PAULA MCELWEE: We want to welcome you once again to one of the ILRU Technical Assistance and Training sessions.

Couple of things to remind you about because our next presenters are from ACL.

A couple of things to remind you about the status of our regulations.

So remember the comment period just closed as we were all traveling here.

And they have not had a chance yet to look at all those comments and the final regulations are not out.

That means that they can not comment on the regulations.

Okay.

So the comment period for you to send them informally is over but the period for them to be adopted and the decisions made is not over yet.

So the regulations are kind of off the table for those conversations.

We can talk about what the possibilities are, we can talk about what the proposed regs said, but we don't know what the final regs are yet.

So just kind of tuck that away, keep that in mind.

However, we are not going to talk about regs this morning, we are going to talk about standards and indicators.

Now the standards and indicators for centers for independent living are part of what the centers have been working with as their regulation for compliance for a long time.

But there have not been standards and indicators for SILCs and the new WIOA, when it was passed, the new Reauthorization of the Rehab Act, this most recent one, does say that there will be standards and indicators for SILCs.

So we are in that process now of seeing what those are going to look like.

Of course NCIL has proposed some things, and we have got some other discussion that will probably take place around that.

But today, the two people that are going to be joining us this morning to talk about standards and indicators are first Vicki Gottlich, and Vicki is the director for the Center for Policy and Evaluation.

So she coordinates that effort across all the ACL programs to manage the eval, how you evaluate those programs, report on the performance of those programs and so forth, so she is one of our speakers this morning.

And the other speaker this morning is Jennifer Klocinski and Jennifer is with the Office for Performance and Evaluation in ACL and she is a team lead for program performance there.

So, they are going to be our speakers this morning, if you would welcome them please.

[applause]

VICKI GOTTLICH: Good morning, I am Vicki Gottlich, it is really nice to be here, ah, see, isn't that good?

Is that better?

Yeah, I am looking at, you know, that is better.

Okay, good.

It is very nice to be here at the SILC Conference.

Last year I talked to you in San Diego and I was in Washington, DC, and you were in San Diego.

So I am very happy that I got to be here this year and to meet all of you in person.

As Paula said, we are with the Center for Policy and Evaluation in the Administration for Community Living.

And I just want to say it speaks to ACL's commitment to the independent living programs, that we have Bob, our independent living administrator, Tim Beatty, who is the deputy director of ILA.

We have Jennifer and me, who come from a different center in ACL and we have Andrew Morris, who is policy expert with the Administration on Disability.

And ACL wants to be inclusive because it is MLK weekend, I want to say we want to integrate all of the different grantees and different programs that we work with across the age spectrum, because quite frankly, all the work that we do focuses on community living.

So our presentation today really we want to have a discussion.

We are going to start out by talking about what ACL means by standards and indicators.

We are then going to review the ACL draft.

We are going to put questions to you because that is part of our objective here is to hear what you think these indicators should be.

And then we want to hear the questions from you.

But before we begin, if any of you have your materials from day one, ILRU provided you with the statute and I wanted to read to you the relevant portions of section 706.

So 706B says, not later than one year after July 22, 2014, which we all know that we have missed.

And as aside in the federal government, unfortunately deadlines get missed all the time so I was reading through on the airplane some materials that the Medicaid agency were trying to draft to implement a statute that should have been implemented ten years ago.

So we hopefully will not be that late.

But anyways, so the statute says not later than one year after 2014, the administrator shall develop and publish in the Federal Register, indicators of minimum compliance for centers of independent living consistent with the standards set forth in section 725.

And we have done that.

Because those were published in the proposed regulation.

And then the statute says, and this is the new part we are going to talk about, and indicators of minimum compliance for statewide independent living councils.

I want you to note that it just talks about indicators, it does not talk about standards.

It does not talk about assurances.

It does not give any definition of what those indicators should be.

There is no reference to 725 which apply to CILs.

In the next portion of section 706, that is where we talk about the onsite compliance reviews.

And it says the administrator shall annually conduct onsite compliance reviews of at least 15% of the centers that receive funds, etc.

And then the next sentence says, the administrator shall annually conduct onsite compliance reviews of at least 1/3 of the designated state units that receive funding under 760F-2 which is the United States Code section.

And to the extent necessary to determine compliance of such a state unit.

It does not say that the administrator shall conduct compliance reviews of SILCs.

So I want you to keep the statutory language in mind and review the statutory language when you go back and think about what we had to say.

And I want to thank ILRU for such a great compilation of the statute.

Think about what we are supposed to do.

And then I am going to turn it over to Jennifer and she will give you some thoughts on ACL's positions.

JENNIFER KLOCINSKI: Everyone, can you hear me, am I holding it appropriately?

Okay, good, thank you, I got the thumbs up in the back.

Hi, actually, within Vicki's center I am in the Office of Performance and Evaluation.

I am the lead for performance management at ACL and was former legal lead for the evaluation activity.

So when Vicki asked me to help with this activity and look through this, I will tell you I was a little stymied.

