Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County (Nev.): memos, agendas, and meeting minutes

A RESOLUTION REGULATING DEBATE AND DISCUSSION BEFORE THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD.
WHEREAS, the Economic Opportunity Board is composed of members representing all segments of the Community, and
WHEREAS, the members of the Board, prior to each meeting, receive a printed agenda of the items of business to be considered and are thus able to inform themselves concerning each item, and
WHEREAS, the executive director is available to members of the Board to answer questions and give them information helpful in understanding the items to be considered, and
WHEREAS, any person in the Community may speak through his representative.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that this Board limit debate and discussion to members of the Board, only, except by a majority vote of the Board members present, a specified time for debate and discussion from the floor may be allowed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of , 1967.
January 20, 1967
TO: Members of the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. Cottrell, Executive Di rector
SUBJECT: Action Items for Agenda - Meeting January 25, 1967
I. Status of Hot Lunch Program.
This matter was discussed at length again at the Board meeting of December 28 and we were asked to seek alternatives in view of the obstacles encountered. After further discussion with the School District and the Regional Office, we can see no feasible way in which to put the program into operation.
Does the Board wish to take final action to delete this project from the "active" list? If so, we wi I I be able to "recapture" these funds for use by 0E0. If we merely wait until the expiration of the funding period in June, funds will revert to the U.S. Treasury Department and will be lost to any other use by 0E0.
I I. Henderson Neighborhood Council.
We have received a letter from the Clark County Housing Authority, asking us to vacate the office we had obtained from them in April of 1966 for the Henderson Neighborhood Service Center. This is contrary to their agreement at that time to make this space available "for one year." The matter is to be discussed at the Executive Committee meeting on Monday, at which time we hope to have additional information available.
If the decision is not subject to negotiation we must find another location for the Center.
I • Special Conditions to be Attached to Day Care Program.
We have information that one of the special conditions to be attached to the refunding for this component is that the Centers must be integrated. As you know, this has been attempted on a continuing basis in the past with little success, because (1) the neighborhoods served are predominantly Negro, (2) children in Caucasian or other ethnic groups who gualify under the family income criteria live considerable distances away from the Centers, and (3) transportation has not been available to bring children from other areas to the Centers.
All of these facts are known by the Regional office. However, it appears that in order to accomplish Integration of Caucasian or other children into the existing Centers 0E0 may be prepared to furnish funds for transportation, or to assist in other ways to accomplish actual, substantial integration.
There are many ramifications to this guest ion and the entire matter should have a thorough airing (in public) before we are confronted with the final approval on refunding of the component.
IV.
Authorization for Executive Director to Accept Refunding of Components.
"packMe»P?ferrtSi?+ °' f°r”al ReSlonal approval °f our refunding pacKage (for the five components submitted in October- Dav Care
ConductrandeAdb‘>O''b+°d+COU?Ci ‘S’ NYC Heal+h and Educa+’°" Support,'and Conduct and Administration) prior to the end of January. In addition we should receive the approval of the Special Projects Di vision in ashington for the Moapa Project amendments within the next few days.
rere^Tn/? prevent any delays in returning the necessary papers and at the S +°Hc°n+inue in operation, the Board should take some action
the+r!< !+ 9 °n WednesdaV to authorize the Executive Director to accept act?on?3 35 aPPr°Ved by 0E°’ °r t0 ™ke Other provisions to acc^Hsh
V. Status of Manpower Project.
At the time of this writing, we have spent parts of three days in Court in connection with the hearing on the request for an injunction against Mr M 0 lndependence +o Prohibit them from hiring anyone other than
Maur*c® f°r +he posi+ion of Manpower Center Director. Of course
we do not know the outcome of the hearing as yet. '
We will keep the Board fully informed, and hope to be able to present a more complete report on the status of the Court action at thl See??nq on ednesday. In the meantime, we have received authorization from the9
Executive Committee of Operation Independence to make commitments for purchase of equipment necessary to carry out the project. (This was necessary since these funds were in the 1966 grant, and if not committed we would lose the funds. There are no funds in th^ request for ?967 for this purpose) In addition we have placed two Manpower Aides on the eX^i YernP°rar,!v "’these are Neighborhood Council service workers not elected by their Councils, and such action is in accord with the work hv°nram I°r +?e Neighborhood Council project. This action was approved by Operation Independence.
Catholic Welfare has asked for similar treatment inasmuch as they have a service worker who was not elected by a neighborhood council. This question r:reieTV° oEeRe9,onai and h°p® >n»s by The first of the week.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD
January 20, 1967
TO: Members of the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. Cottrell, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Informational Items
1-
EXTENSION OF COMPONENTS.
Inasmuch as the 0E0 Regional Office was unable to process our refunding applications prior to expiration of the 1966 funding period on December 31, we received permission to extend all projects to January 31. Operating funds have been borrowed from the Manpower Project, and will be returned when we receive our 1967 funds.
2.
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO MOAPA MIGRANT PROJECT.
We have received verbal approval of the changes in the project, and should receive written authorization to proceed within a few days.
The project as amended makes the Clark County School District the operating agency, rather than the University Cooperative Extension Service. The program will be housed in the Logandale School, with the exception of educational aspects which will be located in the Overton School.
3.
OPERATION INDEPENDENCE COMPLIANCE WITH AUDIT REPORT FINDINGS
Operation Independence is now in full compliance with the findings of the auditor for the period ending December 31, 1965. This includes items of property records, personnel records, purchasing system and forms, accounting for in-kind contributions, and fidelity bonding for appropriate officers and employees.
******
(We have not yet received the transcription of minutes of the meeting of December 28 from Mrs. Armstrong, Acting Secretary, who is presently in Carson City, but they should be available before the meeting).
(Preparation of the December financial statements has been delayed due to delay in refunding components and extension of the 1966 project to January 31. We hope to have them before the meeting).
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: Charles W. Spann
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
The monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held as follows:
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 1967
3$ 30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (301 S. Highland, Room 303)
0
AGENDA
H-Ji 1. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of December 27, 1966
। r
2.
Discussion of 0E0 memorandum (SFR-76) on open meetings and related Items.
3.
Report on status of Operation Independence — bonding and other requirements for Day Care Program, as well as status of Manpower Project.
’\\// 4. Discussion of special conditions to be attached to refunding of Day Care
/ Centers, particularly those concerned with Integration of the Centers.
5.
Contacts made by Individuals with the Regional office.
6.
Status of housing the Henderson Neighborhood Council.
7.
Discussion of further action, If any, In regard to the Hot Lunch Program.
8.
Discussion of 0E0 approval of revisions to Migrant program, and special conditions to be attached to grant.
9.
Other business.
Executive Committee Meeting
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 23, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices
Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Emory Locketts (First Vic® Chairman), Thomas Wilson, Srv, Harvey Dondero, Ted Lawson, Isaac White, Father Charles Shallow
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia M. Staples
OPENING DISCUSSION: Mr. Lockette advised that though he had been asked by Mr. Spann to chair this meeting (due to Mr. Spann's Illness), he would like discussion from committee members regarding the propriety of his so doing. Mr. Lockette noted that he was referring to CAP Momo No. 42-A which states that a Fedora I Employee may not normally serve as chairman of a CAA’s governing body. Following discussion committee members concluded that it would seem permissable because this was the Executive Committee and not the Board.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 27, 1966: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Mr. Dondero moved that the minutes of the December 27 meeting be approved as recorded and published. Seconded by Mr. Lawson, motion carried.
0E0 MEMO NO. SFR-76 ON OPEN MEETINGS: The Executive Director reviewed SFR Memo No. 76 and noted that this agency has bean in compliance with the practices set forth in this memo, noting particularly that the Executive Committee has always acted only as an advisory body to the full board.
REPORT OF STATUS OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE IN COMPLYING WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DAY CARE PROGRAM AS WELL AS STATUS OF MANPOWER PROGRAM: The Executive Director discussed compliance made with the findings of the Auditor by Operation Independence In regard to the day care centers grant funding ending December 31, 1965. He advised that as of December 51, 1966, Operation Independence Is covered by a blanket employee fidelity ’ // Bond, has complied with property record and personnel record standards, and has adopted a voucher check and a purchase order system.
Regarding th© Manpower Program and the court hearing on the charge of racial discrimination, Mr. Cottrell advised that as of tha court session of January 20 the plantiffs still have not presented their entire case. Following this, Operation Independence will present the defense so the case may continue for some time. He advised that because of this Injunction, the main part of the program can not be Implemented though EOB has obtained permission from Operation Independence to spend a portion of the 1966 grant funds for equipment and supplies and to set up a temporary program so that two persons transferred from the Neighborhood Council program could be paid from Manpower funds. These two employees are doing work which will be helpful to the Manpower program. Mr. Cottrell advised that another employee Is Involved from Catholic Welfare, and he has requested the regional 0E0 office to rule whether or not this employee can also ba employed temporarily by th® EOB as a Manpower Aide.
He noted that the complicating factors Involved In this situation are that Catholic Welfare’s status as a delegate agency has not yet been determined as requested of 0E0; that? contracts with religious organizations must be approved by the
regional office before such can be entered Into locally, and that technically Catholic Welfare Is not presently a delegate agency.
Mr. Lockette noted that Items had appeared In the newspapers stating that Operation Independence was not meeting requirements and stated that In his opinion some of the blame must be takeni by the EOB because of not much help being offered to delegate agencies In the past. He noted, however, that It now seemed that mors help was being directed to the delegate agencies.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE REFUNDING OF DAY CARE CENTERS: The Executive Director advised that though special conditions have not yet been received In writing, the Regional Office has advised this office that there will be a special condition attached to the grant funding stating that the Day Care Centers must be Integrated. In this special condition, the EOB will be required to open
| registration for 30 days to attempt to recruit, and to give a report on the number eligible children for the Head Start program stating how many are Negro, Mexican American, Indian, children of Migrant Workers, etc.
Mr. Cottrell stated that DEC has Indicated that If transportation Is a problem, DEC Is prepared to provide the cost necessary to transport children to the centers from other areas.
There was discussion on this situation by the Cornmlttee members. Practical problems Involved were noted; possible solutions were discussed; eg. opening a fourth center, transporting children. Mr. Cottrell also noted that the Regional Representative advised that Operation Independence bo requested to discuss this situation at Its Board meeting. He further noted that when the acceptance of grant for the day care coaters Is signed, this moans that the Board has agreed to comply with all special conditions made a part of that grant.
CONTACTS MADE BY INDIVIDUALS WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE: This Item was deferred.
STATUS OF HOUSING THE HENDERSON NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE CENTER: The Executive Director reviewed \\.// the background of this situation, advising that in April, 1966, the Clark County
\'7 . Housing Authority had Indicated by letter to the EOB that they would make space
available for a period of one year to house the Henderson Neighborhood Service Center.
However, a letter has been received from the Housing Authority stating that they now have ; other need for this space and are requesting that the EOB vacate the Henderson office by January 30. Mr. Cottrell stated that he has called the Director of the Housing Authority, Mr. Jimmie Hullom, who advised him that the lease had been mad® with Catholic Welfare and there was a 30-day provision to cancel, which had been exercised upon notice from Dudley Evans that he was no longer associated with the program.
Mr. Cottrell dsald Mr. Hullom also advised him that If the EOB sent a letter to the Housing Authority again requesting this space, he felt the Board would approve Its free use. Following brief discussion, Mr. Dondero moved that the Executive Director proceed to write to the Housing Authority requesting continued use of this space. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
-2-
The Committee members noted also that additional space should be requested for the future to house the Manpower Outreach Station In Henderson. Members also noted that agencies receiving federal funds and entering Into contracts should supply copies of any such leases or contracts to the EOB.
HOT LUNCH PROGRAM FOR WEST LAS VEGAS SCHOOLS: The Executive Director advised that at last last Board Meeting It had been requested that the EOB office see If there were a way by which this program could be made feasible. Mr. Cottrell stated there did not seem to be a way. He advised that If the Board takes action to remove this program from the active realm, 0E0 can then recapture the funds and use them In another program; however, If the grant was just allowed to expire at the end of the fiscal year the money would revert to the U.S. Treasury.
There was discussion on the program and Its feasibility. Father Shallow asked If there might be a way by which the program could be tied In with the Soup Kitchen operated by Catholic Welfare. The Executive Director noted that If the program was operated by an agency other than the School District, the federal lunch program subsidy of 4.54 per meal served would be lost. Committee members agreed to take necessary action at the March Board Meeting If net way to operate the program could be found by then, with the March date allowing the money to be recaptured by 0E0.
0E0 APPROVAL OF REVISIONS TO MIGRANT PROGRAM AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT: Mr. Cottrell advised that because « the migrant program did not get started last fall, the date of funding has now been extended to run until June, 1968. He advised that there are two special conditions of the grant: (1) that the School District assure 0E0 that If the space rennovated by 0E0 funds Is not made available for anti-poverty programs for the next five years at no rental charge, that the school district shall then reimburse 0E0 for the unamortized value;ofnth62Improvements made with 0E0 funds; and (2) that the £08 approve District appointments to the positions
I of Project Director, Assistant Director, and Day Care Supervisor.
Mr. Dondero asked that the proper authorities of the school district be advised of these special conditions, and Mr. Cottrell noted that the Information had already been given to Mr. Merz.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM: Charles W, Spann
CHAIRMAN
You are hereby notified that the regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held at 7:30 P.M., January 25 (Wednesday) at the Clark County District Health Department.
AGENDA
1.
Approval of the Minutes of the meeting of December 28, 1966.
2.
Approval of the EOB and NYC financial statements for December, 1966.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
3.
Executive Director's Administrative Report:
A.
Extension of Component fundings.
B.
Approval of Amendments to Moapa Migrant Project.
C.
Operation independence: Compliance with Audit Report Findings.
ACTION ITEMS:
4.
Status of Hot Lunch Program.
(Does the Board wish to take further action in view of the school district's position?)
5.
Henderson Neighborhood Counci I location.
6.
Discussion of special conditions to be attached to Day Care Center funding.
7.
Authorization for Executive Director to accept refunding of components for 1967 __ both Title II and Title III (Migrant program).
8.
Report of the Executive Committee.
OTHER BUSINESS:
9.
Other items too late to be included on the agenda.
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 25, 1967 7:30 P.M.
Clark County District Health Aud. Las Vegas, Nev.
PRESENT: Board Members: Emory Lockette (First Vice Chairman), A.G. Montemayor,
Thomas W. Wilson, Sr., James L. Snowden, Bud Cleland, Pat Fahey, Harvey Dondero, E. Douglas Pushard, Father Charles Shallow, Ferren Bunker, William R. Merz, Dorothy King, Stella Fleming, Charlotte Hill, J.R. McPherson, George B. Kline, George 0. Keyes,
Guests: John H. Howe, Addie Reid Blake, Hazel Geran, Ethel R. Pearson, Mary V. Smith, Steve Zamora, Harold Ortega, Tony Doram, Joe Braswell, Clifford B. Greene, Cleveland Woods, Jacqueline Merz, Rosie Smith, Evelyn P. Coleman, Ike Rome, Gloria Rome, Charles M. Jones, Sarah Ray, Lubertha M. Johnson, Doris LeRoux, Tony McCormick, Alma Cleland Dudley G. Evans, Mona Moore, Royal E. Blackburn, Robert Fahey, Richard J. Brenneman, Jim Burris.
