MEETING SUMMARY

GOVERNOR'S WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (GWDC)

9:00 am to 12:00 pm
Friday, June 15, 2001
Veteran’s Service Building, St. Paul

Welcome & Introductions

Roger Hale called the meeting to order at 9:10am.  Chairman Hale welcomed the Council members and guests present at today’s meeting and welcomed Representative Bob Gunther as a new member to the Council. 

1.  Approval of 3/23/01 Council Meeting Minutes

Chairman Hale called for approval of the meeting minutes from the March 23, 2001 meeting.  A motion was made, seconded, and passed approving the minutes as written.

2.  Departmental Reorganization and Legislative Session updates

Senator Lesewski and Representative Gunther talked about the difficulty of completing the legislative session and how the targets on all committees were very stringent – particularly in workforce and education-related committees.  Rep. Gunther said that it looks as though the agency reorganization work will be handed off to a transition team.  He also mentioned that there has been much discussion related to dislocated workers and incumbent worker training.  However, he noted that everything is tied to tax bill.  In the Governor’s veto message he said he would not sign any omnibus bill until taxes are done. 

Roger Hale summarized his understanding that once the bill passes, a team will be formed to continue the transition work.  However, it is not clear yet who would be members of the team.   There is discussion about ensuring that there is additional outside representation beyond the Commissioners and legislators to include other business, labor, education leaders, and other stakeholders. 

Luke noted that there are three items coming out of the legislative sessions that are going to be of interest to the Council.  Two specific charges are being given to the GWDC Executive Committee:

1.       Develop performance standards and outcomes for the WorkForce Centers; and,

2.       Develop a strategic plan for WorkForce Centers that addresses location and financial sustainability of the Centers across the state.

The third item of interest is language that requires the GWDC and the MN Job Skills Partnership Board (MJSPB) to have cross-over appointments.

The MJSPB will also have responsibility for developing standards for state-funded programs. Luke said there has already been preliminary discussion among staff to complete these tasks jointly and come up with a set of performance standards that would cross WorkForce Centers and state-funded programs.

Mick noted that much of this work is consistent with the work the GWDC has already done on Preeminence and also fits nicely with other state and national work on performance standards and measurement.  We have a state system, but we are just now (through development of the One-Stop Operating System) setting ourselves up so we can utilize information from DHS, DES, DTED that impacts performance measurement.

Senator Lesewski made a point regarding the WorkForce Center strategic plan and the location and number of WorkForce Centers.  She acknowledged that some of her legislative peers believe that we need to cut back and relocate WorkForce Centers.  Some think they should be located at technical colleges.  However, she feels that WorkForce Centers are generally working very well.  She noted that people who don’t know the history can’t appreciate how far we’ve come from where we used to be.  Further, she is fearful that we will make location decisions based only on efficiencies and cost savings and that we will lose their effectiveness.

Roger responded that he has had some discussion with some of the legislative leadership about the process.  He is hesitant for the GWDC to say what is an exact right mix of WorkForce Centers.  We will likely do some analysis that, in the end, supports local decisionmaking on specific WorkForce Center locations.  We will need to be thoughtful and careful as to how we  carry out this mandate.  Senator Lesewski suggested that we could document changes that have occurred in the last five years and where we have seen economic benefit in co-locating into a WorkForce Center.  As we do the study, she suggested we engage local partners to try to document benefits that have accrued to date…and where perhaps the co-location has been less beneficial.

Mick added, by way of legislative update, that there has been action at the federal level – particularly in the House -- to rescind resources for one adult program and one dislocated worker program.  This could have a huge impact on Minnesota.  This is not a done deal yet, but needs to be on the radar scope as we move forward.  Senator Lesewski commented that Marshall Minnesota has had several major layoffs recently; one layoff that affected 700 people, another affecting 125 people, and yet another that affected 250 people.  Add that together in a community of 12,000 people and that is a huge impact – very different experience in a rural area than happens in the Twin Cities.

3.  Discussion / Next Steps for “Getting to Pre-Eminence”

Roger asked Dave Mackenzie to update the Council in Wayne DeBruin’s absence on the System Excellence Committee’s continuing work with the “Pre-Eminance” document.  Dave explained that there has been recent opportunity to talk with several Local Workforce Councils including Central Minnesota, Southeast, South Central, and the Metro area.  The points that picked up during these discussions include:

1)      Concerns from a number of people that the document appears to have too much emphasis on shortage of workers instead of job shortage affecting metro unemployment.  In other areas of the economy, there are several different economic situations within the state because job availability is just as important as worker availability in the state.

