[1:42] mute us again.

[2:11] All

[2:26] right. So, it is 5:15. This is the

[2:29] second meeting of the advisory committee

[2:31] on homelessness.

[2:34] Would it be beneficial for everyone?

[2:36] I'll admit it would be beneficial for me

[2:39] if to start we went around and just did

[2:42] names again as we start to learn one

[2:44] another.

[2:44] >> Yeah.

[2:45] >> And I think that's true. That's not bad

[2:47] because the people joining us

[2:49] >> don't know what I think we may have to

[2:51] do a couple times as members I mean

[2:53] committee members.

[2:56] >> So I'll kick us north. My name is

[2:58] Carolyn Leer. I am the city manager. I'm

[3:02] uh Pat

[3:08] » I'm Pat Keton

[3:12] Bundle, director of marketing for

[3:13] Hollywood Casino.

[3:14] >> Um Tony, psychiatrist locally.

[3:17] >> Uh Ben Treat, director of Bangor Public

[3:20] Library.

[3:20] >> Hey now, my name is Jason Goodri.

[3:23] >> I am Melissa Rhodess, director of

[3:25] property management.

[3:28] >> Howdy. I'm Tal Vasquez. My pronouns are

[3:30] they them and I am a community organizer

[3:32] in the banker.

[3:35] >> Any staff in the background?

[3:38] >> I am Bruce Hughes. I'm the homeless

[3:39] response coordinator for public health

[3:41] and community services. And

[3:43] >> I'm Robin Stanicki. I'm the community

[3:45] development officer.

[3:46] >> I'm Dave Berie.

[3:51] » Right. So the first item on the agenda

[3:56] is to elect a chair, vice chair, and

[4:00] secretary for this committee. Um the way

[4:05] we'll do it sort of informally but

[4:06] aligned with council normal procedures,

[4:09] which are to first take nominations um

[4:13] and then do committee vote. Um,

[4:18] if it's okay with everyone, we can start

[4:21] with the the chair. I mean, I said

[4:23] president. Did I say president?

[4:28] » The chair and the vice chair. Forgive my

[4:31] >> absolutely. Um, so the chair will

[4:34] generally

[4:36] um take over what I've done thus far in

[4:40] the conduct of meetings.

[4:44] myself.

[4:46] Um, also I'll be looking probably to

[4:49] meet with the chair ahead of each

[4:53] meeting to help set the agenda and then

[4:56] the vice chair generally will just step

[4:58] in when the chair isn't available. Um,

[5:01] the role of secretary has traditionally

[5:04] been sort of note minute taking. Uh,

[5:08] fortunately for you all, we generally

[5:10] allow YouTube to do that for us because

[5:14] we're being recorded and it's being

[5:16] saved. So, um, unless there's some

[5:20] failure that's a pretty easy non-comm,

[5:27] so I know we have to generate an interim

[5:30] report as well as a final thing.

[5:33] Is that requiring up to three people to

[5:35] write this or it's going to be supported

[5:37] to city?

[5:39] >> So I could see that going one of two

[5:41] ways. So the um

[5:44] I'll talk a bit about the RFP for a

[5:46] facilitator. I did include in that RFP

[5:51] um the possibility but not the

[5:52] commitment that we would also use the

[5:54] facilitator to draft. Y

[5:56] >> um if we did not choose to do that

[6:00] probably primarily because of cost. um

[6:02] city staff would support you with that.

[6:04] You wouldn't be expected to originate

[6:07] those drafts

[6:08] >> because I could see the three um

[6:11] officers kind of reviewing the cont

[6:14] identify the path of content and

[6:16] whatever it is and then they review

[6:18] content and then goes once they approve

[6:20] it goes committee review and then they

[6:23] tinker with it to final draft.

[6:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think given the amount of

[6:26] time you're already committing for for

[6:29] no compensation, it would be

[6:30] unreasonable to also expect you to draft

[6:34] >> because we need a librarian to really

[6:36] know how to [laughter]

[6:41] [clears throat]

[6:46] » I do enjoy writing. [laughter]

[6:54] So if if you'd like, we could start with

[6:57] nominations for chair. Yeah, it includes

[7:00] self-nomination if anyone would like to

[7:02] volunteer for that role.

[7:04] >> So can I sort of like dramatically

[7:06] nominate someone else like three?

[7:09] >> Absolutely.

[7:10] >> I nominate Pat Healey.

[7:12] >> Okay. Had to try.

[7:17] » I nominate Alvin.

[7:20] Yeah, I will second that.

[7:22] >> Okay. Sorry.

[7:26] >> It's because we like to like

[7:29] that could go either way.

[7:30] >> No, no.

[7:31] >> Also know you're chairing the parking

[7:33] committee, too. I am respect.

[7:41] » Do we have any other nominations that

[7:44] anyone would like? I would say Jason,

[7:49] you know, but I don't know what you want

[7:50] to do. I feel weird put stuff like that,

[7:53] you know, like the only

[7:55] >> I enjoyed it a little bit when I

[7:58] >> transportation system and again

[8:02] >> that would be the only issue that I have

[8:04] at this time is that

[8:08] >> I think I think once we identify chair

[8:11] as the vice chair still be complimentary

[8:13] to that person. So I think you know in

[8:15] terms of that piece I think because it's

[8:18] supposed to support each other. So

[8:21] >> that I'm good with

[8:22] >> Jay would you be able to do any of this

[8:25] chair work remotely? Um that's a

[8:28] question that I wouldn't know

[8:31] that

[8:32] >> can we discourse about that now? How do

[8:33] people feel about that?

[8:34] >> Please ask.

[8:36] Yeah, I mean I would say just from an

[8:38] operational standpoint, it's generally

[8:41] more efficient if the chair is able to

[8:43] be in the room. Like obviously

[8:44] extenduating circumstances, I think it's

[8:47] totally fine. Um but I think um and this

[8:51] is by no means me stumping for myself

[8:52] because I had other names in my head but

[8:54] by but myself, but uh I I do think that for a chair to be fully effective,

[8:59] they it's best if they can be in the

[9:01] room as often as possible. The only time

[9:03] I've seen that work a remote is when

[9:05] everybody's remote. Exactly. Continuous

[9:07] remote. That's the only way to do it.

[9:09] But um but if you have a hybrid like

[9:11] this really have to happen in person. So

[9:14] >> So Alton, what's your capacity like? Do

[9:15] you want to do this?

[9:17] >> I mean I certainly can. Um I personally

[9:20] think that um you know we have some

[9:23] other folks that I would have nominated

[9:25] honestly. Um Dr. Tony and Amy. Um, you

[9:30] guys are both subject matter experts and

[9:32] well respected in the community and and

[9:34] I see a lot of value in the chairperson

[9:36] holding those qualifications.

[9:38] Um, by no means do I put that on to

[9:43] either of you. Um, but certainly should

[9:46] I be nominated. I think it would be

[9:49] awesome if one of you would be vice

[9:51] chair to help provide to your point that

[9:54] complimentary knowledge. um I think it's

[9:57] important for that balance and and where

[9:59] I'm not coming from a perspective of

[10:03] um subject matter expertise.

[10:07] There is some drawbacks to that.

[10:09] >> I also think there's benefit to it.

[10:10] >> Agreed.

[10:11] >> Because I think there is a way to be

[10:13] sometimes more neutral.

[10:15] Um, and

[10:18] so I mean I personally don't think

[10:21] there's any downside to not necessarily

[10:24] being a subject matter expert as a

[10:26] chair. You've been a chair of other

[10:27] committees. So you kind of understand

[10:29] like the structure that works well and

[10:32] flows that work well and navigating kind

[10:34] of

[10:36] like how does a meeting usually go? Like

[10:38] I don't have any of that experience. So

[10:41] I would support that. um having you as chair and then vice chair certainly

[10:47] being whomever we decide as a as a team

[10:50] would be a good support

[10:57] » I mean perspective as well too because I

[11:01] think while we [clears throat] all you

[11:03] know this committee and stuff

[11:07] um I think because you not in it um like

[11:11] deep so to speak I think it does give a

[11:13] perspective perspective that when you

[11:15] need to you know see something I think

[11:18] and that's where we're supposed to give

[11:19] that

[11:20] >> feedback so

[11:22] >> I think I suppose we could also use a

[11:24] format like you chair or a period and

[11:31] that would give a chance for like other

[11:32] parties maybe like J or I sort of see um

[11:36] what your experience has been like from

[11:38] your other committees and then maybe we

[11:41] could step in to help Um, is there a

[11:44] term on is chair annual? Is chair

[11:46] >> say for the whole duration of one year

[11:48] is or is it your your entire term? I

[11:51] don't different boards have different

[11:53] right now. We only got we only got one

[11:54] year term

[11:56] >> actually don't think the ordinance

[11:58] specifies a term. Um I would revert to

[12:02] >> by social security

[12:05] >> people here have been appointed to

[12:06] different terms. Annually that's what I

[12:08] thought. Yeah. So therefore if it's

[12:10] annually next year

[12:12] >> um we we you know you may change over

[12:17] the one thing down the road that you may

[12:20] want to consider is changing that to

[12:22] split the if the plans continue beyond

[12:25] that one year is to maybe split it in a

[12:27] way that you don't lose all the brain

[12:29] trust in one time. Well, so so the terms

[12:31] themselves are three years staggered.

[12:34] Some so some of us I believe have the

[12:37] full three, some of us are on two and

[12:39] some of us are on through the to

[12:43] >> um but I just didn't know about the

[12:44] chairperson that was

[12:47] >> really to be at least one one year. I

[12:50] mean, you can't have it for six months

[12:51] at a time. Now, this group, especially,

[12:58] » so [clears throat] is you said you would

[13:00] nominate.

[13:01] >> What's that?

[13:02] >> You said you would nominate

[13:04] Amy.

[13:06] >> I would You may decline.

[13:08] >> I may politely decline. Um,

[13:11] >> yes.

[13:12] >> Yeah. As you can see, even me just like

[13:15] screaming in here at 5:15, that's like a

[13:17] typical day in the life of a clinician.

[13:20] You I mean, you get it. You never know.

[13:22] >> I'm I'm open to being if you do this,

[13:23] I'm open to live stream.

[13:26] >> Yeah.

[13:27] So, I think that

[13:29] >> No, no, no. Just Yeah, just discuss it.

[13:32] But yeah, but I think if you know, we

[13:34] should just take the ball and see.

[13:37] >> So, somebody has to put that in.

[13:39] >> Oh, do. So motion and a second and then

[13:43] we'll call.

[13:44] >> Okay. Second.

[13:47] >> Um

[13:50] » Pat hat.

[13:51] >> Yes.

[13:58] >> J. The motion is for you.

[14:02] >> Lee.

[14:03] >> Melissa.

[14:04] >> That's fine. I'll answer.

[14:06] >> Teal.

[14:07] >> Yes.

[14:07] >> Amy.

[14:08] >> Yes.

[14:08] >> All right. is a unanimous 8 to zero.

[14:13] >> Now, do you want to take us over for the

[14:15] >> I can certainly give it a shot. Um, so

[14:18] obviously next is is vice chair. Um, so

[14:22] we'll open it up for discussion. Does

[14:24] anyone have strong feelings about who

[14:27] should be nominated vice chair?

[14:29] >> I like I would say Jason. I know Jason's

[14:32] been in this sort a lot. Uh, the only

[14:33] reason why I didn't say you is because I

[14:35] know that you're overworked. Hey Jason,

[14:37] I know I've seen you about I know what

[14:39] you're doing

[14:40] >> and you have the time. I've seen your posts. I know what's up, man. So,

[14:45] >> I'm going to nominate Jason.

[14:49] » Anybody else have strong feelings?

[14:53] >> Nominate.

[14:58] » So, should we do motions or

[15:00] >> So, we'll need motions and second.

[15:03] >> Okay. Um I introduce a motion to appoint

[15:06] Jay um as the vice chair.

[15:12] So we'll do a vote. Start to my left.

[15:16] I'll say yes.

[15:18] >> Yes.

[15:21] >> No.

[15:24] >> Yes.

[15:27] >> Is that a yes?

[15:28] >> Sorry. [laughter]

[15:33] go for it.

[15:34] >> I think I will vote yes. Um I think it

[15:38] sounded like it was going to go either

[15:39] way or go that way either.

[15:45] So then we have secretary um which as

[15:48] Caroline mentioned earlier is not the

[15:50] heaviest of lifts um because YouTube

[15:52] does the bulk of the work. Um everyone's

[15:56] looking at you Ben.

[15:56] >> Yeah, I know.

[15:59] >> It's just something about being a

[16:00] librarian. except for

[16:04] >> it imparts trust.

[16:07] [clears throat and laughter]

[16:08] >> Um, so

[16:09] >> I've seen the movie too.

[16:12] >> The secretary or the librarian?

[16:14] >> The librarian.

[16:15] >> Yeah. Um, uh, so basically it would just

[16:18] be like if if tech failed then I would

[16:21] need to record motions and

[16:24] >> yeah, I'm happy to do that.

[16:26] >> Does anyone else have any nominations?

[16:32] That's doubling down on the

[16:34] >> Seeing no more nominations, we will put

[16:36] it to vote.

[16:38] >> Do you need a second?

[16:40] >> Second.

[16:42] >> Oh, yes.

[16:45] >> Yes.

[16:51] >> Just got volunteer.

[16:53] >> Take better notes. [laughter]

[16:55] [clears throat]

[16:57] >> Right. So with that, we have elected our

[16:59] chair, our vice chair, and our

[17:01] secretary. And the next item on the

[17:04] agenda is the update on facilitator

[17:06] selection RFP. So I will hand that back

[17:08] to Karen.

[17:10] >> So um we posted an RFP on the 16th,

[17:16] which was lightning speed in city

[17:19] business. [laughter] Um and that RFP was

[17:23] soliciting um a facilitator for this

[17:27] work. As I mentioned, it also um

[17:30] included the possibility of drafting

[17:33] assistance.

[17:35] Um it closes on the 29th.

[17:41] We did get one question from a potential

[17:45] bidder.

[17:47] It was a professor from Texas that was

[17:51] interested and his question was

[17:54] two-part. It was would we be interested

[17:58] in a facilitator participating remotely

[18:03] for our meetings or would we be

[18:06] interested in a um facilitator who was

[18:11] only able to participate twice. So, we

[18:15] would only have them for two instances,

[18:19] perhaps for longer meetings. Um, and I

[18:23] will say that I did take the liberty to

[18:26] say I didn't think that that was going

[18:28] to be the most effective way

[18:30] [clears throat] for the facilitator to

[18:32] participate. Um, I hope you will forgive

[18:35] me.

[18:37] >> And on both accords or just on the two

[18:40] visits? I I said no on both that I

[18:43] didn't think that it would be effective.

[18:45] Um

[18:48] >> yeah,

[18:50] >> that's actually going to put a lot of

[18:51] work on it.

[18:53] >> For sure. Yeah.

[18:56] >> But it sounds like we still have time

[18:57] for other biders.

[18:59] >> Correct. Yeah. And that was just there

[19:00] their um biders had until I believe

[19:03] Wednesday of this week to submit

[19:06] questions. And so we only got

[19:08] >> noting they're just asking questions.

[19:09] They were just answering questions.

[19:10] Yeah.

[19:12] >> But I'm going to do this as

[19:14] >> um and I don't know, they don't tell me

[19:16] whether we've gotten any yet. Um

[19:19] >> and how long do you open that window

[19:21] open? [snorts]

[19:22] >> Um so it was posted the 16th, closes the

[19:26] 19th. So um two weeks, which you know,

[19:29] if we don't get the types of responses,

[19:31] um we're interested in

[19:33] >> the 19th or the 29th.

[19:34] >> 29th.

[19:36] >> Yeah.

[19:36] >> Um we can open it back up. you know, but

[19:40] um I figured we'd start with a really

[19:42] brief period in hopes that we can get

[19:44] someone in here really quickly to help

[19:46] facilitate.

[19:48] >> Um and so my hope is because those the RFP process will be closed this week

[19:56] that by our next meeting I'll at least

[19:59] have some recommendations if not a

[20:02] selection. Um depending, you know, I

[20:05] think it kind of depends on what we get.