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Evelyn Mauldin, Lamar McDaniel, Sylvia Staples
MEETING OPENED: Following a count by the secretary, a quorum was declared present.
Due to the illness of Chairman Charles Spann, the meeting was chaired by the First Vice Chairman, Emory Lockette. Mr. Lockette introduced North Las Vegas Councilman Bud Cleland, a new Board Member who will be representing Mayor Taylor of the City of North Las Vegas.
MINUTES AND FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Chairman noted that the members had just tonight
received the minutes and financial reports for the meeting of December, and advised that these items would be by-passed for approval until the next meeting so that members will have an opportunity to study the reports.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: The Executive Director noted that the report has been mailed to all Board Members. He briefly reviewed the items contained
therein. He stated that though the projects for refunding January 1 were submitted to San Francisco on October 17, because of the heavey workload of 0E0, approval has not yet been received. Consequently, 0E0 has given permission to expend 1966 funds for operation of programs through January 31. It is anticipated that the refunding application will be approved by that time.
Migrant Project: Mr. Cottrell advised that approval has been received from Washington on changes requested for the Migrant project. The primary change requested was the change of delegate agency from the Clark County Cooperative Extension Service to the Clark County School District. This change has been effected together with the relocation of the project from temporary buildings to the Logandale School, with the exception of educational aspects which will be located in the Overton School.
Operation Independence: Regarding Operation Independence compliance with audit report findings, the Executive Director advised that Operation Independence is in compliance with those recommendations that were made by the auditor involving the grant period ending December 31, 1965. He
further stated that contrary to newspaper reports, at no time has any auditor reported or has the EOB Finance Officer reported, anything that would lead anyone to conclude that there have been any financial irregularities. He emphasized that there is absolutely nothing in any report in any audit that would substantiate this statement.
Mr. Cottrell noted, however, that the report of the auditor had pointed out matters concerning procedure and internal control that were not as adequate as they might be and it was these matters that the grantee organization was concerned with. Included in this category were property records, personnel records, purchasing system, accounting for in-kind contributions, and bonding of employees. All of these items have been complied with, the Executive Director stated, and the temporary situation in which the EOB was not able to advance funds to Operation Independence has been cleared up.
He emphasized again that the vocabulary used, "financial irreguI arities", is very unfortunate, as no auditor's report reflects that there has been such.
Mrs. Fahey asked if Board Members would reci eve copies of the audit when it was completed. Mr. Cottrell stated that all audits of the EOB and its delegate agencies are a matter of public record and are subject to the inspection of any citizen during regular office hours. If Board Members wish individual copies, they can be duplicated for them.
Mr. Fahey asked if the public-at-large could see audit reports also, to which Mr.. Cottrell answered that they are absolutely a matter of public record. Mr. Fahey stated that Father Shallow had requested a copy of an audit which had never been furnished. Father Shallow noted that this request had been made prior to Mr. Cottrell's appointment as Executive Director. Mr. Cottrell said that no such request has come to the EOB since he has been Director.
In answer to a question directed by Mr. Merz, the Executive Director stated that 0E0 requirements on audits is that they be made not less than every twelve months, for both the grantee and for all delegate agencies.
The Chairman stated that regarding the minor procedural problems which have arisen in Operation Independence, it should be pointed out that since Mr. Cottrell’s appointment July 1, the relationship with delegate agencies has been much smoother and they have been given more help. He noted that the EOB is responsible for the happenings in the delegate agencies and has a responsibility to the whole county for the operation of a I I of the programs.
Hot Lunch Program: Regarding the status of the Hot Lunch Program the Chairman advised that the Board would need to vote on whether or not to delete this project from the "active" list by at least the March board meeting so that the funds can be recaptured by 0E0 for use by CEO; the funds otherwise would revert to the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. Cottrell further explained that the EOB staff was requested by this Board to seek alternative ways in which the hot lunch program could feasibly be put into operation. He stated that given the situation, which involves three obstacles, there does not seem to be a way in which
-2-
to make the program operational. The obstacles were again discussed, following which the Chairman asked if the Board desired to take any action i mmed i ate Iy.
Motion: Mr. Snowden moved to defer action on the hot lunch program until the March meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Bunker.
Mrs. Fahey asked if, in the interim, a special committee could be appointed by the Board to investigate alternative ways in which this program could be carried out. There was discussion by members on ways by which the program could become operational, during which it was noted by the Chairman that if an agency other than the School District were to operate the program, the federal subsidy allowed for each lunch would be lost.
There was a suggestion that possibly the children could be transported by volunteers to a place where hot lunches had been prepared for them, eg. Salvation Army, Catholic Welfare Soup Kitchen, etc. Mr. Merz was asked whether this would seem feasible from the School District's point of view. He stated that he could not say whether such a plan would be within the School District's policy, and what the School District's responsibility would be when children were being transported during the lunch hour. He noted however that he would be willing to go to the School District Board to recommend any program that would be feasible and responsible to meeting the problems of the children.
Mr. Bunker asked that if there is not a feasible way to operate the program, could the funds be used in any other alternate way for programs in Clark County, to which Mr. Cottrell replied that OEO's funding policies do not permit this and the money would have to revert back for OEO's use.
Mr. Cleland noted that it seemed that the selection of a committee to study alternative methods of operation would be in order.
A vote was taken on the motion made by Mr. Snowden. Motion carried.
The Chairman asked for volunteers willing to work with Mr. Merz and Mrs. Fahey on this situation. Mr. George Kline and Mr. James Snowden volunteered. The Chairman appointed Mrs. Daisy Miller as the fifth member of the committee.
Henderson Neighborhood Council: The Chairman advised Board Members that office space used by the Henderson Neighborhood Counci I has been reguested by the owners, Clark County Housing Authority, asked that the premises be vacated by January 31.
Motion: Mr. Dondero moved that the Executive Director be instructed on beh’a I f of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County to contact the Clark County Housing Authority and reguest continued use for the Henderson Neighborhood Council. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried.
Snecial Conditions to be Attached to Day Care Funding: The Chairman stated that 0E0 has discussed with the Executive Di rector a special condition to be attached to the day care grant reguiring that the day care centers operated by Operation Independence be more fully integrated. He called upon Mr. Cottrell to further discuss the condition.
Mr.-Cottrell stated that 0E0 has indicated that the special condition will ask the EOB to furnish a report on the eligible children in the area now served, broken down by race or ethnic background. 0E0 will further ask the centers, noting that this question was raised primarily by the Civil Rights staff of 0E0.
He stated that practical problems concerned have been pointed out to 0E0; however, 0E0 has indicated that funds might be made available to transport children and/or to establish an additional center in another area where there would be a substantia! number of children who would be eligible under Head Start criteria.
Father Shallow discussed the Catholic Day Care Center and the ratio of Negro and Caucasian children there being 60-40; however, the Chairman pointed out that this might be due to a different financial level of parents of the children in the center.
Motion: Mr. George Keyes moved that, because definite information on the special condition has not yet been received, the matter be tabled until exact information is received from 0E0.
The Executive Director pointed out that he wished to make the Board Members aware of this special condition because when the refunding package is received, and it is necessary to return the acceptance of grant form, the Board is then committed to all conditions attached to the grant.
Amendment to Motion: Mr. Keyes amended his motion to include that if and when requirements are received, Board members be mailed out a special copy so that they will be able to draw conclusions as to what the Neighborhood Councils feel and will be able to report back to the next Board Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Kline.
Mrs. Fahey asked if another center is opened, under whose direction will it be? She said she would like to call the attention of the Board to the meetings of March and April, 1966, at which Nevada Catholic Welfare urged and requested monies for day care centers for the Henderson and North Las Vegas areas. She noted that there is within the spirit of the war on poverty the concept that federal funds will not be used to duplicate efforts or to subsidize an agency which would be in competition with an existing program. She further called the attention of the Board to a newspaper article referring to a Board Meeting at which Nevada Catholic Welfare applied for a license at 451 Twain and stated that this has been in the process of being planned and programmed since last July.
On the vote on the motion made by Mr. Keyes and including his amendment motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT GRANTS: Mr. Cottrell said that the refunding package for the five components submitted in October should be received very shortly, and noted that it was a requirement of 0E0 that the grantee sign a form indicating acceptance of all changes in program and special conditions.
The Chairman stated that when a grant is accepted by the Executive Director, the Board is committed to all conditions attached, and further stated that the Board probably would not turn down a program because of a special condition attached.
-4-
Motion: Mr. Snowden moved that authority be given to the Executive Director to sign the acceptance of the refunding grants and the Migran Project. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried.
REPORT of THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman stated that all items which were on the agenda for the Executive Committee have been :discussed with the exception of a San Francisco Regional Memo, copies of which have been sent to each Board Member. He pointed out that this memo requires . that the Board hold open meetings, and noted that the EOB has been in compliance with the regulations set forth in this memo.
OTHER BUSINESS: Father Shallow noted that he hoped the Board would not be asked to approve items which they had not received three days prior to the meeting, noting that this had been a problem some time ago. The Executive Director explained why the Financial Report and Minutes had not been mailed to members three days prior to the meeting, noting that because t ey a n been mailed out approval had not been called for at tonight s meeting.
In answer to a question asked by Mr. Keyes as to whether a cost of living consideration was tied into salaries of the poverty program, Mr. Cottrell stated that the salary schedule adopted by the Board last June provides a 3% annual raise for all employees.
Mr. Thomas Wilson asked what is the geographic area of the poverty program. The Chairman directed the Executive Director to bring an answer to this question to the next board meeting. There.was further discussion during which Mr. Wilson noted that an Editorial printed in the Las Vegas Review Journal had stated that the Negroes of West Las Vegas seem to think that they are the only ones that are recipients of the anti-poverty program. Mr. Wilson noted that he did not think that the people of West Las Vegas feel this way at all.
Mrs. Fahey stated that Nevada Catholic Welfare had presented a program to the EOB for a Clark County Purchasing Club and at that time had requested delineation of the target area. She stated that Catholic Welfare was told at that time that projects would have to begin in and include the target area which was West Las Vegas.
Mr. Merz noted that in educational projects, the target area is defined as the area that has the greatest number of people with the greatest economic problems.
Mrs Fahey said that if the federal government really did say that the target area was only West Las Vegas, then only West Las Vegas should have a CAP Board; however, the federal government has said that it must be a county-wide board.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson stated that information is avai IabIe.as.to how the target area was originally established, for whom, the statistical information the federal government appropriat ion of funds, and copies of the study on which to base the justification for establishing such an area. She further noted that the information is available to anyone who wishes to get it.
-5-
Mr. Dudley Evans (former community aide to the Henderson Neighborhood Council) was recognized by the Chair and stated that he wishes to advise Board Members that he has logged a complaint with federal authorities against this Board. Mr. Evans further requested that this matter be tabled until he is represented by counsel and that he be present at any discussion regarding himself.
Mr. Lockette informed Mr. Evans that if he would like to come before the Board with any complaint he could do so. Mr. Evans replied that he would like to confer with counsel before deciding.
Mrs. Fahey asked if it would be possible for the Executive Committee or the Neighborhood Council to give Mr. Evans a hearing, noting that Mr. Evans had made a request for an open hearing on November 5.
Mr. Cleland noted that Mr. Evans has stated 3 or 4 times that he did not wish to speak any further without counsel, and therefore moved for adjournment, seconded by Mr. Snowden and carried.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:dj
M E M 0 R A N D U M ~ —* —— —— ----
ECONOMIC OPPQRTUN_IJY BOARDJJF_CLARK COUNTY
February 15, 1967
EQ: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN
Chai rman
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
Members of the Executive Committee are hereby notified that the regular monthly meeting of the Committee will be held at 3-30 P M Monday, February 20, at the EOB Offices at 301 So. Hiahland, Room"’ 303.
Following is the Agenda:
1.
Dudley Evans - complaints, claims, etc.
2.
Letter from 0E0 Regional Office on state of Nevada Catholic Welfare as a delegate agency in Manpower Program. (Letter received January 25. 1967 copy enclosed.)
3.
Proposed amendments to By-Laws to meet 0E0 requirements on representation of the poor.
4.
Board member contact with the Regional office.
5.
Status of Manpower Project as a result of Court decision.
6.
Probational period report on Neighborhood Council Project Director.
7.
Report of the State CEO Conference.
MEMORANDUM
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 16, 1967
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN
CHA IRMAN
RE: NOT ICE OF MONTHLY MEETING
Board Members are hereby notified that the regular monthly meeting of the Board will be he Id on Wednesday, February 22, 1967, 7:30 P.M., at the Aud i tor i urn of the Cl ark County Di stri ct HeaI th Department.
Following is the Agenda for the meeting:
I.
Approval of Minutes for Meetings of December 28, 1966, and January 25, 1967.
2.
Approval of Financial Statements for December, 1966, and January, 1967.
ACT I ON ITEMS:
3.
Report of the Special Committee to Study the Hot Lunch Program.
4.
Report of the Executive Committee.
5.
Proposed Amendments to By-Laws to Meet New 0E0 Requirements.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
6.
Executive Director’s Administrative Report:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Refunding of five components for 1967.
Space for housing Henderson Neighborhood Council. Definition of areas served by E.O.B. and area originally designated as target area for programs of Operation Independence.
Status of Manpower Project.
Relocation of E.O.B. and N.Y.C. project offices.
7.
Other Business.
MEMORANDUM
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 16, 1967
TO: Members of The Economic
Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FOR BOARD MEETING — FEBRUARY 22, 1967
I• Refunding of Components for 1967:
We received the refunding package from the Regional Office on February 3. There was little change in funding, other than increases in Federal share for the Day Care Centers to: (I) upgrade the food program; (2) fund field trips ($1,500); and (3) provide one additional Head.Start Teacher. An additional $12,000 was added to Conduct and Administration for regional evaluation purposes.
The following is a comparison of amounts requested and amounts granted for each of the five components:
Project
Federal Funds
Federal Funds
Requested
Granted
Conduct & Administration
$ 53,340
$ 65,317
Day Care Centers
129,238
158,573
Neighborhood Counci Is
63,827
62,027
Manpower Development Center
177,758
177,458
NYC Mental & Physical Health
1 ,625
1,625
Totals..............................................
.... $425,788
$465,000
2.
Housing Henderson Neighborhood Council:
At the meeting of the Clark County Housing Authority held February 9, the Board agreed to allow the Henderson Council to retain the space in the Victory Village Community Building free of charge for the balance of the year ending on April 15, 1967.
3.
Definition of Areas Served by E.O.B. and 0.I.:
At the January meeting a question was raised as to the areas included within the jurisdiction of the E.O.B. and Operation Independence. The E.O.B. of course has jurisdiction over all of Clark County. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Board for October 21, 1964, show that the Board
Page 2 of Memorandum
gave initial priority to the "Westside" area. Later other target areas were also delineated: parts of North Las Vegas and Henderson, the Indian Colony, Moapa Valley Migrant Area, the Moapa Valley Indian Reservation, etc.
The boundaries established for "Westside" in 1964 included the railroad tracks and "A" Street extended on the east; Lorain Avenue on the north; Rose Avenue and Highland Drive on the west; and Bonanza Road on the south. (This has since been extended north to Craig Road and, for the area north of Lake Mead Boulevard, Simmons Street on the west.)
4.
