[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