[20:07] um whether we just want to I think you

[20:09] sort of authorized me to sort of make

[20:11] the decision. If it's close and there's

[20:13] some really good candidates, I may ask

[20:15] for your input. Um

[20:18] we have that situation where we have

[20:20] lots of really wonderful candidates to

[20:22] choose from.

[20:24] >> Awesome. Any other on the RFP?

[20:26] >> Does anybody have suggestions that city

[20:28] could report in that?

[20:32] >> There was a great facilitator that the

[20:35] state used for

[20:37] >> [clears throat]

[20:37] >> strategic action plan around uh the HIV

[20:41] response that I could get the name of

[20:44] but I also think they're far away so I

[20:47] don't think I think it would be another

[20:49] situation where it be like one or two

[20:52] >> meetings they traveled all over the

[20:54] country but if I mean if we get to the

[20:57] end of the twoe period and there's just

[20:59] like nothing and we want to extend it I

[21:01] can always check

[21:02] >> how many hours we save

[21:05] >> so We estimated that um at minimum it

[21:10] would be the twohour participating in

[21:12] the meetings plus we explained work to

[21:15] repair to prepare [clears throat]

[21:16] um but we didn't sort of set an

[21:19] expectation on how many hours and what

[21:21] we asked for was an hourly rate so

[21:23] they're not being asked to bid you know

[21:25] $10,000 it's you know my hourly rate is

[21:28] x and then

[21:30] >> I mean if we don't get any candidates we

[21:32] can also maybe revisit whether or not we

[21:34] think trying somebody who is remote just

[21:38] to at least

[21:39] >> have that person in the room. Yeah. If

[21:41] nobody comes through in the RFP process,

[21:43] maybe that's a conversation we have at

[21:45] future meeting.

[21:45] >> The other thing also is by the time we

[21:47] make that decision to have consider that I'm guessing put us two meetings

[21:53] into it.

[21:54] >> So we would also have a good idea of

[21:56] momentum too.

[21:57] >> Yeah. So we can say oh wow we may not

[22:00] eat one because the fact that we

[22:01] actually

[22:04] say let's back that

[22:08] » but like I said it's the important thing

[22:10] is to get to work as quickly as possible

[22:13] because that's I think city wants to

[22:16] know people want it we want

[22:20] >> I think the University of Maine system

[22:22] um and their uh has in the like the

[22:26] chancellor's office some sort of

[22:27] function that trains facilitators. Um,

[22:31] so they may have like a list of people

[22:33] they've trained they can send it out to.

[22:36] >> I'll see if I can find a contact there

[22:38] and and forward it to you. Sure. Is it

[22:40] appropriate to

[22:41] >> Yeah. And I'll say I mean staff has our

[22:44] staff has worked with facilitators in

[22:47] various professional functions and you

[22:49] know they've freely forwarded those the

[22:51] RFP along to to them. I reached out to

[22:54] someone in New Brunswick who just said

[22:57] it was too far. Um, so I think you know

[23:01] to the extent we know people locally who

[23:03] are willing to do the work that would be

[23:04] wonderful.

[23:05] >> Information is like 8 to 10 years old.

[23:07] So I may have completely reorganized but

[23:10] you know

[23:16] » any other comment on

[23:18] facilitator.

[23:22] » Seeing none next uh item on the agenda

[23:25] is to discuss public comment structure

[23:27] and schedule. Um

[23:30] so bullet A is public input email. So

[23:34] you want to start with the email? Sure.

[23:37] So, um, staff have created an email that

[23:41] we can give to the public to receive

[23:45] emailed public input. It is

[23:48] homelessness. Committee at Bangormain

[23:53] >> homelessness.

[23:55] >> Y,

[23:59] » Bangor maine. Maine fully spelled

[24:02] out.gov.

[24:05] Is it up and running yet?

[24:06] >> It is. Yeah. Um and so myself and two

[24:11] members of my support staff have access

[24:14] to that. Okay.

[24:15] >> And so our plan will be to periodically

[24:18] provide you in your packet the input

[24:21] that we've received

[24:22] >> to avoid you getting

[24:25] emails after emails to your personal

[24:27] email. Um, and my question to you is,

[24:32] and I wanted to ask you before we just

[24:34] did this, are you okay with me asking

[24:38] city staff to do some public outreach on

[24:42] your behalf to, you know, post to social

[24:44] media and put out a press release saying

[24:47] this is a place that you can go to

[24:48] provide the community.

[24:50] >> Okay. My understanding from the previous

[24:52] meeting is that the email would be

[24:55] established and posted to socials in the

[24:57] interim and because that that seemed to

[25:01] be how the

[25:03] proposition of the email was phrased is

[25:05] this way to collect the public input

[25:08] while we didn't have a format. So, I'm

[25:11] all for it.

[25:11] >> Okay.

[25:15] » I did have a question about the city's

[25:17] agenda as well. Um, and maybe it's just

[25:21] another misunderstanding of mine, but I

[25:23] thought that we would have some of the

[25:26] research that we requested just later.

[25:30] >> It's in the agenda.

[25:34] » So, public input email, city staff, make

[25:38] sure everyone is on the same page. city

[25:39] staff is going to promote that, put it

[25:41] out in a press release, put it out to

[25:43] social and we're all in agreement with

[25:45] that. It's but one one thing also is

[25:47] it'll be helpful if some of the feedback

[25:51] that goes council people has brought it

[25:54] that way too because people may email

[25:55] specifically let's say Angela Walker

[25:57] about something

[25:58] >> that they be encouraged to centralize

[26:01] the same way rather shooting a separate

[26:03] email to all that.

[26:06] >> Okay. Absolutely. And I can I think

[26:08] that's actually a good point. There may

[26:10] be instances um generally the public

[26:13] emails council

[26:15] >> collectively and I also get a copy of

[26:17] that but if the public emails a

[26:19] counselor directly I don't get a copy of

[26:22] that.

[26:22] >> Y

[26:23] >> which means that they may be getting

[26:24] input that they may want to pass along

[26:26] to you and I will communicate to them

[26:28] >> and we don't want but only think that we

[26:30] dismiss them because we never got it.

[26:32] So, I think that we know that that's the

[26:34] way to get to.

[26:37] >> So, that's a good segue. I'm gonna go a

[26:39] little off agenda here. Do we have a

[26:43] council representative at this time?

[26:46] >> We have not had a liaison assigned yet.

[26:51] >> We haven't.

[26:53] >> So, um

[26:54] >> these are questions.

[26:55] >> Sorry. And I heard Tony's question.

[26:58] Yeah.

[26:59] >> Um,

[27:01] yes, I believe that. I mean, I I'm not

[27:04] sure if the ordinance actually directs

[27:05] it or not. It does. So, yeah, the

[27:07] council chair should assign a liaison.

[27:11] We've chatted about it. She has not yet

[27:13] made that assignment. So, I will take

[27:15] that as a takeaway for my next check-in

[27:17] with council chair hos to assign the

[27:20] liaison.

[27:21] >> I think it's important to to your point

[27:24] earlier, Tony, about they may get

[27:25] messages and things like that. That's

[27:27] the whole point of having that liaison

[27:29] here is to be able to help articulate

[27:30] those things,

[27:31] >> but also to be able to articulate back

[27:33] to council as a whole the things that we

[27:35] are discussing. So,

[27:37] >> I think that would just be a good thing

[27:38] to generally educate the council on is

[27:40] that we have this email now. And so if

[27:42] people are getting concerns from

[27:44] constituents, you know, maybe when

[27:46] you're responding to them, maybe the top

[27:48] uh level comment that you make should be

[27:52] um hey, we've got the email um you know,

[27:56] not to dismiss your point, but it might

[27:58] be

[27:59] more adequately received if it comes

[28:01] through this email.

[28:04] >> So we don't have an ETA of when they're

[28:06] going to assign.

[28:07] I will uh prompt that for [laughter]

[28:10] that. Um,

[28:13] and if I might, would you like us to

[28:16] craft a response acknowledging these

[28:20] emails on your behalf? And would you

[28:23] like to review that before we start

[28:26] using it?

[28:28] >> Like a canned response.

[28:29] >> Yeah. like acknowledging that they've

[28:31] received the emails you so that so that

[28:34] people who email in under know that it's

[28:36] been received

[28:37] >> I don't think it just went to a black

[28:38] hole a good idea

[28:39] >> I think absolutely you guys should and I

[28:42] mean I'm sure you do it for other

[28:44] >> yes yes

[28:44] >> email addresses so I don't think we need

[28:46] to review it

[28:47] >> okay

[28:48] >> unless somebody feels strongly otherwise

[28:54] » so that was the email however the first

[28:57] primary bullet point was actually and

[28:59] started there just to make this clean um

[29:02] public comment structure and schedule.

[29:04] So we had talked at our last meeting

[29:05] about having um public forums if you

[29:08] will for for folks to come in and share

[29:10] their thoughts. Um does anyone have

[29:13] feelings strong or otherwise on what

[29:16] that cadence looks like?

[29:19] >> You talked about having either a

[29:20] separate forum time or 20 minutes before

[29:22] each meeting. Um would be to be

[29:25] >> I think we tabled the 20 minutes. Yeah,

[29:27] I think 20 minutes.

[29:29] I just not enough time.

[29:30] >> I am in support of a independent forum

[29:35] that is purely for um collecting

[29:38] feedback and you know sort of feeling

[29:41] out the community and what their

[29:43] feelings on a the issue is and b um the

[29:48] advisory. Um, [clears throat]

[29:50] >> there's a part that wants to have like

[29:52] two separate meetings, one like soon to

[29:55] get some public feedback and another one

[29:57] halfway through just to see where just

[29:59] guess give us a gauge of the

[30:01] temperature, how they receiving it, how

[30:03] they how they can hear because they're

[30:05] hearing what we're doing anyway. So, um,

[30:08] because that would be a nice way and

[30:10] then you know you be compliment with the

[30:12] middle part the email stuff. So I think

[30:15] that'll give chance to do the one thing

[30:17] though is we do this especially if we do

[30:20] a whole meeting we do have to put some

[30:22] structure in because I I honestly I

[30:25] worry this because it's so people so

[30:28] passionate about this topic it's going

[30:29] to turn into unfortunate school that you

[30:32] don't want to have almost like nothing

[30:34] gets done other than people just really

[30:36] taking anger out at each other or

[30:38] whatever. So you we got a way to support

[30:40] their feedback but yet also giving

[30:43] people some opportunities through the

[30:45] feedback.

[30:47] So what are what are the rules on that

[30:49] front when it comes to public comment?

[30:51] Are are we as a committee allowed to say

[30:55] everyone gets three minuteed? I'm just

[30:57] throwing them right.

[30:58] >> Yeah. Yeah. Do you guys have structure?

[31:00] >> So our typical structure

[31:02] >> two minutes

[31:03] >> three. So, three minutes. And it would

[31:05] also be appropriate if you were

[31:07] interested to set a maximum duration.

[31:10] So, for example, for a city council

[31:11] meeting, um they'll do no more than an

[31:14] hour.

[31:15] >> If you're holding a meeting specifically

[31:16] for public input, maybe you want to do

[31:18] more than an hour. Um but yeah, it would

[31:21] be certainly within your um purview to

[31:24] set parameters and then we could

[31:26] communicate that proactively as part of

[31:28] the notification so people's

[31:30] expectations aren't are met. um they

[31:32] don't come in thinking they're going to

[31:33] have 15 minutes and they only have three

[31:36] >> and of course I'm guessing there would

[31:37] be guidelines about like nothing

[31:39] derogatory.

[31:40] Now the other thing too is would there

[31:42] be um the chair have the authority to

[31:45] say um okay appreciate your time but

[31:48] that has nothing to do with the homeless

[31:49] community.

[31:50] >> Yes. So, we have a whole um public

[31:52] comment policy and we would just deem if

[31:56] you if you wanted to follow that policy,

[31:57] we would deem that that policy would

[31:59] apply and that would give the chair the

[32:00] authority if you come in and start

[32:02] talking about something completely

[32:03] unrelated or um

[32:07] >> use obscene language.

[32:09] >> Just going to ask if we could have that

[32:10] policy distributed to our emails,

[32:12] >> at least mine.

[32:15] >> That would be for us to take a look at

[32:19] >> that. I mean that way it doesn't take up

[32:21] actual like advisory time but we can

[32:24] just pour over it and we find anything

[32:28] truly heinous in there we can be like

[32:30] that.

[32:32] >> I suspect there won't be anything like

[32:33] that.

[32:34] >> You never know.

[32:35] >> I know the city of you never know.

[32:39] >> Okay. So it sounds like we are pretty

[32:41] well in agreement that we want a

[32:43] separate meeting. Um, so talking about

[32:46] cadence, um, and I know you'd mentioned

[32:48] maybe one and then six months, but as

[32:50] far as that first one goes,

[32:53] respecting everyone's time as we talked

[32:55] about a little bit earlier, do we think

[32:57] it makes sense to use our next what

[33:00] would be our next scheduled committee

[33:02] meeting to hold the public public forum?

[33:04] Should we go two in the road or should

[33:06] it be a completely separate

[33:08] time? What are people's thoughts? if we

[33:11] can avoid a completely separate time. Um

[33:13] I know that when I was asking um when

[33:16] the position was offered and we were

[33:19] talking one of the questions I had was

[33:21] like how frequently are we expecting the

[33:24] committee to meet. It was not the

[33:26] frequency that we're meeting now. It was

[33:27] significantly less. Um so I can tell you

[33:31] I can't accommodate certainly more than

[33:33] what we're doing now. Um,

[33:36] so I would

[33:39] that it not be an additional meeting.

[33:42] >> I think also especially again summer

[33:45] looks like I'll be around for that. And

[33:47] I think

[33:50] I'm I'm hoping that because it's this

[33:52] early infancy, we're trying to get all

[33:54] the logistics, get some data

[33:57] that we can start diving up that we

[34:00] don't need two weeks to do stuff. We

[34:03] should have a touch base. Maybe maybe

[34:05] the exact group every two weeks with

[34:07] some key. Hey, this week I may need Amy

[34:09] to come in or something like that. This

[34:10] week you know I may need you know

[34:12] someone else to come in. So I think that

[34:14] I could see that happening but right now

[34:16] at least with summer I wouldn't do a

[34:17] separate meeting just because I don't

[34:18] think any

[34:21] >> I know I support that totally Tony

[34:24] because

[34:26] again like if I'm not at work I have

[34:28] three kids that I'm taking care of and

[34:30] when I am at work for instance today in

[34:33] a 4-hour period I saw 17 patients

[34:36] because I have walk-in hours too. So,

[34:39] um, yeah, the less frequent the easier

[34:43] it is for me to make sure that I can get

[34:44] here and get here on time and devote.

[34:50] So Amy and other advisory members, um,

[34:53] how do you feel about like a format

[34:55] where there are some of us who are sort

[34:59] of like designated members of a forum

[35:02] group who attend like this

[35:06] forum meeting that would not be part of

[35:08] the regular schedule and

[35:10] >> like a public comment?

[35:12] >> Yeah, like a public comment.

[35:14] >> Yeah. And then that information would

[35:16] just be consolidated in the packet for

[35:17] you to review.

[35:20] >> How often say how often is that going to

[35:22] happen?

[35:23] >> What I I would want to know if Amy is,

[35:27] you know, is okay with it.

[35:29] >> Yeah. Like if what you're asking is if

[35:31] we were to have a separate meeting

[35:32] differently from our regular scheduled

[35:34] Tuesday meetings, is it okay if some of

[35:36] us are not able to attend? I'm fine with

[35:38] that. Um as long as the group is fine

[35:42] with that. I don't know

[35:42] >> I I just don't I mean my my my thought

[35:46] is I wish I was hoping that that would

[35:48] be few because really it should be the

[35:51] group entire group listens to comment

[35:53] that's just

[35:54] >> that's very

[35:55] >> so one

[35:58] yeah

[35:58] >> but I don't want I don't see

[36:01] >> um see the plus side in terms of us half

[36:05] the group missing the comments

[36:07] >> and reading it because you know because

[36:09] I'm guessing to some degree we can even

[36:10] ask questions from you someone making

[36:12] comments and hey, can you clarify what

[36:14] that means? I can't get that through

[36:16] being a transfer.

[36:16] >> That's true.

