FULL COUNCIL
MEETING SUMMARY
9:00 am to Noon
Friday, January 17, 2003
Veteran’s Service Building, St. Paul

Council Members Present 

Roger welcomed everyone and introduced new GWDC members, particularly Dr. Bruce Corrie from Concordia University who was appointed after the last Council meeting in November.

1) Members reviewed the meeting summary from 11/20/02.  The summary was approved by all members present.

2) Roger reviewed the Chair’s Report distributed prior to the meeting.  He offered the following highlights:

• We are moving into final production on various reports for the Legislature and the Governor.  He and Vice-Chair Don Gerdesmeier have also started meetings with legislators.  Their first meeting was with Rep. Bob Gunther which, obviously, went very smoothly.  Roger noted that there has been a fair amount of expressed interests in workforce issues among legislators and he credited Rep. Gunther for his own involvement and knowledge of these issues, as well as serving in a leadership position in the House beginning this session.  Roger noted that, as appropriate, other members of the Executive Committee may join in some of these legislative meetings.
• Under the leadership of Libby Starling and the MDES Policy, Planning and Measures Office, there is an effort to try to make sense of the varying levels of accountability in state and federal measures.  Roger noted that he and GWDC staff have been very involved in the work of the MN Job Skills Partnership Board to recommend development of measures for state-funded programs.  He noted that the GWDC can do a good service by calling attention to these inconsistencies and helping Libby and others to keep working on improving the very complex and interrelated measures.  Roger said that he hopes the Council will help identify how these measures relate to each other and how to simplify our understanding and use of them over time.

• We have updated our GWDC orientation manual and went through that information with new GWDC members at a dinner meeting on 1/16/03.  He thanked MDES Research Director Jay Mousa for attending that meeting and covering the importance of using and understanding our excellent labor market information products in Minnesota.  Roger noted that all new members got a copy of the recent Trends magazine as an example of what Jay’s unit produces.

3) Roger explained that balance of our agenda included updates and Council action on broad “system framework” issues and then a particular focus on measures and quality improvement toward our
Preeminence Minnesota vision.

a)      Roger reviewed the draft GWDC brochure, noting that it highlights the basic workforce challenges we face and potential solutions to be pursued as Preeminence Minnesota.  The themes in the brochure are drawn from the discussions of the Executive Committee over the last several months.  He asked for comment and feedback by members on the draft brochure either at the meeting or afterwards to staff.  He said that changes from any feedback will be incorporated into the piece before it goes to print.  Members generally concurred that they were comfortable with the draft as presented.

b)      Jim Johnson highlighted a recent forum hosted by the Emerging Workforce Committee that brought together several people interested in career and technical education (CTE) including technical education teachers, technical college instructor, Adult Basic Education (ABE) instructors, apprenticeship providers, union representatives, alternative high school programs, and others.  Participants spent a half-day discussing core issues; and, defining and understanding the differences between vocational and technical education.  Sandra noted that there was a strong sentiment among participants that we need better solutions to promoting CTE; availability of career information; strengthening resources available for CTE; and how to put a positive focus on skill attainment through CTE.  Sandra said there was a lot of information shared and ideas generated.  The committee will now analyze the information and return to the GWDC some recommendations and ideas for action.

Larry Mareck added that there is such a strong “push” for individuals to attend a 4-year college that we ultimately need to find ways to educate parents and students about other choices.  He noted that an overwhelming majority of high school students are counseled to pursue a 4-year college, but that only a fraction of them actually enter college and make it through.  We need to change the image parents and teachers have of tech colleges and apprenticeship programs because we need those skilled individuals for those jobs. 

Jim Johnson also encouraged a focus on CTE not as a terminal point for education, but as part of an ongoing cycle of lifetime education.  The career/education cycle has changed from a few generations ago.  We should be focusing on helping emerging and incumbent workers continuing to learn as their careers change down the line.  Jim also noted that there are some states that have really put CTE high on the list of priorities and have a champion, the Governor or some other leader, to really support funding and advancing the system.  Larry agreed that we could use the GWDC and our partners in the workforce system to promote CTE.  He added that there is a particular need in rural Minnesota to meet the needs of those communities with people that have technical skills.  Willie Negaard echoed this concern and suggested that we could do more to help rural students develop their skills and then encourage them to stay at home rather than migrating to the cities.