2)      Concern that we have are not adequately recognizing regional differences and significant differences within regions.  For example, around Rochester, the unemployment level is low, but just a little beyond that, the level changes quickly.  How do we account for that?

3)      Consensus is that the vision in the document is good, but that at the end of the day, it’s the dollars that really count.  Local Workforce Councils are not clear how this will ultimately impact funding for their Workforce Service Areas.

Dave said there were a range of other points brought up in several of the workforce council discussions.  He also noted that because workforce councils are continually rotating with new members coming onto the councils, new members don’t have a firm grasp of how they are supposed to relate to the document.  He suggested that perhaps we will need to develop some kind of orientation for new members that can cover Pre-eminence as well as other Local Workforce Council basics.   

Discussion then continued about how to orient and continually work with Local Workforce Council members on these kinds of vision issues.  A suggestion was made to work with the MN Workforce Council Association (MWCA) to put together a twenty-minute tape giving background and vision for MN’s workforce system.  This tape could also be sent to legjslators and County commissioners.  Kathy and Luke agreed to talk with Lee Helgen from the MWCA about pursuing this. 

Senator Lesewski echoed support for a videotape, noting that she takes care to review all tapes that are sent to her office.  She gave a description of a particular tape dealing with immigration issues and suggested that it might be valuable to share with GWDC members as well.  Representative Karen Clark said she was familiar with that tape and that while it talked about skills needed by recent immigrants to succeed in the labor market, she was concerned that it had an anti-immigrant sentiment.  Senator Lesewski said that she didn’t find it to be anti-immigrant, but rather raised real issues about how we are going to work with new immigrants in a constructive way.  Roger Hale affirmed that this is an issue to be addressed and that we have touched on it several times in GWDC discussion.  He then asked Dave Mackenzie to continue our discussion about the Pre-Eminence document.

David said that he had reported most of the feedback gained from Local Workforce Councils and others and that he felt we had done our job of getting general buy-in for the document and the approach. He echoed that the document may not have a lot of impact unless it has an impact on allocation of funds and that our challenge is to help Local Workforce Councils have more control over their financial resources.  Finally, he acknowledged the tremendous work effort that Kathy, Libby, Luke, and other staff have put into the document and supporting the Systems Excellence Committee.

Luke clarified the next steps:

1.       Affirmation from the full GWDC to make changes reflecting the support for program and financial decisions to happen closer to where services are delivered; and, changes reflecting more regional economic differences around the state.

2.       Clarify the process for making changes and distributing the document.

Roger noted that our aim is to have the document ready and to the Governor in the next thirty days or so, then work with Local Workforce Councils on measures and outcomes.

Willie Negaard noted that the Systems Excellence Committee tried to put out a basic document that can be built on slowly, and improve upon it over time.   Roger affirmed that, and also suggested that we should acknowledge the trends and concerns we have heard to date.

There was additional discussion among members about specific changes:

·         Representative Karen Clark suggested adding strategies to the objectives under Challenge Two. How about investing dollars in education and supporting educational institutions?  With rising tuition between 14 and 20%, people cannot afford to go.  We need to add an objective that calls for adequate investment in educational institutions.  Rep. Clark also felt we needed to strengthen language on investment.  She offered to draft specific changes for the Systems Excellence Committee to consider.  David Mackenzie agreed that we could strengthen that language.

·         Roger Hale suggested that we need to be more explicit about the need to balance our long-term and short-term needs/goals.  Eighteen months ago, it was “workers, workers, workers”.  Overall, the state numbers were very low, a lot of employers were screaming for more skilled workers.  Long term demographics say that will still be the case.  Now there’s a slow-down, suddenly we’re looking very urgently at layoffs and higher unemployment.  We need to acknowledge and address the challenge to balance these two needs. 

·         Bob Niemic noted that Objective 3.3 is about local control, and the programs in WIA, particularly the Rehabilitation Act are very strict about who manages those investments.  He suggested clarifying our statement.  Bob said the Federal government mandates how monies should be used, and the Rehabilitation Act requires only rehab staff to manage personnel and resources.  He felt the statement might lead Local Councils into thinking they can manage these resources when they cannot.  Bob noted that he is not against local control, but wants the Council to be realistic about what it means.

·         Luke responded that of course we can only do with resources what the law, whether federal or state, will allow.  However, that our goal with this document is to create an environment at the local level in which opportunities are sought – rather than constraints being highlighted.  Part of the GWDC’s goal has been to help local decisionmakers have a little more control over their own destinies and how they help their employers and jobseekers.  We can’t be inconsistent with federal law but we also want to foster a climate of more open interpretation that best serves local needs. 