[36:17] >> Yep. I think that's a very that's a fair

[36:19] and valid point. So, I would say if if

[36:22] we think everyone should be there, which

[36:24] I'm also totally fine with. Um I would

[36:26] just personally ask that it be on a

[36:28] Tuesday.

[36:29] >> And this doesn't stop chair any of us at

[36:32] some point say, hey, you know what? We

[36:34] need a special meeting. Just ask

[36:35] specifically about this. Yep. And then

[36:37] people can come to give that feedback

[36:39] whether that's priority but it's just

[36:41] for the general piece because you know

[36:45] it's also it's helpful comments we need

[36:48] to get the work done. So the comments

[36:50] going to give us some guidance where it

[36:51] start to work and then you know we hope

[36:53] that they won't do what they put forth

[36:56] and again you know we may not hit every

[36:58] comment we may not hear as you said so

[37:03] at least give us a road map but we won't

[37:05] make every

[37:09] one thing we can walk away

[37:10] >> as much as we can

[37:14] » I think to suggest we do this like in

[37:16] two weeks like that we just

[37:19] Y

[37:20] >> get in. Let's do that meeting.

[37:23] >> Especially knowing that if if the hope

[37:24] is to get a facilitator, we're not going

[37:27] to have one here in two weeks. So, we

[37:28] might as well be efficient with their

[37:30] time and utilize that

[37:32] >> to get public on

[37:35] >> I was just say, do we think putting a

[37:38] timeline on that like

[37:40] >> hour like you were saying? I feel like

[37:42] you normally if we're here two hours

[37:44] like I feel like two hours a long time

[37:46] to you know

[37:50] » but that's just

[37:51] >> and I think it depends too on the the

[37:53] cadence right where this is the first

[37:55] one we may want to have that extra time

[37:58] um I mean just because that this is

[38:00] going to be the one where the most

[38:02] people will likely show up

[38:03] >> and [clears throat] you can also

[38:04] encourage people for in interest of time

[38:06] what they're you know whatever they can

[38:08] submit their comments using this get it

[38:10] out you know and then we And then that

[38:12] takes it may not be in a whole hour and

[38:14] a half, two hours, I don't know. So,

[38:15] >> well, I mean, if only 10 people show up.

[38:17] >> Yeah,

[38:18] >> it might be shorter. Um, but I think

[38:21] from a from a scheduling, just being

[38:25] optimistic. Come on. [laughter] Um,

[38:28] >> from a from a like public perception um

[38:32] public need place, I think having that

[38:34] two hours probably make at least for the

[38:37] first one. Um, but that would bring me

[38:40] back to do we think that the next

[38:42] scheduled meeting is the right time and

[38:44] is that enough time for city to get word

[38:46] out and feel like we can make sure

[38:48] people know.

[38:49] >> So that's something that I have a lot of

[38:51] strong feelings about. I feel like if we

[38:53] just do one sort of introductory public

[38:56] comment meeting, we are at risk of just

[39:00] soliciting

[39:02] the most tokenistic, most accessible

[39:05] opinions because people who might have

[39:09] scheduling issues, people like Amy who

[39:11] have children at home in a full-time job

[39:13] are not going to be able to attend that

[39:15] one meeting that's in our regular

[39:17] format. you know, we're not we're we're

[39:19] at risk of not capturing a

[39:23] wide enough or, you know, heartfelt

[39:27] enough

[39:30] group of public comment. And

[39:32] >> I think that's the value of the email,

[39:34] too.

[39:36] >> But I I also understand majority of the

[39:40] folks that I'm caring for don't have

[39:41] easy email access or reliable email

[39:43] access. And there's a fair amount of

[39:45] work that goes into needing to get to a

[39:46] computer and get someone's computer and

[39:48] then checking the computer and all the

[39:50] things. So, but I think that's a I think

[39:52] that's a fair point.

[39:54] >> The other thing else is use this first

[39:55] meeting, get a gauge what it's like

[39:57] before we decide if I know.

[39:59] >> I I'll agree with that.

[40:01] >> Yeah, because that way you can see,

[40:02] okay, only one person show up and okay,

[40:04] then we deal with that. But if we had

[40:06] got a like, you know, line packed up

[40:08] here, okay, we do need to have something

[40:09] separate

[40:10] >> on top of that.

[40:11] >> I agree with that, you know.

[40:12] >> Yeah.

[40:14] Um the other thing I'll say and I don't

[40:16] think we need to workshop this

[40:19] uh to completion here is the committee

[40:22] may want to do some amount of meeting

[40:24] people where they are and getting

[40:26] comment. Um

[40:28] >> and so we don't have to do all of the

[40:30] public comment gathering here. We may

[40:32] want to reach out to maybe some

[40:34] stakeholders who are interested in

[40:35] posting maybe not all nine of you

[40:37] because that might be overwhelming but

[40:40] posting a contingency.

[40:42] We do have some outreach experts here.

[40:45] >> I fully support I fully support going

[40:48] and meeting people where they are.

[40:49] Obviously, it's my pretty much my entire

[40:52] job.

[40:53] >> Um so yeah, I think that's a great idea.

[40:56] >> I had somebody reach out about a meeting

[40:58] that happens every second Monday, a

[41:00] leadership committee. Um uh

[41:04] Jesse Arshbalt is the person who reached

[41:07] out. And so I I uh that that might be a

[41:10] good opportunity for a group of four of

[41:13] us, like whatever it takes to not be a

[41:14] public meeting that we didn't advertise,

[41:17] right? You know, uh so that we're not

[41:19] violating any laws. Um uh so like three

[41:23] or four of us could go to a meeting like

[41:25] that and hear what folks have to say. Um

[41:28] I'd be happy to reach out to her

[41:30] >> that the only one

[41:33] >> was Monday. The one thing I would do

[41:35] then you can just behind the scenes is

[41:37] like set up some guidelines what we're

[41:38] going to do if you're going to send me

[41:40] and him out. What are things that we

[41:42] could do or shouldn't do out there

[41:43] because we don't have the group to back

[41:45] us up. So yeah,

[41:47] >> so he can set up some guidelines. Hey,

[41:49] we only listen feedback. We're not

[41:50] giving you opinions about anything that

[41:55] >> I literally have that thing that the

[41:57] city solicitor told us to say up on my

[42:00] computer screen.

[42:06] like the fear of God

[42:09] >> that will please the city solicitor

[42:12] >> and it's on record

[42:15] too

[42:17] solic

[42:24] » so it sounds like uh we're in near

[42:28] agreement that the next meeting should

[42:31] be a public comment meeting. Is that

[42:32] >> Yes.

[42:33] >> accurate?

[42:34] >> We need a motion to make that happen or

[42:35] [clears throat] is that a I don't think

[42:37] so. But

[42:37] >> can we bundle the one hour time frame in

[42:39] that motion?

[42:40] >> So we we're thinking of limiting it to

[42:42] one hour or are we thinking going our

[42:44] schedule two hours?

[42:47] >> I'm okay with two if

[42:49] >> we could do.

[42:50] >> No, you go too. I

[42:53] >> was going to say we could do split

[42:54] difference. Do one hour of comment and

[42:55] then one hour of discussion of comment.

[42:59] I'll do an hour half comment 30 minutes.

[43:01] >> Sure. That's perfect.

[43:02] >> Love it.

[43:04] >> Nothing. It's not amenable.

[43:08] » Yeah, we'll be doing

[43:11] >> the chair.

[43:16] If we publish that we are going to take

[43:18] public comment um until say 6:30 um and

[43:23] we get one person that shows up at

[43:25] opening. Do we have to remain until 6:30

[43:29] or is that

[43:30] >> we'll publish it to be up to

[43:32] >> okay

[43:32] >> a particular amount of time. So I'll say

[43:34] up to an hour and a half of public

[43:36] comment

[43:37] >> but you know I can print out any email

[43:39] feedback. So

[43:40] >> if we have let's say you know low this

[43:43] is where you can read off a comment from

[43:45] somebody.

[43:46] >> So I actually have a question about the

[43:47] email feedback just appreciating that

[43:51] volume

[43:53] >> and management of that like is there an

[43:55] expectation that each email gets

[43:59] acknowledged and addressed and if so if

[44:02] we're getting a very large volume how we

[44:05] want to navigate that or do we want to

[44:06] cross that bridge when we get to it? So,

[44:09] if I understand correctly, when somebody

[44:11] sends in the email, they'll get

[44:13] essentially a bounce back or not a

[44:14] bounce back, but a response, automated

[44:16] response saying, "Hey, we've

[44:17] acknowledged your city staff is going to

[44:20] bundle that

[44:21] >> uh into a packet. Just send that to us

[44:23] in bulk,

[44:24] >> right? And then once it Sorry,

[44:27] >> go ahead.

[44:27] >> Did you have more to say?"

[44:28] >> No, you um once we get that in bulk,

[44:32] when do we do we review that at the next

[44:35] meeting? Do we review those at a public

[44:37] comment meeting? Like when do those get

[44:39] looked at by us? Because I can imagine

[44:41] if you know, say they're 20 emails every

[44:45] couple of weeks, that's a lot of public

[44:47] comment for us to manage and sort

[44:49] through each meeting.

[44:52] >> Can we have like

[44:53] >> how does that

[44:54] >> can we have that information archived?

[44:56] And

[44:57] >> it's all it has to be,

[44:58] >> right? I I what I mean is like

[45:02] for the express purposes of you know

[45:04] like our our

[45:08] review you know like outside of that way

[45:11] we are truly capturing everything. But

[45:14] if we're getting like 15 hate comments

[45:17] and five comments from, you know,

[45:19] stakeholders,

[45:21] um, you know, we we can look, you know,

[45:24] look through that database oursel and

[45:26] say, "Okay, well, that's a hate comment

[45:27] skip." You know,

[45:29] >> I I'm guess I'm I'm hoping that I don't

[45:32] as a committee, we don't have to deal

[45:34] with any emails that don't apply to us.

[45:36] you know, if it's something that's

[45:37] inappropriate, something that, you know,

[45:39] just talk about, you know, parking

[45:41] committee doesn't come to us and we just

[45:44] deal with what's here and then Yeah, it

[45:47] probably makes it too. And then and

[45:48] again, my I was wondering if it's

[45:51] possible that maybe you and talk

[45:53] separately. I'm actually more interested

[45:55] in the themes that come [clears throat]

[45:56] out. Sure. If 12 50 emails Paul has the

[46:00] same theme about you know homeless

[46:02] individuals on you know Cedar Street

[46:05] okay then that's a different discussion

[46:07] than reading every 15 you know 50 emails

[46:09] right

[46:10] >> so that could be a way for you folk to

[46:12] figure out process identifying hey we've

[46:14] noticed all the things that came out all

[46:15] these feedback we have

[46:17] >> so I I think you're absolutely right um

[46:20] that is one but I also think that as

[46:22] we're sending these out or we're getting

[46:24] these emails as community members

[46:25] reviewing them and then we are seeing

[46:27] themes that that because I might not see

[46:30] a theme that you may see or that Ben

[46:32] might see um and then sharing that so

[46:34] that it gets added to the agenda. I

[46:36] think that's how we address it. So we

[46:38] all

[46:39] >> there's not like an expected we have to

[46:41] have an individual response to each and

[46:42] every

[46:46] let's say depend on volume I mean I

[46:48] don't have no idea what that you decided

[46:50] to sh like each of us get five emails

[46:52] take a look at what's in common

[46:57] this

[46:58] >> yeah I mean we can we can look at that I

[47:00] mean I think once we understand the

[47:01] volume

[47:02] >> yeah keeping in mind that realistically

[47:04] early on we're going to have probably

[47:05] the largest volume Um and in that

[47:08] instance I do actually think it would

[47:10] and open to other suggest but I think if

[47:12] we're reviewing all of those and I know

[47:14] it's timeconuming and we're all

[47:16] incredibly busy um but then again

[47:18] everybody has a different perspective

[47:20] you may pick up on a pattern that the

[47:22] rest of us aren't and be able to say hey

[47:24] can we add this to the agenda

[47:26] >> so that not the next meeting the

[47:28] following meeting um we have like that's

[47:32] sort of making the basis of our agenda

[47:34] moving forward is is okay these are the

[47:36] themes we've gotten from public comment.

[47:38] Here's what we've seen from the data.

[47:40] Here's how we can start having

[47:41] meaningful conversations to address

[47:43] these themes and the data.

[47:46] >> So, is that something that we could just

[47:48] like self-direct if we had access to

[47:50] this archive of emails? We could pour

[47:52] over them, extract some themes, and if

[47:54] any [clears throat] of us felt

[47:54] passionately about a theme that we

[47:56] encountered in the wild, we would be

[47:57] like, "Okay, well, you know, let's bring

[48:00] it to the advisory and hear what Alton

[48:02] has to say." Well, and I think hear what

[48:05] the committee has to say. Uh, [laughter]

[48:09] >> yeah, I think if I'm understanding

[48:10] correctly, Carol,

[48:12] >> it will all have access to all the

[48:14] emails. It'll be part of the packet.

[48:15] >> I was planning to make it essentially

[48:17] every week. I would

[48:19] >> every email will be printed.

[48:20] >> Well, I'll include it in your PDF

[48:22] packet. You certainly aren't obligated

[48:24] to print them out, but it will

[48:25] eventually be part of the public record

[48:28] of the work of this committee by being a

[48:31] attachment to this packet. Great.

[48:34] >> Will it be on the website or the general

[48:37] public? Will he

[48:39] >> Oh, great. Can we put something on the

[48:40] email

[48:42] um social media that whatever is emailed

[48:45] to this address will become public

[48:49] because

[48:50] >> I just feel like that that would be

[48:51] something that people might not be

[48:52] immediately aware of.

[48:54] >> But you should also be aware that

[48:56] everything you email the city of Bangor

[48:58] is public.

[49:00] >> But you're right, not everyone has that

[49:01] understanding. So that might be some

[49:03] language we want to make sure we add to

[49:04] the response email.

[49:06] >> We can put it into the automated

[49:07] response. Yep. Any

[49:12] other questions or comments on public

[49:14] comment?

[49:18] So, next meeting will be public comment.

[49:22] Following meeting, we'll get into our

[49:23] regular routine. Do we want to talk

[49:25] about ongoing or do we want to

[49:29] start with

[49:30] >> I really want to start getting into

[49:33] Robin.

[49:35] [laughter]

[49:36] No sir, I would look at and once we get

[49:38] that, we can go from there.

[49:40] >> I'm in agreement.

[49:42] >> Awesome. All right. Well, then moving on

[49:44] to uh city staff info and data,

[49:46] >> which Dr. Tony,

[49:48] >> I would sucking it off. She can say

[49:51] Bruce would do it.

[49:52] >> I gave up my chair. We pulled another

[49:54] one over and the three staff people all

[49:56] tabled up and I can

[49:59] >> disappear.

[50:00] >> Don't do that.

[50:01] >> Yeah, don't do that. You

[50:03] >> Nothing would make me happy.

[50:08] » [laughter]

[50:16] » You're all

[50:18] >> good.

[50:20] >> Mr. chair,

[50:22] if it pleases you and this committee and

[50:24] my contemporary,

[50:27] I thought that what we might do is I

[50:30] could introduce the structure of the

[50:33] memo and talk about the data sources

[50:36] and then have David and Bruce talk about

[50:41] the the data specifically

[50:43] if that sounds like a good approach when

[50:46] I can come in and kind of build out

[50:48] whatever might be.

[50:51] Okay.

[50:52] >> So, in your memo here, we have compiled

[50:57] what we know from city sources and

[51:00] available sources that we are that we

[51:03] commonly interact with. We were not able

[51:06] to pull new raw data and analyze it in

[51:11] preparation for today's meeting. So,

[51:14] I'll preface this by saying we

[51:16] understand that these are ongoing

[51:18] conversations and we can drill down into

[51:21] anything that you see here at any time.

[51:25] So, we organized this data into five

[51:29] domains to kind of create some buckets

[51:32] um and give us a little bit of structure

[51:34] for your discussion. So we talk about

[51:36] the scope and characteristics of the

[51:39] homeless population

[51:41] um faces and places. We talk about uh

[51:45] the conditions leading to homelessness.

[51:49] We wanted to address some of your

[51:50] questions regarding population movement.

[51:54] And then there are two other domains

[51:57] that we felt were really really chunky

[52:00] and we could give you an entire meeting

[52:03] just covering the homeless response

[52:06] system and then also the individual and

[52:09] community impacts. So at a later uh date

[52:14] we'll we'll build all of those things

[52:16] out for you. Um but we felt like there

[52:19] was a lot here.

[52:21] Um so to pull the different plans

[52:27] studies and reports

[52:29] I have listed them here and everybody

[52:32] has a link so you can go in and you can

[52:34] look at that source material. We've

[52:36] given you the data in a very distilled

[52:40] format. You can go back into all of

[52:43] these documents and look for some

[52:45] context if that is helpful. and we'll

[52:48] also try to build that out for you here

[52:51] if you um request it.

[52:54] Some notes about data though and and I don't want to assume that everyone

[53:00] is a data geek like me. Um but if many

[53:04] of you are working in

[53:06] um a field where you're touching social

[53:09] issues, you might know that not every

[53:13] data point is measuring the same thing

[53:16] as the data point next to it. And and

[53:19] homeless data is really no different. um

[53:24] the geographic boundaries, the

[53:27] populations, the encounter types, all of

[53:30] these things mean that one number is not

[53:33] always measuring the other number. Um,

[53:36] and a good example of this is a one

[53:39] night count of those that are sheltered

[53:43] or unsheltered homeless is not also the

[53:47] same number that you can report in any

[53:50] other count of how many homeless

[53:53] individuals we have in the city. And for

[53:56] that same reason, whoever is collecting

[53:59] the data also has their own geographic

[54:03] scope and aim for that data. So they

[54:06] might be measuring it a little bit

[54:08] differently.

[54:09] Our our continuum of care measures data

[54:13] in a hub which for our hub is three

[54:17] counties. Ponobskot County also collects

[54:20] countywide data. The state collects

[54:22] statewide data. And so at times I'm

[54:26] giving you numbers that are not only

[54:30] describing the city specifically, but

[54:34] what we can offer is that potentially in

[54:38] some of these numbers, you could create

[54:40] some assumptions about to what degree

[54:43] that number does describe the people

[54:46] that come through here. If you know if

[54:50] the city as a service center is

[54:52] providing services then maybe a

[54:54] countywide number describes

[54:57] something related to the services that

[55:00] are provided in the city.

[55:03] We also talk about a couple of um

[55:05] different terms um just to kind of make

[55:08] sure that everyone has a good

[55:09] foundation. Um the point in time count

[55:13] when we talk about the point in time

[55:15] count it's a one January night that a

[55:18] bunch of volunteers and staff go out and

[55:21] make contact with the number of

[55:23] individuals that they are able to count

[55:25] on a single night. Um it's so it's not

[55:29] an estimate of of that total. Um we also

[55:32] talk about service utilization. So these

[55:35] are encounters and visits, shelter beds.

[55:39] We're talking about capacity in a lot of

[55:41] those measures.

[55:43] Um, we think about data in terms of

[55:46] unique people, but we understand that

[55:50] you might have a unique person that

[55:52] visits every service. And so they are

[55:56] counted multiple times.

[55:59] And so you're going to see numbers that

[56:01] might describe the same people.

[56:05] And then we talk about you know the

[56:07] definition of homelessness is different

[56:10] for many different uh sets of numbers.

[56:15] So for the school their definition of

[56:18] homelessness is lacking a fixed regular

[56:23] nighttime residence. The HUD definition

[56:26] of homelessness is not having a suitable

[56:31] place for habitation. So in those ways

[56:35] you have a number that describes a very

[56:37] different condition of homelessness than

[56:40] the other. And so then you might

[56:42] compound some of that to say well what

[56:45] about the data for those who are at risk

[56:47] of homelessness again another data. So,

[56:50] it's really important to just kind of

[56:52] look at what is the data attempting to

[56:55] describe and make sure that we um uh

[56:58] ensure that we're not kind of dragging

[57:01] that same definition of the data to

[57:04] another data point because we could

[57:08] >> is the variation in definitions or

[57:11] whatever criteria they're using based on

[57:14] their funding requirements because like

[57:16] you would think well everybody want to

[57:18] use HU definition because it's

[57:19] equalizing playing field. But I

[57:22] understand that some funding may say,

[57:23] "Well, this is what I'm paying you money

[57:24] for." That you have to look for how many

[57:26] people and that's why they change

[57:27] quality data to reflect that. So, do you

[57:30] think that's the difference why people

[57:32] are different in terms of what they're

[57:34] looking for?

[57:35] >> I think in some cases it can, like I

[57:37] said, it it could be that the intended

[57:40] use of the data is different from who

[57:43] collects it. Okay. But [clears throat]

[57:45] another reason could be that the data um

[57:49] that they're looking for

[57:51] is is compounded or the approach to

[57:55] collecting that data occurs at different

[57:57] times in which your concept of what is

[57:59] an equitable measure is different. So

[58:03] that definition might have occurred many

[58:05] years down the line in you know a best

[58:08] practice. For example,

[58:11] >> Samson and Hut are a good example of

[58:13] that. in the sense that have different

[58:14] definitions of the two different funding

[58:16] structures but a lot of times you end up

[58:18] with over overlapped requirements on the

[58:20] person

[58:21] >> and you know and and not to be cynical

[58:23] about but I know sometimes the data

[58:26] you almost use the data to answer

[58:28] pre-existing

[58:30] conclusion you have to say that oh see

[58:33] the data shows like 100% of these people

[58:35] all involved in crime when or 100% are

[58:38] you know medical issues 100% involved

[58:39] mental health because you look for that

[58:41] data versus someone who basically have a

[58:44] neutral slate to see okay what is the

[58:46] difference what is the variation so I

[58:49] think that's something just again at the

[58:51] end of the day it depends on who's

[58:52] asking for the data and tally it

[58:55] >> right question why they're collecting

[58:57] that data

[58:58] >> right and in some cases the data is due

[59:01] to I need to go I need to go and find

[59:04] the answer to the question so I'm

[59:06] essentially

[59:08] >> creating an experiment right I'm doing a

[59:10] test and I'm getting the data and

[59:13] you know, to to your point, um you know,

[59:16] the the definition of homelessness for

[59:18] youth lacking a fixed regular nighttime

[59:21] residence,

[59:23] that definition takes into account

[59:27] education

[59:28] and grades and the things that you need,

[59:31] right? Like a fixed regular nighttime

[59:33] residency, those things. Um, so I I

[59:37] would like to leave it there and I will

[59:39] come back in if you have questions, but

[59:41] I know Bruce and and David have some

[59:44] really good um data here also. Um, and

[59:49] if you have any specific questions about

[59:51] some of the data that I pulled, go from

[59:54] there.

[59:56] >> Any Sure.

[59:57] >> Do you want to start?

[59:58] >> Glad to. Yeah. Um, so I know you're all

[1:00:00] busy. So, I did today I just printed out

[1:00:03] some of the data that I had. Um,

[1:00:06] just so you can look at what our

[1:00:09] community action team has been

[1:00:11] collecting for data. Um, and I'll give a

[1:00:14] little bit of background on our BCAT

[1:00:15] just for those of you that aren't

[1:00:17] familiar with the program. We found it

[1:00:19] to be tremendously beneficial at the

[1:00:21] city level and at the police department.

[1:00:29] And if you've already seen this uh or

[1:00:31] you don't need feel free to just link

[1:00:33] the paper.

[1:00:36] » Yeah. So it's the acronym is uh Bangor

[1:00:39] community action team.

[1:00:40] >> Okay. So this was developed in 2023 by

[1:00:42] the city. It was more of a collaboration

[1:00:44] between public health and the police

[1:00:45] department. Um what we found at the

[1:00:48] police department was uh more and more

[1:00:49] of our officers were responding

[1:00:52] to uh calls for homelessness uh mental

[1:00:56] health um

[1:00:58] concerns and things that

[1:01:01] people weren't particularly comfortable

[1:01:03] speaking with a law enforcement officer

[1:01:05] uniform. We developed this civilian

[1:01:07] response team and it's essentially it is

[1:01:10] the boots on the ground um

[1:01:13] for the city and you see numbers you

[1:01:17] look through that first couple of pages

[1:01:18] not to um

[1:01:22] focus too much on the numbers but you do

[1:01:25] see I'm sorry to go left or right it's

[1:01:28] all go month to month of down so um you

[1:01:34] do see an increase in new people

[1:01:37] typically in the summer months

[1:01:40] and then the numbers tend to uh drop in

[1:01:45] the colder months of the year which I

[1:01:47] think makes sense. People are using

[1:01:49] utilizing warming shelters. Um some

[1:01:53] people will leave our area and then

[1:01:55] return when the weather changes.

[1:02:00] So just what you're looking at on these

[1:02:02] first couple pages is calls for our

[1:02:06] BCAT. These are all non-emergent calls

[1:02:09] and uh so if a police officer typically

[1:02:12] at BCAD is not being sent to these calls

[1:02:14] that is the breakdown of the types of

[1:02:16] calls that they go on for all calls for

[1:02:18] the month. Diversions.

[1:02:22] What's diversions? diversions are for us

[1:02:25] somebody identifies selfidentifies as

[1:02:27] not being from Bangor they do not want

[1:02:29] to be in Bangor they have a place to go

[1:02:32] they'd like to get home and then we

[1:02:33] verify that they're welcome so we do not um complete a diversion unless

[1:02:40] the person has a place to go and and is

[1:02:42] welcome there

[1:02:42] >> how do you get home

[1:02:44] >> uh typically we coordinate through

[1:02:46] public health we'll set up a ride bus

[1:02:49] >> yeah bus a ride has provided a lot of

[1:02:51] rides as well has place to go. So that's

[1:02:54] what the diversions are and you will see

[1:02:57] u those numbers tend to increase as the

[1:03:00] weather

[1:03:02] gets colder I guess.

[1:03:03] >> Do you have a sense of diversion? How

[1:03:05] many of them a local diversion like a

[1:03:07] place in someone called?

[1:03:10] >> Yeah. So they started in the if you sort

[1:03:13] of the third page I think happened the

[1:03:16] pie chart they they do actually this was

[1:03:19] a new addition. They they weren't

[1:03:20] collecting this

[1:03:22] I went back 12 months for the first set

[1:03:24] of data and then the second set of data

[1:03:26] with the pigraphs. They only started

[1:03:27] collecting this back in December. But if

[1:03:29] you have a chance to look through that,

[1:03:31] you can see the breakdown of of housed

[1:03:34] unhoused from Bangor not from Bangor.

[1:03:37] And this is self-reporting. So these

[1:03:39] people are identifying that it's not a

[1:03:41] determination. It's what the person that

[1:03:44] they're speaking with is

[1:03:46] um so what are the limiting factors on

[1:03:50] supporting someone who is in this

[1:03:53] diverent category? I mean if they're

[1:03:55] from

[1:03:57] California, do we finance the bus ticket

[1:03:59] for them to go to California?

[1:04:04] » I don't know if we've gone that far, but

[1:04:06] we do go far. Yeah, if something

[1:04:17] usually

[1:04:19] on the other side and they want out find

[1:04:22] them away.

[1:04:27] » Look at this pie chart. Looks like

[1:04:29] almost every month is

[1:04:33] not from Bangor,

[1:04:35] >> right? Yeah.

[1:04:39] >> Can I just like just because a lot of

[1:04:40] these folks I've also interacted with

[1:04:43] like you said it's self-reported

[1:04:44] demographic.

[1:04:45] >> Yeah.

[1:04:46] >> So

[1:04:48] patients may not identify as being from

[1:04:50] Bangor and then I talked to them they

[1:04:52] spent 10 out of the 12 months for a long

[1:04:55] period of time. They were just like well

[1:04:57] I was born in Connecticut but I've lived

[1:04:59] here for

[1:05:00] >> Connecticut. I've lived here for like 10

[1:05:02] years. I was in Portland but now I'm

[1:05:03] back. So I think again like when we were

[1:05:05] talking about data

[1:05:08] I think it's always important for us to

[1:05:11] look at the way questions are asked how

[1:05:14] folks are responding how we're

[1:05:15] collecting it. Um

[1:05:18] >> well actually that's a good point. So

[1:05:20] when you say not from Bangalore is it

[1:05:21] mean that I'm not talking about where

[1:05:24] you born but are you currently from

[1:05:25] Bangor area? I mean I I I hear that I

[1:05:29] hear that you may have been from

[1:05:30] Bangalore because you're born here and

[1:05:31] then you stay here for 23 years in to me

[1:05:34] you're not from Bangalore. It's because

[1:05:36] you you have it living here,

[1:05:38] >> right? So I think that's the piece with

[1:05:39] this data. know like I've worked really

[1:05:41] closely with BCAT over the years and it

[1:05:44] just depends how somebody interprets the

[1:05:46] question

[1:05:46] >> how it's asked

[1:05:47] >> and how it's asked and understand that

[1:05:49] ECAT's not collecting this information

[1:05:51] to publish it in like a research article

[1:05:53] but like the the variable you know we're

[1:05:56] not like making sure the questions are

[1:05:57] like very specific necessarily so

[1:06:00] >> assistance will ask you to leave an

[1:06:02] account 30 days before their consumer

[1:06:04] resistance

[1:06:05] get assistance from

[1:06:08] >> VA does also ask for your last stable

[1:06:13] housing address. So again, people are

[1:06:17] asking the question for the data in a

[1:06:20] way that is helpful for them.

[1:06:22] >> The last stable could be your level

[1:06:25] >> could be.

[1:06:26] >> Okay.

[1:06:27] >> Can I ask you a question? It's not

[1:06:28] necessarily relevant to the data. Um

[1:06:31] what do you do for foreign nationals

[1:06:32] that are

[1:06:36] being do you kind of population a lot

[1:06:39] and what sort of protocol does that I'll

[1:06:43] have to get back I'll have to get back

[1:06:44] to the committee on u if we have had an

[1:06:47] interaction with a foreign national how

[1:06:49] that went um but I'm not sure I'm not

[1:06:53] sure on that one I don't know you need

[1:06:54] to

[1:06:54] >> I I could just anecdotally I have not

[1:06:57] run into many situations where folks are

[1:07:00] from um our foreign national are trying

[1:07:02] to get back to their home country.

[1:07:06] But just because I haven't encountered

[1:07:08] it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[1:07:10] >> Not in Bangor anyway. That has happened

[1:07:11] in Boston. We usually work with the

[1:07:14] embassy.

[1:07:15] >> Yeah.

[1:07:15] >> So we identify someone truly I mean I

[1:07:17] remember one person was German and we

[1:07:20] work with the embassy

[1:07:22] of transportation.

[1:07:24] >> Yes.

[1:07:24] >> He was a German national astron. And

[1:07:26] then sometimes state department but

[1:07:28] again that's New York City and DC where

[1:07:30] tons of those whereas here you really

[1:07:33] yeah you know this is the end of the

[1:07:34] line so to speak from rehound that

[1:07:37] people usually don't go up this way

[1:07:39] usually

[1:07:40] so

[1:07:42] [laughter]

[1:07:45] » yeah so I mean this is just the data

[1:07:47] that was collected by I didn't want to

[1:07:49] interpret it I just wanted to provide

[1:07:50] the data

[1:07:53] the opportunities data that we provide

[1:07:55] Great. Thank you.

[1:07:59] >> Questions about the BAP structure. Am I

[1:08:01] to email you or is there someone else

[1:08:03] directed?

[1:08:04] >> You certainly can.

[1:08:05] >> And you know, I was going I was thinking

[1:08:07] when the committee was talking um I can

[1:08:10] when I get back to the police station,

[1:08:12] uh talk about members of the committee

[1:08:14] would be interested in getting into a

[1:08:17] car with ECAD or just getting to know

[1:08:20] them. It's a four person group. They're

[1:08:22] great. Nobody had his experience with

[1:08:25] him, but

[1:08:26] >> yeah, I would have to think about it.

[1:08:28] >> Question. Um, with this data, how do you

[1:08:31] have an idea how many people released

[1:08:33] from incarceration that ended up being

[1:08:35] in the house?

[1:08:36] >> Released from incarceration.

