Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1983.05.05 - 11663May 5, 1983 Miscellaneous Resolution # 83126 By: Public Services Committee - James E. Lanni, Chairperson In re: Authorization for Board Chairperson to Sign a Letter to the Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council Opposing the Creation of More Than One Service Delivery Area Within Oakland County To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS the Public Services Committee strongly feels that the most efficient use of the Job Partnership Training Act (iPTA) funds would be to have only one Service Delivery Area (SDA) within the County of Oakland; and WHEREAS the dollar savings which can be accomplished by not duplicating administrative services, and the many unanswered questions regarding job training and placement which arise when more than one Service Delivery Area is created are the major factors for opposing the creation of several Service Delivery Areas within Oakland County. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chairperson of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners be and is hereby authorized to sign the attached letter to the Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council opposing the creation of more than one Service Delivery Area within Oakland County. MR. CHAIRPERSON, on behalf of the Public Service Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE 111T171747%latiliti • - •': -ff OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1200 NORTH TELEGRAPH ROAD — PONTIAC, MICHIGAN 48053 — (313) 858-0100 May 5, 1983 Mr. Philip H. Power, Chairperson Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council 411 East Washington, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, Ml 46104 Dear Mr. Power: On Monday, April 25, 1983, the Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council considered the Service Delivery Area application for the six-community consortium, including the City of Pontiac. This application includes approxi- mately one quarter of the unemployed citizens in Oakland County. If approved, it will isolate the highest area of unemployment from both job opportunity and training facilities throughout the County. As Chairperson of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, I wish to oppose the decision of the Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council in approving the six-community Service Delivery Area application in favor of the larger Service Delivery Area of Oakland County. My request is based on the following facts: 1. The past performance of the Oakland County Prime Sponsorship. 2. Duplication of administrative costs. 3. Job opportunity for clients. 4. Equitable distribution of funds. 5. Respect of the business community. 6. Fiscal integrity. Mr. Philip H. Power Page 2 May 5, 1983 The Past Performance of the Oakland County Prime Sponsorship The past performance of the Oakland County Prime Sponsorship is a result of the open bidding process. Every training dollar allocated to the training function of classroom training, on-the-lob training and youth programs is a direct result of the open com- petitive process. In this process, the cost of operation and placement in iohs is emphasized. The net result for fiscal year 1982 is a cost per placement of $5,425 and an overall placement rate of 47 percent. This compares favorably to the Region V planned placement for Oakland County of $10,208 and the statewide overall place- ment of 35 percent. Duplication of Administrative Costs Duplication of administrative costs by the addition of a new Service Delivery Area within the labor market will only further reduce the training dollars available to the unemployed citizens of Oakland County. At present only eight thousand of the 74,000 unemployed citizens have been served. Duplicate administrative costs will only add to the reduction of scarce training resources. Job Opportunity for Clients Job opportunity for clients should be the only reason our program exists. During the last several years the unemployment rote of the City of Pontiac has been the highest in Oakland County. As of February 1983, the rate was reduced to 30.3 percent. The businesses within the City have been unable to expand and existing training facilities are already at capacity. An approval of the current SDA application would further isolate the six-community consortium, including the City of Pontiac from fob opportunities and training facilities outside of their city limits. Isolation is the denial for an opportunity of employment. Equitable Distribution of Funds Performance should not ignore the equitable distribution of funds. A current dollar allocation to the Pontiac area exceeds an alternative allocation based on the number of unemployed citizens. A separate SDA will actually lower the training dollars available to the six-community consortium, including the City of Pontiac. In addition to money, equity also involves the training of minorities. The enrollment of minorities in the County program has continued to be beyond the training goals of the annual plan. 11- is currently above 25 percent. Respect of the Business Community The business involvement in the Oakland County program includes over five thousand private-for-profit firms. Business people expect the oblectives of performance and cost effectiveness. Creating duplicate administrative agencies represents an overlap Mr. Philip H. Power Page 3 May 5, 1983 within the same labor market and will only diminish the business community's respect for training under the Job Training Partnership Act, Fiscal Integrity Perhaps the most serious flaw in CETA was financial integrity. On a national basis, business and the community at large were continually exposed to media accounts of fraud and abuse by contractors. At present there are $3,721,279 in questioned costs for past operations of training programs for the six-community consortium, including the City of Pontiac. The County has hired CPA firms through a bidding process to assist their subcontractors in resolving these questioned costs. The amount of $3,721,279 is the largest questioned cost for subcontractors dealing with Oakland County. An approval of a separate SDA would withdraw this source of financial credibility and create the potential for liability for the six-community consortium, Including the City of Pontiac. This liability would further reduce the fiscal integrity of the program necessary for promoting the training activities within the business and in the general community. In conclusion, the decision concerning the six-community consortium, including the City of Pontiac, Service Delivery Area application provides the Michigan Job Training Coordinating Council with an opportunity to choose between local politics and proven performance. The Council can gain in stature by being recognized in an important forum representing business, labor, education and government or it can be viewed as an extension of one political party. I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Richard R. Wilcox, Chairperson Oakland County Board of Commissioners RRVV/ru May 5, 1983 #83126 Moved by Lanni supported by Olsen the resolution be adopted. Moved by Gosling supported by Moffitt to amend the resolution by changing the title to read "Opposition to Michigan Job Training Coordination Council Creation of More Than One Service Delivery Area Within Oakland County"; amend at the end of the first WHEREAS after the word "Oakland" to read "for the following reasons: I. The past performance of the Oakland County Prime Sponsor- ship, 2. Duplication of Administrative Costs, 3. Job Opportunity for clients, 4. Equitable distribution of funds, 5. Respect of the business community, 6. Fiscal integrity"; and; amend to delete the present NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED and insert in its place "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners goes on record as opposing the creation of more than one Service Delivery Area within the County of Oakland."; amend to add: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this resolution be forwarded to Governor Blanchard, and Chairman Philip Power of the Michigan Job Training Coordin- ating Council and the members of that Council.", Discussion followed. The Chairperson ruled the motion to amend in order. Commissioner Pernick appealed the ruling of the Chair and asked for Corporation Counsel's opinion. The Chairperson stated that .a "yes" vote would sustain the decision of the Chair and a "no" vote would not sustain the decision of the Chair. Vote on sustaining the decision of the Chair; AYES: Nelson, Olsen, Page, Rewold, Wilcox, Caddell, Calandro, Gosling, Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McDonald, Moffitt. (16) NAYS: Perinoff, Pernick, Price, Aaron, Doyon, Foley, Fortino, Geary, McPherson, Moore. (10) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the decision of the Chair was sustained. Discussion followed. Vote on Commissioner Gosling's amendment: AYES: Olsen, Page, Rewold,.1411c0x, Caddell, Calqndro, Gosling, Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, $. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McConnell, McDonald, Moffitt, Nelson. (17) Perinoff, Pernick, Price, Aaron, Doyon, Foley, Fortino, Geary, McPherson, Moore. (10) A sufficient Majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried. Discussion followed. Vote on resolution, as amended: AYES: Page, Wilcox, Caddell, Calandra, Gosling, Jackson, S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McDonald, Moffitt, Olsen. (12) NAYS: Perinoff, Pernick, Price, Rewold, Aaron, Doyan, Foley, Fortino, Geary, Hobart, R. Kuhn, McConnell, McPherson, Moore, Nelson. (15) A sufficient majority not having voted therefor, the resolution, as amended, was not adopted.