Roger Hale convened the meeting at 9:30 am. He introduced and welcomed Luke Weisberg who was recently hired to work with Kathy Sweeney on the Governor's Workforce Development Council (GWDC). Luke shared his background. Members welcomed him and said they were pleased to have him on board.

Roger Hale reminded the group that two primary goals had been set out for the GWDC at the Spring Leadership Institute: develop a stronger vision for the state’s workforce efforts; and, support local councils to build their leadership abilities and measure their progress.

MDES Commissioner Earl Wilson gave background on the Governor’s Workforce Development Mini-Cabinet, explaining that Mini-Cabinet members began meeting again this summer to review the recommendations in the February 2000 report and frame legislative proposals for the upcoming legislative session. He noted that the Deputies Group and other staff have been working on several fronts including an outreach effort to gather additional input and/or validate the Mini-Cabinet’s original recommendations. The first step of that effort was the posting of a survey instrument on the Web that was also mailed out to about 1000 "stakeholders" through MDES. Other Mini-Cabinet agency members mailed copies to their own mailing lists as well. Commissioner Wilson referred the group to a handout entitled "Update on the Process for Stakeholder Input to the Mini-Cabinet" (see attached) for a more complete explanation of the process.

1. Engage the GWDC in information collection activities

Roger Hale asked the committee to discuss ways in which the GWDC can best relate to, and add value to, the mini-cabinet’s work. In particular, he welcomed ideas and discussion regarding the outreach/information gathering effort.

Some members expressed concern that they were unaware of the information gathering effort and did not receive the survey mailing. Roger Hale and Commissioner Wilson confirmed that all GWDC members should have been sent the survey and that a second mailing would be done to ensure awareness.

There was discussion among members about the appearance of a number of focus groups/surveys being completed including: the Rural Summit series, MN Listening Post project, a Department of Labor and Industry survey of its stakeholders, similar efforts through the Great North Alliance, and others. Commissioner Carlson voiced concern that the focus of the Mini-Cabinet was, from his recollection, originally supposed to be focused on addressing the worker shortage in Minnesota and those workers who, although employed, earned low wages (nearly one-third of state workers). Members affirmed that, although the original focus of the Mini-Cabinet’s efforts may have been expanded, there was still value in getting opinions, feedback, and ideas across the state.

Commissioner Wilson noted that all of the feedback forums mentioned have largely validated the Mini-Cabinet’s original work. Two primary points heard thus far are: 1) workforce issues are near the top of everyone’s list of concerns statewide; and, 2) there is a need to get information out to future workers, i.e., students, about training and employment opportunities in Minnesota. He said that the community forums being held for the Mini-Cabinet in September and October will pick up on the themes identified in the Web survey, elicit responses specific to the Mini-Cabinet recommendations, and address hot button issues such as worker shortage and wages. Tom Moss shared ideas from his Department’s successes in bringing local elected officials into community forums which allowed for increased visibility of those individuals and the issues under consideration. Members suggested that staff ensure local elected officials, Local Workforce Council members, GWDC members, and others be encouraged to participate in their local community forums.

It was suggested, and Roger Hale asked the committee, if the GWDC be willing to review and comment on the results of the Web survey, results of the community forums, and the revised Mini-Cabinet recommendations? The GWDC could serve as a "citizen review" board for the Mini-Cabinet’s next iteration of its recommendations. The committee agreed to commit the GWDC to playing that role. Kathy Sweeney and Luke Weisberg said they would work with Roger Hale and staff to the Mini-Cabinet to set up that process. It is anticipated that this will require a special meeting of the GWDC some time in October 2000.

Roger Hale pointed out that this was a good example of an opportunity for the GWDC to play a more inclusive and potentially visible role in shaping Minnesota’s workforce system. He noted that with a "tri-partite" governing arrangement now, he feels there is a window for the GWDC to be more active and engaged in a leadership role and that the GWDC is being encouraged by legislators, community groups, and others to play such a role.

2. Help shape next round of WIA local planning to be more comprehensive, align with vision, and address common performance measurement issues.