[1:08:37] >> Yeah. Like, you know, you're done. You

[1:08:39] just got released. You got picked up and

[1:08:41] then now, okay, you're done. You got,

[1:08:42] you know, drops charge. I presume they

[1:08:45] don't send you home only if you have a

[1:08:47] house. They said you're done, right? you

[1:08:48] open the door and would do we have an

[1:08:50] idea how many people fits in that

[1:08:52] category. I don't it would be anecdotal

[1:08:55] u I don't have a percentage but I know

[1:08:58] what happens right now

[1:08:59] >> and as far as you know currently there's

[1:09:00] no system where the jail would call

[1:09:03] somebody and say listen we have so and

[1:09:05] so here we're about to uh release he has

[1:09:07] no place to go uh can you guys

[1:09:10] facilitate him going some we don't have

[1:09:12] that structure in place not yet um I am

[1:09:16] in the process of reaching out to those

[1:09:18] places like fresh start the jail and

[1:09:20] those places so that when they know that

[1:09:23] someone may be going on the streets,

[1:09:24] they can get a hold of me and I can help

[1:09:27] give them resources wherever they may

[1:09:29] have to go.

[1:09:29] >> It'd be great if you find something, you

[1:09:31] know, just curious. I'm just curious

[1:09:32] because

[1:09:33] >> I will say

[1:09:35] with when it comes to releases too even

[1:09:37] with like any attempt at a system like

[1:09:40] often you don't know when the release is

[1:09:42] coming and you're going to get released

[1:09:44] at like 6:00 a.m. unexpectedly. I mean

[1:09:46] just it would be great if they could get

[1:09:47] a packet with the local

[1:09:50] >> they just even my card and they call me

[1:09:51] the next day whatever it

[1:09:52] >> work

[1:09:54] like it's like in some cities I know

[1:09:56] like

[1:09:57] >> like New York Rikers people get dropped

[1:10:00] off at this bus stop and somewhere in

[1:10:02] Queens everyone get a bus metro card or

[1:10:04] whatever it was back then and then

[1:10:06] couple bucks and that's it. So that's

[1:10:08] the point of drop off and many of them

[1:10:11] have no place to go and then you're on

[1:10:12] your own. results. I don't I think here

[1:10:14] probably Okay, you're done. The doors

[1:10:16] open. You can go.

[1:10:19] >> I do think the jail could provide data

[1:10:21] if requested that would show that maybe

[1:10:25] u based on inmate numbers uh

[1:10:28] incarcerated individuals who identify as

[1:10:31] transient. That's the code that they use

[1:10:32] when they file trans.

[1:10:34] >> Yeah, it may be not a huge number. I

[1:10:36] just don't know what that number is. I

[1:10:38] agree that it would probably quite

[1:10:40] advisory.

[1:10:43] » I'll try to reach out to the popular

[1:10:44] county jail

[1:10:45] >> because my supposition is if they

[1:10:48] inoculate support they almost you're

[1:10:50] setting up for recidivism in sense of

[1:10:53] like you know in trouble because you're

[1:10:55] forging those dollars.

[1:10:58] >> And I'll also say like having worked

[1:11:00] pretty closely with a lot of the folks

[1:11:02] at the jails because a lot of folks I

[1:11:04] care for are in and out of the PCJ. Um,

[1:11:07] if that's not happening, it's probably

[1:11:09] not because of I'm not saying that

[1:11:10] you're saying that, but it's it's often

[1:11:13] not because it's a lack of desire on the

[1:11:14] jail side. It's

[1:11:16] >> again like terrible. Yeah. System and

[1:11:19] structure.

[1:11:21] >> My understanding like you know Mo is

[1:11:23] quite invested in that kind of stuff.

[1:11:25] But

[1:11:25] >> if it's not there, you can't do

[1:11:26] anything.

[1:11:28] >> Yep. I think also if we reached out to

[1:11:31] the main prisoner re-entry network to

[1:11:34] find out whether they are um supporting

[1:11:39] or raising certain data that could, you

[1:11:44] know, highlight a trend that you might

[1:11:46] find helpful. We could see if they have

[1:11:48] anything available. I don't I don't know

[1:11:50] if they do. That's

[1:11:51] >> a good point, Robin. So there is a uh

[1:11:54] state program supervised community

[1:11:57] confinement program which is you're

[1:11:59] released into a community uh with

[1:12:02] housing and I believe it's 90 days I

[1:12:05] could be wrong. I believe it's 90 days

[1:12:07] with housing and then you're released um

[1:12:10] after the 90 days and and that does

[1:12:14] happen routinely in Bangor

[1:12:18] >> through different programs.

[1:12:19] >> Is there like a different street name

[1:12:21] for that? And [laughter] I don't know

[1:12:23] how to describe it, but like certainly

[1:12:26] I provide a lot of um prescribe a lot of

[1:12:29] Suboxone. So as folks get released,

[1:12:31] they'll walk in and I usually will say

[1:12:33] like, "Are you on any release

[1:12:35] conditions?" And they'll be like, "I'm

[1:12:36] on a bed to bed." And I understand that

[1:12:38] bedtoed means I was released to a

[1:12:40] residential treatment program and as

[1:12:42] long as I'm attending that residential

[1:12:43] treatment program, I'm good. I don't

[1:12:45] have to be in jail. If I bounce, I have

[1:12:47] to go back to jail. Is there like a

[1:12:49] street name for supervised community

[1:12:52] confinement? Um,

[1:12:53] >> well, they go by the SEC.

[1:13:02] » And so if folks at Fresh Start might be

[1:13:05] part of

[1:13:06] >> Yes, that

[1:13:08] feedback leading the way.

[1:13:13] >> This sounds like a group probably gonna

[1:13:14] want to solicit for feedback honestly

[1:13:17] because

[1:13:18] Now is down does the main prison

[1:13:20] re-entry network with that? You were

[1:13:24] just asking about that. Are they the

[1:13:26] ones supervising the SECP or is that the

[1:13:30] board?

[1:13:31] >> I don't know the answer to that.

[1:13:34] >> Typically, we're notified if somebody is

[1:13:36] being uh accepted in the SEC pro SCTP

[1:13:40] program. uh where we are notified

[1:13:43] through state probation officers that

[1:13:45] person is being

[1:13:49] at a particular address in

[1:13:51] >> that could be a really valuable group of

[1:13:53] stakeholders as the POS because a lot of

[1:13:56] our folks certainly unhoused folks that

[1:13:59] are on release conditions whether I know

[1:14:02] like SCCP that are staying at fresh

[1:14:04] start are leading the way um there's

[1:14:07] only a few poss like

[1:14:09] >> Chad Reynolds Yeah, Chad and

[1:14:12] >> he Chad's overseas leading the way.

[1:14:14] >> Yes. because I've had a lot of folks

[1:14:16] that leading away and often

[1:14:19] if they're gonna, you know, folks that

[1:14:21] have been previously unhoused are

[1:14:23] sometimes more motivated to do an SECP

[1:14:25] auction um because it also gives them a

[1:14:28] space

[1:14:30] to be in early recovery um in a more

[1:14:34] stable and supportive environment

[1:14:36] because you can imagine if you're

[1:14:37] released from incarceration, you've had

[1:14:39] a period of sobriety and you're released

[1:14:41] back to being unhoused. it's really

[1:14:43] difficult to maintain sobriety or

[1:14:46] recovery or whatever term works for that

[1:14:48] individual um while living outside. So

[1:14:53] many of our folks do opt for that and

[1:14:55] the POS have been very supportive I know

[1:14:58] and really really helpful for people um

[1:15:00] and I'd be really curious like

[1:15:02] anecdotally what they've seen as helpful

[1:15:04] for folks that have been previously in

[1:15:06] housed has worked and what hasn't

[1:15:08] worked.

[1:15:08] >> I do have his email address. I'd be glad

[1:15:10] to reach out to him. There's one other

[1:15:12] one.

[1:15:15] >> Rob, works for DHS.

[1:15:19] >> Okay,

[1:15:20] >> anyways, doesn't matter. I can find it,

[1:15:22] but

[1:15:22] >> that would be great. Thank you.

[1:15:24] >> And I think it's in the hyperlinks that

[1:15:26] Robin sent out, but uh I also brought in

[1:15:29] a printed copy of the city's

[1:15:30] homelessness crisis protocol. Um,

[1:15:34] and so I don't know if uh if the group

[1:15:36] had an opportunity to do that yet as

[1:15:38] well, but uh

[1:15:42] >> somewhere

[1:15:44] in

[1:15:47] I don't see any

[1:15:49] >> so it's actually it's actually on the

[1:15:50] city's website as well. It's one of our

[1:15:53] public facing policies. So if you go to

[1:15:55] the city's website, police department,

[1:15:57] you can find it listed under the

[1:15:59] policies.

[1:16:01] Um,

[1:16:04] and this was a mandated policy that was

[1:16:06] created by the attorney general in 2020

[1:16:10] four, I believe. uh and it was mandated

[1:16:12] that all police departments in the state

[1:16:13] have a policy in place to address um you

[1:16:17] know I think primarily what we were

[1:16:18] seeing was unhoused individuals um

[1:16:20] flooding the jails and it was uh for

[1:16:22] low-level crimes that it was just a real

[1:16:25] challenge for for the individuals that

[1:16:28] were being incarcerated and then also

[1:16:30] for the jails that were being flooded

[1:16:31] with folks who were um you know being

[1:16:34] held for a series of low-level crimes

[1:16:36] that we were seeing on a regular basis.

[1:16:39] And so the protocol

[1:16:42] is on the city site

[1:16:46] that I will just highlight briefly uh

[1:16:49] that there were the crimes that were

[1:16:52] identified as if if a police officer

[1:16:55] interacts with an individual and that

[1:16:57] individual identifies as unhoused. Um

[1:17:02] using a definition that um Robin had

[1:17:04] mentioned earlier, the definition in

[1:17:06] policy is a person who is experiencing

[1:17:07] homelessness that lacked fixed regular

[1:17:10] and adequate nighttime residence. That's

[1:17:12] the policy definition. Um and the crimes

[1:17:15] that were listed criminal trespass

[1:17:17] conduct indeed conduct

[1:17:20] marinating in public possession of

[1:17:23] scheduled drugs or drinking in public um

[1:17:26] when possible. And um you know there's

[1:17:28] obviously provisions that allow for

[1:17:30] different actions from discretion from

[1:17:32] the officers when possible.

[1:17:34] >> We try to refer somebody to resources as

[1:17:36] opposed to jail.

[1:17:38] >> Yeah.

[1:17:38] >> And um

[1:17:41] so I mean that's that's obviously

[1:17:43] something that I think affects law

[1:17:45] enforcement statewide,

[1:17:46] >> but um it's something that was developed

[1:17:49] by the training general's office as a

[1:17:51] mandated policy that does sort of play

[1:17:54] into working with this committee. Can I

[1:17:57] ask this? Oh, sorry.

[1:17:59] >> I was just going to ask a question for

[1:18:00] specific to Bangor. When officers kind

[1:18:04] of come across this situation, do you

[1:18:06] know what resources get offered to

[1:18:07] folks?

[1:18:08] >> So, I brought the

[1:18:11] >> You like set it up for me.

[1:18:13] >> That's right. You probably saw this in

[1:18:14] here. So, these are the resource cards.

[1:18:16] If you haven't had one of them, I

[1:18:17] thought I'd bring them in just just so

[1:18:18] everybody could could take a look.

[1:18:20] >> Super

[1:18:22] these five.

[1:18:25] >> Yes. Yep. I actually grabbed those. That

[1:18:27] was the new one.

[1:18:29] >> Y came in.

[1:18:33] » I can bring

[1:18:36] >> I think I brought

[1:18:38] >> them.

[1:18:42] » I got to update our new our address.

[1:18:44] Bridge Clinic. That's the old one.

[1:18:48] >> This is a great committee for if there's

[1:18:49] changes or updates, let me know. We'll

[1:18:52] get those. I'm involved.

[1:18:54] >> Do you ever utilize resources

[1:18:58] um like out of state? So meaning if

[1:19:01] somebody says

[1:19:04] a bed somewhere like you don't so or

[1:19:07] they're in crisis in here is full and

[1:19:10] can't get in you know out of state New

[1:19:13] Hampshire or whatever may have that

[1:19:16] availability.

[1:19:18] I'm just curious or you know do we I

[1:19:21] mean I've seen many situations where

[1:19:23] people need it right then and there

[1:19:25] can't get it and they're just put back

[1:19:27] out on the street and then event you

[1:19:29] know people having to advocate to get

[1:19:31] them elsewhere and it ends up being out

[1:19:33] of state. Um

[1:19:35] but a lot of people don't have that

[1:19:37] support to get them there. You know what

[1:19:39] I mean? But I don't know. I just know of

[1:19:41] a lot of those places out of state that

[1:19:43] do they're looking to pull and help. And

[1:19:46] sometimes to get that help, you can't be

[1:19:49] here. You know what I mean? You it just

[1:19:51] you you get it here, you leave here,

[1:19:53] you're out back where it all is. And so

[1:19:55] to get them out where they can really do

[1:19:58] the work, you know, I'm just curious to

[1:20:00] find that resource to get them. There's

[1:20:02] a better one. You can question.

[1:20:06] >> Yeah. I mean, when we're working with

[1:20:07] people on the streets, if someone wants

[1:20:09] to be in recovery and wants to do

[1:20:11] something like that, and there's nowhere

[1:20:13] around here that we can get them in. Um,

[1:20:16] BCAT has done this and and um then Joe

[1:20:20] Archel from the other place also gets

[1:20:22] people really um going in that direction

[1:20:25] too and a ride and options.

[1:20:27] >> Um, and we'll take them down to St.

[1:20:30] Mary's. Yeah. And so they'll go to the

[1:20:32] hospital there, then get into detox

[1:20:35] >> kind of like realistically. Obviously,

[1:20:37] what we're saying is there are fewer

[1:20:41] detox beds in reality than what it

[1:20:43] appears to be in the state. And it is

[1:20:46] there are surprisingly a large

[1:20:49] proportion of those are in Bangor, which

[1:20:50] is a beautiful thing. Um there's a lot

[1:20:55] there's often a wait to detox. If you

[1:20:58] present to one of the hospitals, it is

[1:21:00] surprisingly hard to uh stay for detox.

[1:21:05] And similarly, so like St. Mary's, we'll

[1:21:07] just use St. Mary's as an example. Often

[1:21:09] we can get folks a ride to St. Mary's,

[1:21:11] but if they don't get admitted, there's

[1:21:13] no way for them to come back.

[1:21:15] >> Make a call down there.

[1:21:16] >> Yeah.

[1:21:17] >> I think the challenge is

[1:21:20] if you're sending someone for other

[1:21:22] program or family. I It's we've seen

[1:21:24] this. We've actually done it. We sent

[1:21:26] pictures back to their family in New

[1:21:27] York State.

[1:21:30] >> Unless you have

[1:21:32] intervention along the way, you can

[1:21:34] easily just basically look like you

[1:21:36] shipped them and well, they're not

[1:21:37] dealing with it because they get lost.

[1:21:39] >> Yeah.

[1:21:40] >> Um so I remember this patient we

[1:21:42] actually had was um um home um was

[1:21:48] basically able to contact his

[1:21:50] counterpart in Portland who met him at

[1:21:52] the bus station. So he had like an hour

[1:21:54] to kill where he basically talked to him

[1:21:56] about treatment. So by the time he gets

[1:21:58] on the bus and by he got back to New

[1:21:59] York he was ready to get treatment.

[1:22:01] Otherwise he would just

[1:22:05] get a lot of labor intensive stuff.

[1:22:07] >> Yeah.

[1:22:10] » And really I mean ideally you'd like to

[1:22:12] have the time to do that but not

[1:22:14] everyone have.