Status of Manpower Project:
As a result of the Court action dissolving the temporary restraining order against Operation Independence, the 0.1. Board has extended the period for accepting applications for Manpower Director and Training Coordinator to Friday, February 17. The Screening Ccmmittee wiI I review applications, check references and interview candidates beginning next week. It is hoped that the top two positions can be filled before the end of the month.
5.
Relocation of E.O.B, and N.Y.C. Offices:
We hope to move both offices into the new space in the East Mall of the West Owens Shopping Center by the end of next week. Remodeling and erection of partition walls is completed; the only work remaining is completion of the painting and laying carpet.
The Board should know that making this move and ccmbining the offices with those for the Manpower Project has reduced the monthly cash outlay for rent by $335 per month (an annual savings of $4,020) and gives us $300 per month more in in-kind local share, or $3,600 per year. The total "advantage" is thus $7,620. Much credit is due our Program Coordinator, J. David Hoggard, for working out the agreement with the owners of the shopping center and for coordinating the work necessary to convert the space into office use.
6.
Proposed Amendments to By-Laws:
Enclosed are copies of two proposed amendments to the By-Laws. (These cannot be acted upon until the March meeting, but must be distributed at this meeting.)
Both amendments are made necessary by CA Memo No. 57, 0E0 Washington, which spells out in detail new Congressional requirements for representation of the poor. Neither amendment represents any great change
Page 3 of Memorandum
in the provisions of the By-Laws — the language does clarify and spell out requirements for representation, however. One section, providing for petitions by groups of the poor seeking representation, is new and is mandatory under CA Memo 57.
Other Enclosures:
In addition to the proposed amendments, enclosed for your information are copies of excerpts from various policy directives concerning the funding for the Hot Lunch Program. (This materi a I was compiled.for members of the Special Committee, and is being distributed to give al Board Members some idea of OEO’s policy on programs of this type.)
WFC:sds
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 20, 1967 3:30 P.M.
301 S. Highland, Room 303 Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Chairman Charles Spann, Emory Lockette, Isaac White, Thomas Wilson Harvey Dondero, Father Charles Shallow
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
Following a count, a quorum was declared present and the meeting called to order by Chairman Charles Spann.
COMPLAINTS OF MR. DUDLEY EVANS: The Executive Director reviewed the situation in regard to Mr. Evans' complaints of discrimination, and asked if Executive Committee members wished to take any action regarding the situation. Following discussion and further background, the Chairman asked, subject to objection of any member, that the Committee authorize and direct the Executive Director to send a letter of invitation to Mr. Evans to attend the Executive Committee meeting of March 27, and that if Mr. Evans does not respond or appear, the matter would be dropped.
STATUS OF NEVADA CATHOLIC WELFARE AS A DELEGATE AGENCY: It was noted that members had been mailed a copy of a letter from the Regional office dated January 23 and signed by Harold Moore, Field Representative, which was in answer to a request directed to him for such an explanation as it applied to the Manpower Project.
The Executive Di rector noted that the letter points out that Nevada Catholic Welfare enjoys the same status as any delegate agency in a project, except that all persons working in the Manpower Program will be responsible to the Manpower Project Director.
Father Shallow stated that if Catholic Welfare and Operation Independence can agree on the person to be selected as Manpower Director, Catholic Welfare will try to carry out the program.
Mr. Cottrell further noted that there is a special condition attached to the Manpower Project which requires that the minimum qualifications of the Di rector include at least two years of manpower experience. Other than seeing that this requirement is met, the EOB has no direct voice in the selection of the Director. The EOB has a non-voting representative on the Screening Committee to assist the committee in its work and to see that the special condition is met.
Mr. Hoggard, who serves in this capacity on the Screening Committee, noted that he is no longer a member of the Board of Operation Independence, and that he does not have a vote on the Committee.
There was discussion on membership of the Screening Committee, following which the Chairman ruled, subjecfto objection of any member, that the Executive Committee go on record as recommending that a member of Nevada Catholic Welfare be designated a member of the Screening Comm ittee.
There was further discussion regarding the tOB having a representative on the committee. Mr. Lockette stated that Operation Independence has its own By-Laws and it is not necessary for EOB to superimpose an individual, because when that member says something, it will almost be a demand and the committee should be free to make their own decision. Mr. Hoggard read from the work program, noting that the job description for his position as Program Coordinator states that he w work as liaison between The EOB and its delegate agencies. The Chairman noted that it was the Executive Director’s prerogative to designate any one of the staff as liaison and to attend any meetings he so wishes for informational purposes.
CHANGE IN BY-LAWS: The Executive Director reviewed the proposed changes in the By-Laws of the EOB which, he explained, was being done for the purpose of conforming with CAP Memo No. 57, which requires that groups who feel they are not represented on the EOB Board may petition for representation. The Executive Director advised that the proposed changes will be distributed to members at the Board Meeting so that the 30-day requirement will be met, and changes can be voted on at the March meeting.
Further, the amendments are required to comply with provisions of CAP Memo 57 which require that representatives of the poor, selected by groups of the poor, constitute not less than one-third of the Board membership. The amendments would also spell out in more detail the procedure for nominations by the Nominating Committee, and would make provision for selecting interim trustees to fill the unexpired term of those who resign or may be removed.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the EOB needs to have on its Board several other representatives who are selected by the poor in order to meet the new requirement. There was discussion on how this selection might be accomplished. Mr. Hoggard suggested that the Neighborhood Councils might elect several representatives-at-Iarge. Another suggestion was that a representative from the Indian Colony might be selected by Colony residents. The Chairman ruled, subject to objection by any member, that the suggestion proposed by Mr. Hoggard, be recommended to the Board.
BOARD MEMBER CONTACT WITH THE REGIONAL OFFICE: Chairman Spann stated that certain Board members have habitually been making direct contact with the 0E0 Regional office. The Chairman requested opinions from Committee members as to whether or not this was a desirable situation. He noted that such contacts present a problem for Regional Office staff, as they do not know if the Board Member is representing the Board or is only representing his own position.
Mr. Spann said he felt the Regional Office is interested in what the Board is doing and in Board policies and decision, rather than opinions of individual members. The Chairman noted also that when the Board acts and a vote is taken, that vote determines the action of the Board.
-2-
He said that the question which is before the Committee is whether or not the Board proceed along the established line that when action is taken by the Board, any communication with the 0E0 office should be submitted by the Executive Director at the direction of the Board.
In discussion, Father Shallow noted that the Region should assume that it is an individual action when a Board Member makes contact with that office, and that an individual could not be physically stopped from making such contact.
Mr. Lockette said that the Regional Office had stated that they wanted contact with Board Members. The Chairman noted that this was true regarding letters requesting information, etc. He further said that when a Board Member contacts Region regarding action taken by the Board, the Regional Office questions whether the Board is together on what i t does.
Mr. Dondero was of the opinion that when a Board Member individually contacts the Regional Office, that individual should state that he is not representing the Board as it is not fair to the rest of the members. He further noted that if Board matters are to be conducted by a democratic process, the Board's vote should be the recognized action, and that if an individual did not agree with the Board action he can request that the record show that he does not agree.
Mr. Wilson and Mr. White noted that they concurred with Mr. Dondero's statements.
The Chairman stated that when CEO receives letters from individuals they are usually sent to the local office concerned. However, Mr. Cottrell advised that he has had no copies of letters sent to him by 0E0 from Board Members and no copies of letters from the Region corresponding with individual Board Members.
Mr. Hoggard stated that one of the problems involved is that Regional 0E0 is understaffed, and for this reason, deal only with the CAP agency itself and the CAP in turn is expected to deal with delegate agencies and Board Members.
Mr. Spann summarized that the Committee seems to be agreed that Board Members are not denied contact with the Regional CEO office, but takes the stand that when this happens the individual should identify himself as not representing the Board as speaking only for himself.
STATUS OF THE MANPOWER PROGRAM AS RESULT OF COURT DECISION: The Chairman advised that the motion for injunction brought against Operation Independence in the Manpower Program was denied. The Executive Director further advised that Operation Independence has now reopened applications again; and the Screening Committee is scheduled to meet February 20 to interview new applicants. Upon question as to what means had been used to advertize this position, Mr. Spann noted that it has been listed with the Employment Service Department, and Mr. Hoggard advised that it has been sent to a I I of the newspapers.
-3-
In discussion of the location of the Manpower offices, Mr. Lockette asked if any move had been made to find out Mrs. Johnson's feelings regarding moving her office staff into the Manpower office. There was brief discussion regarding the feasibility of this, though it was pointed out that the space presently occupied by the Day Care staff is totally an in-kind contribution and that it is probably more desirable for the staff to be located at one of the Centers.
Mr. CottrelI noted that CEO will not fund Operation Independence as such, but will pay only the costs associated with carrying out specific anti-poverty programs.
PROBATIONARY PERIOD REPORT ON NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT DIRECTOR: The Executive Director advised that the Personnel Policies state that before a probationary appointment can become permanent, a report must be submitted to the Board. Mr. Cottrell submitted his written report to the Chairman and noted that it indicates that the Project Director, Mr. Lamar McDaniel, has satisfactorily completed the required probationary period.
DISCUSSION OF APPOINTMENl OF PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: Mr. Lockette suggested that a Personnel Committee be appointed to review all job classifications and salaries, as was recommended by the Personnel Committee which performed this function last year. It was noted that this would require action of the Nominating Committee. The Executive Di rector pointed out that we will probably be required to submit applications for the next program year (calendar 1968) in September of this year, and that if any changes were contemplated in the salary schedule or plan, they should be made effective with the new program year.
Motion: Moved by Mr. White, seconded by Father Shallow that the Nominating Committee be asked to nominate members of a Special Personnel Commi ftee, for ratification by action of the Executive Committee. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF MEMBERS OF E.O.B. SERVING ON BOARD OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE: Mr. Lockette raised a question of the desirability of CAP Board members serving on the Board of a delegate agency, Operation Independence. He expressed ।he opinion that this prevents people from the community from sitting on the 0.I. Board.
Chairman Spann stated that he intended to resign from the 0.I. Board, due to the fact that there might be some possibi Iity of a conf Iict with his position as Chairman of the E.O.B. Mr. Dondero stated that the question of dual membership was a question to be decided by the 0.1. Board, and that it was his impression that the 0.1. Board had no objection to having some of its members also sit on the E.O.B.
Mr. Lockette said he felt that it didn't make any difference as to the attitude of the 0.1. Board because there was a definite conflict in serving on both Boards, and the conflict should be removed. He said he felt the poor were not adequately represented on the 0.1. Board, and positions could be made for them by E.O.B members resiqninq from the 0.I. Board.
-4-
Mr. Dondero and Mr. Spann bo+h pointed out that not all of the members of the 0.1. Board are to be representatives of the poor, but that, as is the case with the E.O.B., the 0.1. Board is to represent the entire community.
Mr. Dondero asked whether Mr. Lockette was speaking for the 0.1.
Board. He said he was not, that he was speaking out of his conviction that there was a conflict in serving on both boards. Mr. Spann said he did not believe there had been, but if there was a conflict it should be resolved by letting the individual member decide which Board he wished to continue with, not by prohibiting E.O.B. members from serving on the 0.1. Board.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:dj
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 22, 1967 7:30 P.M.
Clark County District Health Dept. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Board Members: Charles Spann, Chairman, Emory Lockette, Reverend Charles Shallow, Mr. Ted Lawson, Mr. Isaac White, Mrs. Pat Fahey, Mr. Douglass Pushard, Mr. Ferren Bunker, Reverend Newton Tigner, Mr. Karl Harris, Mr. Robert McPherson, Mrs. Charlotte Hill, Mr. Thomas Wilson, Mr. George Keyes, Mrs. Dorothy King, Mrs. Marvie Smith, Mrs. Ethel Lucas, Mr. William Merz, Mrs. Daisy Mi I I er, Mr. Bud Cleland
Guests: Frank J. Palumbo, Clifford B. Green, Cleveland Woods, Willie Metcalf, Dorothy Brown, Nancy Williams, Jess Williams, Maurice Morgan, Gloria Rome, Ike Rome, Sarah Ray, Frederick French, Joe Braswell, Lubertha Johnson, Thomas Clay, Tony McCormick, Harold Ortega, Clara Cooper, Mary Smith, Ethel Pearson, Hazel Geran, Mable Fleniming, Evelyn Coleman, Letha Mobley, Peggy Smith, Rosie Smith, Robert Fahey, Francis Edwards, Richard Brenneman, Ravena Van Houten
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J.David Hoggard, Evelyn Mauldin, Lamar McDaniel, Dorothy Johnson
MEETING OPENED: The Chairman called the meeting to order declaring that a quorum was present.
SEATING OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE: The Chairman announced that
Mr. Charles Jones was present to represent the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council. Mr. Cottrell stated that a certification of his election had been received from the Council Chairman, Mr. French. Mr. Spann welcomed Mr. Jones to the Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Chairman stated that since the Minutes of the December 28 meeting were not available prior to the January Board meeting approval had not been asked at that time. He asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes for December 28.
Mrs. Fahey stated she wished to make an inclusion. She said that she had made a statement to the effect that the Board's public relations should be more positive, and that she had suggested that the Executive Director hold a weekly news conference.
Mrs. Fahey also asked that the minutes be corrected to show that she had made a request that the Board ask Mrs. Lubertha Johnson, Executive Director of Operation Independence to give a report of the reason for changing her mind as to the appointment of the Manpower Director, as had been alleged by Mr. Robert Trimble at the December meeting. Mrs. Fahey asked that the minutes also show that she had suggested that Mrs. Johnson also prepare a report on the applicants who had been consired for the Manpower Director's position.
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Pushard, seconded by Mr. Cleland that the minutes of the December 28 meeting be approved as amended. Motion carri ed.
Mrs. Spann next asked if there were any corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes of the meeting of January 25. Mr. Lockette asked that the seventh paragraph on page 3 be corrected to read as foI Iows :
''The Chairman asked for volunteers willing to work with Mr. Merz.
Mrs. George Kline, Mr. James Snowden, and Mrs. Pat Fahey volunteered. The Chairman appointed Mrs. Daisy Miller as the fifth member of the Committee, to serve as Chairman".
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Merz, seconded by Mr. Jones that the minutes of the meeting of January 25 be approved as amended.• Motion carr i ed.
APPROVAL OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Mr. Spann noted that the Board Members had been furnished copies of the January statement, and that the December statement had been distributed at the last meeting. The Executive Director noted there was little to comment on, other than that there was no balance sheet for January due to the fact that the component was currently being audited.
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Bunker, seconded by Father Shallow, that the financial statements for December and January be approved as presented. Motion carried.
ELECTION OF NEW EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER: The Chairman advised that Mr. Montemayor formerly representative to the EOB from North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council, had resigned and therefore created a vacancy on the Executive Committee. He noted that a replacement was to be elected directly by the Board. The Executive Director pointed out that the person selected must be a Neighborhood Council representative, or other representative of the poor.
The Chairman called for nominations. Father Shallow nominated Mr. Jones, North Las Vegas Council. Mr. White nominated Mr. Keyes, Matt Kelly Council. Mr. Wilson nominated Mrs. Daisy Miller, Highland Council.
Motion: A motion was made by Reverend Tigner, seconded by Mr. Merz that nominations be closed. Motion carried.
