CRSPCC Called Meeting Friday, April 15, 2016 Location: Prospect Human Services
Minutes 1. Welcome and Introductions – minimal introductions were made due to time constraints.
2. Review of New Contract Template Developments - Todd Rich was involved in meeting yesterday about the new contract - Child & Family Services group is meeting today to discuss the new contract, not involving lawyers as they feel that is too confrontational - lots of conversation with ACDS and various levels of government, Ryan Geake from Scope has met with various individuals - all levels of government have heard that there are concerns with the new contract so they are well aware - Service Provider Council sent out information to all Calgary agencies including a worksheet to calculate the impact of ineligible expenses - letter went out to individuals, guardians and families from PDD but was very confusing to families, however at least now individuals and families are aware - John McGee Jr. (ACDS Lawyer) had to recuse himself due to a job with a new firm which has Government of Alberta clients, John McGee Sr. was able to step in - main issue is around financial liabilities and unfunded liabilities - at the meeting the Government representatives said they would take concerns back and try to resolve them - program staff don’t have an understanding of how agencies are funded and how we determine actual costs for a client, which is surprising since in this region we have templates - surprised to learn our admin & service delivery haven’t been negotiated in years - agreed that if the “employee” clause is causing problems it could be taken out but they insisted it was put in for agencies protection - agreed to take forward the concerns and come up with another draft of the contract in 2-2.5 weeks which is quite a short turn-around - Minister said “everything is on the table” with the exception of funding liability - 3 possible outcomes: draft agreement that we will sign; new version of the old contract template for a short time (ie: six months); or an extension, although the government doesn’t believe this would get through - question was asked if there was any discussion to coming up with something that could work in the short term while further work is done? - have agreed to add another “bucket” to the expenditures list so that agencies can continue to fund items not specifically listed, at least in the short term - need to get some mechanism that proves to Treasury what actual costs are - Government has never been convinced that they are getting correct numbers regarding funding - Government doesn’t understand the costs associated with supporting individuals and don’t understand how agencies spend money – they seem to feel we bill on actual administration and service delivery costs per client
3. Guest: John McGee (jr) – From Edmonton via Skype Background & History: - involved with PQR and ACDS through to last week – government highlighted that McGee’s firm, Field Law, does work with government, putting McGee in conflict - Code of Conduct is very clear and they were able to make that call, although it could have been handled via a “Privacy Screen” - John McGee (sr) was able to step in and take meeting as he has long history with PDD and agency contracts PQR Process - that the Government went to a tendering process was a bit of a surprise although they had stated in the past that they wanted one common contract for Human Services - tendering process came out with a series of forms which service providers had never seen before - especially frustrating to find that Ministers and Senior Ministers had no idea this was happening - the procurement process, by its very nature, cut service providers off from doing any negotiation: the choices were to participate or not, can’t ask for additional information, can’t ask for changes - a lot of language in the procurement package wasn’t clear - by participating and signing off with the procurement process you are tacitly agreeing to the documents including the Master Contract; if you didn’t like the Master Contract option of not participating Service Provider Contract - language in the agreement is so far off that simply reviewing it wasn’t feasible, it required a face-to-face meeting to discuss - from a legal perspective we were correct in our assumption that things were in a “mess” but Government didn’t have an explanation regarding why they went so far in the other direction - quite willing to negotiate as long as it remains on the form provided as they don’t want to “mess up” with the process given - new column will be added to list costs that don’t “fit” into the other three columns - have now reviewed ineligible expenses and have made changes, making many of them now eligible - discussion around grandfathering existing contracts as terminating them may cause undue liability to the Service Provider - new contract may be seen almost as an “employment contract” due to the rules applied for control (ie: staffing), under the new contract Human Services would have the right to tell an agency to terminate an employee of the Service Provider agency although it is not clear if Human Services would also be liable for employment costs around termination - Not known how agencies are impacted in the new contract in areas such as Insurance, OHS, Employment Standards, etc. - What is the liability of Service Providers in this new system? Under the current contract most agencies would be aware of liabilities/risks - with the new contract the Government has left the Service Provider total liability regardless of what happens which is a huge problem with this contract – Government is trying to pass off as much liability and risk as possible to the Service Provider - if the new contract stays the same the Government can effectively make Service Providers take on risks that they may not want to, the level of control that Government would have over Service Providers would increase the Service Providers risk & liability - in normal situation in contract negotiation it is “give and take”, whether you “win” or “lose”
is negotiable - as agencies should we still be “fighting the bigger fight:” Government doesn’t understand the people we serve - fundamental problem here is that the system is handled by bureaucrats getting information from senior staff and it all trickles down to create problems in providing service to an individual - until ACDS has provided “green light” that the contract is good, acceptable and meets needs, agencies should consider not signing it, the more agencies who can stick together is for the better - the new contract is now up to Government, we’ve given our feedback and now await their response, we know the new contract can’t be implemented by the end of June so need to wait and see what they come back with.
