Council members present:	Council Staff present:
Michael Murphy for Morrie Anderson, MnSCU	Kathy Sweeney
Joan Barrett, St. Cloud Technical College	Luke Weisberg
LaDonna Boyd, Dakota Electric
Bernard Brommer, MN AFL-CIO	Guests present:
Robert Bruininks, University of MN	Carrie Thomas, Legal Services Advocacy Project
Jerry Carlson, DTED	Pam Perri Weaver, Governor's Office
Karen Clark, MN House of Representatives	Richard Tvedten, MnSCU
Wayne DeBruin, Crenlo, Inc.	Bill Turner, Quality Career Services
Michael Dolan, Smead Manufacturing	Paul Moe, DTED
Jean Eaton, Riverland Community College	Helen Dahlberg, Dakota County WSA
Don Gerdesmeier, MN DRIVE, Teamsters	Libby Starling, DES
Roger Hale, Tennant Corp. (retired)	Daniel Swalm, MN Displaced Homemaker Programs
Mary Haug, Aitkin County Board	Mick Coleman, DES
Rod Haworth, UAW	Chuck Johnson, DHS
Dan Smith for Christine Jax, CFL	Howard Glad, DES
Arlene Lesewski, MN State Senate	Kathy Nelson, DES
David MacKenzie, HHH Job Corps Center	Tom Norman, University of MN
Larry Mareck, Carpenter's Local 930	Bruce Steurnagel, MnSCU
Richard McFarland, Dain Rauscher (retired)	Dale Shevland, MnSCU – Hennepin Technical College
William Negaard, Michelle's Catering	Craig Froke, MnSCU
Bob Niemiec, Kaposia, Inc.	Stewart McMullen, MN Dept. of Finance
Tom Moss for Michael O'Keefe, DHS	Sue Illg, Ramsey County Workforce Development
Sandra Peterson, Education Minnesota
Jim Rostberg, MN House of Representatives
Steve Tufenk, MN Pipe Trades Association
Earl Wilson, DES

Welcome, Introductions, Approval of previous meeting summary

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hale at 9:00 am. Members and guests introduced themselves. Mr. Hale welcomed new Council members joining the group for the first time and also acknowledged those who had been recently reappointed to serve. He thanked all members for their engagement and contributions to the Council’s work.

Mr. Hale asked for approval of the summary from the 9/15/00 Council meeting. The summary was approved as presented. Mr. Hale noted that this was a special meeting called specifically to brief the GWDC on the Governor’s Workforce Mini-Cabinet and the proposed recommendations in the Governor’s Workforce Development Plan. He explained that the Council was asked to review the recommendations and also hear what feedback the Mini-Cabinet had solicited. The intent was for the GWDC to affirm and/or suggest reconciliation points between the Workforce Development Plan recommendations and the "feedback forums" recently held around the State.

Background on Governor’s Workforce Mini-Cabinet and Governor’s Workforce Development Plan released February 2000 and review of feedback solicited

MDES Commissioner Earl Wilson was asked to present background information on the Governor’s Workforce Development Mini-Cabinet and current recommendations from the Governor’s Workforce Development Plan. Commissioner Wilson provided an overhead slide presentation (see attached). He explained that since the Mini-Cabinet produced the Workforce Plan in February 2000, there was criticism of the process. Consequently, the Mini-Cabinet decided to seek feedback about the plan and the recommendations through a series of community forums throughout the State in September and October. GWDC members and staff were involved in helping to coordinate the forums and capture the feedback from those events. Commissioner Wilson explained that the overhead presentation used in the community forums was the same one he was presenting to the GWDC.

Commissioner Wilson walked through the overhead presentation and then asked Libby Starling to discuss the themes heard during the community forums. Libby Starling provided a written overview of feedback from community forums that were held in September and October (see attached).

Discussion / review of recommendations

Chairman Hale opened discussion by entertaining questions and comments from Council members. Members noted that there was a lot of material covered and several people had comments. After some comments commending the work of the Mini-Cabinet in beginning to address difficult issues, some members expressed concern about where to start. Commissioner Carlson reminded the group that the original charge of the Mini-Cabinet was to address the needs of the more than 2.5 million Minnesotans in the labor market who have been identified as making less than $10 dollars and who lack access to skill upgrade opportunities. Members asked if there was data on what population sectors and/or industry sectors could be identified as contributing to the low-wage incumbent workforce. Staff suggested that data was available, but was not on hand at the meeting. Commissioner Wilson noted that much of this analysis was in the Governor’s Plan and that the Department Economic Security recently completed Help Wanted, a vacancy survey of employers in the Twin Cities metro area that offers even more detail on labor shortage needs.

Mr. Hale suggested that, in his mind, a key element of the Plan’s recommendations is the proposal to "blink off" the workforce development tax. He said that, with all respect to the members of the Mini-Cabinet (many of whom are also members of the GWDC), he felt that a key factor in Minnesota’s ability to address labor shortage problems and the needs of incumbent workers was the State’s ability to finance programmatic efforts. The proposal to "blink off" the tax seems counter-intuitive to the needs identified in the rest of the Governor’s Plan. He noted that, he doesn’t believe businesses find the tax onerous and that employers’ discontent with the tax is focused on the problem that the tax has not always been used for its originally intended purposes.