Ballots were distributed, and votes were tallied by Miss Johnson and Reverend Tigner. As a result of the ballot Mrs. Daisy Miller was elected to the Executive Committee.
REPORT ON HOT LUNCH PROGRAM: The Chairman called upon Mrs. Daisy Miller, Chairman of the Hot Lunch Committee, for a report. Mrs. Miller reported that the committee had met several times and had had good cooperation with school administrators who met with them. She reported that the Committee was not ready with a final report at this time, but would report at the next meeting with a program to be presented to the School Board for its consideration.
-2-
the program, or U
must be taken at the March meeting. decision
unused funds to 0E0 no later than the end of Apr. I and is not made on the lunch program funds they will
Treasury at that time.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The “airman noted that all matters^conslder^ xs. - e^. He as^
the Executive Director for a report.
“^s - rn^^tXea^eTore tbe C= at Its ~<t on March 27. He added that he was '^^er directed^
attend^ andTf XdXnot ap^earXhe matter would be dropped and no further action taken by the Committee.
Mr. Keyes asked what was the subjecting di-“^^XTon^ that Mr. Evans had made a comp Charlotte Hill advised
against the EOB “-gingd.scr.minatio. Ms Chariot
Other Board members indicated they had received similar letters.
RECOMMENDATION FOR JPP01^™^+^ LoSette had su|ges^ed that another
?^X+rSson"^i2?^10 Xr^Mtb a further recommendation that
the salary schedule be reviewed annually.
,, +od that such a committee must be named by the Nominating
it “5 "°t0d that =uch | % Executive Committee. Mr. a r^n/chaTXlr^Naninating Committee to call to report back at the March meeting of the Board.
Spann asked
a meeting and
I| probably
hr'dCO++re'in"?+rlnJsIo by^epSmber,’and'XhTeSlndations from the
Xth^'lar^Hcy Mr. Spann noted that this could be one factor the Committee could take into consideration.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS: Spann noted that member^had^een^rni shed ।
"lXXXeXXsily tor this action.
-3-
The Executive Di rector noted that Congressional action at the । as session had made mandatory the policy formerly adopted by the Regio a Office that not less than one-third of the Trustees consist of represen He noted that the policy stated the representatives ' ' ' groups of the
tatives of the poor.
need not be poor themselves poor.
, but they must be selected by
Cottrell explained that the proposed amendments would spell out in ... • -------t. would amend the procedure
more detail than previously this requiremenT, would amend
for nominations by the Nominatlmg Comittee to.conform th the new law, and would make provision for appointing internum Trustees to fiI I term of those who resign or are removed.
Mr Cottrell further noted that a deadline of March 1 had established for compliance, and noted that this Board has been in substanmiaI romnliance for some time. Since the Board now consists of 31 members at least 11 must be representatives of the poor. Inasmuch as there are only eight Neighborhood Councils, three other members.must be electe by the poor: one of these will be furnished by the Migrant Workers Valley Migrant Project.
Counci I for the Moapa
the floor, if the size of the Board or.the number the poor was restricted? Mr. Spann said that it one-third requirement was only the minimum it could be more than that. Mr. Cottrell noted TT/ThTroX X I X be selected by groups of the poor, not nominated by the Board itself or some other group or agency.
Mr. Fahey asked, from of representatives of was not, and that the
FahoV stated that the poor only have one representative for every X; te categories of membership. Mr. Harris said he resented
?he Implication t he did not represent the Interests of the poor; he the implicaTio ^present the interests of those being served
said he hoped that by the programs.
Mr. Keyes asked if member. Mr. Spann by-laws, but that that each Counci I
the Neighborhood Councils were restricted to only one said there was no restriction on the number in the the work program description for the project stated would have one representative.
Mrs. Fahey suggested that various agencies or groups income persons be contacted, such as Social Security, or NYC to see if they would like to hold an election to the Board. Mr. Cottrell noted again that such rep be elected from groups of the poor themselves.
representing low- Senior Citizens for a representative resentatives must
Mr Lockette asked if there were any provision for petitioning th Board for representation. Mr. Cottrell read the provision from CAP Memo 57, and noted that this was incorporated in the proposed amendment to Article II of the By-Laws.
Mr. Joe Braswell, Title V Coord, -j^f^^e^tate^el^re^lyision, beScontlctedUinerlgardnto representation from the Las Vegas Indian Colony.
-4-
He noted that this colony is not affiliated with the Nevada Inter-Tribal and +herefore receives no benefits from that CAP activities
of that agency. He suggested that Mrs. Preston Tom of the Moapa Reservation be contacted.
r. Fred French, Chairman of the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council suggested that the boundaries of the N.L.V. Council be extended to include the Indian Colony, to give the residents of the area the advantage of Council membership. Mr. Merz suggested that representation tor this group was a matter to be decided by the Indians themselves. Mr. Lamar McDaniel, in response to a question, said that the definition of Council area boundaries was somewhat arbitrary and that they could be changed.
-g-tl0n: MoYed bY Mr- Keyes that the N.L.V. Council boundaries be changed to include.the Indian reservation. Mr. Hoggard stated that the map which accompanied the information submitted to San Francisco to comply.with CAP Memo 57 possibly was drawn to accomplish this. Mr. Keves then withdrew his motion.
Mr French suggested that inasmuch as children from the Indian colony attend schools located, in North Las Vegas, it was appropriate to include the area in that Counci I ' s boundaries.
Mr. Cottrell read appropriate sections from CAP Memo 57, and noted that all representatives of the poor need not be selected by the March 1 deadline only that an approved plan be in effect by that time.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson asked if a delegate agency would be permitted to elect a representative from its Board to represent the poor. She also asked if staff personnel from agencies are eligible to serve on the EOB.
Mr. Lockette suggested that CAP Memo 23 prohibited such action. Mr. Cottrell said this would be true only in the event that a staff member were elected to a Board which had any control over his duties, his salary and benefits, etc.
Father Sha I Iow.suggested that four or five groups be contacted to see if they would be interested in representation, and the first ones responding would be given.seats on the Board. Mrs. Peggy Smith, of the Parents' Advisory Council to Operation Independence, suggested that her group be given representation, since it was made up of parents who have children in the Day Care Centers.
Mr. Lockette asked if CAP Memo 42-A would apply to delegate agency person nel serving on the EOB, and Mr. Cottrell said he understood that 42-A applied only to employees of 0E0 itself, not to grantees or delegate agencies, insofar as Mr. Lockette's question was concerned.
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Wilson that the EOB staff contact all known existing organizations that may be involved with the poor to determine if they would like to participate. Motion was seconded by Rev. figner.
-5-
Mr. Ortega asked if the North Las Vegas Council could include the Indian colony. Mr. McDaniel pointed out that another Council could be formed in that area or other areas presently without direct representation. Mr. Fahey asked whether or not such Councils would be furnished a paid worker, as the eight existing Councils are. Mr. McDaniel noted that this would require a work program change and budget amendment and approval from the Regional Office.
Mr. Lockette said he felt that the Indian groups should be represented if possible. Mr. Cottrell indicated he would contact a representative of the group, as well as others.
Mr. Ferren Bunker asked if all areas with low-income persons were represented. Mr. Spann said they were not, particular smaller "pockets of poverty" which were scattered. Mr. Bunker suggested that a representative be elected to represent all of these scatter areas. Mr. Cottrell noted the practical difficulties in attempting to contact persons in these areas, and in organizing a group to cover non-contiguous ne i ghborhoods.
Mrs. Pat Fahey suggested that the staff contact the Kelso-Turner housing project or other similar public housing groups to see if there are existing groups of the residents who would be interested in EOB representation .
The Chairman then called for a voice vote on Mr. Wilson's motion, which carri ed.
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: Mr. Lockette suggested that he would like to offer some changes in working to the proposed amendments to the By-Laws. He suggested that Article III, Section 1 (A) be amended to remove reference to the Nominating Committee and to substitute "members of the Board." Mr. Spann suggested that further study might be given to the proposed amendments.
Mr. Cottrell pointed out that CAP Memo 57 sets a March 1 deadline for conforming, and that only because of our provisions for amending the by-laws were we^able to conform with the intent of this policy regulation. Mr. Merz suggested that these be presented to the Executive Committee at its March meeting. Mr. Lockette agreed to these suggestions, and asked that the staff prepare the revisions and mail them out before the next meeting. Mr. Cleland suggested that these suggested revisions be accompanied by an explanation of the effect of such changes.
STATUS OF MANPOWER PROJECT: Father Shallow asked about the status of the Manpower project. The Executive Director said that as a result of the Court action dissolving the temporary restraining order, Operation Independence had again opened the period for accepting applications for the positions of Manpower Director and Training Coordinator to February 17.
Mr. Kari Harris, Vice Chairman of Operation Independence reported that a selection would be completed soon.
Father Shallow stated that one member of the Screening Committee had not been informed of the meetings held recently. Discussion brought out that this member was Mrs. Pat Fahey, representative of Nevada Catholic Welfare. Mr. Cottrell said it was his understanding that the minutes of Operation
-6-
Independence for the meeting of December 14 listed Mrs. Fahey by name as a member of the Screening Committee. Y Y
A motion was made by Mrs. Pat Fahey that Catholic Welfare Director an^theT0^' r +he Selec+In9 and hirin9 of ™e Manpower ector and the Training Coordinator. Motion seconded by Father olid I I OW. '
Mr. Lockette said he felt that Catholic Welfare was taking different positions on the matter of participation In the Manpower Project at " cker?„o"'^d-toHe rin +he E°B ',ad a to cul out the
a cKering and to get the program underway.
Mr. Keyes stated that the minutes indicated that Operation Independence would have The authority of hiring the Manpower Director, and that at no time had anyone made any indication that any other agency was to have any authority to do so. The Chairman noted that the approved work program description for the project called for Operation Independence to make the appointment ।naepen
wou I d ' appo i nt' the^D^ Gon+^?+ Provided that Operation Independence would appoint the Director and Training Coordinator, and that Catholic Welfare knew this when they agreed to the contract.
Mr- Harris noted that the function of the screening committee was to make a recommendation to Mrs. Johnson, the Executive Director, who would make the appointments, subject to ratification by the Executive Committee of Operation Independence. He said he felt this step should ^completed first, and the details of operation could be worked ou?
ather Shallow said Operation Independence was guilty of "dirty pool" in deliberately excluding Mrs. Fahey from the recent actions of the Screening Committee. The Chairman ruled this statement out of order and asked that members refrain from engaging in personal remarks.
Mr. Lockette suggested that Mrs. Fahey's motion be disposed of and the Board work to get the program underway.
Father Shallow stated that Catholic Welfare would like to get the program underway, too, but they would also like equal authority in hiring the9 Director, since Catholic Welfare would be responsible to him (the Director). ’
Mr Fahey stated he would do a I I he could to get Catholic Welfare to
L? +°f Manpower Project if they were not given equal authority in selecting the Manpower Director. He noted that if Catholic Welfare did pull out, the work program would have to be amended and submitted to San Francisco for approval, and this would cause a further delay.
-7-
Motion: Mr. Lawson moved that Mrs. Fahey's motion be tabled. Seconded by Mr. White. Mr. Fahey said that this action would cause a 4 month delay. Mr. Cottrell said this was not so. Mr. Merz called for the question. The Chairman indicated a poll of the members present was in order, and asked the Secretary to record the vote but not by roll-call. Motion carried by a vote of 15 to 4.
Mr. Wilson asked Father Shallow if Catholic Welfare really wanted to help the poor. Father Shallow said they certainly did, but they felt they should be given treatment equal to that given Operation Independence .
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Lockette that the work program for the project be revised to permit the EOB to operate the substations in North Las Vegas and in Henderson. Motion seconded by the Rev. Tigner.
Mr. Lockette said this action, if approved by the Regional Office, would enable the EOB to put the program, long overdue, into operation.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson stated that she had heard from a very reliable source that Catholic Welfare did not wish to work with O.I., and they did not wish to continue as an agency under the Manpower Program. She said that 0.1. had not been informed in writing that Catholic Welfare wished to work with them on this program.
Mrs. Pat Fahey stated that 0.1. minutes confirmed that she was to serve on the Screening Committee, but she had not been informed of any meetings held recently.
Father Shallow said that the only point he wished to make was that Catholic Welfare did not have equal representation in this project. He said that Catholic Welfare was interested in seeing that the best qualified person be named Director, and that Catholic Welfare would work with such a person. He stated, however, that this was not being done by the Screening Committee at the present time.
Mrs. Daisy Miller asked Father Shallow if he felt the screening committee was not qualified to perform this function. He replied that the Committee had previously picked a qualified candidate, Mr. Maurice Morgan.
Mr. Keyes asked if Catholic Welfare was qualified to be a delegate agency, and if they are presently a delegate agency. Mr. Cottrell advised that they had been approved in the work program to become a delegate agency, but that they had not completed all of the requirements, including bonding of officials, and that they had not yet signed a contract inasmuch as the draft of the proposed contract had not been approved as yet by the Regional Office, as is required when contracting with a church- related or religious organization.
Mr. Keyes noted that the screening committee only makes recommendations, and that the hiring is done by the appointing authority, Mrs. Johnson. He said he felt that the poor should come first, and the agencies last.
-8-
Mrs. Johnson asked two questions: (1) Welfare had decided to pull out of the true that Catholic Welfare had stated Independence. Mr. Spann said that the cation that Catholic Welfare was not w no notification that Catholic Welfare
Was it true that Catholic
Manpower Project; and (2) was it they would not work with Operation
E.O.B. had received no notifi- i I I ing to work with 0.I., and wished to withdraw from the project.
UmeKeyMr IXsh', 'h ?b+h°'iC "e'fare 3 de'e9s+e at this im .Jr. Cottrell said they are not at this time, and noted that
Operation Independence is not for this project, either, inasmuch as Tlhr+^a+erye+ Slgned a contract. I n answer to a question Mr Cottrell Stated that Catholic Welfare had been a delegate agency unde^ the Neighborhood Council project for the funding period ending December 31,
Mr. Merz said he felt that decisions, as reflected in
Operation Independence must its minutes.
foI Iow
i ts own
Motion: A motion was made previous motion. Seconded vote. Motion carried.
by Mr. Cleland to table Mr. Lockette's
by Mr. Merz. The Chairman called for a voice
Motion: approved Seconded
Mr Ferren Bunker moved that the EOB accept the guidelines in the written project and to get the project underway, by Mr. WiIson. y
as
Amendment: on time for seconded by
Mr. Keyes moved to amend the motion to set a 45 day selection of the Director and Training Coordinator Mr. Lockette.
limit
Mot i on
Discussion followed. Father Shallow asked if Board members who members of tne Board of Operation Independence shouldn't disqualify themselves A member noted that this condition might also disqualify ather Shallow since Catholic Welfare is also to be a de legate^agency.
are also
Mrs. Johnson said she was afraid that the Board was forgetting that this program had been planned, written,, and submitted by Operation ShTPe: rl+hat i+ Was +° serve +he maJor +a^t area, Westside
She noted that the inclusion of North Las Vegas and Henderson was made by +he previous Acting Executive Director of the EOB, Mr. Morris Peltz which action, she felt, was not in the best interests of the program. ’
Amendment: Mr. Keyes indicated he would like to amend his previous amendment to provide that Catholic Welfare be given 30 days after the 45 day period to either accept or withdraw from the program. Discussion alk hR du°n +he proprie+y of amending an amendment. The Chairman asked Mr Bunker if he were willing to amend his original motion to include Mr. Keyes's amendments. Mr. Bunker indicated he would rather have his original motion stand as made.
