Ainsworth Street, Prescott, Arizona

Michael Accunzo, Absent (1)

Elaine Bremner, Present

Larry Bulechek, Present

Ken Coleman, Present

Thomas Griffith, Present

Jim Makela, Absent (1)

Linda O'Brien, Present

Steve Owings, Present

Cap Parlier, Absent (3)

Storm Phillips, Present

Tom Raush, Absent (3)

Steve Rutherford, Absent (3)

Tracy Schimikowsky, Absent (1)

Gary Spiker, Present

Chris Taylor, Resigned 1-11-00

Larry Watson, Absent (2)

Jake Weber, Resigned

Jerry Winters, Absent (1)

Miriam Haubrich, Present

Brad Newman, Present

David Sommer, Resigned 2-17-2000

Pete Sesow, Absent (2)

Patricia Bruneau-Gaber, Present

Paul Street, Absent (3)

Ralph Kleinman, Present

Caroline Olivas, Absent (3)

A.G. "Chip" Davis - Present

Brandon Arterbury, Present

Linda Broomhead, Present

Thomas Chacon, Present

Teri Drew, Present

Gwen Gunnell, Present

Margaret Keener, Present

Barbara Wright, Present

David Ellis, DES

Marc Delany, Spokesperson for CBOs

Bryan Detwiler, Old Town Mission

Mike Owens, NACOG

Diana Russell, REPAC

Sheila Samuel, NACOG

Dan Tafoya, DES

1.

Chairman Tom Griffith called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. at the Yavapai Regional Medical Center Flinn Educational Room in Prescott.

2.

Chairman Griffith asked whether there were any corrections to the minutes. A motion was made by Elaine Bremner to approve the minutes of the January 12, 2000 meeting. Motion seconded by Teri Drew and carried.

3.

Yavapai County Assistant Administrator and Board Counsel Dave Hunt gave a presentation on conflict of interest. He advised LWIB members to err on the side of caution. If a member isn't absolutely certain they fall outside the conflict of interest, the safe harbor method would have them refrain from participation. He noted that, in close cases, it would be prudent to consult with counsel and to discuss the issue with the agency the member represents.

There are two critical provisions: The first requires public officers and employees of public agencies who have a substantial interest in contracts, purchases or decisions of the agency to declare a conflict and refrain from participating in any manner. The second prohibits a public officer or employee of a public agency from providing goods or services to that agency unless pursuant to competitive bidding. Several of the members of the Workforce Investment Board are affiliated with vendors that are actual or potential service providers to the WIB. Hunt discussed critical concepts in the conflict of interest statutes. (Copy of handout is a part of these minutes.) If there is any connection, any vendor of goods and services, there is a possible conflict of interest. He noted that there must be a "substantial interest" before there would be a legal conflict. The statute defines substantial interest as any direct or indirect interest rather than a remote interest.

There are several categories of remote interests of which only two are likely to be relevant in the present situation. The first is a non-salaried officer of an entity that is a non-profit corporation with a potential of goods and services. WIB members who fit into this category would not be legally required to declare conflicts in WIB decisions involving the nonprofit corporation. The second involves employees of other political agencies or subdivisions unless it is the same entity that is making the decision in question. Persons fitting into this category would not be required to declare a conflict unless the decision would confer a "direct" economic benefit.

For clarification, Chairman Griffith asked if participating in the discussion itself would be considered a conflict. Hunt said that if a conflict exists, no sort of participation would be permitted including discussions. Elaine Bremner surmised whether anybody in room wouldn’t be affected. Supervisor Chip Davis concurred that large employers throughout Yavapai County were targeted to create a workforce for employers and everyone in the room more than likely would be impacted by decisions. Hunt said conflict of interest should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Chairman Griffith asked how the quorum would be affected. Dave Ellis said part of the responsibility is allocation of resources, such as On the Job Training. His understanding was that one could allocate resources. Ellis said there might not be a direct tie unless the category the member fit within could be identified. Hunt said the question would be, "Is there a direct or indirect interest to whatever decision you make." Hunt suggested Margaret Keener discuss her concerns with her agency, NACOG. Chairman Griffith ended the discussion at 10:03. Hunt advised that if the issue of conflict of interest came up during the meeting, the statute required that LWIB members declare the conflict and that it must appear on the official records.

4.

Chairman Griffith explained that a subcommittee of Larry Bulechek, Ken Coleman, Larry Watson, Jerry Winters and Chair Gary Spiker---all members of the private business sector--- was appointed to review requests for proposals (RFPs). The Yavapai County Board of Supervisors advertised the RFP for operating entity and program operator for core and intensive services for adult, youth and dislocated workers. (Copy of the RFP is a part of these minutes.) RFPs were received from NACOG, Yavapai College and Gila County and Prescott Area Information and Referral Services. Patricia Bruneau-Gaber, executive dean of Community Campus and Economic Development for Yavapai College, declared a conflict of interest. Teri Drew, director of Northern Arizona Council of Government's (NACOG's) Economic Workforce Development declared a conflict of interest. Linda Broomhead, program manager for NACOG, declared a conflict. Margaret Keener, division chief of Human and Community Services, NACOG, declared a conflict until she further checked with her agency. Barbara Wright, manager of the Arizona Department of Economic Security's Job Services said she could be a conflict because the Dislocated Workers Program is housed with the Department of Economic Security. Thomas Chacon, placement and outreach specialist for the Northern Arizona Center for Phoenix Job Corps said he would seek a legal opinion and at that point felt there was no conflict of interest.