Cause the language from my perspective had several challenges.

One obviously Vicki said that it just said indicators and that section did not really describe it.

But then we looked in other places where it talks about the standards and indicators for the CILs and the language was really odd from my perspective.

I saw it as having two challenges for us in the sense that the language around standard and indicator did not reflect, the common definition for those terms.

It tended to associate with activities or roles and responsibilities.

And when I think of a standard I think of basically, a criterion, a level of quality or achievement that is considered acceptable or desirable.

For instance if someone said 'something is expensive by todays standards' so you can get a sense that would make sense.

But the language did not kind of work that way.

And then in addition it did not really reflect in my mind performance management concepts.

It was actually, there was a lot of language about compliance and it tended to focus in my mind the minimums, the floor.

A minimum set of things that activities or roles and responsibilities that folks have.

And frankly I am more interested, and I think many of us are, about what is our overall mission and purpose?

And what did we think our indicators of that success and how would we go about measuring that and setting goals and targets for achieving it so that we can really achieve what we are here to do.

The idea of, in my mind, it is about continuous growth and improvement.

Not about a standard or an indicator that you done the bare minimum.

And oftentimes those things won't necessarily get you success.

They may be important and so forth.

And they may be essential, but they are not sufficient for us to achieve what we really want to achieve.

So that is kind of my puzzle when we started this.

And so we said, well what can we do, because in essence we can't really change the statute to reflect what I want it to say.

So we went to the section I think on the CILs and looked at what was said there and said well, let's have our approach be consistent so that we don't say certain things when it comes to CILs and we don't say completely other things and use different definitions and use the term differently when it comes to SILCs.

So you will see that in some ways the way we approached this is, mirrors what happens on the CIL side of things.

And finally when it came to indicators, cause that is what it really said, we said well then what is an indicator.

So we said in my researcher way of thinking operationalize: How can we identify something that if an objective third party were to make a site visit or there was a reporting process, someone could objectively say that the standard we set forth was met?

And so that is basically our overall approach to what you will see in the rest of our conversation.

So I think we go to the next slide.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Okay, so we began our journey pretty easily in a way.

Because we had the standards and indicators that the SILC Congress developed in 2004.

And then we had the revised version that NCIL suggested earlier last year.

And so our team, which is Jennifer and me and Molly Burgdof, who is the primary author of the NPRM, sat down and we said, okay, how do we make this fit into the ACL perspective and how do we honor the request of what information you want to provide to us.

And we had this conversation last night on how you guys are different from some of our other grantees because you want more oversight than some of our other grantees.

So that is kind of a fun position for us.

So, we came up with the document in your materials, it has got three columns, the first column is the statutory section, the second is the standard and the third column is the indicator.

So this slide shows you the standards and I am going to actually walk through and read through all of them and read through the indicators.

And then we will have our conversation.

So our first standard is the SILC membership reflects the independent living philosophy, that is part of the purpose of the act as you all know.

And then we have six indicators that the SILC develops a method for recruiting applicants and receiving applications consistent with the IL philosophy and requirements of the law.

The second one is that at least annually the SILC forwards a list of qualified, knowledgeable, and diverse candidates for appointment to the SILC to the appropriate appointing authority for consideration.

And we heard yesterday that there are different authorities in different states who make the SILC appointments.

The third is that the SILC provides training at least once a year to its members to CILs and other providers and other eligible individuals who are eligible for services under Chapter 1 of Title 7 of the Rehab Act.

Four is the SILC provides each newly appointed member with an orientation including orientation regarding IL philosophy prior to participation in meetings and voting.

The fifth indicator is the SILC completes and submits an assessment of the SILC training needs to the SILC Technical Assistance Center on an annual basis.

Six is the SILC develops, implements, and maintains sound fiscal and personnel policies and procedures in accordance with its organizational structure and that the SILC develops, adopts and controls its budget, allocates funds consistent with identified priorities.

Our second standard is that the council fulfills all the duties of Section 705C1 regarding the State Plan for Independent Living.

Here our indicators would be that the SILC documents the process for development of the state plan with the CILs within the state, which includes representatives of the centers and input from people with disabilities and other stakeholders.

The SILC ensures that public meetings regarding SPIL development and review are open to the public and provide sufficient advance notice of the meetings.

Meeting locations must be physically accessible to people with disabilities.

The SILC provides effective communication and reasonable accommodations necessary to make the meeting accessible to people with disabilities.

The second indicator is that the SILC monitors, reviews, and evaluates implementation of the SPIL.

The SILC and CILs collaborate on the design of the tools and process to evaluate implementation of the SPIL and assess consumer satisfaction with services.

The CIL utilizes the tools to review and evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the state plan.

The third indicator is that the SILC submits and maintains copies of reports requested by the administrator and maintains records to verify the information in such reports.

Our next standard is documenting coordination activities in the SPIL and otherwise.

And our indicator here is that the SILC identifies entities with which activities are coordinated and documents coordination activities.

The next one is that the SILC conducts hearings and forums necessary to carry out duties.

