SWIB Program Policy Committee Meeting

May 29, 2015: 12:30 PM
Marion Martin room, MDOL Commerce Dr, Augusta

Program Policy Committee Minutes of 05/29/15 Meeting

In attendance: Laura Boyette, Ginny Carroll (Staff), Meg Harvey, Renee Kelly, Paul Leparulo, Garret Oswald, Judy Plummer-Beale, Liz Ray, Gail Senese (Co-Chair), Barbara Woodlee (Co-Chair),

Absent: Laura Boyett, Bill Burney, Richard Freund, Denise Garland, Yvonne Mickles, Dan Muth,

Minutes: ? Discussed committee role/work clarification, although will still review and make recommendations on some policies the primary role will be to carry out the Workforce Development System Plan (State Unified Plan) after the planning committees disband. ? Reviewed the purpose and outcomes of the Visioning Session and how the next steps will prioritize activities to achieve the main goals. ? Discussed goal of identifying and implementing Career Pathways. Significant work has been initiated by Gail and Barbara in regard to use of Adult Education for remedial education needs of Community College Students. The MDF Employer initiative continues work to educate employers and it was agreed that having a member of MDF be part of the PPC committee would add value and consolidate the work of the various groups. Meg mentioned that each CTE program has an advisory committee who provide input on industry training and education needs, Barbara and Renee stated that the community colleges and universities have similar advisory groups. Paul recommended that we pool all of the lists of advisory groups and their roles. ? Also need to identify best practices both programmatic and systemic and to review legislative activity that affects all of the system and system goals such as Career Pathways. ? Discussed the need to identify a few new partners, such as someone from the Maine Development Foundation, someone from the Public Library, and someone from the State Chamber.
? Should create a new partner orientation document that provides an overview of the system, the various groups in place and that clarifies the goals and purpose of this group. ? Final discussion was to review the Appeals process draft presented by Ginny. Several good recommendations were offered. First, it was made clear that the committee did not feel comfortable acting as an appeal committee and it was discussed that the type and level of appeal under review may require a different level of appeal committee and that certain appeal processes should go before a formal appeal committee. Liz mentioned that DHHS Appeals sometimes take on appeals from other agencies and Laura mentioned that MDOL has also contracted with outside entities who are well versed in the appeals process and who would take on an appeal that required specific expertise for a fee. It was decided that this latter appeal process would be most useful.

Attachments