NoRTEC
MEETING
WIA COMMITTEE
AUGUST 19, 1999
09:00 AM to 01:00 PM
Doubletree
1830 Hilltop Drive
REDDING, CALIFORNIA
Revised 08/12/99 08:00 AM

1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL

   This Committee was appointed by the NoRTEC PIC and Governing Board at their regularly scheduled January 28, 1999, meeting. The official members are the NoRTEC Executive Committee members and the NoRTEC Governing Board members, although all PIC members are invited to participate in the discussions. This Committee is empowered to act on behalf of the full NoRTEC PIC and Governing Board for Workforce Investment Act implementation items needing resolution in the interim between regularly scheduled meetings.

3. MINUTES, MARCH 18, 1999 (ACTION)

   The minutes from the MARCH 18, 1999, meeting are (will be) attached. Minutes 03/99

4. PUBLIC COMMENT (INFORMATION)

   A limited amount of time will be set aside at the beginning of the meeting for public comment about any aspect of NoRTEC business.

5. ACTION ITEMS

   Attached are (rough) notes from the presentation by W. Jones at the NoRTEC July 29, 1999, meeting in Chico; WIA DECISION-MAKING CHECKLIST. Mr. Jones briefly covered a number of the primary issues facing NoRTEC for the implemntaton of WIA. Also of interest is a "WIB/GB Decision Making" chart prepared by Mr. Jones, noting the decision making authority of both groups.WIB/GB DECISION AUTHORITY. For this meeting, we will attempt to reach concensus on the following items.

   1. Workforce Board Structure

      We need to decide if we are going to grandfather the PIC structure, or try and implement the new Workforce Investment Board structure.

      Attachment: Matrix; PIC/WIB Composition

      The problem with implementing the new WIB structure is that it will be difficult to comply with the new membership requirements. We are

      1. Unlikely to find representatives that meet that many categories (paticularly those that can/will attend regional meetings);
      2. Unlikely to be able to provide equal representation amoung the eight member counties; and we
      3. Lack the staff and funding to hold sufficient/meaningful meetings for the WIB, subcommittees and particularly for the Youth Council;

      If we go with the "Alternative Entity" (basically the representation of the current PIC, making sure we have two labor and two economic development seats), we can provide meningful input into the programs for most interested parties through:

      1. Local Youth Councils (discussed below); and
      2. Agency participation (i.e., One Stop Partners) in the development of the MOU, and in the provision of services through the One Stops.
      Recommended Action:
      1. Authorize staff to pursue the "Alternative Designation" for the NoRTEC WIB.
      2. Prior to July 1, 2000,
         • Specify the seats for representation on the NoRTEC WIB, in total and per county; and
         • Appoint individuals to serve on the NoRTEC WIB, effective July 1, 2000.
   2. One Stops

      Attachment: What's A One_Stop?

      We need to decide if we are going to "grandfather" the current One Stops, or try and implement a new One Stop structure for NoRTEC. We need to decide how the One Stops will be designated. Do we want to go with what we have, and build on that? Do we want to try and find new one stop operators? On a more subtle level, do we want to designate some smaller number of "One Stops" and call the rest "Satellite Offices?" To be a "One Stop," all the partners have to be represented, which may prove difficult in some of the counties. Technically, the law only requires one fully functioning One Stop per Workforce Investment Area; i.e., only one is required for all of NoRTEC, with Satellite offices to serve the rest of the geographic area. It wouldn't affect the funding per member county, but it would change the mandatory partners required of each "One Stop." Speaking of "mandatory partners," NoRTEC may want to add Welfare (TANF/CalWORKS) as a mandatory partner, consistent with current NoRTEC Policy and practice.
      
      The One-Stop operator is designated or certified by the Local Board:

      1. Through a competitive procurement process, or
      2. Under an agreement between the Local Board and a consortium of entities that includes at least three or more of the required One-Stop partners (see the attached Matrix), or
      3. If already in existence at the time of designation.

      Staff Recommendation: Announce early that NoRTEC intends to designate at least one One Stop per member County. The process will be to:

      1. Designate all current One Stops that meet minimum requirements, e.g.,
         1. Have established a recognizable One Stop site location and identity;
         2. Have the required partners co-located on that site; and
         3. Have a NoRTEC approved MOU among all the partners.
      2. For those unable to meet the requirements for full designation, NoRTEC will provide temporary ("satellite?") designation for a consortium of entities that
         1. Includes at least three or more of the required One-Stop partners;
         2. Has a NoRTEC approved MOU among all the partners; and
      3. For those Counties unable to present a One Stop that can meet either condition 1 or 2, a competitive procurement process will be initiated. The reulting designation would be "satellite."
   3. Youth Councils

      We need to decide if we are going to try a full blown Youth Council at the regional level, and/or if we want local Youth Councils. See attached for a brief discussion and references to the Workforce Investment Act:

      Youth Council

      Staff Recommendation: Try and set up local youth councils rather than a regional one. It will allow more meaningful input , more flexible membership, and more cost effective management.

   4. Youth Programs

      We need to decide how closely we want our youth programs integrated into our One Stops, and if we want to contract with a single or multiple providers per county. Unlike the adult programs, the youth programs must be competitively procured, based on recommendations of the Youth Council for "eligible providers of youth activities" in the local area. The implication is that there may be numerous contracts foryouth service providers in each county. The plus side is the opportunity for each provider to focus on a different subset of the range of needed youth services. The down side is fragmenting efforts with limited funding, and dramatically increasing the administrative workload.
      
      Staff Recommendation: Procure a single Youth Program Operator per County, based on recommendations from the Youth Council(s), and the track record of the applicant.
      
      Note: The Youth Program Operator is a WIA mandated One Stop partner, which presumes they are selected prior to the designation of the One Stop. We will need to determine the Youth Council structure prior to the procurement of the Youth Program Operator, so we can get this going in time to designate the One Stops prior to July 1, 2000.

6. DISCUSSION ITEMS

   Time permitting, additional items from the attached notes, or other items relating to the implemntation may be brought up for discussion.

7. OLD BUSINESS

   Old business items may be introduced for discussion.

8. NEW BUSINESS
   1. The members will decide if they want another meeting prior to the full NoRTEC meeting in Konocti at the end of October.
   2. Additional New Business

      Additional New Business items for information and limited discussion may be introduced by the members.

9. ADJOURNMENT

   Lunch for the members.