[1:22:16] I would just quick notice to those of us

[1:22:19] here who are providers or working in the

[1:22:22] services or in outreach that something

[1:22:24] to look out for is patient brokering. I

[1:22:26] know that um during my sort of work um

[1:22:31] at together place that is one of the

[1:22:32] issues that we ran into were these sort

[1:22:35] of brokering agencies that come through

[1:22:37] and their job is to recruit patients and

[1:22:40] um form them to an outofstate recovery

[1:22:42] program. And if you it doesn't take a

[1:22:45] lot of research into this practice to

[1:22:46] find out that a a lot of states have

[1:22:49] outright banned it. Um and b like the

[1:22:52] federal government has taken an interest

[1:22:54] in trying to to limit it and um

[1:22:58] it you know obviously you know I can't

[1:23:02] outright declare that it's dangerous but

[1:23:04] I think if you talk to our our

[1:23:06] stakeholders and our friends on the

[1:23:07] streets you'll realize that they think

[1:23:08] it is. You'll realize that when they

[1:23:10] interacted with these patient brokers

[1:23:11] they did not feel safe. And so you have

[1:23:13] to be careful when you're working with

[1:23:14] outside providers because you have no

[1:23:16] way to hold them to account if they're

[1:23:18] >> Yeah, usually you do that if you have

[1:23:20] like a concrete plan that they will take

[1:23:22] the patient. They vetted everything

[1:23:24] patient I want to go to agency so and so

[1:23:27] and that everything is discussed that

[1:23:30] kind of it'll just facilitate that. But

[1:23:32] I I agree with you. You don't be like,

[1:23:34] "Hey, I got a great program out in the

[1:23:35] middle of nowhere that we like to get

[1:23:37] you into it."

[1:23:38] >> And that's the format that a lot of

[1:23:39] these patient program structures use.

[1:23:41] Like I know that during my research of

[1:23:44] it when we were trying to investigate

[1:23:45] wanted to see who was doing it here in

[1:23:46] Bangor by the way

[1:23:48] >> um was that like

[1:23:51] some of their affiliates are widely

[1:23:53] reported to put people into treatment

[1:23:55] facilities with no running water. So you

[1:23:57] know it's like

[1:23:59] >> that doesn't thrill me. Um

[1:24:02] >> so that's one of the things that I worry

[1:24:03] about. I know Melissa back to what you

[1:24:05] were saying about like we used to have

[1:24:07] project hold

[1:24:09] um

[1:24:12] Bangor do that for a brief period back

[1:24:15] do that for like a teeny like a really

[1:24:17] little bit of time um [clears throat]

[1:24:21] is are they still doing that

[1:24:25] » the water

[1:24:27] >> used to be

[1:24:32] » [laughter]

[1:24:32] >> my daughter.

[1:24:34] >> Hey, does um I know Bango PD many folks

[1:24:37] get CIT training places. Do they get any

[1:24:40] orientation training working with

[1:24:41] homeless individuals so that everyone

[1:24:42] has some competency some basic knowledge

[1:24:45] of what challenges they face?

[1:24:49] >> I I [clears throat] can answer that

[1:24:50] question because I paid for staff trauma

[1:24:53] informed training a couple months ago.

[1:24:55] So, I know that they've received that.

[1:24:57] But what about

[1:24:58] >> that though?

[1:24:59] >> Yeah, the BCAT. I'm talking about

[1:25:00] officers in general.

[1:25:02] >> Our our trainings are typically online

[1:25:05] now. So, you know, one hour,

[1:25:08] >> but you didn't even get it. What What is

[1:25:09] it? What is it? I mean, I haven't seen

[1:25:10] the training, so I don't know what it

[1:25:11] is.

[1:25:12] >> Last year's was either last year's or

[1:25:17] mandatory training. Yeah.

[1:25:19] >> I'm just curious because the thing is

[1:25:20] also like if they have I mean just like

[1:25:23] anybody if they have a great response

[1:25:24] with police offic

[1:25:27] but they have really bad interaction it

[1:25:30] doesn't matter what program I have

[1:25:31] they're going to say I don't trust you

[1:25:32] because you know this is how I got you

[1:25:34] know suckered you know last time. So I

[1:25:37] just want to you know um see what

[1:25:39] programs the Pango PD has. And the

[1:25:41] second question is

[1:25:44] do we know if um other jurisdiction

[1:25:47] around us here have similar approach

[1:25:48] because like if you guys take this human

[1:25:51] humanistic way of looking at but other

[1:25:53] jurisdiction take a much more black and

[1:25:55] white approach that means we're going to

[1:25:57] get hit you know more people want to

[1:25:59] come here because this is how people are

[1:26:00] treated

[1:26:02] right I try to avoid police lingo I

[1:26:03] might have just done it a minute ago

[1:26:04] when I say mandatory training so when I

[1:26:06] say mandatory training that is statewide

[1:26:08] so it's mandated by the criminal justice

[1:26:11] academy and if if it's a topic that's

[1:26:14] required or mandated

[1:26:16] >> y then it's mandated for all law

[1:26:19] enforcement so everybody in the state

[1:26:21] would training

[1:26:22] >> and the interesting thing about the cip

[1:26:24] training there's a couple of things here

[1:26:26] um they're mandated to have at least 20%

[1:26:28] of the force across the state so Bangor

[1:26:31] has a little bit higher of a number on

[1:26:33] that because their force can you can

[1:26:35] take the time off

[1:26:36] >> okay

[1:26:36] >> but there are two actual trainings

[1:26:38] there's an eight hour training and

[1:26:39] there's a 40hour Yeah.

[1:26:41] >> CIT.

[1:26:42] >> Yeah.

[1:26:42] And most of the most of the

[1:26:45] officers are taking the hour.

[1:26:46] >> Yeah.

[1:26:47] >> You were talking about training specific

[1:26:49] to dealing with homelessness issues,

[1:26:51] right? As opposed to the CSS example.

[1:26:54] >> Again, I'm not saying they need to take

[1:26:56] a CIT like course, but I'm just saying

[1:26:57] like

[1:26:58] >> what education do they have about some

[1:27:00] of the challenges homeless people, you

[1:27:02] know, can and encounter the perception

[1:27:06] of police, perception of law

[1:27:07] enforcement? How does that, you know,

[1:27:08] how do we bridge that gap? and things

[1:27:10] like that is that you kind of some of

[1:27:14] role as well, right, is to kind of be

[1:27:16] that in between and have a little bit

[1:27:19] more specialized experience. It's a

[1:27:21] really good point actually. Uh, and that

[1:27:23] was we did the level of trust with law

[1:27:26] enforcement. I do understand that

[1:27:27] sometimes wearing a uniform does sort of

[1:27:29] put people at a

[1:27:32] more uncomfortable I suppose in

[1:27:34] interacting with us. ECAT really was

[1:27:38] very helpful.

[1:27:40] >> PD, you guys also used to have that

[1:27:42] community liaison officer, Officer Ash,

[1:27:45] and that was wildly helpful. Um,

[1:27:49] >> she was

[1:27:52] >> I think she moved on to like a different

[1:27:53] opportunity, right? I don't think it was

[1:27:55] anything

[1:27:56] >> was a military obligation,

[1:27:58] >> but in that position is something that I

[1:28:00] know Chief Hway liked to fill. He has

[1:28:03] talked several times about, you know,

[1:28:05] stepping up a few months ago. But

[1:28:07] >> it made a huge difference with our folk

[1:28:09] that were on our own house and also just

[1:28:11] like community stakeholders like Officer

[1:28:13] Ash would call me all the time

[1:28:15] >> if there was like a theme [laughter]

[1:28:18] with either a group or a human.

[1:28:20] >> She liked research as well. Police also

[1:28:23] have two mental health on hospital,

[1:28:26] right? You guys still have that?

[1:28:28] >> Yeah. So they they're very helpful,

[1:28:30] >> right? And there's the five officers on

[1:28:33] our team that

[1:28:34] >> options [clears throat]

[1:28:35] options are at least exposed to a global

[1:28:38] homeless person.

[1:28:40] >> I can tell you they got a pretty good

[1:28:42] >> Yeah.

[1:28:42] >> And I can tell you having

[1:28:45] worked in Boston, the community

[1:28:48] perception of Boston PD of our unhoused

[1:28:52] folks was not great. having worked on

[1:28:54] the street for so long, our on house

[1:28:56] population actually typically has great

[1:28:58] interactions with Bangor PD and BCAT.

[1:29:01] >> Um, and another other towns that are

[1:29:05] surrounding Bangor folks do not always

[1:29:08] have as good of an inter as they do with

[1:29:10] Bangor PD. Um, so I I you guys have done

[1:29:14] a lot of work to make that happen. It's

[1:29:16] very appreciated.

[1:29:18] >> Do you prefer Dr. Tony for this purpose?

[1:29:21] just

[1:29:24] um

[1:29:26] what I would say is that um just aside

[1:29:28] from our

[1:29:31] research from our experts, but like it

[1:29:33] is very important to me that at some

[1:29:35] point in our

[1:29:37] 12 month scope here that we have an

[1:29:41] agenda item discussing um what the

[1:29:44] police interactions look like with our

[1:29:46] unhoused and what the cultural compet

[1:29:49] competency levels are for law

[1:29:51] enforcement.

[1:29:52] um on the unhoused because I think that has a major major major impact and

[1:29:56] I think that what you said um

[1:29:59] is very telling like

[1:30:02] you know unhoused people Mr. smart are

[1:30:05] just like any other demographic of

[1:30:07] people. I mean, if anything, um, they're

[1:30:09] more due to this because they have to be

[1:30:10] street smart on a daily basis to

[1:30:12] survive. So, they have key interactions,

[1:30:14] even if they're tokenistic interactions,

[1:30:16] right? Like one bad apple poisoning a

[1:30:18] bunch, uh, it creates adversarial

[1:30:20] perception against all of the services

[1:30:23] in Bangor and it pushes them deeper into

[1:30:27] addiction and deeper into isolation, um,

[1:30:30] and deeper into mental distress. So that

[1:30:35] is something that I really want to best

[1:30:37] study at some point because I think it

[1:30:38] plays an outsized impact.

[1:30:39] >> I often say like the interaction with

[1:30:41] law enforcement and also first responder

[1:30:43] medics and stuff like that if it's a

[1:30:45] good spot my job is a whole lot easier

[1:30:48] because I'm not spending all my time

[1:30:49] fighting that

[1:30:51] um emotional toll from a bad interaction

[1:30:55] with law enforcement.

[1:30:58] So I think I mean really they do a good

[1:31:01] job with you know and like I said I said

[1:31:03] I notic that here also places they it

[1:31:07] makes really makes my life a lot

[1:31:11] >> in the interest of time I want to make

[1:31:13] sure Bruce has a chance to talk about

[1:31:15] his information [laughter]

[1:31:18] >> you off sir

[1:31:22] » you have opportunity as well

[1:31:24] >> absolutely I mean I was just going to go

[1:31:26] off I mean I work very closely with them

[1:31:28] and they're just a wonderful team too

[1:31:30] and they do.

[1:31:32] Um just to give you a little overview of

[1:31:34] what we're doing in community public

[1:31:37] health community services. Um I'll start

[1:31:40] with community services is we have a

[1:31:44] city outreach worker which right now

[1:31:46] starts August 1st. Um and that person

[1:31:51] will be going out on the streets um

[1:31:53] working closely I think with PATH going

[1:31:56] to the places like the brick church and

[1:31:58] the well and these places and building

[1:32:01] relationships and um starting to work on

[1:32:03] housing with people. Um

[1:32:05] >> it was a full-time position.

[1:32:07] >> It was full-time position. Yeah. I think

[1:32:08] the last person that held that position

[1:32:10] I think housed

[1:32:12] I think it was between 10 and 14 people

[1:32:16] last year.

[1:32:17] >> Um They're doing case work as well.

[1:32:19] >> They are. Yeah. So they'll take a person

[1:32:22] right up the streets and work with them

[1:32:23] right through till they get housed in

[1:32:26] >> uh then and then TR and then we have

[1:32:30] after that we also have a housing

[1:32:32] stabilization navigator um for eviction

[1:32:35] prevention. So what and I held that

[1:32:37] position before

[1:32:39] this person just took over. Um, in the

[1:32:42] year that I did that position, I had

[1:32:44] over 170 referrals

[1:32:47] and I had I we

[1:32:51] forgotten I think 100 of those referrals

[1:32:55] and I helped I think it was I have my

[1:32:59] dad right here. Um, but what that is

[1:33:03] going in and building a relationship

[1:33:04] with the landlord,

[1:33:05] >> right? and building the relationship

[1:33:06] with the tenant and trying to come up

[1:33:08] with a solution where we're gonna help

[1:33:10] these people stay housed.

[1:33:11] >> Housing diversion.

[1:33:12] >> Housing divers. Right. So, um I would go

[1:33:16] in and build that relationship with um

[1:33:19] the landlord, see what I could do for

[1:33:21] his on his part, talk to the tenant, see

[1:33:23] what I could do for his part, see if we

[1:33:25] could get into some middle ground, if we

[1:33:26] could save the housing or if we could uh

[1:33:29] or we would have to try to help that

[1:33:31] person move on to a safer place. um bel

[1:33:35] sometimes it was finding rehousing that

[1:33:37] person.

[1:33:39] Yeah.

[1:33:40] >> So

[1:33:41] >> yeah, go ahead.

[1:33:42] >> Does that take I'm assuming that takes

[1:33:44] the format of also maybe some referrals

[1:33:46] to services like RAP and general

[1:33:48] assistance or is it completely

[1:33:50] independent of that? um the grant that

[1:33:52] we worked under and I think is still

[1:33:54] working under that for the next year um

[1:33:58] had had its own money um under that

[1:34:00] grant to be able to help people um with

[1:34:03] back rent um help them if they were in

[1:34:06] eviction. So going forward will they

[1:34:08] have their own funds?

[1:34:11] >> No.

[1:34:12] >> And will in that case will they be

[1:34:14] following on that those programs?

[1:34:17] >> Well, I think we we always looked into

[1:34:19] those programs too. It wasn't just that

[1:34:20] we were there where are the two shelters

[1:34:23] also have diversion funds so they help

[1:34:25] people also stay stabilized in their

[1:34:27] apartment um along with GA right um so

[1:34:31] depending on the situation

[1:34:32] >> street has a diversion fund yeah Janice

[1:34:37] um works there and then Maria does it at

[1:34:39] the banker shelter

[1:34:41] >> I can say I've been working more closely

[1:34:42] with the diversion program than

[1:34:44] typically for what I do you know usually

[1:34:47] it's GA and local searches and things

[1:34:50] trying to find that. But recent most

[1:34:51] recently I've been working with

[1:34:53] diversion programming and keeping people

[1:34:55] housed. Um which is is great.

[1:34:59] >> Oh, sorry.

[1:35:00] >> No. So adding to I mean we've worked

[1:35:02] together to avoid evictions and keep

[1:35:05] people housed. I think the bigger the

[1:35:08] bigger thing on that is it come you can

[1:35:10] only do so much and then if people fire

[1:35:13] people, right? Like you get them in and then they are trying to help them

[1:35:18] with their cleaning, trying to keep it,

[1:35:20] but they're not housing the rest of the

[1:35:21] unhoused.

[1:35:22] >> That's the gap.

[1:35:22] >> And yeah, and then they say, "Oh, never

[1:35:25] mind. I'm in. I don't want you anymore."

[1:35:28] and then they're backed out because

[1:35:30] they've, you know, they've made

[1:35:32] themselves or they're smoking in the

[1:35:34] unit or they're trashing the unit or

[1:35:35] things are happening, right? We've

[1:35:37] worked hard to keep them, but then they

[1:35:39] fire their workers and that's like our

[1:35:41] biggest gap as far as housing to keep

[1:35:43] them housed. the most recent like I'll

[1:35:45] use is the 10 we recently helped in a

[1:35:47] new project and I have one success story

[1:35:49] left because we've busted our tail and

[1:35:52] I'm not you know meet with them and do

[1:35:54] all the things but those services and

[1:35:56] people quit right so people walk away

[1:35:59] they're working they oh I'm done I quit

[1:36:01] and now we can't hire can't hire to it

[1:36:04] in the meantime trying to hang on to

[1:36:06] them trying to personally work with them

[1:36:07] too but you can only do so much and then

[1:36:10] that it's that service that's there's a gap there.

[1:36:15] >> I mean, in Portland, they just hired, I

[1:36:17] think, three retention navigators.

[1:36:19] >> So, those retention navigators would

[1:36:21] fill that gap a little bit, right? Like

[1:36:23] where you would be able to

[1:36:25] >> um

[1:36:26] the case worker work, they got housing,

[1:36:28] work with them for a little bit, and

[1:36:29] then make that pass off to their

[1:36:31] retention navigator.