Luke Weisberg gave some background on the discussion in the Mini-Cabinet about macro indicators that cut across programs and Departments to measure progress statewide toward fundamental goals, such as those posed in the Governor’s Big Plan. Mr. Hale explained that getting clarity on what we are measuring is, of course, a critical first step to improving the quality and outcomes of our Local Workforce Councils and WorkForce Centers. There was concurrence by members of the Executive Committee that such macro indicators would be useful, leaving the details to staff regarding how to construct and implement such measures/indicators.

This led to a broad discussion that encompassed the remaining agenda items.

Roger Hale affirmed again his belief that one of the ways in which the GWDC can be effective and valuable is to promote quality improvement throughout the workforce system, beginning with Local Workforce Councils. Using Baldrige criteria and other tools/processes, he said that we could have a real impact on improving service to employers and job seekers. He gave some background on work that Jim Buckman of the Juran Institute at the University of Minnesota did in years past with local councils and WorkForce Center staff. LaDonna Boyd handed out examples of the strategic planning work in which the Dakota County Workforce Council is currently engaged. Wayne DeBruin concurred that helping the local councils get a better handle on their direction, value, and strengths would be an excellent goal for the GWDC in the coming year.

Morrie Anderson said that such efforts probably would be beneficial, but he questioned if we had enough baseline information about what is happening in Local Workforce Councils and WorkForce Centers to really gauge an improvement effort. Commissioner Carlson asked how much money is being spent by each of the sixteen workforce councils? Chancellor Anderson suggested that perhaps we do a comprehensive audit of all programs and funds going through local Workforce Service Areas. Several members asked if the local Workforce Investment Act (WIA) plans could give a clear picture of what was happening in each of the local areas. Kathy Sweeney explained that local plans reflect a portion of the work being done by Local Workforce Councils. Further, strong Local Workforce Councils, even if they do not have direct decisionmaking authority over certain programs, can use their role as local conveners to ensure that programs are coordinated at the local level. Roger Hale affirmed that it is the "bully pulpit" value of the GWDC and the Local Workforce Councils that we can make stronger through quality improvement efforts. He also shared some reflections from his attendance at a national meeting of State Workforce Board Chairs. He said that although there are several different structures in which state boards like the GWDC exist and are supported by staff, all derive their influence from their members’ individual strengths and the direct involvement by the Governor. Commissioners Carlson and Wilson noted that Governor Ventura’s style is to delegate to his appointees. To that end, the Mini-Cabinet and the GWDC each have important roles to play in creating a vision and plan for strengthening the state’s workforce system.

LaDonna Boyd suggested that "quality" is the common language that can bridge current gaps between programs, departments, units of government, and different constituencies – all of whom come together at Local Workforce Councils and WorkForce Centers. Jennie Lightfoot noted that the GWDC should be prepared to lead by example – ensuring that we are charting our own progress using quality tools, processes, and measures.

Several next steps were suggested by members to gather data, present a "big picture" to the full GWDC, and help move forward on the two goals re-stated at the beginning of the meeting. Suggestions included:

• What goals/indicators, if any, are Local Workforce Councils using to chart their progress?
• How much money is flowing through Local Workforce Councils?
• What programs/services are available in each of the WorkForce Centers statewide?
• How do current program/agency indicators connect to the Governor’s Big Plan?

Roger Hale said that staff would begin gathering this kind of information and that we would move the discussion forward at the full GWDC meeting on September 15, 2000. The intention is to use the upcoming meeting to re-affirm the two overarching goals and follow through on the outline discussed at today’s meeting to pursue those goals.

Mary Haug suggested that once we have shared information with the full GWDC we should use the GWDC to make local connections between agencies and programs. Ultimately, she felt that the GWDC could be valuable in helping to align state and local goals/vision. Roger Hale agreed and also shared his sense that one of our challenges will be to try to sort through how to operationalize the GWDC’s role and measure the GWDC’s impact.

Roger Hale thanked everyone for actively participating. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 am.