The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 02061996 - C98 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Costa c,. g County January 31, 1996 p `P� DATE: rr couN'� ENDORSE POSITION PAPER FROM PRIVATE INDUSTR OUNCIL SUBJECT: CHAIRS REGARDING FEDERAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD LEGISLATION, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SAN BENITO COUNTY onnon nc S PERVIS9146 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ENDORSE the attached position paper on the implementation in California of the pending Federal Workforce Development Board legislation which is expected to replace the current Private Industry Council, which has been adopted by the Private Industry Council chairs and business leaders, as recommended by the San Benito County Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: The San Benito County Board of Supervisors has endorsed a position paper prepared by the Private Industry Council chairs statewide organization which emphasizes the importance of an coordinated approach to developing new jobs, involving business, labor, education, community-based organizations and local elected officials, with strong leadership from business and governed at the local level. This relates to the implementation of new Federal legislation in California which will replace the present Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) legislation and consolidate a number of Federal job training and development programs into a new employment and training block grant. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 7 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE ��' ✓✓✓ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): - ACTION OF BOARD ON February 6-1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED (��`��p Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CL K OF THE BOARD OF cc: See page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY As the attached memorandum from our Private Industry Council Executive Director, Art Miner, indicates, it is anticipated that the new Federal legislation will replace the work currently done by Private Industry Councils. State legislation will also be likely to implement the new Federal legislation. It is important that this new effort coordinate all of the disparate job training programs throughout the State, be governed at the local level and have strong leadership from the business sector, as well as from labor, education and local government. It is, therefore, recommended that the Board of Supervisors go on record as endorsing the position paper. cc: County Administrator Executive Director, Private Industry Council Steven Szalay, Executive Director, CSAC 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Richard Scagliotti, Chairman San Benito County Board of Supervisors 481 Fourth Street Hollister, CA 95023 The Honorable Patrick Johnston Senator, 5th District Room 4039, State,Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Daniel E. Boatwright Senator, 7th District Room 3086, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Nicholas C. Petris Senator, 9th District Room 5080, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Tom Bates Assemblyman, 14th District Room 3120, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Robert J. Campbell Assemblyman, 11th District Room 2163, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Richard K. Rainey Assemblyman, 15th District Room 4139, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Les Spahnn Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn 1121 L Street. Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 -2- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL 2425 BISSO LANE, SUITE 100 CONCORD, CA 94520 646-5239 DATE: January 24, 1996 TO: Claude VanMarter, Assistant Administrator County dministrator's Office Arthur FROM: ur C. Min r, xecutive Director O t Private Industry Council SUBJECT: ATTACHED (SAN BENITO) POSITION PAPER The attached position paper is a product of a PIC Chair meeting on 1 December 1995. (Our PIC Chair was unable to attend due to a schedule conflict.) This position paper was discussed by the County PIC at their 18 December meeting. The general consensus was supportive, however, no formal action was taken. Concern was voiced by non business representatives about being perceived as lobbying; the decision was for individual PIC members - particularly the business representatives - to write letters of support on their stationary as both PIC members and as individuals. As the County SDA Administrator and as the PIC Executive Director have no problems with the Board of Supervisors endorsing the position paper. There are two elements being addressed - formation of local Work Force Development Boards and business representation/leadership on the local boards. Both the House and Senate have passed legislation which will end DTPA and replace it with an employment and training Block Grant. There are significant differences between the Senate and House bills, although a conference committee has been appointed - it has yet to meet due to the budget impasse and perhaps other issues deemed more important. Current estimate is that we will not have a reconciled bill before May 1996. The President is expect to sign the bill, there is no current political opposition to the authorization legislation except from the very conservative right; both the House and Senate passed their bills with strong bipartisan support. (It is expected that there will be political disagreement on the level of appropriations.) Both the House and Senate bills combine several existing categorical programs - although neither is as all inclusive as originally drafted - both do include considerable consolidation including separate programs currently administered by education agencies and employment and training entities. The State EDD estimates 30% of the current federal vocational education and employment and training funds will be merged into a Block Grant. The House bill mandates a local Workforce Development Board. The Senate makes it optional with the Governor, provides some rewards to encourage local boards, and specifies the Chair will be from the private sector if there is a board. It was