June 28, 2000 Work Group Meeting Minutes
Holiday Inn, Augusta, Maine

Present:  Susan Wygal, Ron Welch, John Shattuck, Cynthia Sudheimer, Jane Gallivan, Joel Dutton (standing in for Lou Dorogi), Chris Zukas-Lessard, Kat Douin, Sawin Millett, Michael Arenstam, Tonya Labbe, Alice Conway, Chandra Murphy, Steve Maxwell, Deb Parker Wolfenden, Laura Bell (alternate with Margaret Forbes), John Baillargeon, Helen Bailey, Larry Glantz, Stuart Bratesman, Donna Lerman, Kay Dutram, Eileen Griffin

Not present: Christine Bartlett, Lou Dorogi, Margaret Forbes (alternate with Laura Bell), Chris Gianopoulos, Nathaniel Hussey, Kathryn Kazenski, Joanne Ogden, Lora Perry, Deborah Williams, Howard Wright, Dixie Leavitt

Susan Wygal chaired the meeting. Donna Lerman facilitated the meeting.

1.  Minutes
Minutes from the May 24 meeting were reviewed and approved.

2.  Housekeeping
Eileen Griffin reviewed some housekeeping items. First, she reported that the University of Southern Maine is not able to pay travel stipends without a social security number. For persons uncomfortable about sharing their social security number, the alternative of gift certificates were offered. Eileen asked that all consumer work group members give her their social security numbers so that she could arrange to have the travel stipends sent to them. Eileen also reported that the email listserv was up and that members were invited to invite others to join and to suggest other ways of increasing the number of people on the listserv. The email listserv would be one way to share the work of the Work Group with a broader audience. Stuart explained that persons replying to listserv messages needed to make sure their message was directed to the right audience. If you hit the reply button to a listserv message, the message automatically goes to all members of the listserv. To send a private message to one or two members of the listserv, the correct individual address or addresses must be typed in. Members of the Work Group who were not on the listserv were asked to let Eileen know how often they would like the email messages mailed to them. Unless Eileen hears otherwise, she will assume that email messages should be sent out daily. Eileen also reported that the website would be up in a few weeks.

3.  Grant
Chris Zukas-Lessard announced that Maine had moved to the next stage of the approval process in obtaining a grant to fund Work Group activities. The grant would pay for the services of a data systems analysis to map out a plan for coordinating data systems across programs. The grant would also pay for focus groups and case studies to examine where services break down across departments and programs, as well as a consultant to assist in redesigning processes for coordinating services across programs, as necessary.

4. Ground Rules
Donna Lerman asked the Work Group to develop a decision-making process and to establish Ground Rules. She began by proposing that the Work Group adopt the "modified consensus" model for decision-making. Under this model, the group members agree that all can support or at least "live with" a certain position. The Group is in agreement if each person answers "no" to the question: "Given this alternative as presented, do you have a serious concern about supporting it?" The Group agreed that the right to dissent would always be available, with a "minority report" on the record if necessary.

Donna offered the Group a set of ground rules. The Group discussed the fact that having only Steering Committee members as chairs contradicted the proposed Ground Rule that all members of the Work Group are equal. It was agreed that the role of chair should rotate among all Work Group members. The Group agreed that a Ground Rule should be added requiring each member to listen to another’s idea first as an advocate, before responding. Donna suggested this might be a very hard rule to comply with. It was suggested that this rule was a matter of mutual respect. It was suggested that all members are susceptible to failure on this rule but that does not mean the attempt should not be made. After some additions and modifications the following ground rules were adopted:

• Read the vision at the beginning of each meeting to focus the work.
• Raise your hand to speak.
• Commit to being on time for all meetings.
• Stick to the stated times and agenda items unless the group decides not to.
• No group reviews for those not present at the previous meeting. (I.e. new meetings will not open with a review of what happened in the last meeting.)
• One person talks at a time; commit to no unnecessary side conversations while another is talking.
• All ideas are held up for consideration, reflection, and inquiry.
• Listen to ideas as an advocate before judging.
• It's okay to move around when you need to.
• The next meeting's agenda will be developed at the end of each meeting.
• All members are treated as equals; any member may serve as chair.
• Everyone is encouraged to participate.

As a result of the discussion to rotate the role of chair across all members of the Work Group, it was agreed that the chair of the next meeting would be identified at the end of every meeting.

Donna said she would take responsibility for distributing ground rules and for enlarging and laminating them.

5.  Vision Statement
The Work Group discussed whether or not it should define terms before developing a Vision Statement. It also discussed whether the "mission" of the Work Group, as described in the Work Book, was appropriately broad, and whether the "mission" was in fact a "Mission Statement." It was agreed that much of the concern around the mission and the vision of the group was routed in the definitions of terms. In particular, the Group discussed whether the Group’s mission was to develop a plan for services in the "most integrated setting." It was agreed this was the intended charge for the Group, even if it had not been explicitly stated. The Group proceeded to develop a Vision Statement while listing terms that would require definition.

The following vision statements were offered.

• Maine: the way life should be — for everyone.
• State assures all have life, liberty and happiness.
• Services for persons with disabilities should promote true integration and the fullest degree of participation within the community.
• The State of Maine’s system of comprehensive, integrated community-based living will promote and support acceptance, self-determination, quality of life, and participation in everyday life activities for persons with disabilities--in the most appropriate and least restrictive settings.
• We are all the better for it: Society benefits by including all people in the community.
• Maine will support all its citizens as part of the woven fabric of community life.
• Life is a quilt; every thread holds it together.
• Maine people include all people [with disabilities] in their communities (an attitude of inclusion).
• All people in Maine will have an equal opportunity to contribute to and benefit the community.

The Work Group discussed a number of issues around the difference between being "part of a community" versus "in a community" and that one vision for this group would be to shift the way people think about "persons with disabilities" so that the term "with disability" is no longer a modifier that people use.

The following values were identified in this process:

• Disability is a neutral term, not a limiting attribute.
• The vision should not be limited by lack of resources.
• Meeting abilities with no limitation.
• Proactive rather than reactive.
• Focus on ability, not disability. Drop the term disability as a descriptor.
• Address cultural competencies.

 The group discussed identifying commonalities and agreeing upon a basic sentence structure, and identifying a small group to hammer out a draft. It was agreed that Donna Lerman, Kay Dutram, Michael Arenstam, and Chandra Murphy would take the vision statements and values to develop a draft single vision statement. The Group agreed that the subject of the vision statement would be "all people." The draft vision statement would be shared with the Work Group for input before the next meeting.

6.  Terms That Need To Be Defined
In the course of developing a Vision Statement, the following terms were identified as needing definition:

• Comprehensive
• Integration
• Community-based living
• System –as whole; as parts
• Fullest degree
• Self-determination
• Quality of life
• Safety
• Happiness
• Most appropriate
• Least restrictive

7.  Next Meeting
The next meeting is July 26th at the Holiday Inn again. Chandra Murphy agreed to chair the next meeting. The agenda for the next meeting will include:

• reviewing and revising the draft vision statement;
• continuing to identify terms that would require definition;
• defining terms;
• developing an action plan for Work Group (timelines, responsibilities). It was suggested that one activity that needed to be done was reviewing the Work Book, and Work Group members should review the proposed Work Plan.

It was suggested that Work Group members bring examples of definitions for the terms that need to be defined.