RuIi ng: The making of the motion by Mr.
Chair.ruled that the amendments being unacceptable to the original motion, a vote would be taken on the original Bunker. A poll was taken and the motion carried.
-9-
Mr. Spann said that Operation Independence should certainly follow its own minutes. Mrs. Johnson asked if (1) Operation Independence must do so, and (2) if this is done, will it solve the dispute with Catholic Welfare? Mr. Spann said he didn't see how the organization could function properly if it did not follow its own by-laws and abide by the decision reflected in the minutes of its meetings.
Mr. Lockette stated that Operation Independence had proved to a court of law that it was acting properly, and that the EOB should not need to tell 0.1. to follow its by-laws and the approved written program.
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Cleland that Operation Independence be directed to follow their own by-laws and minutes. Seconded by Father Sha I low.
In discussion, Mrs. Miller asked Mrs. Johnson whether or not the minutes showed that Mrs. Pat Fahey was to be a member of the Screening Committee. Mrs. Johnson said that Mrs. Fahey was originally named to the Committee after the meeting establishing the committee, and she was not named in those minutes. Mrs.-Mi I ler asked if Mrs. Fahey was named specifically in the minutes of December 14, and Mrs. Johnson said she was so named.
The previous question was called, and a polled vote on Mr. Cleland's motion resulted in the motion being carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 7 nos.
RELOCATION OF EOB AND NYC OFFICES. Reverend Tigner asked the status of this move, and Mr. Cottrell said it should be completed within a week.
REFUNDING OF PROJECTS FOR 1967: Mr. Lockette asked for an explanation of the increase by 0E0 in the amount requested for Conduct and Administration. Mr. Cottrell said it was due to including an amount of approximately $12,000 for program evaluation, and tnat this money would probably be used to help fund an evaluation center — one of several which are proposed for the Region.
Mr Lockette asked for an explanation of the increase in the Conduct and Administration project cost as a percentage of the total costs.
Mr. Cottrell replied that he did not think there was an increase, but that he would present a complete explanation at the next Board meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made by Mr. Jones, seconded and carried that the meeting be adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
March 17, 2:00 P.M.
1967
1525 North Main Las Vegas,
Street
Ney?>ao
PRESENT: CHAIRMAN TED LAWSON, Ferron Bunker, Stella Fleming, Father Charles Shallow,
Snowdon. LOB Staff Members David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples.
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
At the meeting of the Executive Committee on February 20, it was recommended that a new Personnel Committee be appointed as was recommended by the previous Personnel Committee in July, . 1966, for the purpose of re-evaluating the personnel policies and practices and the pay schedule adopted by the Board in July, 1966.
This request was discussed by the Nominating Committee, and Mr. Ferren Bunker nominated the following persons to serve on the Personnel Committee:
MR. J. R. MCPHERSON
MR. GEORGE KEYES yf
MRS. PAT FAHEY
Motion seconded by Mr. James Snowden and carried unanimously. These names are hereby submitted to the Executive Committee for ratification in accordance with provisions of Article VI, Section 6, of the By-Laws. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees is to designate the Chairman of the Personnel Committee as is provided by Article V, Section 3, of the By-Laws.
MEMBERS RECOMMENDED TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
It was noted that there are several vacancies on the Board for which nominations should be made for replacements, as follows:
COUNCILMAN BUD CLELAND, representing the City of North Las Vegas (replacing Mr. Milton Weiss, resigned)
COMMISSIONER DARWIN LAMB, representing the Board of County Commissioners (replacing Mr. Karl Harris, Administrator, Clark County District Health Department)
J MR. CHARLES JONES, representing the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council (replacing
Mr. Antonio Montemayor, resigned)
'SkMRS. NANCY WILLIAMS, representing the Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council (replacing Mrs. Marvie Smith, resigned)
ASSEMBLYMAN WOODROW WILSON (replacing Senator Vernon Bunker, resigned)
XJV|R. JOE BRASWELL, representing the Nevada State Welfare Department (Title V)
MR. LARRY POWELL, representing Operation Independence
It was also pointed out that several groups of low-income persons have been contacted in regard to representation on the Board to ccmply with provisions of CAP Memo 57 which require that not less than one-third of the membership consist of persons selected by low-inccme residents of the areas served by the programs. Groups
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE (continued)
contacted include the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Clark County Senior Citizens Council, and.the Parents Advisory Committee of the Day Care Centers. The Clark County Ministerial Association has also been contacted for membership in the private agency category.
After discussion of the individuals and groups concerned, Mr. Snowden moved, seconded by Mr. Bunker, that the above-listed names and the representatives to be named by the four groups be .ecommended to the Board for membership. Motion carried unanimously.
It was noted that appointment of these individuals would result in total membership of 36, while the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws permit a maximum of 40.
Names of those persons nominated will be submitted to the Governor for appointment, upon approval by the Board, in accordance with Article IV, Section 2 of the By-Laws.
Respectfully submitted,
TED LAWSON, CHAIRMAN NOMINATING COMMITTEE
March 23^, 1967
TO: Board Members, Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. Cottrell, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Informational Items for Board Meeting - March 29
1
. Status of Manpower Pro ject
Operation Independence is continuing to seek candidates for the position of Manpower Center Director. It is hoped that qualified candidates can.be attracted to the position within the next week or two, and that a suitable appointment can be made very shortly.
2.
Status of Migrant Project.
The school district is actively seeking qualified persons for the positions of Project Director, Assistant Director, and Supervisor of Day Care Services. The number of qualified persons is somewhat reduced by the requirement that the Director be bi-lingual, and that the Assistant Director be recruited from among the migrant community itself. Several coordinating meetings have been held, and it is hoped that the day care portion of the project.can become operational during the peak in-migrant season which is now approaching.
3.
Summer Head Start Program.
It appears that approval of Summer projects will be delayed due to the backlog of applications for refunding now in the Regional office. However,.we have received information to the effect that we can assume the project will be funded substantially as requested, and on this basis Dr. Caliguri and others are doing pre-planning, recruiting teachers and others to work during the 8 week summer program, and making arrangements to assure that the program gets off to a good start. This week Dr. Thomas West, Assistant to the Regional Dental Consultant paid a visit to review last year's dental program and to discuss goals and program for this year.
4.
Approvals of Local Contributions.
All local government bodies have now approved their financial contributions towards the local share;- Board of County Commissioners, Las Vegas City Commission, and the City Councils of North.Las Vegas, Henderson and Boulder City. The Executive Director appeared by invitation before the Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson boards to explain the operations of the Board and to answer questions about programs.
5-
Program Costs and Related Data.
Each member of the Board was mailed a copy of some basic data on the funding of projects and the costs of various programs. We will be.happy to discuss any of this information with you, and to supply additional copies if you care to distribute the material to groups or individuals.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens
Phone: 642-0707
Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: Charles W. Spann
Chai rman
RE : NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held Monday, March 27, 1967, at 3:30 P.M. It wi I I be at the new offices of the Economic Opportunity Board at 932 West Owens (in the West Owens Shopping Center, East Mall). Enclosed is your copy of the minutes of the February Executive Committee meeting. I urge all members to be in attendance. The Agenda is as fol lows:
AGENDA
I.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20 MEETING.
2.
HEARING OF COMPLAINTS FROM DUDLEY EVANS.
3.
RATIFICATION OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT AND APPOINTMENT OF PERSONNEL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.
4.
AUDIT REPORT FOR E.O.B. GRANTS ENDING DURING 1966.
5.
STATUS OF MANPOWER PROJECT AND SELECTION OF DIRECTOR.
6.
VOTER REGISTRATION RECORD PAYMENT _ SUIT' AND 0E0 POSITION.
7.
SYNANON CONTRACT STATUS.
8.
UPWARD BOUND GRANT TO UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA.
9.
CRITERIA FOR PETITIONS TO E.O.B. FOR REPRESENTATION.
10.
OTHER BUSINESS.
March 23, 1967
TO: Board Members, Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. Cottrell, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Information on Action Items for Board Meeting - March 29.
' • Report of the Special Committee on School Lunch Program
Mrs. Miller, Chairman, has indicated that she will have a report for the Board at the meeting Wednesday. Enclosed is a copy of the revised work program description, budget and budget explanation which has been prepared in accordance with the Committee’s recommendations. We will need authorization to submit the revised plan, in the form approved by the Board, to the Regional Office.
2.
Revision of By-Laws
Enclosed are copies of the proposed by-law amendments as submitted at the last meeting. Also enclosed are copies of the changes suggested by Mr. Lockette, as well as his suggestions for other changes to the by-laws. The Board should take action on the proposed amendments, including any cnanges it may choose to make, at this meeting in order that we may submit the revised by-laws to the Regional Office to comply with CAP Memo 57 on representation of the poor.
3.
SuppIementaI Request for MedicaI and Dental Services for Day Care Program
We would like authorization for the staff to work with the delegate agency and the Clark County District Health Department to work out services needed to bring our year-round Head Start program up to the new guidelines for medical and dental services for these programs. Our application for refunding was submitted last fall prior to the issuance of the new guidelines, and prior to Congressional action in November to appropriate additional funds for Head Start projects.
The medical and dental services for the Summer Head Start were prepared on the basis of the revised guidelines and the budgets for that program will be adequate.
4.
Title V Program_
One of the functions of. the E.O.B. is to work with and coordinate all antipoverty programs, including those administered by other agencies. The application for refunding the Title V work-experience program, administered by the State Welfare Division, must be submitted soon, and Mr. Joe Braswell, Project Supervisor, would like to discuss the proposed program for fiscal 1968 with the Board, and to ask for authorization for the Executive Director to ’’sign off the application when it is in final form.
5.
Audit Report
We have received the report from the auditors for the following component funding periods:
Conduct and Administration (October, 1965-February 1966) Medicare Alert (February, 1966 - April 30, 1966)
The audit reports gives us a 'clean bill of health'1 for the periods covered. We will have copies available for any Board members wishing to see the full report, and both Mrs. Mauldin and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the report.
We might also note in this regard that the firms of Saigo and Rollins, C.P.A.’s are presently auditing the following components, and we should receive audit reports covering these periods prior to the next Board meet ing:
Conduct and Administration Conduct and Administration Manpower Project
NYC Physical & Mental Health NYC Physical & Mental Health Neighborhood Council Project
February 15 through August 31, 1966
September 1 through December 31, 1966
July 1 through December 31, 1966
October 4, 1965 through June 30, 1966
July 1 through December 31, 1966
June 1 through December 31, 1966
These audits will bring our projects up to date and place them on a program year basis. In the future we will have one annual audit of all projects administered by our office, rather than several audits scattered throughout the twelve-month period.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK_COUNrf gsTw^To^eKl ' Las Vegas, Nevada
Phone: 642-0707
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN
CHA IRMAN
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held as follows:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 1967
7:30 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
THE AGENDA
< APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1967.
2. APPROVAL OF THE E.O.B. AND N.Y.C. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR FEBRUARY
ACTION ITEMS
NOMINATING COMMITTEE RE APPOINTMENT OF NEW MEMBERS ANO , MEMBERS PRESENT.
REPORT OF THE SEATING OF NEW
4.
S™Um\n^uogeZ'^
TO REGIONAL OFFICE. Jv,,, ’
REVISION OF BY-LAWS ^^MMENdS^bAnTS, WITH SUGGESTIONS MADE BY
MR.
A
Suggested Changes to the Proposed Amendments. 1
• Q+^r Sugges+ed ChangeS to the By-Laws <
B.
REGIONAL OFFICE. l..-' / /' a _ - —
/ AUDIT REPORT FOR EOB GRANTS ENDING DURING 1966.
information items
9.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT _
Status of Manpower Project. Status of Migrant Project.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Summer Head Start Program. Anpncies
Approval of Local Share by Governmental Agenci . Administrative Costs and Related Data.
0THEREITEMS TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
10.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEE I ING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
March 27, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices
932 W. Owens, Las Vegas
PRESENT: CHARLES SPANN (Chairman), Harvey Dondero, Daisy Miller, Thomas Wilson, Ted Lawson, Isaac White, Emory Lockette
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples, L. McDaniel
Others: Dudley G. Evans, William Wynn, Joe Neal
A quorum was declared present, and the Chairman called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 20 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes, Mr. Wilson moved that they be approved as presented. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
HEARING OF COMPLAINTS FROM DUDLEY EVANS: The Chair recognized Mr. Evans who stated that because of the importance of this particular thing, he had hired a court reporter and the transcript would be available to anyone who desired a copy.
Mr. Wynn, Executive Director of the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, asked the Committee if he would be able to intervene for questioning. The Chairman stated that he could. Mr. Spann said that as Mr. Evans is now appearing before the EOB his complaints should be confined to those against the EOB and not those concerning other agencies.
Mr. Wynn stated that Mr. Evans had also filed a complaint with the San Francisco Regional Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and also with the Regional Office of 0E0. He stated that he had been requested by Miss Charlotte Lewis of the 0E0 Regional Civil Rights staff to represent them at this meeting. He further noted that if this is a public hearing he should have the right to be present, and stated that Mr. Evans also has filed a complaint with the State Equal Rights Commission. Mr. Evans interjected that he petitioned Mr. Wynn To be present.
Chairman Spann asked for discussion from the Committee as to whether it would be proper for this Committee to sit in judgment of complaints submitted to the Regional 0E0. He requested an opinion from the Executive Director.
Mr. Cottrell stated that it had been made clear to Mr. Evans that it was the EOB’s position that Mr. Evans was not entitled to a hearing under the Personnel Policies and Practices of the EOB because he was neither hired nor terminated by this agency. Mr. Evans objected. However, Mr. Cottrell continued, it was also the Board’s position that if Mr. Evans had complaints which he wished to bring before this agency, the Executive Committee would be glad to hear what he had to say. Mr. Cottrell said further that it was his understanding that it was the intent of the Executive Committee only to hear what the complaints frcm Mr. Evans are, and that this is not to be considered a public hearing.
Mr. Evans stated that the Committee was now getting into jurisdictional problems; that his is a multi-level complaint, and he would contend that the portion dealing with the EOB can be heard only by this Board.
Mr. Lawson stated that the Committee should listen to Mr. Evans’ complaints; even though they do not yet know what they have jurisdiction over. The Chairman ruled, subject to objection by any member, that the Committee would now hear Mr. Evans* complaints.
Mr. Evans, before proceeding with his jurisdiction is in limbo; that 0E0 in official jurisdiction.
complaints, noted that the actual San Francisco has yet to assume
Mr. Evans stated his first complaint: that on 15 November, 1966, he requested a Fair Employment Practices hearing of OEO through its political subdivision, the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County.
He stated that in conjunction with this request, he asked the Executive Director, William Cottrell, for a private conference on the morning of 17 November, 1966. The private conference and public hearing were not granted. Mr. Evans said he Then referred information concerning same to federal authorities in San Francisco and Washington.
At the conclusion of this remark, Mr. Evans requested Mr. Cottrell to produce the request for a hearing and asked that it be entered into the record. Mr. Cottrell stated that Mr. Evans was talking about several different things and he was not sure which specific request Mr. Evans was referring to. Following further explanation from Mr. Evans, Mr. Cottrell read the letter from Mr. Evans, dated November 15, 1966 (which is made part of these minutes).
