White House's SF HIV Meeting in Siberia?;
Local Committee Names Released
An announcement earlier this week from the California Office of AIDS in Sacramento about upcoming public meetings between the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP) and communities affected by HIV, provided details on the locations of the meetings. In Los Angeles, the meeting will be on Sunday, October 18 and held at the Hollywood High School, smack dab in the heart of the city.
But here in San Francisco the meeting, to be held on Friday, October 16, will be at the UCSF Mission Bay Conference Center, which is located in an isolated section of the city and accessible via only a single public transit line, the T line. It's hardy convenient for people with AIDS living in the Tenderloin, Mission, Castro or Fillmore districts, where most PWAs live, to schlep down to Mission Bay on a Friday night. Siberia is closer and easier to get to!
I honestly expected when I first heard about these White House meetings at the local level, that the San Francisco forum would happen at one of the many large halls and auditoriums in the Civic Center/Tenderloin neighborhoods. Be as easy as possible for dozens of PWAs to walk or bike to the meeting, right? I was wrong.
My gut says the UCSF site was chosen to help put the Mission Bay campus on the map. I can't see how local organizers think the campus is ideal for the meeting, so I asked one of them, Randy Allgaier, a PWA, to explain the choice of location. Randy said:
I was actually one of the people who suggested this site and it is already contracted. I disagree that it is not accessible. It is very accessible to all neighborhoods by public transportation which is why I thought it was a good idea. Just take the T-Third Metro Line and get off at the UCSF Mission Bay Station on 3rd Street opposite the campus.OK, I grant Randy his point that the campus is accessible on the T line, but City Hall, the state building on Golden Gate Avenue and the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium are all more accessible from not just SF's Muni, but also BART and Golden Gate transit.
This meeting is also broader than San Francisco. We are doing outreach to San Mateo, Santa Clara, Marin and Sonoma as well up on the North Coast.
Curious about who else is on the local committee, I emailed the White House and asked for the names of committee members. Here's what the White House sent back:
Jeff Byers, CA Office of AIDSAll folks from AIDS Inc, with several PWAs included, which is a good thing, but not a single person unaffiliated with the HIV nonprofits or public health departments on the committee. I have no doubt that regardless of the location of the meeting, the agenda will be skewed towards the needs of AIDS Inc.
Randy Allgaier, San Francisco HIV Health Services Planning Council
Brian Basinger, AIDS Housing Alliance/SF
Stephanie Goss, Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Jen Hecht, STOP AIDS Project
Jennifer Heflin, San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Debra Holtz, San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Israel Nieves-Rivera, San Francisco Department of Public Health
Michelle Roland, California Department of Public Health
Grant Colfax, San Francisco Department of Public Health
Ron Hypolite, San Francisco Department of Public Health
Kate Sorensen, Stop AIDS Project
Lance Toma, Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center
The fact that only AIDS Inc folks are on the committee shouldn't surprise me, given that the head of ONAP, Jeff Crowley, comes from the industry. He once worked at the National Association of PWAs (NAPWA), a lobbying organization based in the Washington, DC, area. AIDS Inc folks tend to stick together and put their needs first, PWA needs second.
But even though the local committee recommended where to hold the forum, the decision to accept the location was made by ONAP, a source at the White House explained to me.
We'll see how well-attended the October 16 meeting is and what gets discussed. I hope to be shocked by a large PWA crowd and an agenda is not dominated by AIDS Inc issues.
... and the ONAP event webpage doesn't even list the locations for some of the other cities yet, including some scheduled for less than a MONTH away. Nothing like public outreach in a timely manner designed for maximum stakeholder involvement, I guess.
ReplyDeleteWhen Michael asked me to help him get the venue changed, I wrote an email to him that he quotes correctly. However, Michael did not aske me if we looked into other venues in other areas. Indeed we did. We needed a venue that would accomodte 600 and more importantly was available. The venues that Michael mentioned in this article were considered but other than the Bill Graham auditorium they were too small. As for Bill Graham it is not available for the forseeable future. And for the record, I am an unaffiliated consumer who is a member of the HIV Health Services Planning Council.
ReplyDeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me agree with your concern with the potential over-influence AIDS, Inc. and the related industry can have in these national discussions. Quite often, the independent (unaffiliated) voices living with HIV/AIDS struggle in their journey to find ways to engage in meaningful participation in policy-making process.
With respect to fear of NAPWA, I would be hard pressed to call NAPWA under its current leadership a lobbying organization. Today’s NAPWA is mute and lacking courage or vision at a time when people living with HIV/AIDS are in great need of an organization to lead as an authentic and independent voice of people living with HIV/AIDS. The leadership of NAPWA today is blinded with the bejewel grants from industry and government.
While I have never had the opportunity to meet Jeff Crowley, I have heard nothing but positive statements to reassure me that he understands the issues affecting our community and hoping to hear get some incredible input from these forums.
Tying Randy in with the most unsavory and cultish behavior of AIDS, Inc. cannot be farther from the truth. I have had the privilege to collaborate with him time and time again and have great faith in his ability to challenge the established authorities. Personally, Randy has served as a great mentor, friend and advocate.
Michael, like you, I share the stigma lingering around people like us who regularly challenge the established authorities. The mere action of others mentioning our name in a conversation is inviting of conflict, yet we persevere and help others often finding their voice silenced.
Randy vibrantly demonstrates the modern day relevance of the Denver Principles and has been a strong advocate for the inclusion of independent voices of people living with HIV/AIDS. To quote from one of Randy’s e-mails some time ago, “Independent voices are critical and I hope that the national HIV advocacy community welcomes more independent voices to the table. People unaffiliated with a particular organization bring a unique perspective to policy discussions and should not be relegated only to grassroots actions but to substantive policy discussions.”
In closing, I share your concern that the agenda for community discussions could be skewed towards the needs of AIDS, Inc. In Fort Lauderdale, I’m working to ensure the independent community of people living with HIV/AIDS are included as a stakeholder and not simply token or cherry-picked by various health department officials or by friends in the industry.
These forums all serve as critical opportunities for communities of people living with HIV/AIDS in America to share challenges and vision.
Wishing the San Francisco and neighboring community a successful forum!
Michael Emanuel Rajner, BSW
An independent voice and person living with AIDS
E-mail: merajner@gmail.com