My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/9/1998
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1998
>
6/9/1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:57 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 11:05:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/09/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
WK too KE <br />*An RFP (Request for Proposal) (Attachment C) was placed on the <br />Board of County Commissioners Consent Agenda, March 24, <br />1998. The RFP contained five objectives whose development <br />and basis are unknown. There was no reference to <br />documentation which could be found in a Needs Assesment, <br />Asset Mapping or priority list - obviously because none existed <br />at that time nor exists as this memo is written. <br />Much time has been spent by the CSNetwork Grant Review <br />Committee Interviewing those agencies who responded to the <br />RFP, and yet there has been no established data to suggest these <br />agencies represent any unmet or undermet need. <br />I would suggest that the principles established under the Guide are necessary to protect <br />the public's interest and to restrain special Interests. Therefore, it is imperative that Guide <br />be followed. <br />It is essential that the County makes every effort to safeguard this THE INITIAL EFFORT <br />of the CSNetwork if the Network is to gain and maintain its credibility. Proceeding along the <br />present path will result in loss of public and agency confidence. <br />It is my recommendation that a new RFP be initiated AFTER THE HERSHBERG/SALTER <br />ANALYSIS IS AVAILABLE AND A PRIORITY LIST HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. Until the <br />county has followed the steps as presented in the Ordinance and Guide, there can be no <br />assurance of public money being spent on verifiable needs. <br />Commissioner Ginn asked why the CSN guide was not followed in their recent <br />meetings. <br />Vice Chairman Macht responded that the reason was the inability of developing the <br />needs assessment to its full maturity in the limited time as the budget review period was <br />quickly approaching. He had come to the Board and asked for some tolerance in developing <br />priorities with the information on hand, that is, the raw data, tempered with experience in the <br />community. The CSN has been very fortunate to have that experience. The need is so great <br />in our community for people who have suffered the breakdown of family and economics' <br />impact. In listening to the applications, family breakdown has generated the greatest <br />majority of ills on the children. There is no doubt. that a substantial amount of good could <br />be done now with the benefit of County funding. He felt very comfortable in the <br />recommendations coming back from the CSN, which will be refined. Next year, with the aid <br />of Dr. Herschberg's report, he has every hope that they are refined to the degree that he <br />believes will satisfy everyone. In the meantime, it is necessary to get started and attend to <br />the needs out there of children who are at the mercy of dysfunctional families and predators <br />in their neighborhoods. He felt it was government's responsibility to act in concert with <br />private caregivers to do what we can in the name of humanity. <br />June 9, 1998 <br />.O <br />0 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.