Mr. Evans asked what were the reasons for delay in holding the hearing and why it was being held today. Chairman Spann advised that it had been discussed at the last Board meeting, and members had determined that Mr. Evans should be entitled to advise the Board of his complaints.
Mr. Evans again asked what was the reason for the delay. Mr. White stated that the Executive Committee had felt they did not have jurisdiction over his grievance. Mr. Evans pointed out that this is the first time, after 4| months, that he has heard that the Board might not have jurisdiction over the complaint as filed. The Chairman stated that the Board is not yet aware what Mr. Evans' complaint is.
Mr. Evans stated his second complaint: that his supervisor, Mr. Lamar McDaniel, engaged in activities which resulted in defamation of character, specifically on 21 and 24 October, 1966 at meetings of the Henderson Neighborhood Council. Mr. Evans then requested that the minutes f°rJ'hose two meetings be produced. Mr. Evans further stated that because of these activities, he requested a Fair Employment Practices hearing from the EOB and he contends that instead of the requested hearing, Mr. Cottrell removed him from the payroll.
-2-
Mr. Cottrell i nformed. Comm i ttee members that in the complaint filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, Mr. Evans has listed 196 separate complaints, and he asked the Committee if it was planned they they listen to al I the complaints. Mr. Evans stated that he would not be getting into the total body of the complaint unti I jurisdictional problems are worked out.
Mr. Wynn asked if the Committee was planning to make any determination of whether Mr. Evans’ complaints are true or valid.
The Chairman stated that this Committee is convened to hear Mr. Evans complaints, and it will then determine whether or not it has jurisdiction to act.
Mr. Wynn asked if the EOB has certain rules that pertain to employees as to whether they are on probationary status or permanent status.
He further stated that this complaint is being heard in Reno also, and that this Board should give Mr. Evans the respect of a decent hearing by producing minutes, etc.
Mr. Wynn also noted that Mr. Evans’ complaint has been filed with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission since October, and he asked Mr. Evans if his complaint now is different from that filed in the Commission offices. Mr. Evans stated that it is part of that complaint, and that the Board would be thoroughly aware of his complaints if the hearing had been granted as requested.
Mr. Evans continued with his complaint: that Mr. McDaniel did urge and cajole with others to defame his character and reputation, and accused him of taking part in Un-American activities against the U.S. Government.
Mr. Evans stated that because his means of livelihood was removed without notice, because of the activities of Mr. McDaniel and others, he was requesting that back pay be paid from date of removal and that all rights and privileges be restored. He stated that this was the substance of the complaint he wished to bring before the Committee.
In discussion, Mr. Cottrell advised the Committee that in Mr. Evans letter of November 15 he made no reference to a Fair Employment Practices hearing--he requested a full hearing pursuant to regulations of the Economic Opportunity Board. Mr. Cottrell noted that the regulations referred to are the Personnel Policies and Practices adopted by this Board, and that he had responded to Mr. Evans that these were not applicable because Mr. Evans was neither hired by the EOB nor terminated by the EOB. Mr. Evans objected.
-3-
Mr. Cottrell further reviewed that at the time he became Executive Director Nevada Catholic Welfare had been functioning as a delegate agency in the Neighborhood Council Project; however, the Regional OEO's position was that if the grantee, the EOB, wished to have Nevada Catholic Welfare made a delegate agency, it would have to be done by action of the Board. This question was not determined until September or October. The Henderson Neighborhood Counci I and the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council were the two councils organized under the auspices of Nevada Catholic Welfare.
Mr. CottrelI stated that he has found no record of Mr. Evans being appointed to any position by anybody of authority with this agency, and further that there is no evidence that he was removed by any official of this agency. He advised that the Neighborhood Council project provided that once Councils become mature and elect their permanent officers, each Council would then proceed to elect its own Service Worker. He noted that there had been five temporary Community Service Aides employed by the delegate agencies and of those five, only one was elected by its Council as its.Service Worker; Mr. Evans was one of those not elected. He further stated that this office took no action to terminate Mr. Evans.
Committee members discussed the matter of who had employed Mr. Evans. Mr. Cottreli said he presumed Mr. Evans was hired by Nevada Catholic Welfare. Mr. Cottrell advised that under the Personnel Policies and Practices of the EOB, there was no applicability of Mr. Evans' complaint and that this was made known in some detai I to Mr. Evans after he had requested a hearing.
Mrs. Miller asked Mr. Evans who had employed him. He stated that the EOB paid his salary and hired him. Mrs. Miller asked Mr. Evans who interviewed him. He replied that Mr. Peltz (then Acting Executive Director) had interviewed him. Mrs.. Miller asked if Mr. Peltz had hired him. Mr. Evans stated he would say yes. Mrs. Miller asked if this was temporary or permanent,. Mr. Evans stated that he could not say.
Mr. Evans stated that under federal law, he is entitled to a hearing, which in this case he assumed would be by the Economic Opportunity Board.
Chairman Mr. Spann stated that at this point there seemed to be a question as to whether this body or the Neighborhood Council has the authority to hire or fire the Counci I's professional worker.
Mr. White noted that this was not a court of law; that this Committee was here to hear the complaints of Mr. Evans and to get to the bottom of the situation.
Mr. CottrelI stated that he would read a letter written to Mr. Evans on November 17 in reply to Mr. Evans' letter of November 15 (letter is made a part of these minutes).
-4-
Mr. Evans noted that this letter could be read with one stipulation -- that Mr. Cottrell read tris reply.
Following reading of the letter, Mr. Evans reaffirmed his objection, but pointed out that the information quoted frcm the work program shows that he was appointed by the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board who, it would seem, then had jurisdiction in granting a hearing.
Chairman Spann asked Mr. Evans whether it was his contention that inasmuch as he felt he was appointed by the Executive Director, that it was the prerogative of the Director to hire or fire him. Mr. Evans stated that he could not answer this; that he only pointed out his objections. The Chairman then further stated that the project provides that when a temporary worker is not elected by the Council, he is then dropped from the payroll.
Mr. Lawson asked Mr. Evans that if this Board assumes jurisdiction, was he willing to accept the decision of the Board, or if this Board did not act the way he desired, would he then take his complaints to someone else? Mr. Evans did not reply.
Chairman Spann stated that the question at this time is whether this Committee has the jurisdiction over the job held by Mr. Evans or whether the jurisdiction belongs to the Council in Henderson. Mr. Evans objected.
Mr. Lawson asked if Mr. Evans' complaints were completed. Mr. Evans asked if there would be a full public hearing so Mr. McDaniel can answer the charges made against him.
(Board Member Emory Lockette arrived at the meeting at this point.)
Chairman Spann stated that when matters are discussed involving personnel the meeting should be closed to outsiders. He then asked Mr. Evans and others to leave so that the matter could be discussed by Committee members. Mr. Wynn suggested to Committee members that they make themselves aware of the complaint. He stated further that Mr. Evans should have a fair hearing involving whether he was hired and whether he was discharged unfairly, which are the only two things that the Nevada Equal Rights Commission is interested in knowing. He stated again that the Commission is going to take this case under advisement; however, this committee should study the complaint also as Mr. Evans has the right to keep appealing until he gets a decent hearing. Mr. Wynn stated he would like to know what the committee is planning to do about it.
The Chairman advised Mr. Wynn that when the Committee comes to a conclusion, Mr. Wynn would be so advised.
Mr. Wynn further noted that CEO San Francisco is of the opinion that this Board does have jurisdiction over Mr. Evans’ complaints.
Mr. Dondero stated that the Committee was here to listen to Mr. Evans complaints and now should proceed to study them.
-5-
Mr. White asked what rules, regulations, etc. there were governing the situation. Mr. Cottrell stated that the Neighborhood Council work project was the guideline. Mr. Cottrell further stated that Mr. Evans is now specifically saying that Lamar McDaniel made seme statements and accused Mr. Evans of disloyalty to the United States Government; he noted that this had not been stated in Mr. Evans' letter. Mr. Cottrell said that Mr. Evans had not been hired by the Project Di rector as the project provides.
Mr. Lockette asked if Mr. Evans was assigned to the Henderson Counci I under the directions of Catholic Welfare. Mr. Cottrell answered that this is what is surmized but there is no record to show what happened.
Mr. Wilson stated that there seemed to be no ground for complaint because no matter who hired Mr. Evans, when the Counci I elected its worker he was term i nated.
The Committee again discussed jurisdiction andconsidered requesting the Regional Office to determine where the jurisdiction lay. However, Mr. Lockette stated that it did seem to be under EOB jurisdiction; that Catholic Welfare did hire him in this temporary position, and when the Council was organized, he was not elected. This seemed to be the determination of his position at that time. Mr. Lockette stated that he felt the committee should take action along these lines as the Regional Office would probably refer it back. He further said that his recommendation would be that the Executive Committee has heard the complaint and has determined that Nevada Catholic Welfare hired Mr. Evans on a temporary basis, the Counci I became mature and held an election, and Mr. Evans was not the elected staff worker which terminated his temporary position.
The Chairman ruled, subject to objection by any member, that it was the concensus of the Executive Committee that Mr. Evans was employed on a temporary basis, and after organization of the Council he was not elected to be the permanent worker and was therefore dropped frem the payroll. He further stated that if this action is ratified by the Board, it then becomes action of the Board.
RATIFICATION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT: (This report is made part of these minutes.) The three persons nominated to serve on the Personnel Committee were J. R. McPherson, George Keyes, and Pat Fahey. Mr. Lockette nominated Isaac White, and following discussion regarding not less than one-third representation of the poor, Mr. Lockette further nominated Mrs. Daisy Mi Iler to serve on the committee. Mrs. Mi Iler deciined to serve, explaining that she still served on the.School Lunch Committee. Mr. Thomas Wilson’s name was entered. The Chairman ruled that, hearing no objection, this Committee ratifies the three names submitted by the Nominating Committee plus the names of Mr. Isaac White and Mr. Thomas Wi I son.
-6-
AUDIT REPORTS: The Executive Director reviewed the letter and audit reports submitted by Mr. Stanford McNair, Public Accountant (reports are part of EOB's permanent files). Mr. Cottrell stated that this audit involved the following grants: Conduct and Administration frcm September 1965 through April 30, 1966; Operation Medicare Alert from February I, 1966, through April 30, 1966.
Mr. Lockette asked what amount of funds were budgeted for audits. Mr. Cottrell replied that different amounts were contained in each budget, and further advised that professional ethics prohibit accountants from bidding for services, but that they charge a standard rate of $12.00 per hour.
STATUS OF MANPOWER PROJECT AND SELECTION OF A DIRECTOR: Mr. Cottrell advised that the person recently selected by Operation Independence was not acceptable to the Regional 0E0 office and that Operation Independence is now attempting to recruit qualified applicants. Mr. Lockette asked what OEO’s reason was for not accepting this person. Mr. Cottrell stated that it was because he had insufficient manpower experience and the special condition which had been imposed by 0E0 as part of the grant was that the Director must have a minimum of two years of manpower development experience.
Mr. Lockette stated that he does not go along with Region’s authority to turn this man down for the lack of two years experience inasmuch as Operation Independence had felt he could do the job. He stated he did not feel the Regional Office was justified in this action.
In discussion, Mr. Cottrell advised that the EOB was not involved in this decision and that the only way the Regional 0E0 was involved was by the special condition which provided that the Director must have two years of manpower development experience. He said that Operation Independence is taking action to appeal this decision, and that Mr. Harold Moore came to Las Vegas to explain OEO’s decision and took back verbally Ol's feelings. If there is no change in OEO’s decision, Operation Independence plans to file a formal appeal but in the meantime are attempting to recruit somebody who does have the manpower experience.
The Executive Director noted that one of the problems involved is that neither EOB nor 01 can pay travel expenses for candidates, so Region has been requested to authorize 01 to send semebody to interview qualified candidates. He further noted that the decision made by 0E0 regarding the Di rector was made by the entire CAP staff and has been put in writing. Mr. Lockette requested a copy of the letter stating OEO’s position on the appointment.
VOTER REGISTRATION RECORD: Mr. Cottrell advised that he had just received a telephone call from the Regional Representative on this matter. The regional office had been requested in September to determine whether payment for making this record would be an allowable 0E0 expense, and it has just now been determined that it would not be. Mr. Cottrell stated that one of the persons to whom payment is due has filed for payment in Justice Court. He said that Mr. Lee Walker is attempting to have the date postponed as it is now set for Board Meeting night, March 29.
-7-
Following brief Committee discussion, the Chairman ruled, subject to objection of any member, that this bill be disallowed by the EOB and that the claimant be advised that he should present his bill to Mr. Morris Peltz who acted without any authority from this Board.
MANPOWER: Mr. Lockette, stating that he would like further discussion on the Manpower Project, said that Operation Independence would Iike to have space in the Manpower Offices at 940-A West Owens; that they are interested in space for three staff persons and he felt there should be no problem.
In discussion, Mr. Cottrell advised that 0E0 will not fund Operation Independence’s administrative staff, but that he anticipated.there would be no objection otherwise if 01 wished to move its office to the Manpower Office.
Mr. Lockette stated that it appeared that the problem with Operation Independence's accounting system is due to inexperienced.personneI. He asked if Operation Independence could employ a certified public accountant to handle both the day care and manpower accounts rather than have a separate bookkeeper for each project, noting that the combined projects would involve approximately 50 personnel.
Mr. Cottrell advised Mr. Lockette and other committee members that Mrs. Johnson had discussed this with him several weeks ago and told him that a person who had applied requested a salary of $800 per month. He had advised Mrs. Johnson that it seemed that the idea was worth looking into and that a request could be made to the regional office for such a change, if approved locally. He stated that shortly after this discussion, a bookkeeper had been employed for the day care services program, and Mrs. Johnson seemed to have dropped the idea Mr. Lockette asked if 01 could employ a CPA at approximately $7000 annually to handle both accounts. Mr. Cottrell said that he had advised Mrs. Johnson that the idea could be explored.
Further in discussion of the Manpower Project, Mr. Lockette asked who has been hired under the Manpower Project. Mr. Cottrell advised that EOB is now paying two temporary Aides and one Clerk-Typist out of Manpower funds, after getting permission from the 01 Board to do so. He noted that the assumption then had been that it would be only a matter of a few weeks until the project was ongoing. He said that Operation Independence can rescind this policy at any time.
Mr. Lockette stated that he understood that 01 did not give permission to'hire a clerk typist. Mr. Cottrell advised that EOB did not hire anyone for this position; that the Neighborhood Council secretary _ (when that position was eliminated frcm the Neighborhood Council project as of January I) was being paid from Manpower funds as a Clerk-Typist.
Mrs. Miller asked what the duties of the two aides were. Mr. Cottre 1 1 explained that they have been working under the direction of Mr. Hoggard in a number of tasks relating tomanpower, employment, job development, etc.
-8-
He further advised that the employment of these workers was only temporary until Operation Independence decides whether they will employ them permanently, noting that they are always referred to as temporary Manpower Aides.
STATUS OF CONTRACT WITH SYNANON FOUNDATION: The Executive Director reviewed the history of this project, stating that under the NYC support project, monies were requested and granted to provide counseling by a Synanon counselor for school expellees. The program had been established through Nevada Catholic Welfare. By the time the counseling project was funded, the program for the expellees had been terminated.
