Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Engagement And Reporting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel plans, reporting rules and criminal‑history question shape Penobscot opioid summit agenda
Summary
Committee members agreed May 19 on a summit session structure emphasizing Moss data, local panelists (Rockland, Biddeford) and guided questions for panelists; they also reviewed reporting templates for awardees and asked the Attorney General to weigh in on applicant eligibility for those with criminal histories.
The Penobscot County advisory committee used much of its May 19 meeting to plan an opioid summit workshop and to draft reporting requirements for grant awardees, while flagging recurring questions about whether applicants with criminal histories should be disqualified.
The committee approved a workshop structure that starts with a Moss Center presentation on spending and community engagement, followed by local panels (the chair said Rockland and Biddeford were confirmed) to describe their processes for distributing funds and engaging residents. Staff suggested giving panelists three or four guided bullets — for example, how decisions were made, who the decision makers were, and how community engagement occurred — and assigning time limits so all panelists can present.
On reporting, the chair proposed a simple template for first-round awardees requiring target metrics, status (on track or delayed), numbers served, a de-identified impact story, implementation barriers, and a financial summary of expended funds and remaining balances. Staff will gather these reports (Robin was named as a contact) and bring summaries back to the committee and to Moss.
In a separate discussion, staff raised that applicants’ criminal histories have come up repeatedly and asked whether the NOFO should include language about disqualification. Committee members said the settlement MOUs do not broadly prohibit funding to people with criminal histories but that some state conditions could affect sustainability. They asked the Office of the Attorney General to verify whether any prohibitions or liability concerns apply and recommended the AG provide standard guidance so the committee need not decide on a case-by-case basis.
The meeting ended with scheduling follow-up interim meetings and a tentative full committee meeting on June 11 at 9 a.m., pending confirmation of members’ availability.
