was only about $2,000 being used for match. The

information does not indicate it will be a matching issue for the SILCs.

Motion:

Commissioner Romer-Sensky moved to recommend to the full Commission

that the SILC funding be changed to SSR and the GRF be directed to the VR program,

CCD and TBI with the caveat that maybe up to $10,000 in GRF to them be verified and

the situation be revisited in the next Biennial Budget.

Seconded by Commissioner

Growick.

Motion carried.

Creating Case Service Efficiency by Providing Services In-House:

BVR Director Williamson

provided the following update regarding in-house services:

RSC, historically, has provided a

variety of in-house vocational rehabilitation programming initiatives that have been success in

providing more rapid engagement of consumers at a lower cost. In recent years, RSC’s

counselors have largely purchased services for consumers due to productivity demands and

workload constraints.

RSC is currently faced with reduced case service resources; therefore,

field staff has been making use of available internal resources to provide direct services to

consumers in an effort to keep them moving the vocational rehabilitation process in a timely

manner.

Services provided in-house currently include, in-house testing; career exploration

workshops; personal empowerment training; job seeking skills training; and job clubs.

Closure of 150 Crosswoods Office/Relocation Plan & Space Considerations:

CIO Martz stated

that closing of the 150 Crosswoods Office is part on on-going space reduction plans.

The

number of staff in the 150 building and in the 400 building has declined.

The plan is to move

people from the 150 building back to the 400 building. The 150 building will be closed by the

end of March 09.

An annual on-going savings of nearly $230,000 will be realized.

Other Business

Order of Selection:

Commissioner Growick stated that as the fiscal crunch continues, it would

be prudent for the agency to articulate what some options might be in the way business is

conducted, such as deciding what consumers are served first and in what manner.

BVR Director

Williamson commented that the RSA Monitoring asked that RSC be more specific as to how we

provide services and track the population serviced.

The agency is currently doing that.

A work

9

group has been established to look at ways the agency can better define and articulate services.

BVR Director Williamson stated he will obtain a progress report from the work group.

Case Aids:

– Commissioner Growick asked about the use of case aids.

BVR Director

Williamson stated that the main problem right now is that RSC cannot hire more case aids, but it

is a great model.

ERI Proposal

Chair Daugherty read the following motion:

Motion:

In light of actions recommended by the Budget and Audit Committee today to reduce

expenditures, improve administrative efficiencies and enhance agency revenues, and based upon

a review of the proposed staffing analysis from the December 10, 2008 Committee meeting, the

Budget and Audit Committee continues to support the ERI proposals approved by the full

Commission on September 10, 2008 and submitted to OBM as a key cornerstone in resolving the

deficiencies caused by GRF budget reductions.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky so moved.

Commissioner Growick seconded.

Discussion:

Commissioner Young commented that the need to push forward on the ERI has been discussed

with her and Commission Vice Chair Romer-Sensky.

Commissioner Growick expressed concern that the full Commission is not involved and he

would be more comfortable if the motion read that

we as a Commission as a whole support the

ERI and that it will continue to be mentioned to the Governor’s Office

.

Chair Daugherty stated OBM has requested a motion today coming from the Budget and Audit

Committee and they would then hopefully move forward. Executive Director Connelly

commented the agency is reaching a point where by not getting a decision, the problem is being

compounded around $1 million a month.

Commissioner Young stated she would be happy to phone the other Commission members to see

if there are any objections and to discuss this issue and give them a week to respond.

Referencing Roberts Rules, Chair Daugherty stated the Motion is on the floor.

Commissioner Growick then moved to amend the motion to include that the Commission Chair

call a meeting of the other Commissioners to discuss this issue before a confirmation of the

earlier vote the Commissioner’s took is confirmed.

Amendment failed for lack of a second.

Chair Daugherty called attention back to the original motion and called the question.

Commissioner Romer-Sensky – aye

Chair Daugherty – aye

Commissioner Growick - opposed

Motion passed.

10

Commissioner Growick moved for adjournment.

Seconded by Commissioner Romer-Sensky.

Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Motion to convene:

BG. Seconded JRS

12:05