4. Procurement Advisory Table - Helen Cowie (DDRC), Melanie Mitra (Prospect) - Advisory Committee only, no control over outcomes - Committee gives input and Government makes decisions - told it was to look at what the future will look like in 24 months - 14-16 people on the committee, including Government, representing the whole of Human Services, not just PDD - other services are different from PDD and PDD members are already in a minority - sub-committees: roles & responsibilities; strategic procurement; true cost of delivering services; monitoring and evaluation - questioned why have a committee since everything is predetermined but were told that wasn’t true as everything is currently “on the table” - does seem to be a willingness to listen but no idea of how everything will look in the end - committee has nothing to do with the new contract, were not even initially aware that there was a new contract in the works - they do recognize that they could have communicated better - cross section of representatives from all the different providers across Human Services - majority of people have used a grant process and not a RFP process in the past - Melanie felt the committee should have included systems people and critical thinkers but it doesn’t seem that those were the people asked to the table, only two agencies have real experience with RFP process Terms of Reference - Human Services is evolving into a single ministry - How department looks at procurement and granting: - enhance accountability - look at new contracting processes - look at leading contract/procurement processes from other jurisdictions - platform for informal dialogue between government and a small representation of agencies - specific, time limited - advisory body, volunteer participation - Representative from the Contract Alignment Committee - Service Providers are represented from across Alberta, specifically those organizations that have demonstrated sector-wide collaboration - share expertise and lessons learned in procurement and other areas besides Human Services - progress to date: identified 5-6 steps that were felt to be important for new procurement and sub-committees were formed
- feel there is no reflection on what the sector truly needs - some of it is optics, ie: the community WAS consulted, but they do appear to actually want information as well - front conversations have not happened - trying to fix an already broken system - real disconnect between the needs of clients as defined by government and the reality of service provider operating environments - believe that the government thinks there are too many providers and would like to reduce that number - government doesn’t realize their lack of knowledge is a problem - as a group, how can the Service Provider Council provide value, information & support? - needs to be humanized and made real for the government people involved, can’t create policies in isolation without knowing the needs of the individuals 5. Next Steps and Timing - agencies are asked to put the new contract on their board agendas as it is a legal issue - letter has been drafted and sent to the Board Chairs of Service Provider Agencies with a request asking Boards to send letters to Government about this, ie: “As the governing body for this agency we have a concern with this proposed contract.” - suggest Board Members go to their MLAs - please copy Erin Waite, Service Provider Council Chair, on any correspondence - Human Services need to get the information that the sector is concerned - try to use all channels to table concerns prior to the May 11 Service Provider Council meeting, will show that work still needs to be done - agencies have a tendency to hear that it’s being worked on so we stop pushing and submitting concerns -call to help fund legal costs for ACDS, can be invoiced from ACDS for “special projects” if required - ACDS is asking for $7,000 per region - Erin will send out communication suggesting amounts for small and large agencies to consider for donation - Erin will edit the letter to go to the Government by Monday at noon - if anyone has concerns with any part of the letter, please let Erin know right away. 6. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon 7. Next Meeting: Wednesday, May 11, 2016; 9:30 am Prospect Human Services, 915-33 Street NE Upcoming Meetings:
June AGM – date, time & location TBA