·         Lee Helgen  suggested that simply giving regional managers more direct control over their resources (and, of course, more resources, too) would help Local Councils to manage and improve services to customers.

Representative Gunther raised a question about how the dislocated worker program is doing and where it fits into this discussion.  He has heard that we will need $21 million dollars this year and next year.  Are we in fact going to be short of funds, and where?

Commissioner Yanisch responded that she was in southwest corner of the state in Marshall, and received feedback from Senator Lesewski and others that whatever resources we have allocated locally will be well invested – either to layoffs or upgrading skills of incumbent workers.  Regarding funding, it was projected back in November 2000 that we might have a surplus at the end of the fiscal year, but that we are already seeing a decline in collections and that while we may end up with some surplus, it will not be very large and will also be needed for the following fiscal year.   Roger Hughes added that demand for mass dislocation has greatly exceeded what was anticipated back in November and that the dislocated worker program has only partially funded some of the current projects until they know from the Legislature how much money will stay in that account for the next year.

Roger Hale noted that our needs and programmatic responses have changed dramatically since November and continue to change rapidly.  Representative Gunther added that we can probably count on keeping the workforce development tax at .007 percent and that with some surplus we will probably have sufficient funds, based on past years.  The question now is about how, if at all, to change the allocation formula to give the MN Dept of Trade and Economic Development more flexibility relative to delivering money by formula to Local Workforce Councils.

Representative Clark said she has been frustrated by this issue as she hears from her constituents that people are waiting for services and that there are more people not being served because local areas have run out of formula money.  If there is a surplus, why isn’t it getting out to people that need it?  In responses, there was additional discussion about the difficulty of balancing flexibility at the local level with flexibility at the state level to respond to mass layoffs. 

Roger suggested that we will continue to discuss this issue of balancing flexibility regarding dislocated worker funds.  He added that the business community feels very strongly that we are in for a long-term skills shortage and that we will have to keep that perspective in mind as we   move forward with this issue.  He asked for any additional comments on the Pre-Eminence document so we can come to closure on this point.

·         Larry Mareck said that in his discussions with the Local Workforce Council around St. Cloud, there was support for the document.  However, he felt that the objective regarding apprenticeship seemed too broad.  Speaking on behalf of the building trades, Larry noted that there are excellent apprenticeship training programs that exist now.  We don’t necessarily need more programs, but perhaps could expand those that do exist.  And, if we are proposing that, what programs should be expanded?  Larry agreed to work with the Systems Excellence Committee on specific language.

·         Michael Murphy commented that we should include specific mention of immigration issues in the margin notes, where appropriate.

Roger asked how we move forward in developing specific measures and outcome targets.  He expressed concern that we not lay additional requirements on Local Workforce Councils when each of them have their own measures already.  Yet, don’t we need to have general goals at the state level for the workforce system to be effective?

Willie suggested we meet with all of the sixteen different Workforce Service Area directors, have them bring their information to us and then we could figure out common items among all sixteen.  Commissioner Yanisch noted that at last year’s Rural Economic Summit each region prioritized issues, fine tuned them on a local level, and then set priorities within broader regional parameters.  That work is now happening in those districts.  This seems like a similar process.  Luke noted that in talking with local councils and staff about this prioritization, we have suggested that over time, individual areas might choose thresholds for particular outcomes meaningful to them.  For example, in three or four particular geographic areas, the primary challenge might be earnings.  They will prioritize meeting their thresholds around earnings and may not, consequently, meet thresholds in other outcome areas.  Over time, we imagine being able to set statewide targets, and then seeing how each local area contributes to meeting a statewide target.  Not every area would meet the statewide threshold.  We would be describing a cooperative goal -- not every local area is required to meet the same goal for all outcome areas.  

Roger echoed that if this is done right, this should not be a big challenge. He related a similar situation from his time at Tennant Corp.  Each year sales goals were set and the objective was to have progress, which – in some cases -- might simply be that your numbers didn’t go down!   Different goals were appropriate to different people.  Numbers varied from area to area, this is very much the same idea, and we need to facilitate common understanding among all of our different areas.

Mick Coleman and others commented that we will need to also reconcile these local or regional goals with program-specific goals and measures.  Dan Smith noted that there will still be a huge gap between K-12 goals and measures and workforce measures.  We will need to close that gap.  Roger responded that he appreciates the depth to this…but also wants to resist the idea that laying out goals is something that can’t be done, due to questions or uncertainties.  He thinks we need to lay out some guidelines and measures and begin moving forward.