[1:36:32] >> But you're right. I mean, tenants,

[1:36:34] >> those nine people that are back out now

[1:36:36] have another cabin in,

[1:36:38] >> right?

[1:36:38] But that makes us nine, it's

[1:36:40] harder to house them anywhere. Right.

[1:36:42] And I when I see people I do the

[1:36:44] hearings if they have denials I'll do

[1:36:46] the hearings and say okay give me all

[1:36:48] your resource like things that are going

[1:36:50] to help you in these next few years and

[1:36:52] let's make a list like I want to help

[1:36:54] you but I feel like I'm putting you in

[1:36:56] the midst of the US.

[1:36:57] >> Yeah.

[1:36:58] >> Right. Like you need people in your

[1:37:01] fighting and not fall into this.

[1:37:03] >> I'm still fighting with people you know

[1:37:05] for some of the people that I've

[1:37:07] >> question for both of you. Well, from

[1:37:10] your work and observation, are there

[1:37:13] certain characteristics of clients that

[1:37:17] you know this is going to be easier to

[1:37:19] get this person services with keeping

[1:37:22] them house on house versus someone that

[1:37:24] you know you have to spend more resource

[1:37:25] because the thing is

[1:37:27] >> we you know we at the end of day it's

[1:37:29] going to be resource at the end of day.

[1:37:30] So, so this one person I can keep Amy

[1:37:32] out but I'm spending like 15 people

[1:37:34] around her trying to keep her house two

[1:37:36] you know four months at a time. Yeah.

[1:37:38] >> Yes. I kept a house, but I also missed

[1:37:42] the opportunity to take care of someone

[1:37:43] who's now vulnerable and I never got to

[1:37:45] them because they were willing to get

[1:37:46] help. And

[1:37:48] >> triage combat triage. Now you understand

[1:37:50] that we have a path team that does that

[1:37:53] out on our streets here in Bangalore,

[1:37:54] right? We have the options team that is

[1:37:56] also on our street. We wanted to try to

[1:37:58] fill a gap of trying to make it so

[1:37:59] people weren't becoming

[1:38:01] >> Yeah. homeless if we could because we we you know I mean in that year that I

[1:38:05] worked there I saved over 100 people's

[1:38:08] housing. Yeah.

[1:38:09] >> Right.

[1:38:11] >> Which or or found them new housing.

[1:38:14] >> Um so like that could have been another

[1:38:17] 100 people on the streets

[1:38:18] >> because I could see people who are

[1:38:20] somewhat receptive but just struggling

[1:38:21] with identifying resourc

[1:38:27] » and um versus someone who needs more

[1:38:29] intensive stuff. That's where

[1:38:31] >> these are these are intensive people. A

[1:38:33] lot of them what I

[1:38:35] street that's kind of what I do personal

[1:38:38] experience.

[1:38:40] >> A lot of the folks that I care for that

[1:38:42] have either been chronically unhoused or

[1:38:44] have like cycled through housed and

[1:38:46] unhoused. We know that these folks are

[1:38:48] disproportionately affected by severe

[1:38:50] persistent mental illness. They're

[1:38:52] struggling with substance use. Many of

[1:38:54] them have had fall into brain injury

[1:38:56] categories, whether it's because of

[1:38:57] overdose or assault or all the reasons

[1:39:00] that people can acquire brain injury.

[1:39:03] And when we house them in a new place,

[1:39:06] they're navigating how do I stay

[1:39:08] connected to my recovery provider, my

[1:39:10] mental health provider, how do I get

[1:39:12] there? Typically, as people get housed,

[1:39:15] their housing navigators pull back. And

[1:39:17] even with peer supports, Bangor is,

[1:39:21] believe it or not, a really

[1:39:22] geographically tricky city to navigate

[1:39:25] if you don't have a vehicle.

[1:39:27] >> It costs money. It's very timeconuming

[1:39:29] to take the bus. The walking routes are

[1:39:31] really tricky. So, if you have

[1:39:34] >> Yeah, if you have someone that can't

[1:39:35] transport you to your appointments and

[1:39:37] you don't qualify for links because you

[1:39:38] live on a bus line, you start to fall

[1:39:41] away from all of the folk that we're

[1:39:43] getting able to help you get housed. So

[1:39:45] I think looking at posthousing support

[1:39:48] there's great opportunity for us to be

[1:39:50] more creative with how we provide that

[1:39:53] support and transportation is huge piece

[1:39:55] of it.

[1:39:56] >> One of the things like some research I

[1:39:57] looked at is um

[1:40:00] for [clears throat] people who have been

[1:40:01] institutionalized all their lives

[1:40:03] whether it's in jail incarceration

[1:40:05] hospital they stand a high risk of not

[1:40:09] knowing what to do outside because

[1:40:11] everyone's been taking care of for them

[1:40:13] whether they want to or not. suddenly

[1:40:15] they have being forced to fend for

[1:40:16] themselves. Some people actually want to

[1:40:17] go back to jail, want to go back to a

[1:40:19] hospital because of the fact that it's

[1:40:21] easier. Uh and not because they don't

[1:40:23] want to because it's so tough for them

[1:40:25] to navigate. You need you need a PhD to

[1:40:27] navigate some of this stuff and even

[1:40:28] then it's not that easy.

[1:40:30] >> So I think that's where you know if

[1:40:33] someone I mean I can almost guarantee if

[1:40:35] a patient comes to me and she said I've

[1:40:37] been in the hospital for like 40 years

[1:40:39] on my 50 years of life that person is

[1:40:41] going to have a hard time. And many of

[1:40:43] our folks, we have great compassion for

[1:40:45] [clears throat]

[1:40:46] young people that have struggled with

[1:40:49] homelessness and we see generational

[1:40:51] homelessness. And when people turn 18,

[1:40:53] we're like, you should have figured it

[1:40:54] out on your own somehow, even though

[1:40:56] nobody taught you how to do these

[1:40:57] things. And I've worked with folks long

[1:41:00] term that get housed, they don't know

[1:41:02] how to do their laundry because no one's

[1:41:03] ever taught them because they were

[1:41:05] unhoused since they were 14.

[1:41:08] >> Again,

[1:41:10] right? and they're 25 now and they've

[1:41:12] lost housing 18 times because they can't

[1:41:14] keep their unit clean because no one's

[1:41:15] caught them cleaning their unit or

[1:41:17] triage

[1:41:19] even people that are right%

[1:41:22] >> that you see the generations like they

[1:41:25] now the their kids are in housing right

[1:41:27] but they had these issues beforehand and

[1:41:29] now and you know we really try to work

[1:41:32] with them to say okay what you know yes

[1:41:34] the t is you know we don't want to make

[1:41:36] you you on house like we need to keep

[1:41:38] your house this house is unsanitary What

[1:41:40] are we going to do? How are we going to

[1:41:42] do it? Do I feel like because of certain

[1:41:45] lack of services like we are now a

[1:41:47] little bit of everything, right? I'm not

[1:41:49] just the, you know, the property

[1:41:51] manager. I'm also

[1:41:53] >> similar to a case worker, you know, a

[1:41:55] PSS worker because I'm like, okay, you

[1:41:57] windex that, I'll show you how to index

[1:41:59] this, right? I'll go in on boots on the

[1:42:01] ground and do the work with them, but

[1:42:03] >> it's not really the job, right? Um but

[1:42:07] we are all trying to work together to

[1:42:08] keep keep it and you know it's it's

[1:42:11] difficult.

[1:42:12] >> So I know some agencies each of them do

[1:42:14] different things like educate how look

[1:42:16] at um you know getting housing um get

[1:42:19] assistant you know assistance support

[1:42:21] whatever it is but there's no organized

[1:42:24] city efforts to say that we have a

[1:42:25] series of you know uh educational events

[1:42:28] that you know uh purple street may want

[1:42:30] to tag into and we can support them and

[1:42:32] things like that. So because um it's

[1:42:35] really kind of fe for all whatever

[1:42:36] agency wants to do all is that correct?

[1:42:39] Well, I think every agency has a

[1:42:42] different mission, right? I mean, some

[1:42:44] are work with low barrier people, low

[1:42:46] barrier situations and some are more

[1:42:50] high barrier.

[1:42:52] >> And layering all of that on is like

[1:42:55] staffing, funding, all the things

[1:42:57] agency. I was going to offer at a a

[1:43:01] future meeting that we bring to you

[1:43:05] a ecosystem map of the current services.

[1:43:10] >> That would be cool.

[1:43:11] >> Um that you might be able to draw lines

[1:43:15] between the agency, the service, or the

[1:43:18] pathway that someone might navigate.

[1:43:22] um just to understand how the system

[1:43:25] currently functions for someone that is

[1:43:28] actively

[1:43:29] you know navigating through that to try

[1:43:32] to see if you can identify some

[1:43:35] weaknesses. Does the um city bank

[1:43:37] currently have any like a forum where

[1:43:39] all the agency provide homeless care can

[1:43:41] get together one you know to just

[1:43:43] discuss things?

[1:43:44] >> Typically that would be through the

[1:43:46] continuum of care

[1:43:47] >> coordinator we meet uh weekly

[1:43:51] >> um

[1:43:52] >> for a camp meeting which would be the

[1:43:54] people that are outside and then we also

[1:43:57] meet for coordinated entry. That's a

[1:44:00] meeting where anyone that has done an

[1:44:02] assessment for a coordinated entry

[1:44:04] system would go into that and then we

[1:44:06] would talk to about them um when it for

[1:44:09] vouchers that are available. No, but I'm

[1:44:12] talking about all the homeless agencies

[1:44:13] getting together as group to, you know,

[1:44:16] um just have a discussion to say, "Okay,

[1:44:18] these are services we Okay, so if you're

[1:44:20] doing that, I figure a way to get my

[1:44:21] people to help, you know, go to you and

[1:44:23] get services so they can all coordinate

[1:44:25] services because I I get the feeling

[1:44:26] sometimes we have too many agencies

[1:44:29] providing just coordinated care like

[1:44:32] someone's doing something without

[1:44:33] coordinating and then we lose

[1:44:35] >> I can say that from my insight. Yeah. in

[1:44:37] the recovery community that we do keep a

[1:44:40] pretty close eye on each other. I mean,

[1:44:42] if anything, the patient brokering

[1:44:43] situation was a good example because we

[1:44:44] were able to tap our network of other

[1:44:46] recovery agencies and shelters and say,

[1:44:48] "Hey, did someone strange come by and

[1:44:50] talk to your clients and say, "We'll

[1:44:52] take you to California to have a VIP

[1:44:54] recovery experience." They're like,

[1:44:55] "Yeah, some something like that hit."

[1:44:57] So, we keep we do math with each other

[1:45:00] about available recovery beds. And

[1:45:02] you're right that it is probably more of

[1:45:05] a free-for-all than it deserved to be.

[1:45:07] >> But what I will say too is there's a lot

[1:45:09] of agencies that on paper offer a

[1:45:13] service that in reality is not

[1:45:14] accessible. So when you're looking at

[1:45:16] who the stakeholders are, the list looks

[1:45:18] this long. In reality, it's this long

[1:45:23] >> and

[1:45:25] it's really difficult to coordinate in a

[1:45:30] efficient and effective way among

[1:45:33] multiple agencies.

[1:45:35] It's like coordination maybe I'm using

[1:45:37] the so and I'm going to take my other

[1:45:42] hat disaster hat for we used to have

[1:45:44] this thing called a voluntary

[1:45:46] organization active disaster where

[1:45:47] basically pull different agency involved

[1:45:50] in human human service work and you have

[1:45:52] the focus on collaboration cooperation that we basically would meet

[1:45:58] regularly to say okay this is service we

[1:46:00] can provide blah blah blah blah and we

[1:46:01] actually call people out and say okay

[1:46:04] you said you have this list but are you

[1:46:05] able to really do this so people can

[1:46:08] discuss this as a group not just say but

[1:46:10] this is take four words of you know

[1:46:12] faith that that's exactly what you do so

[1:46:14] we can say okay uh how I mean you saying

[1:46:16] you can provide this case management how

[1:46:18] often are you doing that can you do all

[1:46:20] that can you reality do you think this sustainable program I mean we put

[1:46:25] [clears throat] people on the spot is

[1:46:26] within that group

[1:46:27] >> and then that way everyone knows you

[1:46:29] know you said the case management knows

[1:46:31] exactly what you know sometimes would

[1:46:32] call but that's the informal network you

[1:46:34] need a formal

[1:46:36] >> composite to say everyone has a clearing

[1:46:38] house of stuff that we know exactly

[1:46:40] >> where folks can um try to at least ask

[1:46:43] those questions. I think there's great

[1:46:44] opportunity to that. And I also will say

[1:46:47] I've been in some of those we have like

[1:46:49] somewhat of that situation going on

[1:46:51] right now because of the HIV outbreak

[1:46:53] with regular meetings with stakeholders.

[1:46:55] And even when

[1:46:57] >> you're on the ground and you know that

[1:46:58] that's not happening when you do call

[1:47:00] folks out,

[1:47:01] >> you know,

[1:47:02] >> they don't always acknowledge that what

[1:47:05] they're saying they're doing isn't what

[1:47:06] they're doing. Well, I think there is

[1:47:08] incredible opportunity for that um as an

[1:47:11] intervention.

[1:47:13] >> And I would want to enjoin Amy's point

[1:47:17] about how sometimes mostly incomplete

[1:47:20] good faith when it comes to like the

[1:47:22] banker agencies, people say one thing

[1:47:23] and then do the other. But when it comes

[1:47:26] to constructing like a food web of what

[1:47:29] services are available, I think um

[1:47:33] there's sort of an informal question of

[1:47:35] available to who that is super super

[1:47:38] important and super relevant to why we

[1:47:40] have so many people who are not over

[1:47:42] openly not seeking shelters, who are

[1:47:45] openly not seeking services. One thing I

[1:47:47] learned from my outreach because I try

[1:47:49] to reach people who I feel are not being

[1:47:51] reached by others. So that's

[1:47:53] transgender, J, gay, queer individuals,

[1:47:56] black and brown individuals. And one

[1:47:58] thing that I heard particularly from um

[1:48:01] transgender individuals in recent

[1:48:04] discourse was we're not going to stay at

[1:48:06] shelters because when we stay at

[1:48:07] shelters, we're misgendered, we're

[1:48:10] touched, and violent things are said

[1:48:13] about us. We're not allowed to use the

[1:48:14] women's facilities. Um, and so it's like

[1:48:19] I could role playing as them cross off

[1:48:22] half of the food web right now if I

[1:48:24] looked at look at it because I had some

[1:48:26] issues I didn't want to go.

[1:48:27] >> And I think even for people without any

[1:48:30] specific issues if I go to shelter I'd

[1:48:33] be taken advantage of. I'd be bullied

[1:48:35] and all kind makes me just I don't want

[1:48:36] to go. So I mean we see that even for

[1:48:38] folks nothing else going on. the fact

[1:48:41] that I'm a new kid on the block. They

[1:48:43] also have on me.

[1:48:44] >> Well, that's a marginaliz marginalized

[1:48:46] position too. New homelessness, not your

[1:48:49] streets smart develop.

[1:48:50] >> Yeah,

[1:48:50] >> but Bruce

[1:48:53] whatever whatever final points you can

[1:48:55] get across

[1:48:58] >> um yeah, I mean we have general

[1:49:00] assistance at the city obviously and

[1:49:02] that they are seeing people from 8 to 4

[1:49:06] or whenever they come in. I mean also

[1:49:09] keeping people housed and also helping

[1:49:12] people um that are looking to get into

[1:49:14] new places.

[1:49:16] So we have obviously and and and help

[1:49:26] you have management. Yeah. Yeah. I'm

[1:49:29] sorry. We have intensive case management

[1:49:32] for the HIV breakouts

[1:49:35] do case management. Now I know this data

[1:49:37] could be abstractable. Who would have

[1:49:39] the data to say

[1:49:41] we can extrapolate that how many people

[1:49:44] become homeless, how many people leave

[1:49:46] homelessness because at the end of the

[1:49:47] day you want the net to be more people

[1:49:50] going home home going into homes. Yeah.

[1:49:53] >> So um so it's who can extrapolate that

[1:49:56] data.

[1:49:56] >> So we call that in HMIS data inflow and

[1:50:00] outflow. And let me see if I can find

[1:50:02] where we have that.