Gary Spiker said a very thorough investigation with healthy discussion was performed by the subcommittee who thoroughly reviewed each proposal. Based on the information submitted for the requests for proposal the subcommittee chose NACOG. (The subcommittee's letter is a part of these minutes.)

Chairman Griffith opened the topic for discussion. Brandon Arterbury, unit supervisor for the Arizona Department of Economic Security's Rehabilitation Services Administration said he was confused about the whole process; it was not discussed at the last LWIB meeting. He was curious where it came from two weeks later that an RFP would be put out. Arterbury said he thought the LWIB was to direct this process, control this process, and shepherd this process through the system, and he was confused about how control of that process was lost, and exactly which part of the process this was.

Chairman Griffith asked Yavapai County Supervisor Chip Davis to explain. Supervisor Davis said there was a July deadline and the Board of Supervisors did not have to go to RFP for the operating entity and program operators. The Board of Supervisors could have simply made the appointments. However, Supervisor Davis thought it would be in the best interest to go to RFP, have interested parties submit their proposals, and the LWIB Chair agreed. Chairman Griffith said the board was not losing control. He did not think the contractual award took control from the LWIB. The intention of the state and federal government was for the LWIB to be the overseeing body. Those awarded contracts will be scrutinized. Chairman Griffith reiterated that the final plan had to be presented to the Governor by April 14 and the operating entity was part of the Plan.

Arterbury said his original question was is this the administrative entity, is this the One-Stop Operator, is this the service provider, and if the Board of Supervisors let the RFP, why is the LWIB voting on someone else's RFP? Supervisor Davis replied that the bold print said program operator for those functions, not the One-Stop Operator those functions specifically indicated.

Arterbury said he was not opposing recommendations of the committee, but wanted new members to understand the process, which he described as money coming down from the feds which went to the county who appointed an administrative fiscal agent. NACOG was the fiscal agent. Arterbury said he thought that was fine, but the regulations said the LWIB would choose the One-Stop operators that the preliminary plans showed as a consortium.

Chairman Griffith indicated the LWIB was not giving control away but that day-to-day operations had to be reported to someone who is in operation all the time, not every other month. They would be the entity that would have things funneled to them on a day-to-day basis. How they operate and who they use is still under this board. They could be directed to use other entities on this board.

Brad Newman said he felt the authority of group was usurped that at some point they relinquished it to the Board of Supervisors. The RFP came out quickly, the response time seemed short, and some [participating governmental agencies] felt a sense of a done deal. A significant provider of services in northern Arizona will continue to provide services and some of the smaller ones felt they weren't considered.

Chairman Griffith interjected the decision on the timing was his because of the April 14^th Plan submission deadline. The Chairman re-emphasized that the intent of the RFP was the opposite of what Brad Newman was insinuating. Chairman Griffith was hoping to see a proposal from the private sector who apparently didn't see Yavapai County as a "big enough fish." Time deadlines are the issue, just like we would like to spend a lot more time on the plan. We also have to remember this is a fluid system; the term of this contract is one year.

Arterbury declared there were two different descriptions of what the LWIB was supposed to vote on. He did not believe they had to vote on a county RFP, and before there was any voting, he wanted to know was the entity direct service providers, was it just an operating entity or was it a service provider, and if it was a service provider, was it the only one? He reiterated that he wanted to make sure the LWIB was doing their job, following the process and that they understood what the process was.

Supervisor Davis emphasized that county government had not been prepared to deal with the Workforce Investment Act. Every county in the state of Arizona could verify that. He added that counties did not look forward taking on multiple state and federal agencies---it wasn't a dream of county government or business people who were taking time off work to participate. He added that they weren't in tune to the internal strife that goes on within 18 different government agencies. He said they had attempted to identify the players: employers, government agencies who provided the services and business people. The county identified NACOG, Yavapai County, the Department of Economic Security (DES) and Yavapai College. They already had folks who provide services as called for in the RFP. They had to have the WIA Plan ready for submission to the Governor in April and in July the Workforce Investment Act requirements were to begin. Time was marching on. When the RFP was advertised, besides small print in the back of the newspaper that someone would have to read with a magnifying glass, the Board of Supervisors also prepared press releases that were published. A sincere effort was made to make sure everyone understood the RFP and to get more input. The Board of Supervisors' staff wrote the RFP. The intention was to make it as fair and honest and above board as possible. Instead, it apparently caused government agencies to resort to internal gossip about me, my staff and the County Board of Supervisors. We just want to get an 18 agency Workforce Board together. We want to get people trained to get jobs and provide employees for employers. Supervisor Davis stressed that "all of this secret boogie man behind the corner" was simply unfounded. He reminded the members of the impending April and July deadlines and told them someone had to "get off the dime" and do something. Somebody had to move or nobody was going anywhere. He encouraged the government agencies not to criticize every single step of the way and to begin conducting business in a positive and enhancing manner.