originally expected that the federal legislation would be passed during December 1995 and be effective July 1 , 1997. Now the majority of observers believe a July 1, 1998 effective date is more likely. Independent but reinforced by the Federal efforts is State legislative interest in consolidation of State programs and Federal programs where the State has organizational latitude. State Senator Pat Johnson has established himself as a major player. The State action is both independent and dependent upon the Federal legislation. In my opinion a basic State issue is to what extent the workforce development program(s) should address the competing interests and objectives of social development, vs. economic development, vs. educational development. The Governor also undoubtedly is interested in maximizing his administrative and executive control and flexibility. State EDD staff have held a series of public meetings for input, drafted a State Vision of what a State Workforce Development Plan should look like, and circulated it again for input. The vision was approved on a key 10-5 vote (or something similar) by the State Job Training Coordinating Council (SJTCC) on December 13, 1995 and forwarded it to the Governor for approval/disapproval/modification. That vision calls for local workforce development type boards with private sector leadership. The referenced PIC Chair position statement was presented to the SJTCC in support of the vision as drafted. The contentious issue was the governance of the new Workforce Development System, specifically appointment authority to the local Workforce Development Board (WFDC) and its composition. The State Community College Chancellor's Office, purporting to speak for the local community college districts, local K-12 districts and the State Department of Education, wanted: ) School Boards and community College Boards to have appointment authority to the Workforce Development Board and, 2) the Workforce Development Board representation to be 1/3 government, 1/3 private sector and 1/3 education. My understanding is that the key vote (10-5) was on an amendment to approve all elements of the vision for forwarding to the Governor except the governance part (WFDB composition and appointment authority). Included in the 5 votes were the SJTCC labor, education and political representatives; although the non education votes may not have been so much in opposition to the vision as in favor of further review. It is my understanding that the official psition of organized labor is that Workforce Development Boards should be 1/3 labor, 1/3 employers and 1/3 community groups (including community colleges). The purpose of the policy statement is clearly to support local control and position with business representation to be the presumptive leader of the locally appointed Workforce Development Boards. ACM:bj #7:POSITION.SB CA REUE RI=® JAN I I ^� January 9, 1996 CLERK BOARD 6-SLTi K 'ISORS CONTRA,COSTA CO. Please find attached a copy of a letter signed by the Chairman of the San Benito County Board of Supervisors, Richard V. Scagliotti, and position paper re: Future of Job Training/Workforce Development, and its potential impact on San Benito County. Please note that the original letter was sent to Mr. Steven Szalay, Executive Director of CSAC, urging their adoption of the position paper, and we would like to ask your Boards to take similar positions for your Counties as well. J. Dede Valenzuela Deputy Clerk San Benito County L�4d _ t: G .9V COUNTY OF SAN BENITO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 481 FOURTH STREET, HOLLISTER, CALIFORNIA 95023 0 (408) 636-4000 FAX (408) 636-4010 RICHARD V.SCAGLIOTTI RUTH E.KESLER RITA M.BOWLING RONALD A.RODRIGUES MIKE R.GRAVES DISTRICT t DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 January 9, 1996 Mr. Steven Szalay, Executive. Director California State Association of Counties 1100 K Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, Ca 95814 Dear Mr. Szalay: The Board of Supervisors of San Benito County forwards the attached position paper, which was adopted by 30 Private Industry Councils throughout the State of California, for consideration and adoption by the Board of CSAC. The Board of Supervisors of San Benito County supports the attached position paper and believes that a partnership between local government, business, and education is still the best way to meet the needs of our constituents and provide for the workforce needs of tomorrow. By local government, we mean the local government that has general taxing authority - The Board of Supervisors. As block grants are implemented throughout the State by new Federal legislation, it is imperative that Counties be given the opportunity to integrate workforce development block grants into their own County infrastructure; where they can best be utilized to meet the needs of the local economy as determined by business and County government working together. This letter and the attached position paper were adopted by the San Benito County Private Industry Council and by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 1996. Yo truly, , /Richard Scagliotti Chairman Board of Supervisors Business leaders and Private Industry Council chairs representing 30 PICs statewide met Dec. 1 , 1995, and adopted the following position: uccessful workforce development requires an `..... active partnership among business, labor, education, community <'> based organizations and local elected officials. The ingredients exist to create a coordinated effort to meet the workforce chal- lenges facing our communities. These ingredients should be inte- grated. This integrated system must be business led and governed at the local level. Business,-as the primary creator of jobs and the primary customer, needs to be the majority partner. Business is not interested in turf. It is interested in results. To entice business participation in workforce development, the system needs to: • Be locally governed by business-led boards • Integrate the best existing employment and training efforts into a streamlined system • Operate as a business The role of state government should be to: • Disburse funds and provide fiscal oversight • Provide broad-based performance and eligibility goals