He added that the role of this group, as a citizens group, is clearly to help workforce councils function better and deliver effective services.  We should be doing anything we can to help councils do their work better.  Our Local Workforce Councils have varying levels of expertise across the state.  Wthout getting the way of the MN Workforce Council Association, the state agencies, or anyone else, the GWDC ought to be able to build partnerships and lay out some concepts and templates to help the workforce system become more coherent and function better in this state.  We want to be the preeminent state in the country on workforce issues.  Roger said he is looking forward to getting the document out, used, and understood.

Willie Negaard asked what the status of the “Pre-Eminence” document is then, at this time?  Has this been accepted by Council?  Roger affirmed that we received a lot of input and feedback at this meeting and he proposed that staff to make the proposed changes to the document and bring it to the Systems Excellence Committee one more time to make necessary changes.  With their sign off on the document, it should come to the Executive Committee for a final review.  After their approval, it will go to the Governor, appropriate legislators, and other stakeholders.

Council members gave their proxy to the two Committees to review the final document.  Roger thanked everyone for their input and asked that we move on to the Review of WIA progress and not spend a lot of time on WIA regulatory issues.  He said he would ask members to form an Ad-Hoc Committee to come together before December to include some of the Executive Committee members plus some of our Local Workforce Council representatives including Gordon Aanerud and Willie Negaard.

4. Preview of WIA progress and selected issues

Libby Starling explained that this was not a full progress report on WIA issues.  Rather, she and staff were going to highlight items of interest to the GWDC around measurement and customer satisfaction.

A) Customer Satisfaction

First, she noted that Minnesota has begun an extensive effort to begin collecting information about customer satisfaction.  A large group of stakeholders has been involved for several months in designing a test, built around work begun in Dakota County.  We are now days away from getting proposals back from potential vendors to take the pilot in Dakota County and make it a statewide survey of all programs and all activities in each of the local areas.  At the local level, it will assess customer satisfaction and also give us a window on how all services are working together and meeting customer needs in a particular area.

Libby explained that assessing customer satisfaction is in the WIA rules and that by designing this, we are meeting federal mandates, but also going far beyond that by capturing customer satisfaction at the one-stops.  The statewide surveys should start in the fall and we will be able to start pulling together strong data in the winter or early spring of 2002.  Reporting should be  out and available sometime in the summer of 2002.

LaDonna added that in Dakota County, customer service satisfaction surveys are being done with funds from the Board of Commissiors, DES, and the MN Workforce Council Assn.  Dakota has hired an outside vendor, Questar, who is looking at how to different programs are perceived and helping us understand how the data tells us what is going on in WorkForce Centers.  The survey is comprised of ten questions.  The Dakota survey ran from January through February and results were available at the end of April.  LaDonna also explained that in the Dakota pilot they tested mail surveys as well as both live telephone interviews and automated telephone responses (known as Interactive Voice Response – IVR).   There was discussion about the value and cost of each of the methodologies as well as comment about the value of getting actual quotes from customers (positive and negative) about their experiences.  LaDonna noted that hearing that first hand is a big help for front-line staff.

Libby noted that Questar was testing methodology as well as gathering input.  The results of the IVR, although a considerably cheaper method had consistently lower results.  Staff are working with a consultant from the US Department of Labor who suggests that the computer-generated surveys were slower which created the lower response rate.  If we’re able to increase the response rate, it’s possible that the differential of these methods would disappear.  Members related several of their own experiences in responding to live interviewers versus automated responses.

Representative Clark asked about the cost of doing these surveys.  Libby explained that the cost of the statewide survey is estimated at $165,000 to get the level of information we need.  She added that there are still several variables including language, accessibility, and other potential barriers that are being worked out as they get closer to choosing a vendor.  Bob Niemiec asked how will customer satisfaction surveys for Rehabilitation Services be incorporated into this effort?  LaDonna noted that there is a broad steering committee for the effort that includes representatives from all the stakeholders including Joan Barrett from the GWDC.  The goal is to see how the statewide survey can complement any individual programmatic surveys and also allow for regional or local differences as needed.

Representative Clark asked if we would be able to sort data by race, gender, age, or disability status in any way.  Libby responded that most of that data is either not in program records or is not collected consistently across all areas of the state.  She added that we hope to improve this over time. 

B) Consumer Report System and “subsequent certification” policy issues.

Libby explained that the Consumer Report is also outlined in WIA law and rules and that some states have had policy and systems in this area prior to WIA.  She explained that the Consumer Report will allow individuals the opportunity to see performance information for a wide array of training programs and then make choices about which programs are best suited for their needs.  She said that it will also allow public agencies and governing bodies to see that kind of performance information collected in one place.  It took a massive information gathering effort to get this information from education providers, DES, and others and then creating an interface so it can be viewed through ISEEK.