We suggest and we know there will be discussion about this, the SILC meets quarterly and ensures that meetings of the council are open to the public and provide sufficient advance notice of the meetings.

SILC meetings are open to the public except for confidential matters, such as those which the states' open meetings or sunshine law would allow to be held in closed session.

The SILC holds meetings in locations accessible to people with disabilities and provides effective communication and reasonable accommodation as are necessary to make the meeting accessible.

And the SILC maintains copies of advance notice, registration lists, and minutes and other documentation with input gathered at hearings and forums conducted as appropriate.

And then the last standard that we developed was that the councils just have a resource plan sufficient to carry out the functions of the SILC.

The resource plan has to detail funding included from the I&E dollars, other private, public sources, private sources, and the resource plan should describe the level of need for resources including staff and personnel, operating expenses, council compensation and expenses, meeting expenses including meeting space, alternate formats, interpreters and other accommodations.

If the resource plan includes part B funds, the SPIL provides justification of the percentage of part B funds to be used, particularly if the percentage exceeds 30% with reference to the SPIL.

The council has and follows policies and procedures for the supervision and evaluation of staff and personnel.

The council maintains personnel records that include performance evaluations.

And the council oversees the assignment of duties to staff and personnel to ensure that there are no conflict of interest.

You will notice that the document that I just read to you is very short.

And it is way shorter than the resource, the standards and indicators document that was developed in 2004 and it is shorter than the NCIL recommendations.

And in reviewing the documents and the recommendations that you all provided to us, we sat there and said do we really need to include this?

Is this going to help us do performance evaluation?

Is this going to help us help you be the best SILC you can be?

Which is the way I always kind of think of these things.

Is this really just reciting a statutory requirement that is in the statute in the regulations and we really don't need it in the indicators that we are developing and in the way we want to collect this information.

So we did a really fast run through.

What we thought, what our thinking is, so we can explain it to you.

But our job here really is to hear back from you.

If you remember, the NCIL conference, we gave you a timeline about some of the things we plan to do.

And we said in January 2016 that we wanted to have a conversation about 704 reports.

Well, guess what.

It is January 2016.

We are thinking that these indicators might form the basis of the Part 1 704 report and so this is our conversation.

So if you take a look on the next slide.

Did I do that right?

Yes.

Okay.

VICKI GOTTLICH: The first question I have for you and I don't want this to seem silly, but how do you see the standards and indicators being used?

There is no statutory requirement for ACL to monitor SILCs and do compliance reviews of SILCs.

So not to be facetious we really want to know when you were thinking about indicators over the last, you know, 16 or so years that you have been doing this, what goal did you want to achieve?

How did you see them being utilized by yourselves in your states by the federal government agency that runs the independent living programs?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have not been on the SILC for 16 years, this is only my second congress and I wish that I had this day one.

I think, I know there is no requirement that you monitor, but I think that because people come to the SILC council different levels of experience as far as board responsibility, which maybe other people, you know, in another area of life, and maybe some people do, but then I did not know what we were supposed to do.

So I am just telling you from looking at this, this is very valuable.

And I do think that it should be something that evaluation at some time or should be included in the report as something that you shoot for.

Because I know when I came to my council we were being reconstituted, you know, and still in kind of flux.

So having something like this helps people to know you don't just wake up a year later and you don't know what you are supposed to be doing.

But these are guidelines tells you documents and stuff that you need to keep those documents can be used for orientation for a new board, you know if you keep minutes and all your expenses, people can look and see what they are supposed to be doing.

It is very important to have a historical archive.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Thank you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, unfortunately I was one of the people that was involved a long time ago when we first started this discussion of standards and indicators.

And at that time our SILC was in really bad shape and so what we have done, those standards and indicators that we came up with years ago, we basically operationalized into our SILC so that was something that we felt made our SILC better.

Now if there was some type of review process, personally I think that would be good because I would like to see all SILCs be as strong as they could possibly be.

But we are under different formats and that makes life kind of interesting at times, anyways, we totally operationalized pretty much all of the indicators that you are showing on this paper which is I think that is a really good thing.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Thank you, so I am hearing a theme here?

That these help you as SILC board members improve the work that you are doing make your SILC better and stronger which is really our goal as well.

So thank you, thank you for doing all that work a long time ago.

I have to tell you, it really made our job much easier to have documents that say, oh okay, this is what they want us to look at.

This makes sense to us, So thank you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, I am the program manager for the SILC in Montana.

I am also an employee, my pay comes from the state.

I am concerned on the last two indicators regarding evaluations of staff.

Being the only staff for our SILC, how does, how do those evaluations work, is the SILC going to accept the state's evaluation, you know annual evaluation of me or am I going, is the employee going to have to be evaluated by both the state and the SILC for, there is a thing in here about assignment of staff and personnel.

So that is my concern.

How is that all going to work?

VICKI GOTTLICH: Yeah, I think that is actually a very good question.

And what has struck me by being here and talking to a number of you, is that SILCs are small.

There are very, some are big, some are small.

There are very few staff.

And they are mostly boards.

But there are also bylaws and procedures.

So what we are thinking in the indicators would be that you would see what the process is.

So that you in Montana would say this works for us, this is the process that we are going to do it.

And then you are looking at the indicators you check off the box to say that there is evaluation.

Sitting in Washington, DC, it is very hard for us to say this is something that should work for everybody because we know that each SILC is different.

Just as each CIL is different, just as each state is different.

So it is really hard to come up with something that fits everybody when you are very different, so we look at the big picture process.

PAULA MCELWEE: Vicki, if I could, this is Paula.

One of the things that we have noticed with the CILs applying the standards and indicators is that it is very individualized because each CIL in its bylaws and policies and procedures says how they will actualize the standards and indicators.

And I would suspect that that same process would work very well for the SILCs, because they are so different one to the next.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: This is Shea from Arkansas.

One of the things that helped us is Ann McDaniel came as a mentor from the APRIL, Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living, the mentor program.

And she went over things, our board members were present there.

The plan that we came up with, when Ann came, and we went over these things, you know the recommendations, working with the authorities on getting your board members.

All the things that we are talking about here, we actually looked back at that plan right now and we build on it.

Ann came a couple of years ago and even now we go back and refer to that plan that she gave us, the recommendations, and we are building on it and that is what has helped Arkansas.

If you have not done the mentor program through APRIL, I suggest you do it because you send them everything.

They will ask for things and they come and they work with the director and the board members.

And if you have not done it, you need to do it because it has helped us as a new director, it really helped me.

So that is what I would suggest.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, I guess what we would do, first of all we have got to get past the state plan.

But we take this document and we get together a group and then we would say, okay, you know, how do we comply with this.

And we would do like a mock review basically.

And then we just cite the sources that we have internally and then we say, oh yeah, we have this here.

And then we pull together, you know, like a manual and we put it all together so we have this as the master.

And we pull it so that we have it ready to go.

That is what we do.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Yeah, I think what I am hearing is that you would use this as internal guidelines.

We are thinking that we may include the indicators as part of the 704 report.

Would that be helpful to everybody in this room.

I see a lot of people nodding their heads.

Tim is writing that down.

You know, if, I am sorry, I am going to be the Washington, DC lawyer.

If we include the indicators in the 704 report, which is what we were thinking.

The 704 report has to be published in the Federal Register for comment.

Which means that we would meet the statutory requirement that the SILC indicators be published in the Federal Register.

So that would solve ACL's issue and it would be helpful to all of you, I think.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, I think using them internally is one of the things that will certainly be helpful and I think part of that is I think there are concerns in developing a SILC resource plan.

What is adequate and being clear about what the SILC is required to do will help SILCs develop a resource plan that is adequate to do all of those things.

But the other thing that I would like to suggest is that in the past when RSA did state reviews, they often included IL folks on the teams and with the idea, I think, that when they are reviewing a state program they have to review the whole program for compliance and SILCs that meet standards and indicators would be part of assuring that a state program complies with the law.

VICKI GOTTLICH: that is helpful, thank you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hey, Vicki, this is Ann McDaniel from West Virginia.

First I need to make a comment about the issue of evaluating staff because the law does require that the SILC supervise and evaluate the staff or other personnel that assists us in fulfilling its functions.

So that may well be personnel that are employees of the state.

So we still have to figure out a way for the SILCs to supervise and evaluate those folks.

I think I am the dinosaur in the room.

Cause I have been around since before there was a SILC Congress and helped plan the first one and many after that.

And the reason that we conceived of and wanted to have a SILC Congress was because nobody was telling us what we were supposed to be doing.

And how we were supposed to be fulfilling our role.

And we wanted opportunities for us to get together and figure that out together.

To figure out what we were supposed to be doing to agree on initiatives that we might all agree to take on and just as everything else that we did.

The standards and indicators came out of that need for figuring out together what it was that we were supposed to be doing.

And those provided to RSA as soon as they were developed and nothing ever happened.

The guidance and technical assistance that SILCs received was at best negligible.

So it, we were using peer support of figuring out how to be SILCs and how to really do what we were supposed to be doing.

And so I see the standards and indicators as being a really good guide for that.

For SILCs to understand what it is we are supposed to be doing.

If we have the law and we have regulations and we have these indicators that is going to help a lot.

Whether anything else happens with them or not.

But I think they can also be a really big piece of training and technical assistance for SILCs.

To follow along with, here is what you are supposed to do.

Here is how you might be doing it.

If you are having problems, these can help, et cetera.

For ACL to be able to look at a SILC that is asking for help and say, well, are you doing this?

Cause you probably ought to be doing this.

So I think that is really, really helpful.

And then I love the idea of putting them in the 704 report because first of all, that is going to provide a vehicle for accountability for SILCs, which we have never really had.

But it also is going to make the 704 report a lot more useful to those of us out in the states.

To really demonstrate what is going on.

Which the 704 report as it is currently structured, has not been particularly helpful in doing.

So I like that idea, that is my comments.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I just wanted to say about the overseeing of the assignment of duties for staff and personnel and the evaluation, I feel very strongly that the SILC has to be the one that does that and that if the SILC wants to abdicate because the DSU, or designated state organization, role has changed.

It is very difficult when you have someone that you are working with when their evaluation for pay comes from someone other than yourself.

It is not the thing to do, is to have someone outside of who assigned your work to evaluate you.

It causes problems.

So I feel very strongly that it should be the SILC's responsibility and that if the individual SILC, for whatever reason, wants to abdicate their responsibility for that and designate someone else to maybe help prepare the report, but they should be the ones, it should be known that they are the ones that are doing the evaluation and not someone else.

That is just a third employee, that is a free employee for them.

JENNIFER KLOCINSKI: I just wanted to thank you all about the 704 report issue, and I think this is a good starting point, but I think over time we do want to think about performance and achieving not just, and I do think, it is really fascinating hearing everyone and I see there is a real desire for achieving what your mission.

And so I think this will be a beginning point and I think over time we will work toward more outcomes and more performance oriented materials and so forth, cause I think this is what we all want to achieve and it is so nice to actually be here and hear it from the people who really want to achieve that too.

So thank you.

PAULA MCELWEE: We have another comment over here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah, my question is about indicator number 1.1.

We all come from different states and how we fulfill that indicator depends on who, you know, because they appointing person is the governor of the state and depends on which governor is in the state.

Which part does he belong to?

I notice that in my state and I am not going to mention the state I am from, cause I might be in trouble.

But we wanted to the governors, you know you propose the names, they sit on his desk for months and months without approving those.

And sometimes we operated under not enough members on the SILC as required in the document.

So I don't know how other states do, whether you find the same issue on that, but in my state we do.

We have people's names that are sitting on the governor's desk and if he is busy, I don't know.

So, that is my issue.

VICKI GOTTLICH: I thank you for that because I heard that yesterday loudly and clearly that some of you are operating in states where it is very hard to get appointments through, get appointments at all to meet the statutory requirements of who has to sit on the board.

I have two words to say to that and that is systems advocacy.

But that is very hard, it is much easier for me to say systems advocacy sitting up here than to be in the state and have to go fight with the governor's office and say you've been sitting on those appointments for three months and we are out of compliance with this statute and we don't know what the federal government is going to do about that, but anyway.

That is a good point, thank you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello, I want to make a comment again about the evaluations, policies and procedures for evaluations.

And my comment is kind of I feel a little different, in Ohio our process has been, well first of all the SILC staff we have, I have six staff.

The board, the council hires me but I hire and evaluate the staff.

Now are we saying that that is going to be not, that is going to make me out of compliance and that I have to put the burden of the evaluations of my staff on my council members?

Instead of me handling that?

VICKI GOTTLICH: No, I don't think that we are saying that.

I think your process works for you and it sounds like it is working and it sounds like you have an evaluation staff so that makes us feel really good.

Yeah, it is gonna be up to the, Jennifer you wanna?

Each council is going to decide how they are going to do the evaluations, I am looking at Tim, right?

JENNIFER KLOCINSKI: Yeah and I think what it was the council had hired you and they are fine with you evaluating the staff, right.

There is nothing wrong with that.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Emilio Vela from Washington state.

I wanna make, before I make my comments I would like to recognize Mike Bachhuber from Wisconsin for, at the congress last year he organized a group and we were able to look at these indicators and have plenty of discussion around it.

So I am going to make my comments based on that discussion also to NCIL and the subcommittee of NCIL, Ann McDaniels and others who, both groups came together and kind of concized the comments so it was very thoroughly done and thought out.

With that said, I want to remind us all of two things.

The youth and the leadership of tomorrow.

So as we look at these statutes that we are considering today and they were providing feedback on, keep your eye, from what we have learned from the past, realize where we are today and the generation of today.

Okay.

So with that said, culture, see I am Latino, and I am a person with a disability, then I am over 50 years old, so there is a lot of culture over culture, layers of culture that we live in each state.

And then you go from Washington to Delaware to Texas, so there is a variety of how governments and councils work.

So with that said, on the issue of supervision, I agree with my colleague from Ohio.

I will not work for a SILC as a director if they are going to tell me how to operationalize my staff.

Okay, so somehow we need to keep that in mind cause it is more effective and that is what you pay me for.

Okay.

You, the council, guide my work, you know, and we work together on implementing the state plan for independent living and collaborating.

704 reports, okay.

I like that because like any resource development committee, we need to show what we do and how the money is spent and the results we are achieving through that.

But the other part that I like to speak to that to ACL is this, okay, when we are reporting on things, also technical assistance is needed.

Because sometimes we are going to report, when you are asking me, well did, is the governor appointed.

What about if the governor does not appoint anybody?

To your council.

What happens then?

So what are you federal entity who provide the resources, you know and fund, what are you going to do about it?

How are you going to support the states?