Mr. Cottrell stated that another project was then worked up for the same purpose for youngsters who would benefit by this type of counseling, a technique by which Synanon counselors seemed to be successful in getting to the hard-core youth. A contract was then entered into with the Synanon Foundation to carry this out.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the second time counselors were scheduled to come to Las Vegas, their meeting with the youth was scheduled on the same afternoon as the James Brown Concert. None of the youths showed up. Mr. Cottrell noted that the Synanon counselors had not wished to make attendance mandatory. He stated that this problem was not brought to the EOB but that instead a letter was directed from Synanon to Sargeant Shriver charging "mismanagement of public funds, irresponsible spending, feeding at the public trough, shameful nonsense", etc. Mr. Cottrell advised he telephoned the author of the letter and also wrote a reply. He said that in essence Synanon has advised they do not feel they can participate in a project to squander federal funds, and that they have now done nothing for 3 or 4 weeks.
Mr. Cottrell stated that he is requesting the Committee’s authority to terminate the contract. He further stated that these funds ($3300) if not spent by the end of April wi II revert back to the Treasury.
Mr. Lockette asked if these funds could be used for the lunch program. Mr. Cottrell answered that such a request could be directed to 0E0. In further discussion, Mrs. Miller noted that though the funds would be helpful to the lunch program, this project also seemed to be a very good one with many youngsters who could benefit from this type of counseling. She asked if there wasn't seme way that the program could be carried out through another agency. Mr. Cottrell stated that the purpose of contracting with Synanon was to gain the benefit of the unique techniques employed by Synanon counselors, which have been successful in reaching hard-core youth.
Mr. Isaac White moved that this contract be terminated and that the EOB Executive Director be directed to contact the Regional 0E0 office to request that the funds be converted to the school lunch program: Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
-9-
UPWARD BOUND GRANT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA: Mr. Cottrell advised that an item had appeared in The local papers with a Boulder City dateline announcing That an Upward Bound grant has been approved for the University of Nevada. He said that the item does not state whether the grant is to be used for the Reno or Las Vegas Campus, or both. He reviewed the history of the request by Dr. Andrew Johnston of the University to the EOB office asking whether the Clark County EOB was interested in participating in an Upward Bound grant. Mr. Cottrell said he had advised Dr. Johnston that the allocated funds to Clark County were totally committed and there wouldn't be the possibility of participation unless more funds were allocated or present programs were discontinued.
Mr. Cottrell further informed members that though Upward Bound grants are funded from outside guideline monies the first year, the second year they would have to be included in the County's allocated guideline funds. He further advised that Regional Office knows nothing regarding the grant, as it is one funded directly by Washington.
Mr. Cottrell requested authority frcm the Committee to direct a letter to Washington, registering a complaint because this program never came before this Board and has been funded without knowledge of this Board. He noted that all other Federal agencies are required to coordinate in such programs, and in this situation a program has been funded out of the CEO without the local CAA’s knowledge. Mr. Cottrell was directed to write such a letter to Washington regarding this grant.
PETITION TO EOB FOR BOARD REPRESENTATION: The Executive Director advised that 0E0 requires that guidelines be established as to how groups wishing representation on the EOB could petition for such. There was discussion on letters written to three groups representing the poor and to the Clark County Ministerial Association, advising these groups that they may name a representative to the EOB;^however, Mr. Cottrell noted that no answers have been received as of this date.
Mr White advised that he had talked with Mr. Cooper of the In-School NYC program who stated that his department would like to have representation. It was noted that Mr. William Merz, a recently- appointed Board Member, represents the In-School NYC project. Following this discussion, the Committee recommended that the matter of petitioning for representation be tabled until such time that gui e ines are needed.
OTHER BUSINESS: Chairman Spann read a letter from Mr. Russel I
is the Director of the CAP Program for the 15 Rural Counties, This letter discussed the unfavorable image being created for the Poverty Programs in Nevada because of the squabbles and differences in the Washoe and Clark County programs. Chairman Spann noted that the EOB might take notice of Mr. McConnell's statements.
Respectfully submitted,
Executive Di rector
WFC:sds
COPY OF LETTER FROM MR. EVANS
Henderson, Nevada
15 November 1966, 7 a.m.
Mr. William CottreI I Executive Director Clark County Economic Opportunity Board 301 So. Highland Las Vegas, Nevada
Dear Mr. CottreI I
Persuant to applicable federal law, and regulations published by the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board I request a full hearing at the November 1966 Economic Opportunity Board meeting. This request is made in part to enable me to clear my name. Since I began work on this Neighborhood Council Project in June, and work I understoood was of a professional level, my character has been maligned and my conduct has been critized. Most of this activity has emanated from your office and as yet I have not been given a fair hearing. You are herein requested by the undersigned to grant me such a hearing at the November Board meeting.
Hoping to have your reply soon I remain
S i nee re Iy,
Dudley G. Evans
COPY OF LETTER TO MR. EVANS
November 17, 1966
Mr. Dudley Evans
117-A McNe i I, V i c+ory V i I I age Henderson, Nevada
Dear Mr. Evans:
As you are aware, The Henderson Neighborhood Council, a+ i+s regular meeting held on Monday, November 14, took action to elect its own Neighborhood Service Worker. The Council elected Mr. Clifford Green from the three candidates nominated to fill the position.
Such action is in accordance with the work program description for the Neighborhood Council project, which provides (in part) that:
"The community service aides in Henderson and North Las Vegas will be appointed by the Project Director in coordination with the Executive Director, Economic Opportunity Board. The community service aides for the three Westside centers will be employed by the delegated agency, Operation Independence, but i n the formation of neighborhood councils, these aides will be supervised by the Project Director. Once these councils have matured, they will elect their own staff worker. It is expected that, at the same time, the Community Services Center will be opened and these community service aides will be assigned to the Community Service Center as branch aides, unless they are elected by the Neighborhood Councils as their staff worker."
At the time the Neighborhood Council project was submitted, it was anticipated that the Community Service Centers referred to would also be funded. However, that program was not approved by 0E0, and obviously the positions as "branch aides" for the centers do not exist since they were never authorized. This being the case, it is impossible to place you in a positon as a community service center branch aide.
Furthermore, in the Neighborhood Council Project Amendment, the "Project Timetable" in Section E, page 4, indicates that within "Three months after project if funded: Councils autonomous - selection of council worker (neighborhood service worker). Community service aides are attached to community service center." You have actually been on the payroll as the community service aide for Henderson Neighborhood Council for approximately five months, rather than the three months anticipated, inasmuch as this council (and most of the others) have experienced "growing pains" and have not matured, elected permanent officers, and elected Neighborhood Service Workers as rapidly as was anticipated.
In view of the above, this is to officially noti fy you that you will be dropped from the payroll as of the end of the day on Friday, November 18. (you would have received this notification as of Tuesday, November 15, except for the fact that you had indicated that you would like to discuss this matter with me. Yesterday I attempted to call you to arrange such a meeting. In spite
Mr. Dudley Evans November 17, 1966
Page 2
of the fact that I called the Service Center eight times — 9:25, 11:10, and 11:55 A.M., and 12:25, 1:50, 3:00, 3:55, and 4:20 P.M. — and your home eight times — 10:10, 11:00, and 11:30 A.M., and 12:15, 1:55, 3:05, 3:55, and 4:20 p.m. — I was unable to contact you.)
If you have any records, copies of correspondence, Council minutes, attendance reports, etc. or any items of equipment belonging to the Economic Opportunity Boai d and/or the Henderson Neighborhood Counci I in your possession, please return them to the Center. Please be advised that you have no further obiigations to the Counci I after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 18, other than to comply with this directive.
In answer to your letter dated November 15, 1966, in which you state "Pursuant to applicable federal law and regulations published by the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board, I request a full hearing at the November 1966 Economic Opportunity Board Meeting," please be advised that the Board has no jurisdiction over actions taken by neighborhood councils to elect their own neighborhood workers. Should you wish to file an appeal from the action of the Henderson Neighborhood Council, I suggest you contact the Chairman, Mr. Lamon Green.
Very truly yours,
W. F. COTTRELL Executive Di rector
WFC:sdl
cc: Mr. Lamon Green, Chairman, Henderson Council
Mr. Clifford Green, Henderson Neighborhood Service Worker
Mr. J. David Hoggard, Program Coordinator
Mr. Lamar McDaniel, Project Director
Mas. Evelyn Mauldin, Finance Officer
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
March 29, 1967 7:30 P.M.
Clark County District Health Dept. Auditorium Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: CHARLES SPANN(CHA IRMAN), Pat Fahey, Charles Jones, Lee Walker, Thomas Wilson, Stella Fleming, J.R. McPherson, Harvey Dondero, William Merz, Ferren Bunker, Douglass Pushard, James Snowden, Emory Lockette, Nancy Williams, Joe Braswell, Peggy Smith
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples, Lamar McDaniel, Evelyn Mauldin
Guests: Clyde Mathews, Lubertha M. Johnson, Walter E. Coleman, Cleveland Woods, Letha Mobley, Evelyn Coleman, Obera Turman, A.B. Lublin, H.L. Ortega Raymond Anderson, Belinda Anderson, Lila Carter, James Carter, LaVonne Spann, Art Grant, Bill Staples, Chris Braswell, Pat Whittaker, Sarah Ray, Mildred Fullington, Madge L. Rugg, Francis 0. Edwards, Clifford Green, Robert Fahey
Before officially calling the meeting to order, Chairman Spann introduced Mr. Clyde Mathews, the Director of the State Department of Economic Opportun i ty.
Mr. Mathews told Board Members and others present that Governor Paul LaxaIt is very encouraged with the way that things are progressing in the anti-poverty programs throughout the state of Nevada. He stated that the Governor has asked that he convey to the members that he realized that working on these Boards was not easy and was a matter of sacrifice, but that the rewards are in helping those caught in the trap of poverty, and that he wanted the members to know that he appreciates what they are doing.
Mr. Mathews said that workers in all poverty programs should keep in mind the one key idea — that there is one job to do and that is to help the poor people out of the trap of poverty. Reverend Mathews noted that everyone should keep focus on the programs so that a better job can be accomplished, and not get bogged down with petty problems and personalities.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: The Executive Director advised that Board Members-had' been mailed a memo which briefly summarizes the status of various projects and other administrative matters. Mr. Cottrell discussed these items as foI Iows:
Manpower Project: He stated that Operation Independence is continuing to attempt to recruit qualified candidates for the position of Manpower Director, and it is hoped that this recruiting period can be completed shortly so that the program can get underway. Mr. Dondero asked what the Manpower staff was doing in the meantime. Mr. Cottrell advised that there is really not any staff, only two temporary aides and one clerktypist who are working under Mr. Hoggard’s supervision in job development and other activities related to the manpower project.
Mr. Hoggard was requested to report on manpower activities. He stated that the two temporary aides are mainly engaged in job development and placement at this time, and are working in conjunction with.the eight Neighborhood Service Workers who are referring inquiries regarding employment to them. They are assisting people to fill out a form with very basic information — personal data plus the kind of experience they have had and what type of employment is desired. He noted that this is still a very nebulous operation, but several persons have been placed.
Mr. Cottrell noted that at the time the temporary positions were authorized, by 01, it was anticipated that it would be a matter of only a few weeks unti the program was operating. He said that it has been indicated to 0.1. that at any time that the Board is desirous of terminating these temporary positions, such would be done. He further seated that Manpower office space has been secured at the West Owens location and that furniture and equipment has been ordered from GSA.
Mr. Lockette stated that he felt the members present should be apprized of the situation between the Region and 01 regarding the selection of a Director, and he requested Mrs. Johnson, Executive Di rector of 01, report on this subject.
Mrs. Johnson said that 01 is continuing to make contacts with persons recommended for the Manpower Director. She noted that they have had some applications during the pasJ two or three weeks, and are hoping to receive others. She said that there is a deadl ine of March 31 for some information from 0E0 San Francisco, and when this information is received 0I will know exactly what action will be necessary and they will then act at the earliest possible moment.
Migrant Community Service Center for Moapa Valley: Mr. Merz, representing the delegate agency, the Clark County School District, reported that several meetings have been held to coordinate this project and to get it underway. He said that at the present time Mr. Melvin Marshall seems to be the most qualified individual of those who have applied for Jhe position of Director, and he has indicated that he could begin work immediately on this project.
Mr. Merz advised that plans are now being completed on the rennovation of the building, and added that there are a number of migrant youngsters now in the area, and the program should be in operation by next month.
Summer Head Start Program: The Executive Director reported that though OEO~had advised that funding approval of Summer Head Start grants would be indicated by February 28, an answer has not yet been received. He said that because there are certain arrangements the School District must make, the Regional Office has indicated that the the District could work on the assumption that the program would be approved substantially as submitted. Mr. CottreI I.advised that the District is going ahead on pre-planning and organizational aspects of the program.
He also advised that the Assistant to the Regional Dental Consultant had been in Las Vegas recently to review last year's program and to discuss improvements for this year, and had recommended a number of suggestions which were favorably received by the Health Department.
-2-
Approval of Local Share from Government Agencies: Mr. Cottrell advised that as part of the local share required on the current CAP budgets, $3,300 has been requested from the City and County governments. All four municipalities and the County have indicated their willingness to make their share of the contribution. He noted that Boulder City, who was asked for the smallest contribution, though by no means the least, was the first to agree and the first to send their check.
Administrative Costs and Related Data: Mr. CottreI I _advised that Board Members have been mai led mimeographed exhibits containing information, which had been prepared for making presentations to the Governing bodies in askinq for their local contributions. He stated that the administrative costs are reflected to be about 4|$ of the total of the 1967 programs, that Federal share of programs will total $1,179,000 and of that $52,000 will be allocated for administrative costs.
He advised that cash contributions are a very small part of the 10$ loca share; that the bulk of the contribution is in space, equipment, etc., primarily in the Summer Head Start program delegated to the Clark County School District.
Mr. Lockette stated that he realized the Board is trying to do a better job of keeping within the 10$; however, in the past the staff structure necessitated personnel to write numerous projects and to review and re-write projects, and that the increase in office staff was justified on that basis. Further, he said that because of the cutback in program writing, and because programs were now ongoing, he would recommend that the committee nominated to review the salaries of all personnel within the EOB office and also within other agencies also look,into the possibility of reduction in the agencies or administrative office so that money could be saved to go into the programs in the poverty areas.
Personnel Committee: The Chairman stated that the Nominating Committee HadVecommended the three following persons to serve on the Personnel Committee: J.R. McPherson, George Keyes, Pat Fahey; and that the Execu tive Committee had ratified these names and further added the names of Isaac White and Thomas Wilson, which five persons now constituted,the Personnel Committee. The Chairman appointed Mr. McPherson as Chairman of this Committee.
QUORUM DECLARED PRESENT: There was a count of Board Members present, following which the Chairman declared a quorum present, and called the meeting officially to order.
Mr. Lockette voiced his objection to a quorum being declared present due to a verbal resignation from Mr. Mankins being considered official. Mr. Snowden supported Mr. Lockette's opposition. The Chairman asked Mr. Lee Walker for his opinion on this question. Mr. Walker stated that unless the By-Laws or other documentation requires a formal written resignation, a verbal resignation is vaI id.
