Special Meeting MINUTES Contracts Feb2018

February 14, 2018 9:30 am -11 am SPECIAL SERVICE PROVIDER COUNCIL MEETING: Contracts MINUTES Speakers/guests Cynthia Farmer, Assistant Deputy Minister Pat Firminger, Regional Executive Director Allan Govendar, Regional Director, Regional Support Services Alex Hillyard, Director, Disability Services Heather Mazur, Senior Manager Jenia Tishkina-Norman, Senior Manager, Contract and Procurement Service Provider Council members: Erin Waite, Elaine Yost, Dyann Gould, Alexi Davis, John Eng, Garth Reesor, Linda Doherty, Larry Fedun, Azhar Ghori, Joanne Hart Sweazey, Maline Jenkinson, Dianne Jackson, Debora Johnston, Ann-Marie Latoski, Pam McGladdery, Nicole Milton, Jayne Myatt, Diane Dmitryshyn, Clova Lehr, Ed Quiring, Mylaine Tsaprailis, Julie Ridley, Ann Sims, Helene de Klerk, Kevin Menin, Mickey Greiner, Michelle Juett, Aurea Centeno, Brian Wansleeben, Yvonne Martodam, Kendra Warwick Council Chair, Erin Waite, welcomed the full room of attendees, who introduced themselves by name and agency, and then introduced Pat Firminger. Pat introduced government staff in the room and offered opening remarks.

Allan Govender, who had worked on the agenda with Erin Waite, set stage by explaining that the contract is a tool on which we build a working relationship. Processes are all in place and will continue as they are so that “decisions can be handed down” from government to Service Providers.

Jenia Tishkina-Norman addressed the specific question areas that had been provided ahead of the meeting: 1. One-, Two-, and Three-Year Contract terms: clarified that agency has option of 2- or 1year contract if they signed a 1-year contract. There can be many different reasons based on the agency’s work and situation that will determine the best option. Ultimately, all contracts will end March 31, 2020, as that is the first date of ending for the 3-year contracts.

2. Audit questions: There has always been a requirement for a consolidated financial statement provided by the agency. There are now 2 parts: the audited financial statements for the agency and then a second part to prove that the services funded were delivered.

3. Audit Timing questions: to provide an audit that covers 3 years, it is possible to provide three, separate one-year audits, as that it what Auditors are most comfortable providing.

Questions: - Is it an Audit or a Financial Review? Because an Audit is significantly more costly.

Question posed by agency that was told by Auditor, in a letter, that if this requirement is in place, they would resign as auditor as they can’t take the liability of a three-year time span.

- Jenia answered that the audit requirements are clear to auditors and that they would do

-

-

-

the review while reviewing other items and so not an additional cost.

- Will there be a one-pager or short document that spells out Audit requirements?

Jenia answered that while that used to exist, there isn’t one now and just a link to where the requirements are. Auditors know that clause 58.15 is the one that explains the audit requirements.

60 days is a tight requirement – why the change from 120 days and is there consideration being given to loosening that timeline?

Jenia answered that no there isn’t. However, for everything, a Service Provider can explain a situation and make a formal request for a variance.

Will the FAQ be updated soon as many with calendar year-ends have Audit underway so there will be no efficiencies if the information isn’t available while audits are underway.

Jenia answered yes.

4. Contract Flexibility: Intent was to help agencies use funds as needed for agency and service provision. Therefore added more categories and the ability to move funds. But that provision includes retaining accountability.

Two paths – one requires permission from Government and the other doesn’t. It is important to remember that contract clauses can’t be viewed in isolation as they all work together. So while there are provisions for moving funds, there are other clauses that also have to be followed that affect that move. As per clause 6.11, up to 20% of funds can be moved between categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 without approval. But note that clauses 6.1 (b) and 6.8 refer to the government only paying for services provided.

While permission is not needed, you must speak with your Contract Manager to ensure they understand the reason. For instance, if funds moving from Direct Services to Supervision, that will prompt a question whether there is a reduction in services being delivered. It may be appropriate but it could lead to a question.

Questions: “You keep saying ‘ensuring service provision’ but is that hours of service or through the PMF? That should be an objective measure but PMF is not objective.”

Jenia answered that the PMF is objective because it lists goals and then talks to people about wehther they feel the goals have been met. That is one of the tools. But there are other tools. Both the questioner and Jenia further discussed and disagreed on objective or subjective nature of this proof.

Question: Can I have a list of tools used to measure whether services were provided?

Jenia said yes.

For clause 6.11 (c), moving funds to Ancillory Costs, the government most approve that move. There is a consistent process and note that this is related but not necessarily the same as ‘eligbile’ and ‘ineligible’ expenses. Just because a cost is eligible, it doesn’t mean the movement of funds will be approved.

The request to transfer funds must be requested formally with back-up to the contract manager who will then get an approval from the Regional Executive Director (Pat Firminger).

Question: Direct service delivery is not only hours with clients. There can be complex family situations and others involved and that work is part of the service. It’s important to have a better understanding of service and recognize that it is not a narrow definition.

5. PMF – Any changes pending? No. Discussion was had about PMF and adding ‘Other’ evaluations and information to flesh out the description of the services delivered. Agencies are encouraged to provide more

2

information that might demonstrate the quality of services.

Question: Will the information from PMF come back to the community? Is anyone looking at the information? What is being learned?

Jenia answered yes.

6. Will there be a better ability to respond to system costs like Minimum Wage, Carbon Tax, Bill 17, etc. in the future?

Cynthia Farmer, ADM took over for Jenia: Cynthia explained that she has a history in Children’s prior to 2007 and the issues were the same.

She left for other portfolios and now being back in social services, she is finding that many issues are the same – that there are complexities of managing a system and recognizing that we’re talking about people.

With the last few issues, there has been the opportunity to paint a better picture of the sector and with Jason Chance providing analytics, this should improve.

Cynthia covers 3,000 staff and a $3 Billion budget and “we’re trying to figure out” how best to put a picture forward. But the executive team is getting clarity which is really important. Shannon Marchand (Deputy Minister) reported to Treasury last week.

It’s important to understand the issues with Finance stem from having sole sourced contracts with agencies. All sole sourced contracts need to be signed by the Deputy Minister.

There are 8 Regions across Alberta – 7 geographic regions and 1 Alberta Supports, phone-in point. The 8th Region just took its 2 millionth call and provides information across 7 Ministries.

PDD REVIEW: The executive and staff knew about the PDD Review letter by reading it in the paper first. No one has been briefed at this point. There is a real intention to listen to the community.

An example of a service being reviewed and improved is AISH. There are now 60,000 clients on AISH and there have been significant improvements made to the process. As drafts of forms were put in front of the Deputy Minister, he would say, “Show me in the Legislation where it says you have to collect that information?”

Cynthia encouraged everyone to connect with her at Cynthia.farmer@gov.ab.ca and she encouraged letters to be submitted in response to the PDD Review.

The session ended at 11 am.

3