I think that is a real key thing to consider as we are looking at the 704 reports and I like the context of updating the reports, or reporting on these kind of indicators.

I think that is a good concept.

And then I leave with reminding us about the human nature.

We are human beings.

And we need to consider that.

CILs, those of you directors in the room, and SILCs, I feel like, and I am the baby in the room, some feel the dinosaur, well I am the baby in the room although I look kind of old.

So, but in IL I been around for a couple of years.

I happen to have the fortune of the benefit of a chair who is a CIL director who has a lot of wisdom and is a good business man.

That helps me.

But that was not the case at first.

So I think that as we consider human nature as we go along, we have a great opportunity, I came at the right time.

Right when WIOA and all you been fighting got implemented.

I think we have a lot of work to do.

I think we need to be very graceful with one another.

We need to be very respectful and don't draw the lines.

Don't draw the line and don't make it about the money.

Cause when you draw the line you forget the reason we are here, which is the consumers that we serve.

Go Hawks.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, my name is Perry Rigowsky with the state of Indiana.

And just to follow up on what you said regarding what can ACL do regarding states that you guys can't get the appointments.

We had that problem this year and we fell out of compliance and ACL actually was fantastic.

They wrote a letter to our state and said if you guys don't help your SILC get into compliance we are going to withhold their money that they get.

And so it definitely quickly got the governor's office attention and it was fantastic and now we are back in compliance and so ACL really does help.

All you have to do is just reach out to them.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Thank you.

[applause] AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi this is Shelly Emery from Oregon.

VICKI GOTTLICH: I can't see you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi.

I was thinking back to the standards and indicators and the 704 report and I thought it often that you have to, you try to hold yourself accountable to those things.

Sometimes you see what you are supposed to do, it is the how piece, that you are not sure of.

And so technical assistance, like my compadre from Washington said, is really important.

And I am also thinking of the IL culture and how important the peer support process is, the role.

And I think of our centers in Oregon and how when they began coming together and supporting each other instead of, you know, being more siloed, the benefit of that.

And the things you see happening and it just sort of explodes and people's ideas roll off of each other.

And so I think keeping that culture in mind is really important to use those standards and indicators in some way through a peer review process.

And that may be like Shea mentioned, using mentors from APRIL, using folks from ILRU.

I would imagine that maybe in Region Ten, because of our relationships, we might do some kind of peer review process with each other.

Something like that, but I think that we never want to let go of that peer support process at the organizational level even for SILCs.

VICKI GOTTLICH: So let me ask you a question.

All of you, because I have heard peer support and we talk in the indicators about promoting the IL philosophy.

Do we want a specific indicator about peer support?

Is that something that you all think would be useful to you if we added that to our indicators and you know.

You don't have to give us answers now, there will be opportunities for comments.

You can, we actually included our emails, you can shoot us an email to give us your thoughts.

But that is one of the things that we wanted to hear from you.

This is a working document and it is not the ultimate document that you will see published in the Federal Register, there may be some changes to it based on the comments that you give to us.

So if that would be helpful to state that clearly, that is something that could be added.

I want to actually go on to some of the questions that we had to you.

We have been talking a little bit about the who does the supervision.

In our indicators we talk about policies and procedures through supervision and evaluation, personnel records.

And we wanted to know do we need to be more specific?

Are there certain accounting rules that you all follow?

Is there a be-all and end-all of personnel policies that you think it would be useful to include?

Oh we have lots of comments now.

Those are the kind of information, is general language good enough?

And just when we do the peer reviews and the mentoring and you think about your own SILC and how you comply with the indicators, is that enough?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, I am a CIL employee from Indiana and basically my whole question is, where are the checks and balances with these indicators and regulations and things?

You know, what happens when an IL stakeholder has a concern and evidence about state agency or SILC compliance and we contact the federal government and they shoot the messenger in Indiana?

VICKI GOTTLICH: So that is a hard situation to talk about because the proposed regulation has appeals processes and because the comment period has just closed and the proposed regulations are under conversation, we can't talk about what those processes would be because we think it falls within the appeals processes that are set forth in the proposed regulation.

You probably know, I can talk about what is in the regulation.

You know, ACL will do compliance reviews according to the statute.

If we are going to take funding away and you are not satisfied with those reviews because there is going to be a loss of funding, we have proposed a whole new appeals process that is on top of the system that you already had.

And because we have taken comments on that and there were comments on that, we just can't talk about that.

So, I apologize.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: One of my masters degrees and I almost offered dissertation on my doctorate was in higher education administration.

And in a university setting a lot of times you have people who, they may have 60 bosses if you really get down and look at it.

So I think that one of the things on the indicators is that you really, in order to be the best practices in supervision, you are going to need to make sure that the executive director or the person that has the people working under them, actually has the ability to supervise that person because if you don't, then what you have is you have, you know, depending on how big your SILC is you might have 30 people going to, cause they don't really like the executive director.

They get better along with so and so.

You gotta, that is just really a bad position to put any supervisor in.

And also any employee in.