[1:50:10] annotation

[1:50:12] might have added I might have added it

[1:50:15] to it. I think I might have added it to

[1:50:17] the uh response system data. So you

[1:50:21] might not have it here,

[1:50:22] >> but there is a way that they're tracking

[1:50:27] when you're putting someone into the

[1:50:29] system for the first time or when

[1:50:32] another hub

[1:50:33] >> is either known to someone that would

[1:50:36] you know uh entered into like the

[1:50:39] beginning hub and then you know when

[1:50:42] they're uh you know find housing you

[1:50:46] know then they are considered inactive

[1:50:49] and then they can you

[1:50:52] So, so shelters, both shelters would put

[1:50:55] people in the EMIS when they're when

[1:50:57] they go into shelter.

[1:50:58] >> Um, and then the PATH team um would also

[1:51:01] do the same thing when they're working

[1:51:02] with people out outside. Um,

[1:51:06] the team at the city, we don't put our

[1:51:09] data into HMIS yet. We're working on

[1:51:11] that.

[1:51:12] >> Um, so that I mean, it's only as good as

[1:51:15] what's being put in there as well. out

[1:51:18] the middle. I think that's how far we

[1:51:20] don't know what the actual number is.

[1:51:22] >> It's like impossible.

[1:51:23] >> I know it's impossible, but I don't

[1:51:25] know,

[1:51:26] >> right? You're not going to get

[1:51:27] >> Yeah, it is because I I heard you

[1:51:29] talking earlier. I mean, about the

[1:51:31] definition of homelessness when a

[1:51:33] person's couch surfing, they're not

[1:51:35] considered homeless,

[1:51:36] >> and or squatting.

[1:51:37] >> Yeah.

[1:51:38] >> Right. So, like that's a whole different

[1:51:40] number of people that come in and out of

[1:51:42] the streets throughout the day.

[1:51:45] >> Yep.

[1:51:45] >> Right. Right. And that's very much by

[1:51:47] season. That's very much we see a huge

[1:51:50] change in that by season.

[1:51:52] >> Um,

[1:51:54] and talk about like in and out of

[1:51:56] Bangor. It's not uncommon. We have folks

[1:51:58] that are from Bangor that have been in

[1:52:00] Bangor. They have a relative in Lincoln

[1:52:02] that they can go to Lincoln for six

[1:52:03] months until they burn that bridge and

[1:52:05] they're back back in Bangor. So it's

[1:52:07] >> it's

[1:52:10] incarcerated go to hospital and they

[1:52:11] consider house even though they

[1:52:14] >> they never did anything

[1:52:17] >> yeah right it

[1:52:20] >> can I ask you a question

[1:52:22] >> um when we're interacting with the

[1:52:24] unhoused and we're collecting this data

[1:52:26] for him are we apprising them of the

[1:52:28] fact that we are putting them into the

[1:52:31] database

[1:52:31] >> so they are told when they're in

[1:52:33] shelters I'm not sure what path does but

[1:52:36] I know that they they both shelters read

[1:52:38] a thing letting them know what that

[1:52:41] they're being put into the system.

[1:52:44] >> There is an updated. Yeah.

[1:52:45] >> Is there a way that they can revoke

[1:52:46] their data if they would like to? Jason

[1:52:57] » I I should just come to you first and

[1:52:59] question the protections are there opt

[1:53:01] in and opt out. [clears throat]

[1:53:04] >> Thank you.

[1:53:07] >> Feel like this conversation like I

[1:53:10] already knew there's just tremendous

[1:53:12] work being done by all of these

[1:53:13] different agencies and agencies that

[1:53:15] don't happen to be at this table

[1:53:17] tonight. feel like there's a large

[1:53:19] population in the city that has no idea

[1:53:21] um what's happening and even listening

[1:53:23] to the conversation might say that's all

[1:53:25] alphabet soup to me. I have no idea. So

[1:53:28] I think one of the benefits of this

[1:53:30] committee might be finding a way to uh

[1:53:33] think about the rhetoric of of how we

[1:53:35] talk about this because like this is a

[1:53:37] great conversation. I have just great

[1:53:40] respect for everyone around the table

[1:53:42] and what you do. Um but there's not

[1:53:45] necessarily as many people seeing it. uh

[1:53:47] the way I see it, the way my co-orker

[1:53:50] Olivia sees it, working with all or many

[1:53:52] of you and and uh not you, but

[1:53:56] [laughter]

[1:53:58] I don't know if she

[1:54:01] >> but yeah. Um but

[1:54:05] uh but but I I just feel like um you

[1:54:08] know, it's heartbreaking that I I get to

[1:54:10] see how much good work is done by each

[1:54:13] of the agencies you represent and many

[1:54:15] more. And I know there are many people

[1:54:17] who for whatever reason don't see that

[1:54:20] and and don't understand the value. Um

[1:54:24] so I just I hope that we can also think

[1:54:26] about bringing along the rest of the

[1:54:29] population with the way that we we talk

[1:54:31] about uh this and I'm not saying

[1:54:33] anyone's talked about it wrong tonight.

[1:54:34] I'm just saying as we think about it

[1:54:36] like and that can be an element of

[1:54:38] public comment in a couple of weeks. How

[1:54:40] do we hear what the person's saying and

[1:54:42] say how would it change someone's mind

[1:54:45] if they heard us talk about uh you know

[1:54:48] independent living

[1:54:50] in in terms uh that that relate to the

[1:54:54] very complaint that they had. So that

[1:54:55] that's just what comes to mind. And you

[1:54:57] know, I hear things that people are

[1:54:59] saying and I'm just like so excited

[1:55:01] because I know it's like a lot of work

[1:55:03] that goes into it. But um but I I just

[1:55:08] that's the other thing I want to think

[1:55:09] about is how do how do we as this

[1:55:11] committee help the the general public?

[1:55:14] >> It's been right

[1:55:15] >> been. Yeah.

[1:55:16] >> Um so when I actually interviewed for

[1:55:21] this position, that was my whole that

[1:55:23] was my whole platform. Um, I said that

[1:55:25] like one of the major focuses that I

[1:55:28] mean one of the questions was how would

[1:55:29] you address it? I mean if you had $3

[1:55:31] million what would you do? I said, well,

[1:55:33] I would focus on restoring trust and I

[1:55:35] would put advocacy up front of the issue

[1:55:38] and I would try and pressure the city

[1:55:40] councilors to put this in layman's terms

[1:55:42] because this is a heavily pathized issue

[1:55:45] and in this room where we have providers

[1:55:48] who are experts in it, it's even more

[1:55:50] pathized and the layman has almost no

[1:55:54] access to

[1:55:56] um the terminology we're using. and they

[1:55:58] have no understanding

[1:56:00] >> and they can do simple math and they can do great math but they they

[1:56:04] look outside. They see that the issue is

[1:56:07] growing every day and they see that all

[1:56:11] of these experts are speaking in these

[1:56:12] heavily pathologized siloed ways that

[1:56:16] don't make sense to them and don't make

[1:56:17] sense to the stakeholders. Um and

[1:56:20] they're like I think that's contributing

[1:56:21] to the issue and it creates um

[1:56:24] adversarial angles in the city. So, I

[1:56:27] think that that is something that I

[1:56:29] really hope that this committee can

[1:56:30] focus on as well is just removing these

[1:56:33] barriers, doing more direct advocacy and

[1:56:36] direct outreach and appealing to the

[1:56:38] layman um and teaching um our citizens

[1:56:42] and community members what it is we do,

[1:56:44] why we do it, why it's important, and

[1:56:46] maybe there are other avenues that we

[1:56:48] can pursue it that simplify the process

[1:56:51] and make it more accessible. I mean one

[1:56:53] of sorry one of the goals that you guys

[1:56:55] identify as part of the end product this

[1:56:59] is to figure out mechanism to continue

[1:57:01] to educate both professional and

[1:57:04] nonprofessional about homelessness and

[1:57:06] how it's evolving because I think you

[1:57:09] know your point is right I mean both s

[1:57:12] we we stop talking the way we just used

[1:57:14] to shop because that's how we function

[1:57:16] but it changes even for us now versus

[1:57:19] three years from now so And I think a

[1:57:22] lot of the challenges

[1:57:24] you know the population face I suppose

[1:57:26] community because no one gets it no one

[1:57:29] understands it uh for whatever the

[1:57:31] perspective. So I think a goal for this

[1:57:33] committee as a strategic action 12

[1:57:35] months is probably and how to have a

[1:57:37] system of ongoing education to just

[1:57:40] about services and also dstigmatize the challengors.

[1:57:47] I mean they cycle through.

[1:57:49] >> Yeah. Yeah. So

[1:57:50] >> well that's why you're hoping to build

[1:57:51] this in so

[1:57:51] >> we could create a playbook for the city

[1:57:54] >> having some historical knowledge.

[1:57:56] >> I mean they they change but the staff

[1:57:58] does don't change as much. So that's

[1:57:59] where they can hand inviting a regional

[1:58:02] respons

[1:58:05] I thought of when you were talking.

[1:58:07] >> No that's fine. But something that I

[1:58:09] actually wrote down in my notes here is

[1:58:11] I think it'd be interesting if one of

[1:58:14] our unhoused or recovery agencies would

[1:58:16] um do something like an unhoused

[1:58:18] education or like welcome to

[1:58:20] homelessness where uh we could do sort

[1:58:22] of an open um class

[1:58:26] >> um for newcomers to homelessness because

[1:58:28] like I said earlier that is a

[1:58:29] marginalized position and say

[1:58:31] >> to be naked and afraid in Bangor

[1:58:34] >> they're just not

[1:58:37] >> it's a horrible experience.

[1:58:38] >> The one challenge with that is when you

[1:58:40] do education like that, people already

[1:58:42] have an interest. They want to go learn

[1:58:44] about it. Um you need to build in a way

[1:58:48] of education that how it ties into

[1:58:49] almost everything in our community. Even

[1:58:52] if you don't think about homelessness

[1:58:53] right off the bat, all these have

[1:58:55] implications of homelessness if let's

[1:58:57] say food insecurity,

[1:58:59] um heating bills and all kinds of stuff.

[1:59:01] So I think there's got to be

[1:59:04] just regular education but there's also

[1:59:06] other things to build in that hey

[1:59:08] everyone's invested it's not just this

[1:59:11] person because he's homeless. I know

[1:59:13] some jurisdiction for example um

[1:59:16] I can't remember jurisdiction where they

[1:59:18] the mental health budget was not by one

[1:59:21] inst but by everybody education

[1:59:23] department police department has a

[1:59:25] built-in budget they said all of you

[1:59:28] have a stake in it so you guys got to be

[1:59:30] part of this. So it's the same thing

[1:59:31] with justification that everyone even if

[1:59:34] they have never seen homeless but they

[1:59:35] got what they

[1:59:39] in the interest of time as we're getting

[1:59:42] close to wrapping up. Does anyone

[1:59:45] [clears throat] have any final questions

[1:59:47] or remarks for any of the staff that we

[1:59:49] have here today? Uh Melissa asked me to

[1:59:52] pass on uh her request for the next date

[1:59:54] and time of the meeting to be sent to

[1:59:57] her email or at least posted onto city

[2:00:00] site.

[2:00:01] >> It's the 11th, right?

[2:00:05] » 11 I think that's

[2:00:08] people.

[2:00:12] » Yeah. I mean anyone thinks I think we

[2:00:14] keep [clears throat] at the same time.

[2:00:15] >> Yeah. I miss Mr. Al.

[2:00:22] » Anybody else?

[2:00:24] Motion to adjurnn.

[2:00:26] >> Exactly.

[2:00:26] >> So, one last thing. What are we asking

[2:00:28] the staff to do for next?

[2:00:30] >> Yes.

[2:00:31] >> Yeah. So, I think for the next meeting,

[2:00:33] we we need to have that protocol for

[2:00:36] public comment because that sense.

[2:00:39] >> Yes. I'll email the policy. If if I

[2:00:42] don't turn on the mic, it doesn't go

[2:00:44] through the TV. Um, I'll I'll email the

[2:00:45] policy and we'll start doing public

[2:00:47] outreach to encourage folks to come to

[2:00:50] that um to that

[2:00:54] session and then maybe because we

[2:00:56] probably won't have an opportunity to

[2:00:57] have a robust conversation about the

[2:01:00] next meeting, maybe folks could send

[2:01:03] their input to you Alton and then we can

[2:01:05] coordinate on an agenda.

[2:01:07] >> Yeah, I mean I I think it's likely going

[2:01:08] to be

[2:01:10] agenda for the if I call correctly. We

[2:01:13] were thinking 90 minutes of public

[2:01:15] comment and about 30 minutes for

[2:01:17] committee discussion of said public

[2:01:19] comment and I mean that essentially

[2:01:21] would be the agenda. Um however if there

[2:01:25] are other items that anybody wants on

[2:01:27] the agenda for that conversation please

[2:01:29] send it so that we can make sure it's

[2:01:30] included. I think this what you going to

[2:01:32] give that map or something that um

[2:01:35] something you were saying you're going

[2:01:36] to show.

[2:01:36] >> Yeah.

[2:01:38] >> So we as technical advisors

[2:01:43] thought to continue the conversation in

[2:01:46] the data by looking at the homeless

[2:01:48] response system building that eco map

[2:01:51] and then you had mentioned that you

[2:01:54] wanted to hear like other municipal

[2:01:56] examples specific things that the city

[2:01:59] is doing. So perhaps if you maybe have

[2:02:03] ideas about what that should entail, it

[2:02:05] would give us all that much more time to

[2:02:07] prepare for you. So any lead time that

[2:02:10] you could give us with what you'd really

[2:02:12] like us to bring would be helpful.

[2:02:14] >> Well, email should we send that to you?

[2:02:16] >> You can.

[2:02:17] >> I think you're on the list actually.

[2:02:19] >> Yeah, I'm on the I think that you you've

[2:02:21] respond I think I've seen email. So I I

[2:02:25] think was the election of a chair. It

[2:02:26] probably makes sense to work those asks

[2:02:29] through the chair.

[2:02:30] >> Does that make sense to everyone else?

[2:02:34] >> Okay.

[2:02:35] >> I got include both of us, right? Like

[2:02:38] you can cut out the middleman.

[2:02:40] >> Does that make sense?

[2:02:41] >> But then the numbers are going up

[2:02:43] [clears throat] the

[2:02:46] solicitor numbers.

[2:02:48] >> Number of public document. [laughter]

[2:02:53] » Either way is fine. Okay. send it

[2:02:55] directly to me and I'm happy to

[2:02:56] coordinate.

[2:02:57] >> I'll probably CC both of you. I don't

[2:02:59] really understand how technology works,

[2:03:02] but I'm going to try and believe what

[2:03:04] it's out there and it will find me.

[2:03:07] >> Thank you so much for all the data.

[2:03:10] >> A great place to start the conversation.

[2:03:12] I'm sure it took a lot of work to pull

[2:03:14] all of it together. I appreciate our

[2:03:16] experts here too who are work not only

[2:03:20] working on the issue on a daily basis

[2:03:24] knowledge to bring to us

[2:03:28] in this room right but we are going to

[2:03:31] do it

[2:03:32] >> public comment in this room correct

[2:03:34] >> I'm guessing we s there will

[2:03:38] be

[2:03:39] >> um I would suggest that we you you

[2:03:43] either could sit at count see the people

[2:03:47] have them

[2:03:47] >> or we could rearrange this table and

[2:03:50] then folks will step to the podium to

[2:03:52] get their movement

[2:03:53] >> see like

[2:03:55] >> I just worry about the power dynamic of

[2:03:56] that I know it's just like

[2:03:58] >> you know you're right

[2:03:59] >> you're worried that it'll feel like

[2:04:01] you're like

[2:04:03] >> it will dstigmatize

[2:04:04] >> just do the table all table

[2:04:07] >> when we did something similar for the

[2:04:08] opioid advisory committee the committee

[2:04:11] did sit at this table

[2:04:13] >> facing the audience Yes, that's perfect.

[2:04:15] Yeah,

[2:04:18] >> there's nothing else. A motion to journ.

[2:04:21] >> I second.

[2:04:22] >> I do need a gabble. was like

Advisory Committee on Homelessness 7.28.26

Transcript