State Representative Jim Rostberg stated that there has been disappointment in the past about the "dedicated" fund being used for other purposes. He suggested that the tax should remain in place and that the fund created by the tax should "have a wall placed around it" so that the fund could not be ‘raided’ for unintended purposes. There was broad agreement from Council members that it was this ‘raiding’ of the Fund that was most disconcerting about the tax.

Bernard Brommer raised issues about how dislocated workers would be served if the state portion of the Dislocated Worker program were eliminated and the Workforce Development tax "blinked off". After some discussion, Commissioner Wilson noted that the federal portion of the dislocated worker program would remain and that, to some extent, the additional funding that is recommended which is earmarked for WorkForce Centers may also help serve dislocated workers.

Joan Barrett suggested that in order to provide customized training for incumbent workers it has been necessary to partner with industry to pay for the up-front costs of developing curriculum, developing instructional staff, etc. before MnSCU institutional funding is available to reimburse campus expenses. The Job Skills Partnership program has been an important element in meeting some of employers’ customized training needs.

Bob Niemiec added that industry-based training and apprenticeship training were also important resources to consider in thinking through skills training gaps the state should be trying to fill. Bernard Brommer added that there are a number of examples in Minnesota of joint labor and industry training and that this approach should be considered for solving skill shortage issues. Roger Hale also suggested that, in the case of employers or unions who are already doing training, there should be incentives or rewards for those employers. The fund, in turn, would likely be most useful to employers who are not large enough to set up training for their own workforce.

There was then extensive discussion about the recommendation for an "emerging worker" program to be created to encourage career exploration and better linkages between the WorkForce Center system and local schools. Commissioner Wilson explained that this was a significant piece of the Mini-Cabinet’s efforts to address information and career exploration gaps, particularly among younger Minnesotans.

Joan Barrett suggested that career exploration can also be supported and expanded through "virtual reality" technology that allows individuals to explore potential occupations much more in-depth than simply through counseling. State Representative Rostberg noted that Pine Technical College has done some work with this approach and found that it was very valuable. Commissioner Wilson also noted that this, too, was addressed in the Governor’s Plan.

There was also discussion and agreement about the need for much broader dissemination of information about career opportunities in technical fields for high school students as well as access to technical and skill upgrading for Minnesotans currently in the workforce. Members noted that there were broad awareness/acceptance issues about entering technical fields as well as specific logistics and financial barriers that prevent interested students from pursuing such training. Larry Mareck and others suggested that increased access to training could be achieved, in part, by addressing class times (making available evenings and weekends), eliminating credit transfer difficulties, and other logistics issues. It was also suggested that perhaps Minnesota consider a dramatic tuition reduction/elimination effort such as Georgia or other states have adopted.

Chairman Hale noted that throughout the morning’s discussion, there were ideas about how to build on specific recommendations in the Governor’s Plan and that there seems to be a clear consensus that labor shortage problems and incumbent worker training needs clearly need to be addressed through the current workforce system. Given that, he reiterated the apparent incongruity of diminishing the revenue stream for this purpose at the same time that we articulate a number of pressing workforce needs. He reiterated that, in his conversations with business leaders, this is not a particularly burdensome tax. Chairman Hale affirmed that there was broad consensus about the concerns already identified by Rep. Rostberg related to using the fund for unintended purposes. To address this, the purpose of the fund should be defined as clearly as possible. That purpose should include focusing on skill upgrading for incumbent workers as well as serving dislocated workers when the federal funds dedicated for dislocated workers are inadequate. Hale suggested that the fund be focused on addressing the current skill shortages that are facing Minnesota’s employers and that, if left unaddressed, will choke the economic vitality of the state now and in the future.

After additional discussion among members, a motion was made that the Council support the continuation of the tax at some level, clarify the focus (and protecting of funds for) skill training etc., and that employers already doing training should get a rebate or reduction in their tax burden for this tax. Rep. Karen Clark proposed that the motion also reference rewarding employers who are moving Minnesotans toward self-sufficiency through wages and career progression. After amending the motion to include that reference, the motion read as follows:

1. The GWDC recommends that the dislocated worker tax be retained at some level

2. The revenue from that tax (Workforce Development Fund) be used exclusively for skill upgrades, training, and retention services for Minnesota workers.

3. Minnesota employers shall be given the incentives to increase and/or continue their own training efforts which help move employees to higher wages and promote career advancement. Such incentives might be in the form of a reduction or deduction of the dislocated worker tax.

The final motion was seconded. There was no additional discussion on the motion. Commissioners Carlson and Wilson as well as Deputy Commissioner Tom Moss and Deputy Chancellor Michael Murphy noted their opposition to the motion. With those four in opposition, the motion was then carried.

Other Business – Kathy Sweeney / Luke Weisberg

In the interest of time, Chairman Hale suggested that the other business items we had intended to discuss more fully would be conveyed in future communication with the Council and taken up at future meetings. He also noted that one of the items to be discussed was a proposed revision to the Council committee structure. He suggested that this would be reviewed by the Executive Committee in November and that, in the mean time, committee Chairs could meet at their discretion, but may want to wait for the revision discussion to take place.

Next Meeting & Adjournment -- Roger Hale

Mr. Hale noted that the next scheduled meeting of the full Council is scheduled for Friday, December 15^th. He thanked members and guests for a lively and engaging conversation. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm.