Governor’s Prevention Advisory Council (GPAC)
Exploratory Workgroup
Friday, December 6, 2013
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Fourth Floor Conference Room
1700 K Street, Sacramento, CA  95811

Meeting Summary

Attendees
Cheryl Adams, Laura Colson, Lorraine Frias, Denise Galvez, Tom Herman, Mary Strode, Major Jeff Moore, Major Natalie Rowell, Jane Williams, Steve Wirtz

Status
The vision, mission, and purpose statement were motioned and approved at the GPAC meeting on October 24, 2014.

Purpose
Now that the vision, mission, and purpose statements are established, the workgroup will continue working on the organizational plan.  This may include sustaining, creating or extracting existing guiding principles, core values, and membership participation.

Summary
Lorraine Frias brought a new draft of the organizational plan that contained the new vision, mission, and purpose statements and recommendations moving forward.  The topic of core values and guiding principles aroused conversation about the inception of GPAC and its original purpose.  Upon review of the Executive Order W-16-91 that initiated the Governors Prevention Advisory Council in 1992 and a letter created by Gray Davis to create a Governor’s Interagency Coordinating Council for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems (Council) under the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention State Incentive Grant (SIG) in 2002, the workgroup had many concerns:

•	Were these documents still relevant with current AOD prevention science?
•	Did these documents still constitute action from GPAC?
•	Does GPAC still work from these documents?

Due to the concerns, workgroup members requested DHCS to further research the documents and their primary purpose. As well, this conversation led to other concerns that would influence core values and/or guiding principles:

•	The appearance and appeal of GPAC may be more impactful with executive level staff chairing the GPAC as was the case under the former Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs which may influence membership.
•	GPAC membership’s current structural practice to require two representatives from each agency, a Workgroup Member and a Policy Member, needs to be revisited due to the decreasing resources within State government.

Next Steps
DHCS staff agreed to conduct further research on the documents discussed at the meeting.  Findings will be discussed at the next exploratory workgroup meeting to forward the discussion of guiding principles, core values, and recruitment.