Libby said that there will be a packet of information going out to education and training providers soon that explains the process.  She also suggested that there may be meetings around the state later in the summer to highlight the Consumer Report opportunity for providers and help them with the steps needed to get into the system.  Libby noted that right now, this is intended for programs that could serve individuals under WIA Title I.  Commissioner Yanisch asked how many people are going to be trained under Title I in a given year.  Jim Korkki responded that there are about 3,000 people in the Dislocated Worker program and about 2,500 in the Adult Programs.  He said about half of those are in training.

Tom Norman suggested that from the University of Minnesota’s perspective, it seems like a lot of process for very little financial return.  Luke suggested that we could either simplify process, or use process in place to expand scope of this so that it was useful for providers beyond just getting Title I-B funds.  Howard Glad noted that other titles within WIA could participate and provide training through this process.  He said there is room for expansion before even going outside of WIA.  Mick noted that this concern has been raised at the federal level as well.  It was suggested that this is an issue the Ad Hoc WIA committee could look at and bring back to the full Council.  Roger affirmed this and got consensus for establishing an Ad Hoc Committee as mentioned earlier.

5.  Review of draft 2001-02 workplan and committee updates

Roger walked through the document and explained how he sees many of these items connecting more and more throughout the year.  He also noted that we would add in the specific requests given to the GWDC by the Legislature when the Legislative session is wrapped-up.

Kathy Sweeney explained a bit more detail about item I.C.  She explained that the GWDC was approached by the McKnight Foundation to help them build a network across the state among projects working to build the skills of adults in working families.  Kathy emphasized that this is a unique opportunity for the GWDC.  McKnight has awarded the GWDC $250,000 over eighteen months to work specifically with them and selected grantees that will be awarded later in the summer.  The Executive committee has suggested that oversight of this work can be between the Self-Reliance and Sustaining & Enhancing the Workforce Committees.  Members congratulated Roger and staff on securing that award.

Commissioner Yanisch asked that the workplan include some specific mention of the agency transition work.  She noted that, in thinking about work that the Governor has asked her to oversee, she is responsible for much of the broad work of Section 1 – “Vision and direction of the workforce system” and she really looks to this group for significant input.  Staff agreed to add support of the transition as a specific work item.  Roger noted that we will, of course, have to wait for the legislation to be finalized, but that there is little doubt that the transition work will involve all of us during the next several months. 

With no additional comments, Roger asked staff to make the changes to the work plan that were discussed.  Members agreed that the Executive Committee should review again with changed incorporated and that, pending that review, it would be approved by the full Council.

6.      Other Business

·         Kathy Sweeney noted that we got very good feedback from the Spring Leadership Institute.  It feels like we’ve built up good momentum and now can keep going to provide people with good practical information and assistance in their local areas.

·         Kathy also highlighted effort now underway to support Local Workforce Councils becoming members of the national Workforce Excellence Network (WEN).  Kathy reminded the Council that WEN is promoting Baldrige-based continuous improvement work that has been customized for the workforce development arena.  We are working closely with Byron Zuidema from USDOL Region V and others to get the word out about the WEN application process and to assist organizations in completing it.  It is, at its core, much like doing a Baldrige self-assessment.  We have commitments from 10 of our 16 Workforce Service Areas.  Roger’s goal is to have all 16 areas pursue this work.

·         LaDonna noted that her subcommittee is in the midst of a planning process that Mary Rothchild (staff to that committee) is taking us through to get to tangible action for the committee. We are focusing on how what steps we are taking at the state level to help incumbent workers improve their skills and earning potential.

·         LaDonna also announced two dates to mark on your calendar: October 25^th and 26^th – for the Economic Development Association of Minnesota’s Annual Conference and November 1^st – University of Minnesota-MnSCU Workforce Conference to be held at RiverCentre.

·         Kathy Sweeney noted that there are eight members whose terms are expiring, and asked those  members to please get application information in if they wish to be re-appointed.

·         Lee Helgen announced that the US House was moving to rescind $360 million dollars, of which $290 million dollars would come from the dislocated worker program.  He said this will have a huge impact on our workforce system and asked the GWDC to take action.  It was agreed that a letter will be sent out on behalf of the council to the appropriate congressional leaders opposing this motion.

Roger confirmed that the next full Council meeting will be October 12^th.  The dates for future meetings in 2002 are: January 18^th ; April 12^th ; July 12^th  .  These dates will be posted on the GWDC website soon.

The meeting was adjourned at Noon.