Joan Volkmuth added that the St. Cloud Technical College campus has been bringing small groups of people in to learn what’s happening on campus and they have been really in awe of what the technical colleges are doing.  She suggested we need to keep working to model a system where students are exposed to possibilities in high school and can transfer their knowledge and interest from high school to a two-year program, and beyond to a 4-year program, if appropriate.  Norb Conzemius added that the existence of so many people with 4-year degrees who are working, but currently underemployed, reinforces that we have an issue to resolve.  Sandra thanked everyone for their contributions to the discussion and said she would report back after the committee has developed some recommendations.

c)   LaDonna Boyd reported on the Sustaining and Enhancing the Workforce (SEWF) Committee’s most recent meeting on December 13^th.  She noted that the committee is attracting some new attendees and continues to focus on two issues: following-up on the “toolbox” project and focusing on health care workforce issues.  On the toolbox, LaDonna said the first step is to look at tools used by employers to do employee assessments and/or job analyses.  She said the committee planned to use information from a MN Business Partnership survey and a Dakota County Workforce Services survey of employers.  On closer review, it appears that the MN Business Partnership data would not be useful in the toolbox project.  So, the committee will likely create some sub-groups to advance this idea (presented to the full Council last year) and organize the work by the types of tools available, e.g., information gathering, process mapping, and service delivery.  She said that when the committee had made sufficient progress, they would report back to the full Council.

On health care workforce issues, LaDonna reiterated that the SEWF committee is serving as a focal point for bringing attention to a wide range of health care workforce issues.  She reported that the committee was working on a two-page summary that frames the workforce issues and highlights what can be done to address it.  Michael Murphy added that the summary document lays the groundwork in describing the workforce issues the health care industry is facing, e.g., shortage in the nursing profession coupled with an aging workforce.  He added that those available to teach nursing are dwindling due to aging and a demand that they return to the workforce as well.  From MnSCU’s perspective, there are two barriers to more educational slots: finding and preparing teaching nurses and getting adequate availability of clinical sites.  Michael added that MnSCU has worked very closely with professional associations and that the “crisis” has created a new openness to facing industry workforce issues.  MnSCU will be highlighting nursing education in its request to the Legislature and welcomes the support of the GWDC in pursuing that request.

Roger asked what connection, if any, there is between the other federal funds that have come in for this purpose?  Kathy Sweeney responded that Minnesota has two federal grants, H-1B funding from the US Department of Labor that comes from fees paid by employers to bring people into the country on special work visas.  Those employer fees are put into a fund that is then used to train American workers in high-demand, high skilled occupations.  Minnesota has two such grants focused on expanding training for health care workers across the state.  In addition to the H-1B grants, we also have investments from the McKnight Foundation through the Families Forward project.  Among the 18 Families Forward projects training incumbent workers, 5 are focused on health care sector interventions.  As a joint Families Forward / SEWF activity, we will be hosting a few issues forums to bring together people from each of these funding streams (including MN Job Skills Partnership grants) to look at what we’ve learned and how these efforts can support each other. 

Rep. Bob Gunther asked about the capacity of MnSCU to catch up with the nursing shortage and train Minnesotans interested in pursuing the profession?  He noted that, at one time, he had heard that we were turning to South Dakota institutions to train Minnesota residents.  Mary Rothchild responded that through the H-1B grants, MN West has brought their program to 3 communities to provide RN programs.  They’re running 16-20 students, and now there are 7 new communities being served through this grant.  Fergus Falls CC, MN West, and some of the colleges in the northwest plan to train 200 new registered nurses through that grant.  Mary acknowledged that ='font-size:11.0pt;font-family: Arial'>Presentation College in South Dakota was originally approached to deliver training connected to the H-1B grant, but that in fact MnSCU is currently delivering the training needed.

In further discussion, Mary reiterated the barriers Michael Murphy mentioned earlier: educators and clinical space (determined by national accreditation standards).  She said that nursing education is one of the most costly programs in the state: It costs about $16,000 to educate a nurse. Tuition only covers about $3000 of that expense.  So, MnSCU is increasing its capacity, but the shortage of nurses is still larger than MnSCU can fill alone.  Jay Mousa supported this, noting that nursing is running about a 9% vacancy rate and that 24% of our current vacancies statewide are in the health care industry.  Jim Johnson and Joan Volkmuth added to this discussion, noting the issues they have faced on their own individual campuses.  Joan also clarified that the H-1B grant outside the metro area is being used to create scholarships for students.  Bruce Corrie added that immigrants are a “niche market” – individuals willing and interested to take on many health care positions – and that this should be used to our advantage.  Willie Negaard added that we need to address the legal barriers to many immigrants working, but also acknowledged that this was an issue perhaps outside the Council’s usual scope of activities.

