Review of GWDC Vision and Goals
Mr. Hale referred the Committee to the material contained in their
meeting packet on the GWDC’s vision statement and working goals
as of October 2000 for their review and comment.
The vision statement read as follows: "Minnesota: Where employers
and skilled workers jointly prosper" (—Adopted in October
1999 by the GWDC)
The working goals read as follows:
1) To develop vision and direction to optimize for
workforce development in Minnesota in conjunction with the mini-cabinet
process; and,
2) To support the work of the sixteen Local Workforce Councils throughout
Minnesota through training, leadership development, and quality improvement
tools.
Earl Wilson stated that in order for goal #1 to read properly, the
word "in" after the words "workforce development" ought also be stricken
(deleted). Dick McFarland commented that there were several ways that
goal #2 could be stated but that the current version was sufficient.
With the above wording correction noted, the Executive Committee affirmed
the language change to the GWDC’s vision and goals.
Review of Information & Analysis of State Workforce System
Mr. Hale called on Luke Weisberg to present
this information. Mr. Weisberg commented that the following documents
(which were contained in the Committee’s meeting packets with the
exception of item "a" and a revised versions of items "b" and "c" which
were distributed at today’s meeting) were prepared in response
to the queries raised at the 8/31/00 GWDC’s Executive Committee
regarding the scope, size, and reach of funding in the workforce system.
Staff have gathered and prepared materials. Different pieces of this
information are being discussed by the Governor’s Workforce Mini-Cabinet,
the Joint Legislative Task Force on Workforce Development, and many
business representatives, advocates, and service providers. Mr. Weisberg
also emphasized that the material presented here was "the big picture
meant for illustration and not necessarily correct at the level of individual
dollar amounts. (The cover sheet explaining each of the enclosures is
attached.)
After the Committee’s review of the above items, the following
comments and reactions were offered:
Jerry Carlson noted that we need to add "general funds" and "direct
appropriations" amounts under the Job Skills Partnership Board section
of attachment ‘b’ (Workforce Funding Overview dated 11/23/00).
Also, Minnesota Job Skills Partnership Board dollars for this biennium
under "Funding Streams/Programs" portion of item ‘c’ is incomplete
and incorrect. Luke was instructed to speak with DTED staff about this.
Mary Haug suggested that the governance and oversight column in item
‘c" (Major Funding Streams) should also include another box for
"Local Elected Officials Boards"
Kathy Sweeney emphasized that the item ‘d’ briefing paper
prepared by NGA was important information and the Committee should take
the time to read it. Council members agreed that it was important to
have context of other state efforts in digesting this material.
Roger Hale suggested that an additional indicator is needed in item
‘e" (Workforce Alignment by Indicators draft, 11/3/00) on "business
activity/growth" in addition to #9, #10, #11 & #12. There was continued
discussion about how best to capture this, and whether it really needs
to be part of the Governor’s "Big Ten" indicators or if it can
exist just below that level. Commissioner Carlson suggested that it
may already exist in agency strategic plans and we should look carefully
at those.
Jerry Carlson noted that much of the training being supported by the
Job Skills Partnership seems to be moving more toward the "soft skills"
end of the continuum and that in the last round of funding, more resources
were allocated to soft skills including ESL and other activities. This
seems to be an opportunity to look across the spectrum to see what other
resources might be available (or how to best coordinate them) for such
training.
Roger Hale stated that we need to recognize that there is a critical
skills shortage. We (the GWDC) need(s) to understand the current system
better and develop our own goals and initiatives. We need a far greater
degree of coordination or programs. A next step for the GWDC would be
to zero in on certain aspects of the system where there are opportunities
for improvement, and make recommendations. The GWDC also needs to work
with the local councils and encourage greater coordination.
LaDonna Boyd noted that we need to encourage local councils to be
more employer-focused. She suggested that although some Councils are
moving in that direction, there is a long way to go.
Morrie Anderson commented that there is a real need for over-arching
goals and allocating scarce resources. He states that the responsibility
falls to the GWDC to advise the Governor on over-arching goals and ways
to reduce redundancy. Tom Moss echoed that we need a way to "rationalize"
the "marketplace" and that perhaps the GWDC was the forum for suggesting
steps that would do so.
In response to the above Committee members’ comments, Roger Hale
suggested that the GWDC needed to either react to ideas as they come
forward or pre-emptively put ideas forth (particularly in advance of
the legislative session). Luke Weisberg suggested that the GWDC could
frame issues and ideas to show what the picture could look like relative
to what we have now. This framing would not necessarily be a detailed
picture, but a set of guidelines or a framework for the Governor’s
use in legislative discussions.
There were additional Committee members’ comments as follows:
Roger Hale affirmed that the GWDC should be an independent body. The
value of the GWDC is to have an entity looking at things from a systems
level than an individual program or agency. Tom Moss concurred that
there is a need and a strong desire for input from the GWDC to the Governor
and that the Administration wants recommendations from the GWDC. Commissioner
Carlson noted that, in fact, it would be appropriate for the GWDC to
be certain to review its recommendations or ideas with the Governor
prior to going to other stakeholders.
There was discussion about how to pursue such ideas/recommendations
in light of the Governor’s "no new money" principle established
for the upcoming budget process. Roger Hale stated that he believes
the Governor is very supportive of Minnesota being a vibrant and healthy
state, and that we currently have a skills shortage that needs to be
addressed. We need resources to do so. Roger asked how the Committee
wished to proceed. There was consensus that the Executive Committee
should prepare some talking points/guidelines for discussion by the
full Council.
Luke said he heard two next steps come out of the discussion. First
was to explore whether an indicator on business activity/growth existed
already or if one needed to be developed. He said he would work with
DTED, MN Planning, and DES staff on that. Second, he stated he would
try to capture the discussion of the materials reviewed at today’s
meeting in a document that contains guidelines and ideas to be put forward
by the GWDC. A draft of that document will be circulated to the Executive
Committee for review. Then, the material reviewed today by the Executive
Committee together with the discussion document will be presented at
the December 15, 2000 GWDC meeting.
