Meeting Minutes Details
Commonwealth Neurotrauma Initiative
Return to Main Listing Details:
Advisory Board
Meeting Minutes
August 25, 1999 (Approval pending)
The Commonwealth Neurotrauma Initiative (CNI) Advisory Board met on Wednesday, August 25, 1999 in the small conference room of the Wythe Building in the Koger Center at 1604 Santa Rosa Road in Richmond, Virginia.
Members in attendance were John Ward, Phillip Brown, Jay McLaughlin, Clydette Powell, Faith Smith, and Patricia Tiernan. Kathy Hayfield attended as the designee of the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Rehabilitative Services. Also in attendance were Doug Harris, Virginia Department of Health, Patti Goodall, Department of Rehabilitative Services, and Ana Hernandez, Board Staff.
The meeting was called to order at 10:12 a.m. by Dr. John Ward, Chair.
No public comments were offered.
The minutes were approved. It was noted that the development of a list of terms with definitions to be included in both the regulations and the RFP recommended during the May 17 meeting were not included with the copies of the regulations and RFP distributed at the August 25 meeting. Terms to be defined include: community-based, integration, traumatic brain injury, traumatic spinal cord injury, neurotrauma, and institution.
The second NOIRA was filed in June of 1999 and published on June 23. The publication of the NOIRA opened a 30-day public comment period; no public comment was received. The final version of the proposed regulations must be presented by December 23.
The following observations and recommendations for changes to the proposed regulations were made during the discussion between the members of the Board:
It was recommended that the terms as discussed earlier be defined further and included as an attachment to each RFP to guide fund applicants.
It was recommended that the first sentence in the section “Purpose of chapter” on page two be deleted because the terms “prevention” and “improvement” come from the Code, which should be changed because it does not match how the law was later amended.
It was noted that the phrase “from time to time” on page four could be detrimental and it was recommended that a timeline be stated in the RFP. It was noted also that the following sentence in the proposed regulations sets boundaries.
It was noted that having the chair of the Board as chair of the reviewers committee as specified on page four risks undermining the independence of the reviewers committee. It was recommended that language clarifying that the chair of the reviewers committee, as chair of the Board, would not vote on individual applications should be inserted.
It was recommended that, on page four, the sentence beginning “Whenever reviewers or advisors sit as a committee…” be moved to the end of the paragraph.
It was noted that the grant reviewers to be selected by the Board as charged on page four should be the most qualified individuals, but “most qualified” will be difficult to prove and ensure.
It was recommended on page five that the sentence beginning “In reviewing applications for grant awards…” be expanded to, “In reviewing applications for both Option A and Option B grant awards…”
It was recommended that the priorities outlined for grant applications five through seven be re-ordered for clarity.
It was noted that it is not specified whether funding is intended for short-term (nonrecurring) or long-term grants and that page seven implies funding is intended for short-term projects but does not specifically say this. It was recommended that language be included in the RFPs stating that funding is not meant to be long-term.
A question was raised as to whether or not asking for the participation of small, women-owned, and minority businesses is constitutional and if it might discourage applications. Patti Goodall stated that this requirement follows the Procurement Act.
It was noted that asking applicants to provide missing or clarifying information as stipulated on page eight can lead to accusations of partiality if some applicants are asked for more information and some are not. Patti Goodall stated that this procedure follows the Procurement Act.
It was recommended that in part B. of page nine the word “satisfaction” be changed to “completion” to reflect that it is the Board that should be satisfied that the grantee has completed the timelines.
It was recommended that part C. of page nine be changed so that the deadline for publication is within 60 days of the date of the award and that the requirement that the grant awards be published in the Virginia Register be deleted.
A motion was passed to adopt all recommendations for changes to the draft regulations as agreed upon.
Faith Smith noted that, in accordance with the insurance coverages and limits required of grantees on page fourteen of the proposed RFP, her insurance company has stated that they cannot add the Commonwealth of Virginia to her worker’s compensation policy.
Doug Harris stated that the next step for the Board is to present the draft regulations to the State Board of Health at their next meeting in October.
Kathy Hayfield asked Doug Harris for an approximate timeline for the needed steps before final regulations are in place. Doug Harris stated that the deadlines always change and so a true timeline is impossible to predict, but that September of 2000 is a plausible date for effective regulations. Kathy then suggested that a representative of this Board present the draft regulations to the State Health Commissioner and follow up with a presentation to the State Board of Health at their October meeting.
The next meeting of the CNI Advisory Board will be December 15, 1999.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
Submitted by Ana Hernandez, Board Staff (804/662-7162 or hernanac@drs.state.va.us)