Roger asked that staff work through the Sustaining and Enhancing the Workforce Committee to provide the GWDC with a regular update at each meeting on the status of our efforts to meet the workforce needs of the health care industry.  He noted that there are many big issues here and that we can provide a service to the Governor and Legislature by packaging many of these concerns with a sector focus.

d)   Jan Wiessner reported that she has recently agreed to chair the Self-Reliance Committee.  This committee was previously chaired by Mary Haug and that the focus could be some of the issues on the “individual support” side of the ledger, e.g., are Minnesotans earning sufficient wages?; is there  sufficient support for them to get to work?  She urged GWDC members to join the committee and said she would report back at the next full Council meeting.

e)   Vice-Chair Don Gerdesmeier reported that the MN Inventory of Workforce Development programs (often referred to as the Gunther Report) is expected to be updated in February.  He reminded members that the WIA ad hoc committee inquired about this last year and, in response, the MDES Office of Policy, Planning, and Measures offered to update the original inventory and improve on the information collected.  He noted that this was being done at the initiative of the GWDC, not the Legislature, but that we assume the Legislature will find it valuable in their deliberations about program investments during the upcoming legislative session.  Roger Hale asked Rep. Bob Gunther if he had any comments on this process.  Rep. Gunther responded that the legislature lost a lot of institutional memory with the departures last month.  He thought the Inventory would be very helpful to new members in learning about Minnesota’s workforce system.

f)    Roger noted that the last item in this portion of the agenda is Council review and approval of the 2003 Preeminence Minnesota Portfolio Report.  Roger asked Luke Weisberg to review the document and indicated that, if the Council is ready, he would hear a motion for approval.

Luke noted that the document was sent via email prior to the meeting.  It is intended to serve as an “executive summary” of our vision and direction coming forward to the legislature and the Governor. The goal is to frame the workforce system in terms of an investment portfolio – individual programs are like individual stocks or bonds, and the GWDC’s job is to help the Legislature and Governor review the whole portfolio and our investments to date, while individual agencies talk about individual programs and services.  Details about the portfolio can be found in the Gunther Report, the MN WorkForce Center Strategic Plan, individual program reports that are funded through the Workforce Investment Act and state funds.  He noted that we are also creating a graphic modeled after our friends in Pennsylvania that allows for a single visual to capture the whole “system”. 

In reviewing the document, Luke noted that much of the document is fact about our current economy and environment.  The editorial thrusts are in the last two pages of the Portfolio Report where we say, as a Council, that we have three primary challenges:

1) long-term skill and labor shortages;

2) continuing need to promote career and income progression; and,

3) building the “system”.   

To address these challenges, we are offering some potential solutions:

1) Allow our workforce to be more mobile through benefits/pension portability and availability of good career information tools;

2) Expand the number of people that are available for work in MN by helping Minnesotans with disabilities and other barriers to work overcome those barriers, and, welcoming new Minnesotans;

3) Focus efforts on creating a workforce with the skills to succeed in today’s economy by pursuing critical economic sectors; creating a broad economic development plan for Minnesota; and/or, doing more to strengthen the productivity of incumbent workers.

Luke noted that, once approved, the Council’s challenge is to get key state leaders to agree with the challenges, and support these solutions.   Roger invited discussion, noting that any specific changes could be approved by the Executive Committee, if the full Council was comfortable with that arrangement.  Joan Volkmuth asked about the demographics of those earning less than $10/hour.  Jay Mousa responded that the numbers cited come from wage record files and that we generally do not have demographics to confirm what those cohorts look like.  A discussion followed about data privacy and how demographic information can or cannot be “married” to wage records.  Rick Caligiuri provided background on this issue during the discussion.  Roger noted that it would be useful to have extended information, such as Joan is asking about.

Bruce Corrie noted that we should do more in the report to underscore that immigrants are a key part of the workforce and that these populations add to state resources as owners of businesses and workers.  We need to continue to spread the message that Minnesota is immigrant-friendly because it is economically smart to do so.  Roger asked that additional comments go to staff and that the Executive Committee would review the final draft in a few weeks.  Council members concurred with this process.

4) Progress Toward Preeminence: Meaningful Measures and Quality Improvement

a)   Libby Starling offered an update on the measurements work being done in several areas.  She noted that there are three pieces of information being circulated: ??? including the year one results from the customer satisfaction surveys in the WorkForce Centers.  These surveys ask what the levels of satisfaction are and why (at the extremes).  The baseline year has been pretty good, showing WorkForce Centers on average at about 70 out of 100 which is comparable with many private businesses.  We are now moving into the second year of the survey, showing levels of high satisfaction, and trying to understand what is driving that satisfaction outcome.  These will be updated quarterly so we can see trends over time.  In response to questions, Libby noted that the survey is done via telephone and managed by an independent contractor – so the results are not produced by MDES staff.

Libby also updated the Council on plans to move forward with a series of “Meaningful Measures” focus groups aimed at helping organize, consolidate, and improve the many federal- and state-required measures on individual programs.  This effort will bring together groups from throughout the workforce system and should result in recommendations on a more coherent set of measures, perhaps with common definitions, that help us gauge our progress in Minnesota over time.

b)   Rick Caligiuri gave a brief report on the MN Job Skills Partnership (MJSP) Board’s report to the Legislature developing recommendations of measures for state-funded programs.  He gave some brief background, noting that the 2001 Legislature gave the MJSP Board the task of developing measures for state-funded job training programs at the same time that they gave the GWDC the task of creating the WorkForce Center Strategic Plan.  Rick briefly outlined the process that was followed, noting that this was done primarily by an outside consultant and a DTED staff liaison who was no longer in the position.  The timeframe was short, the opportunities for outside input were limited, and the Board has not yet approved a final document.

Roger noted that he sits on the MJSP Board, and the first challenge is to ensure that the recommendation is practical as well as reasonable and thought it unlikely that the Legislature would pull together all this information in any coherent way, and that policymakers need help understanding how all these things connect.  He advocates putting out some common standards that everyone can adhere to, allowing measures to become comparable over time, and then helping the Legislature make those judgment calls.  He noted that currently the MJSP Board does not feel comfortable making recommendations as to what specific programs should be cut.

Joan Volkmuth asked it there would be any way to create some synergy with the WorkForce Center credentialing process and allow communities to develop measures for their own community progress that would be consistent with some broad statewide framework.  Kathy Sweeney responded that the intention was to do just that, but the consultant’s timeframe and the MJSP process has made it difficult to achieve that kind of combined effort so far.  She added that not all of the programs that an individual community might want in their “portfolio” are covered in the MJSP report; and, that there is a disparity between those delivered through WorkForce Centers and those delivered in other ways.  Kathy said that the Meaningful Measures work Libby referenced will really be our opportunity to create a more common set of measures that are valuable to both practitioners and policymakers.  Roger added that there is a shared desire by the Legislature and others to create measures that are more outcome oriented than output oriented.  Luke suggested that, over time, we will likely get to a common set of measures and that, hopefully, when the MJSP report is discussed in the Legislature, we’ll have the opportunity to suggest that the GWDC and the MJSP Board be jointly tasked with developing a common framework that covers all programs and services, allowing for community-specific outcomes that are meaningful in the context of specific community needs and economies.

Rick noted that the MSJP subcommittee reviewing the report will be meeting again soon.  Members commented that they had been told by others in their own communities that the MJSP measures were problematic and that not enough public input was allowed.  Rick assured Council members that everything was being done to create a better process going forward and that MJSP staff would work closely with the GWDC to make progress once the report is complete.  Roger commented that simply getting our arms around these issues and helping the Legislature work through them would be an accomplishment unto itself.  He thanked Rick for his contributions and suggested that we would report back to the Council as appropriate on this issue.

c)   Wayne DeBruin offered a report from the Systems Excellence Committee, noting that all Council members received a draft of the MN WorkForce Center Strategic Plan.  The last committee meeting was Jan 9^th, where the full product was reviewed by the entire committee.  He thanked Koryn Zewers and GWDC staff for their good work to bring this product along.  He said that the committee made a few specific changes at the meeting on 1/9/03, and that these are not in the draft sent out earlier, but rather reflected in the one-page handout made available at today’s meeting.   He said there were a few significant changes and then several minor wording changes.  He offered any Council member wishing to review all the wording changes the opportunity to do so. 

Wayne explained that the January 2003 update kept the structure of the original Strategic Plan released in January 2002.  There have been no changes to the analysis section.  Rather, the updates are reflected in pull-out boxes headed “2002 developments”.  Several stakeholders were consulted on the draft.  He noted that the only potential point of controversy has to do with strengthening a recommendation on future WorkForce Center staffing.

Jim Korkki said he had major concerns regarding these recommendations.  He noted that, as the MDES supervisor in charge of many field staff, it would be problematic to him to have to implement the recommendations, particularly with the wording of the second choice (do not hire new program staff as others retire).  He noted that he has several hundred employees, all of whom need to have managers to oversee their work.  The reality is, he said, that we don’t have enough managers – not that we have too many of them.  He also noted that many managers have multiple locations they supervise and multiple responsibilities.  He said this would require a lot of study prior to implementation.

Wayne responded that while he heard Jim’s concerns, he remained convinced that we still need to tackle the field staffing in silos that makes it look as the agency has 3 or 4 program staff all from MDES fulfilling similar functions.  Howard Glad said that he shared Jim’s concerns with the wording of these recommendations and that for Rehabilitation Services (RS),  there are specific federal mandates about having supervisors within RS for other RS staff.  Don asked if we couldn’t do more cross-training and think creatively about better utilizing experienced state staff.  Dave Mackenzie reminded members that these are recommendations, with no implication that changes must take place immediately and unequivocally.  Rather, we’re trying to be clear about the long-term direction we must go.  Roger and Wayne reminded members that these are recommendations to the Legislature for action by them and implementation, ultimately, by new agency leadership. 

Jim Johnson added that if we are going to really create a “system” then we need a greater degree of trust between and among program staff, local staff, college staff (in cases where WorkForce Centers are co-located) and others.  Wayne added that there are many local cases where the relationships and the balance of decisionmaking authority has worked out well and others where, obviously, decisionmaking has been more contentious.  The thrust of the WorkForce Center Strategic Plan is to clarify those decisionmaking roles and, generally, to suggest that the weight of authority ought to rest more with local leadership in the context of statewide guidelines.  Jim Johnson noted that the “priority of selection” to have WorkForce Centers co-located on MnSCU campuses may not be relevant if we move forward with a clearer decisionmaking process.  Howard added that there is always language suggesting that priorities are considered “where appropriate” and that flexibility is key.  Roger Hale suggested that more and better communication among WorkForce Center partners would likely go a long way toward resolving more contentious issues.

After additional brief discussion, Roger asked for a motion to approve this report and have it forwarded to the Legislature, recognizing that there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss it further in the coming months.  It was suggested and agreed that the committee look again at the wording in the WorkForce Center Strategic Plan regarding MnSCU campuses and siting decisions.  With this amendment, the report was approved. 

5) Other Business  

a)   Kathy Sweeney reported that planning for the Spring Leadership Institute to be held May 20-21 in Saint Cloud was progressing and to watch for updates on the GWDC web site.  Bruce asked if we could have a speaker on best practices for integrating immigrants into workforce development strategies .

b)   Kathy reported that she and Luke went to the National Governor’s Association meeting in Washington, DC in December.  She said there were several themes in that event that mirrored issues we have been dealing with in Minnesota including: focus on system accountability; marriage of workforce and economic development; relationships between workforce and K-14 systems; and need for stronger focus on employer needs and incumbent workers.  She also noted that the Bush Administration is promoting strong state and local boards and that Minnesota is in good shape relative to many of our peers on many of the current national trends.

c)  Kathy noted future meeting dates: April 23^rd  (changed from April 18), July 18^th, and October 10^th

d)   Michael Murphy congratulated Mary Jacquart on her national award as outstanding Career and Technical Educator for 2003.

e)   Dan Smith distributed a handout for an event to be held Tuesday, January 28^th with Dan Hull and Don Williams.  He also noted that CFL and MnSCU will host the national “tech prep” conference for fall 2004 in Minnesota.  This will bring between 3500 and 5000 national practitioners to Minnesota and will be an excellent opportunity to showcase some of our work.

The meeting was adjourned.