Chairman Griffith said the definition would be reflected in the minutes. It is the opinion of this board that this vote did not reduce their authority and responsibility to assign programs throughout the entire area of responsibility and to dictate multiple participation in those programs with full approval of budgets and allocations of budgets among different agencies. Larry Bulechek said it was covered in the law.

Gary Spiker said some RFPs submitted did not address the issues and program requirements. The subcommittee recommended the most thorough RFP, NACOG's. This recommendation was to appoint both the operating entity and operator for core services. The LWIB would be using other agencies according to the laws. Spiker clarified that the recommendation was for both the operating entity and the program operator for core and intensive services for adult, youth and dislocated workers as part of the county's participation in the local Workforce Investment Act. Ken Coleman interjected that all the subcommittee was asked to do was bring a recommendation to board; it wasn't carved in stone. The subcommittee fully intended NACOG to oversee, but to utilize a lot of other agencies. He said it was a recommendation and that it be clarified so the Board could move on. Chairman Griffith called for a motion. A motion to appoint NACOG to provide all services required of the operating entity/program operator for core and intensive services for adult, youth and dislocated workers was made by Thomas Chacon with Steve Owings seconding it. The motion carried with Arterbury and Barbara Wright voting no. (Wright had previously indicated a conflict.)

5.

PLAN REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVAL

Teri Drew reviewed the five-year Plan. Drew made a recommendation to hold another public hearing for the Plan. Chairman Griffith agreed. Drew explained the changes to the Plan. Most were just "housekeeping" changes requested by the State. For instance, the word "preliminary" needed to be removed for the final version. Drew pointed out several format changes on pages 46 and 47. Chairman Griffith said all the changes were in writing, and are a part of these minutes. Newman questioned the figures on dislocated workers' doubling in two years in spite of their efforts. Drew said they followed labor market information, labor projects. Drew said they were planning numbers. Bulechek made a motion to approve the Plan changes and Chacon seconded it. All in favor.

6.

Chairman Griffith said the LWIB was looking for active participants. He said there were plans for lunch and an educational speaker for three of the six meetings per year. The attendance for lunch would be optional. A variety of guest speakers would educate the group on workforce topics. He said they needed to look for additional members and that David Sommer had resigned.

7.

YOUTH COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

The Youth Council appointments were reviewed. Arterbury noted that Linda Broomhead is a multi-talented person, but questioned why she was representing two positions. Broomhead related that the selection committee had done solicitation three times, delayed the decision process three times. Chairman Griffith said it was a start and got the LWIB going under the impending deadline. Membership could be increased in the future. At this time to keep the number on the board at a minimum, Broomhead was serving also in the place of Margaret Keener. Miriam Haubrich said a Section 8 representative could be substituted in the future.

Patricia Bruneau-Gaber voted to accept the Youth Committee appointments. Bulechek seconded it and the LWIB reached consensus.

8.

The next meeting will be Tuesday, May 2, 10 a.m. at a Verde Valley location to be announced. (Yavapai-Apache Nation tribal council chambers. Maps will be forwarded.) There will be a luncheon and speaker. Topics will include budgets and June 30 and July 1 program deadlines. June 27, September 12 and November 7 are the next tentatively planned full LWIB meeting dates. Teri Drew said NACOG could explain officers and directors liability insurance and what that meant for members of the LWIB. Teri Drew made a motion to approve the meeting dates as set, Larry Bulechek seconded. All in favor.

9.

Chairman Griffith reminded members they needed to file their notarized oaths of office and conflict of interest forms. Teri Drew asked when contracts could be anticipated. Dave Ellis said the dollar amounts were known and separate allocation would not be available until the second week of April. Patricia Bruneau-Gaber said budget and membership committees needed to be appointed. It was decided five members should serve on each board with 51 percent from the private sector. Bruneau-Gaber made a motion to appoint budget and membership committees. Miriam Haubrich seconded it, all in favor with none opposing.

The following volunteered to serve on committees:

BUDGET: Brandon Arterbury, Elaine Bremner, Miriam Haubrich, Linda O'Brien, and Gary Spiker.

MEMBERSHIP: Patricia Bruneau-Gaber, Teri Drew, and Steve Owings.

Tom Chacon made a motion to approve the budget and membership committee lists; Linda Broomhead seconded with all in favor. Chairman Griffith said Bryan Detwiler would be a suggestion for membership.

10.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Griffith entertained a motion to adjourn. Thomas Chacon made the motion at 11:35 p.m. and Larry Bulechek seconded it. All in favor.