Because then the employee begins to think, well am I really gonna be responsible to this SILC so I am going to do what they say and I am going to ignore and that is just not good.

It is not good practices in any situation and I think that that's, yeah.

The other think I would like to say is that when you are talking about the best practices and that kind of thing.

And then this just a question first cause I kind of understand this, but then again maybe I don't understand it, but you are talking about indicators and standards and indicators, which I think is really good that there be some kind of uniformity to a certain degree.

People talk about the fact that different states have different issues and you know different compositions and different geography and some rural, some urban, whatever.

So the idea, I think I understand this and I applaud it if this is the actual idea is that you are going to have a standard but it is not going to be so prescriptive.

In other words is that kind of what you are saying?

VICKI GOTTLICH: Yes, it definitely is.

As we have been saying, things do operate differently in different states.

And so we are trying not to be prescriptive because we want to give you the flexibility to do your job.

And then, I want to go back to your statement and just say one other thing.

Take a look at the proposed regulations pretty closely because the appeals process that we proposed when there are differences and disputes with ACL takes you through the departmental appeals board of the Dept.

of Health and Human Services.

And they are a separate, independent entity that is not affiliated with any of the operating divisions within the Dept.

of Health and Human Services.

They hear the disputes when funding is going to be taken away from hospitals and other big facilities.

They actually, we moved offices, they moved offices.

They are down the hall from us, their offices are locked.

Their hearing rooms are locked to keep them free from conflict of interest from everybody else really.

And so we really, in drafting the regulations, wanted to have some kind of process where individuals who really were dissatisfied quite frankly with what ACL was doing, could have the opportunity to go to a neutral review board that would not be influenced by anything that we have done.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mike Bachhuber from Wisconsin.

I wanted to respond to a lot of those things, NCIL and SILC Congress presented some recommendations to you and I appreciate seeing your first draft out of the gate on this.

I think that a lot of the work that we did is reflected in here.

There are some things that are not necessarily.

The comment that I wanted to make is where those recommendations came from and how that is important for where we go with here with some of the indicators that you had questions about.

I think that both the NCIL folks and the SILC Congress folks who were looking at that have heard from our colleagues a lot over the years about what are recurring issues?

Which issues you tend to be able to resolve through systems advocacy and which issues tend to be very difficult to resolve at the state level.

And so for instance, the appointing authority question that you raised, that is an issue that comes up, in the, I think in the eight or so years, eight or nine years I have been doing this, every state has probably had some issues related to appointments.

Most of the time, you can resolve those through systems advocacy within your state.

But occasionally people do have to go to ILA or ACL and say we can't resolve this, we need your help.

And so I think that the way that you have proposed addressing that reflects that balance as long as there still a way for states that are having issues to go their staff at ACL and get help that way.

I think the number of days in advance notice, and again both the process through NCIL and the process through SILC Congress were collaborative.

That included a lot of people who have experience in these areas and recognize that this is something that the practice differs pretty significantly from state to state to state.

And so we thought it was appropriate to have some recommendations, but to keep them general so that states can have, can recognize that there is a requirement to have advance notice to the public, but that it is going to be different in one state than another.

Some states are covered by their state open meetings law, some aren't.

And generally I think we have said that where states are covered that those provide adequate compliance with the federal rule for open meetings.

Where they are not covered it at least provides some guidance for a SILC to follow.

But since those laws do differ from state to state, it is important to have that flexibility.

Regarding the, you asked about the conduct of meetings, 4.2 and 4.3 and again the recommendations that we made I think were reflective of that difference in states and as long as the states have a process and have thought about it and it is consistent with whatever their state requirements are, it is not important to be too prescriptive in the guidelines from the federal level.

Finally indicator 5.3 is one that is key.

I know that it was in the issue in Wisconsin 12 years ago where the SILC did not supervise their staff, could not control their budget, and when you have a staff person who is hired, evaluated, disciplined by someone other than the SILC, you are setting up a situation where the SILC has staff only when it is convenient.

And so I think that this is one area where it is important to have some real specifics about what supervision means.

What evaluation means.

Does that mean that the SILC has to have the authority to hire and fire their staff?

And I will tell you this is one where there was some differences in states.

There were some states in the discussion that had state employees as their staff and felt that that was adequate.

And some of us felt like, well if the SILC does not have the authority to hire and fire that may not really be supervision.

So those, especially that area around supervision and evaluation of staff, I think that it is important to have something fairly specific and it is an issue that whatever you come up with, there is gonna be problems in some states.

I think with the HR practices there is probably a wide range of what is an acceptable HR practice consistent with, kind of sound, non-profit management, if you are a non-profit or government management principles, if you have some other kind of format.

So I am not sure how specific there, but again, I think one of the issues that we have heard come up from time to time is a designated state unit under the old system telling the SILC that you have to justify and proof every expense, every time, every year and that seems to be a little bit inconsistent with autonomy.

It seems to me like having states impose criteria that are more restrictive than what is necessary to comply with the federal super circular and HHS regulations.

Might call into question whether the SILC truly has autonomous control over its budget.

