Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lived Experience Payments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears that lived-experience payments face cuts under Metro rules as grant transfers proceed
Summary
Members said that changes to the collaborative applicant designation and Metro charter rules threaten payments to members of the Consumer Advisory Board and the youth action board; Metro Legal and staff are exploring alternatives but no final funding path was confirmed.
Council members and lived-experience cohort speakers raised concerns on Feb. 13 that payments to people with lived experience who serve on committees and boards may be halted under Metro rules once collaborative applicant funding moves fully into Metro administration.
Several speakers described a long history of paying lived-experience participants (through vendor arrangements when MDHA administered funds) and said that Metro’s charter and procurement rules generally bar paying members of boards and commissions. April Calvin and staff told the council they have worked for months with Metro Legal and other partners to find alternatives, but that the charter and federal-funding document availability limit current options.
One council member described arrangements that previously provided about $20 per hour and noted months when the consumer advisory board had many participants and monthly payments exceeded $20,000 during high-engagement periods. Another staff speaker said current cohorts (for example, a lived-experience cohort of about 14 people) have smaller budgets but that some members receive up to $200–$300 a month when serving on multiple committees.
Council members and cohort representatives said ending or pausing those payments would disproportionately affect people living in poverty and could reduce participation from people whose lived expertise is a core community resource. Calvin and other staff said they are exploring alternatives, including vendor arrangements and potential charter changes that could allow non‑charter compensation pathways; they also discussed using outside fiduciaries or foundation supports to preserve stipends if Metro rules do not allow direct payments.
No final administrative decision was announced at the meeting; staff said they would continue to pursue options and return with further updates.
Speakers cited Metro charter restrictions, MDHA’s historical vendor role, and the pending transfer of collaborative-applicant functions to Metro in explaining the uncertainty about stipends and vendor payments.