And so those are the kind of things that I think are important to see reflected in the standards and indicators.

VICKI GOTTLICH: And so the follow-up question I have to you is, do they belong in indicators or is that better in guidance?

[indiscernible] Guidance.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Vicki, this is Ann McDaniel again.

And I have had just had an aha moment.

I love it when that happens.

But you referred multiple times to the enforcement appeals procedures in the draft regulations, proposed regulations.

So I turn to that, cause I wanted to look at that again, cause I know I did not comment on that.

And I was not sure why I did not have any comments on that cause I usually have comments on everything.

In case you have not noticed.

But there really is two sections under here, one is for centers for independent living and one is for states.

And the way states is defined in the proposed regulations, you are really talking about the state.

Which is not the SILC.

But as I am reading down through here its regard to the section over the state plan and the section over the SILC.

But there is no, it does not seem to really offer a process specific to the SILC.

So I have some concerns about that.

That there has been several situations discussed where we need to access this appeals process but the appeals process is not really set up for SILCs.

As you all look at all the comments you did receive, and I realize that the law does not require you, the way it is written, to do reviews of SILCs.

It does of the centers and of the 723 state entities, but SILCs really need an appeals process not only when ACL folks come in and do or say or whatever.

Whenever something is imposed upon us by the federal government, but whenever we are struggling with issues we need a process for guidance and assistance to resolve some of those things.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Yeah, of course we can't respond to that, but we heard you Ann.

And we did get comments on the appeals process from other entities, including NCIL.

The one thing that we did not get to which was our next question is, you know the questions you have from us which for us, which I think we have been incorporating and then what I am really interested in is what else, I heard peer review, we might want to include indicators, is there anything else?

And again I was gonna flip to our email addresses so you can just email us.

Is there anything else you think you want us to include as indicators and I apologize from taking the next questioner's time.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, how come there are so many I can't respond to that responses.

I mean can you explain in clarify perhaps edify all of us humble, ignorant masses here about why you can't respond to that.

Is there some sort of legal or adjudicated position that you are in right now and you can't talk about it because it is a lawsuit?

VICKI GOTTLICH: No, it is called the Administrative Procedure Act.

It is an act that governs all federal agencies and under the Administrative Procedures Act, that is the act that requires federal agencies when they want to do regulations to publish them in the Federal Register and to accept comments.

And what the Administrative Procedure Act says is that you can only accept comments during the open comment period and you can only respond to the comments during the open comment period.

So if this meeting were held last weekend when the comments were still open, we would have been able to answer your questions more because we would not have been precluded by federal law from responding to your comments.

It is really difficult for us because quite frankly we are all dying to have a conversation with you, but we can't.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well I appreciate the clarification.

And you know obviously because it comes back, a lot of the questions yesterday and today, come back to the system of accountabilities.

You know you can establish all the standards, for instance you can establish as many gun laws as you want in this country, they mean absolutely nothing if they are not enforced.

And then you continue to establish more laws because you figure that is the solution to the problem.

Same thing with the standards and accountability.

So when you talk about an appeals process, you are also talking about the fact that if you are at the top of the ladder and I have an argument or question with you and I say I am right and you say you are right.

Who do you go to in the meantime?

You know the tax dollars are not going to its intended use which is to help the disability community and help those individuals because we have a problem, we are at a loggerhead, we are both right and we are not sure if there is anybody wrong.

And that is where the breakdown is in a lot of this accountabilities that people question, that people are asking for along with the appeals process there is nothing there to guide people to a resolution for these issues here.

If you are right and you are the federal government, the issuing agency and oversight, and I am right because I am from the state SILC, where is the middle ground going to take place.

That is something that needs to be addressed in future planning or future review of regulations because that is exactly what we are arguing here right now.

VICKI GOTTLICH: Thank you.

And we are all taking notes so we are going to add that to our list.

Sorry, before we go on, it has been noted that we should read our names and addresses, email addresses out loud.

So I can read my own, I am Jennifer Klocinski and my email address is my first name jennifer.klocinski@acl.hhs.gov so it goes from the specific to the general.

And Vicki.gottlich@acl.hhs.gov The slides were in the materials for IL-NET day two.

I know they are available in alternative formats at the registration desk.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, this is Dawn from the Iowa SILC and I just wanted to thank both of you for being here and for providing us with your draft, you know, your first draft of the proposal for SILC indicators.

And it is clear to me that you did look at what we did cause I was part of that group and you know I am really pleased with what I see.

I also wanted to make the comment that since this is the first time I am seeing it, I need a little time to process it.

And so I appreciate that we have your email addresses so that we can send you after we have some time to look and think about it and I am hoping some of us can get together and discuss and then pull something together to send to them as well.

But thank you.

VICKI GOTTLICH: And we can also [applause] thank you.

We can also set up a follow-up meeting so, because we are not in a closed commentary we can talk about this as long as we want and in many different forums that we want.

So if you want to combine comments and then we could set up another conversation and have a follow-up conversation, we are really happy to do that.

So thank you.