The Chairman accepted the opinion of Mr. Walker and declared the Board Meeting in session.
-3-
appr0VAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 1967, BOARD MEETING: I here being no corrections, additions or deletions, Mr. Bunker moved that the minutes be accepted as prepared. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE EOB AND NYC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1967: The Chairman asked if there were questions regarding these exhibits as presented. There being none, it was moved by Mr. Pushard and seconded by Mr. Bunker that the reports be accepted. Motion carried.
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE: The Chairman advised that the Nominating Committee met under the chairmanship of Mr. Ted Lawson, and that a copy of their report has been provided to each Board Member (Report made part of these minutes.) He noted that the Personnel Committee had been selected and was ratified by the Executive Committee and that the Nominating Committee was recommending the names of those persons listed in their report as members of the Board.
Upon roll call of the names, the Chairman advised that only two were present, following which Mr. Bunker moved to seat the two members present — Mr. Joe Braswell and Mrs Nancy Williams. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lockette and carried. The Chairman advised that the membership of the other persons would be held in abeyance unti I such time as they are present. Mr. Spann welcomed the two new members to the Board of T rustees.
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM: The Chairman noted ~————Mrs. Miller, Chairman of this committee, was" not present, but had asked Mr. Merz to report on the proceedings of the committee. Mr. Merz advised the Board that the Committee was recommended the following changes: (1) that a "Class A sack lunch be substituted for a hot lunch, such sack lunch to meet the Department of Agriculture standards and consist
primarily of a sandwich, milk, and fresh fruit; (2)'that there be a reduction in the number of lunches to be served to include only those children that are most in need of an enriching noon meal and least able to afford one, such figure to be based on 400 to a maximum of 600 lunches. The Committee also recommends (3) that a sliding pay scale be estab Iished as al I chi Idren should be able to contribute at least a nominal sum so that they would enhance their own self-image because of this contribution. The Committee further recommends (4) that a change in termination date be requested from June 30, 1967, to June 15, 1968 so that the program can be implemented during the next school year.
At the conclusion of this report from Mr. Merz, Mr. Cottrell stated that there has been another development since the committee made their recommendations. He said that the day following which the material had been mailed to Board Members, a letter was received from Regional CEO. This letter states that changes can be made in the three items requested however, that a sack lunch may not be substituted for a hot lunch. Mr. Cottrell said that though 0E0 goes along with other changes, they, have denied the one change which would make the program operable, noting also that this denied change was the decision of the deputy Regional Di rector.
Mr. Dondero asked what the cost would be to provide a hot lunch if the cost of the sack lunch is 34<J, to which Mr. Cottrell replied that the reason the program could not become operational was because there was not enough money to provide for equipment to cook and transport hot Iunches.
-4-
Mr. Lockette said that the committee has done a very good Job r.iv. । 1 - ... be expected that the federal government will support the program 100%. He noted that the Board now has unti I September to come up to the standards set by the Regional Office — a hot lunch. He further stated that by that time the Board should and wi I I see that a program wi I I have been submitted to Region to meet the requirement of a hot lunch.
Mr. Merz noted that at the present time the only other alternative would be to appeal this above the Regional Office.
Mr. Lockette said he did not think this is the proper time to go beyond the limit the Region has approved. He noted that the committee should continue to study the project and within the sufficient time they have been al lowed, bring a recommendation back to the Board. He said that there is now only one obstacle; that the Board should leave this problem with the committee and request them to come back with a recom- mendat i on.
Mr. Cottrell advised that it would be necessary to check with Region regarding whether there is anything more to be done to change the termination date of the project from June 30, 1967. He noted that though OEO's letter states that they are agreeable to the change, as the project now stands the termination date is June 30, 1967.
Mr. Lockette stated that the Board should now take action on the approva from the Regional Office with the recommendation to the Committee to continue to work toward making the program operational.
Mr. Merz advised that, as the program was initially submitted, the Clark County School Board was the delegate agency and the agency which would have to fulfill the contract. He said that the contract was accepted prior to the appointment of the current Executive Director and without the consent or knowledge of the School District Board. He noted that if the EOB would act again without the consent of the School District, they would again be obi igating the School District without their knowledge.
He said that he feels caught in the middle because though he understands the need for this program, he also has an obligation to recommend only that which can reasonably be carried out. He reported that the School District is now under a burden with lunch programs operating in the red when they should operate without a profit or deficit. He noted that hot lunches require additional equipment so Region's stipulation that hot lunches must be provided in this project would most certainly make it more expensive than the sack lunch.
Mr. Lockette stated that hot lunches may cost more than sack lunches, but that he does take opposition to the implication that whatever action the EOB takes obligates the School District. He stated that it will not obligate the School District in any respect. He said that the EOB has written to 0E0 requesting certain waivers, and that if this Board now does not accept the three waivers that the regional office has granted, then the Board has turned down Region on the three requests that have been made. He further stated that the Board should make a decision as to whether they should accept the three waivers and turn the additional proposal over to the committee with instructions to attempt to work out something that is agreeable with Region. He said
-5-
that this action would not obligate the School District because this Board is not in a position to obligate the Clark County School District.
There was discussion as to whether the Board needed to take action to accept the waivers contained in the letter from Regional 0E0. Mr. Dottrel noted that it probably would require Board action as the letter written to Region was only a letter requesting information as to whether they would grant these waivers, but the requests had not been passed by Board acti on.
Mr. Lockette moved that the Board accept the three waivers by Regionaand that the Lunch Committee continue to work with the Executive Director and Mr. Merz to attempt to work out a program with which Regional Office concurs.
Mr. Mathews suggested that an imaginative program might be worked out with the school lunch grant such as giving the family 30 or 40<f per day to prepare a lunch and when the child brought his lunch to school he would be given another 30 or 40<£ to prepare the next one.
(Mrs. Daisy Miller entered the meeting.) Following further discussion, Mr. Braswell seconded the motion made by Mr. Lockette, and the motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell advised that though Mr. Lockette has stated that this Board did not have the authority to commit the School District, he felt that it could. He noted that the then Executive Director did commit the School District by accepting the grant, even though thepproject had not been taken to the School Board for its approval. He said that the EOB did accept this grant withaall of the conditions in it to be carried out by the School District.
He noted that Region is aware that the conditions have been changed, that the School District Board had never approved the program; however, he further noted that the EOB should take cognizance that when a program is approved 0E0 expects that this program will be carried out and itis is the grantee’s responsibility to see that the delegate agency carries it out.
Mr. Lockette stated that though he agrees with the Executive Director, the EOB and the School District must have a contract. The School District had not signed a contract and thus does not have a complete agreement.
Mr. Merz noted that there had been statements made by the Regional Representative that it was a reprehensible act on the part of the School District to refuse to operate this program after the EOB had accepted the grant. He said that it was only after the Executive Director made it clear that the School District had never signed the contract, that the situation was made more clear, but that 0E0 does assume that aprogram will be carried out once the Board has accepted the grant.
Mr. Lockette stated that the impression being conveyed is that the School District has been against this program, but he noted that the admiral, of the School District who were in attendance at the Lunch Program committee meetings were more than wi I ling to see what they could do to make the program operable.
-6-
REVISION OF BY-LAWS: Mr. Cottrell advised that the changes originally mailed to Board Members during the month of February were drawn up to meet the requirements of CAP Memo No. 57 which concerns representation of the poor on the Board. He briefly reviewed the proposed changes.
The Chairman stated that Mr. Lockette had also suggested modifications to the proposed changes and that these had been mailed to Board Members. There was Board discussion on the first change proposed by Mr. Lockette which involved the Nominating Committee. Following discussion, Mr. Bunker moved that the proposed amendments to Article III, as presented to the Board under date of February 14, be accepted, noting that though presenting names for Board Membership through the Nominating Committee may not be necessary, it does insure that the names have been screened and properly presented to the Board. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Williams.
Mr. Lockette moved that the motion be amended to include approval of the changes which he proposed. Motion seconded by Mrs. Daisy Miller. On vote of the amendment, five were in favor and eight opposed. Amendment was lost.
The previous question was called. On the vote on Mr. Bunker's motion, it was carried unanimously.
Regarding the proposed changes to Article VI of the By-Laws, Mr. Cottrell noted that in essence this amendment spells out the functions of the Nominating Committee, and noted that only those words underlined are the changes from the existing language. Mr. Dondero moved the adoption of the proposed changes to Article VI dated February 14. Seconded by Mr. Braswell, motion carried.
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR THE DAY CARE CENTERS BUDGET: The Executive Director advised that new guidelines have been received for criteria to be used in proposing budgets for support services of the Head Start programs. He noted that the budget for health services which had been submitted is totally inadequate and that the Regional Office is suggesting that certain budgetary items be included as a matter of policy in the Head Start programs.
Mr. Cottrell stated that he was asking the Board for authorization to work with Operation Independence and the Clark County District Health Department to propose an adequate budget in accordance with the new guidelines which would be in line with the budget submitted for the Summer Head Start program, and to submit this budget to the Regional Office without returning to the Board for further authorization.
Chairman Spann noted that it would seem that this would be a benefit to the community, fol lowing which Mr. Wi Ison moved that such authorization be granted. Seconded by Mrs. Fleming, motion carried.
TITLE V PROGRAM: Mr. Joe Braswell, Supervisor of the Title V program which is administered by the Nevada State Welfare Division, stated that the program description of the project is now in the preliminary stage of development; however, that one of the requirements is that a renewal request be submitted to the local community action agency for its approval. Upon Board approval the Executive Director can then sign, the checkpoint form which would be submitted with the renewal request.
-7-
Mr. Braswell r&VspWed the program, stating that for the current project year, there originally had been 300 slots authorized, but due to financial difficulties early in the year the project was cut back to 280 slots. There is now an anemdment pending to finish out the year with 380 slots. Mr. Braswell stated that a preferred and an alternate budget is being submitted for the proposed project, based on 600 slots for the preferred and 480 for the alternate. He noted that this increase is not out of line because as of January, 8.2% unemployment rate in Clark County was recorded, and it is hoped that with this program there can be more outreach into other sections of the county.
Mr. Braswell advised that group meetings involving the participants are being planned, which will take some of the hard-core, chronically unemployed and help them to better their self-image and make them feel they have worth and are worth helping. The program will include counseIi ng dealing with employment seeking, keeping a job, etc. Mr. Braswell said that it is also planned to use some of the resource people from the community to give these groups (the most poverty stricken) an idea of some of the accomplishments made by others of their same background, in an attempt to show that everything is not completely hopeless.
He further advised that it has been pointed out that many of the people who are chronically unemployed or underemployed suffer from an educational lack, and this program will push for the full utilization of existing educational opportunities for Title V participants. He said that there has been discussion with Adult Education staff and they are requesting approval for purchase of services for an intensive basic education program for adults which will give enough hours of participation in a classroom setting to qualify maintenance from Title V program.
He noted that trainees now attend four hours a week, and that the minimum requirement to qualify for maintenance is 30 hours. He stated that a trainee who has a work assignment of seven hours per day cannot be expected to go to school at night and derive much benefit from it. He said there would be an intensive counseling part of the program to find the achievement level of the trainees.
Mr. Braswell said the justification for this type of program is that during the past program, out of 250 terminated cases, there were 21% who had no high school work at all, and over 71% had not completed high school. He said that many advertisements for employment state that only high school graduates need apply, and that there are many training courses offered that require 10th grade equivalency in education before a person may qualify; the Southern Nevada Vocational Technical School requires an 11th grade standing for admittance. Mr. Braswell noted that he felt that improving the educational achievement of the trainees is essential to a worthwhile effective program of upgrading vocationally.
He stated that in the proposed program, additional staff members are being requested — a trained social group worker, a home economist on a consultant basis, and a statistician.
The Chairman advised that the concurrence of the Economic Opportunity Board is being asked for this program so that the Executive Di rector can sign the checkpoint form when it is submitted to him at the time of completion of the proposaI.
-8-
Motion: Mr. Merz moved that the’.Board concur with the program and authc-'^e the Executive Director to sign the checkpoint form upon submission by Mr. Braswell. Motion seconded by Mr. Bunker.
Mr. Lockette stated that other members may be familiar with the groups but that he was not sure who Mr. BraswelI was connected with.
Mr. Braswell replied that the program is financed by federal funds and is operated by the Nevada State Welfare Division, and that for the coming year the State is being asked to maintain 20% of the funding. In answer to further inquiries by Mr. Lockette, Mr. Braswell cited more statistics of the Title V program.
On a vote on the motion, motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Dondero suggested, that due to the question now before the State Legislature on financial participation by the state, an expression from the Board be taken to the Nevada State Legislature by Mr. Braswell.
Motion: Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Director be instructed to write an official letter to give to Mr. Braswell to take to the Nevada State Legislature stating that in view of the persons benefiting in Clark County, the Board does 1C0% endorse the Title V program. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson stated that she wished to present Mr. Braswell with a report of a study made by Operation Independence
Mrs. Pat Whittaker noted that a program such as Title V is a program in which our tax dollars are just coming back into our community.
AUDIT REPORTS FOR GRANTS ENDING IN 1966: Mr. Cottrell read to the Board the statement from the auditor, Mr. Stanford McNair, dated March 3, 1967, stating that he had examined the-accounts and found that only several phases of internal control had been omitted from the accounting system and corrective action was taken for subsequent grant periods. He noted that copies were available for anyone wishing to read the full report. Mr. Cottrell said Mrs. Mauldin is to be commended for carrying out her duties in a mon..." ' ’ '
resulted in an audit report with no findings reported.
OTHER BUSINESS: The Chairman advised that the complaints of Mr. Dudley Evans had been discussed at the Executive Committee meeting of Monday, March 27. He said that the committee ruled, after hearing Mr. Evans’ complaints that it was the concensus of the Executive Committee that Mr. Evans was employed on a temporary basis and after organization of the Neighborhood Council he was not elected as its permanent worker and was therefore dropped from the payro II.1'
The Chairman briefly explained the terms of Mr. Evans' temporary employment, during which Mr. Fahey stated that Mr. Evans was not employed by the delegate agency. The Chairman then asked if there was concurrence by the Board of Executive Committee action in this regard.
Mrs. Fahey asked if acceptance of the recommendation of the Chairman as stated at the Executive Committee meeting implied the acceptance by the Board of the minutes and all of the information in the minutes being valid. The Chairman stated that he is submitting to the Board the findings of the Executive Committee and asking if the Board concurs with those findings so that the action taken can be considered Board action.
-9-
Mr. Lockette asked Mrs. Fahey if her question dealt with the minutes of the Executive Committee. Mrs. Fahey replied that she was asking if the Board's concurrence means that the Board ratifies the related activities of the Executive Committee as reported in the minutes.
Mr. Bunker moved to sustain the action of the Executive Committee. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried with a dissenting vote cast by Mrs. Fahey.
Representation on the Board of Trustees: The Chairman advised that he had a letter from the Operation Independence Child Development Advisory Committee asking to seat Mrs. Peggy Smith on the EOB as its representative. Mr. Cottrell noted that this was in response to contact made with this group as being representative of a group representing the poor.
Mr. Lockette suggested that Board Member Ferren Bunker escort Mrs.
Peggy Smith to be seated with the other Board Members. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Nominating Committee had recommended that the representatives who would be named by the four groups contacted be seated by the Board. Mrs. Peggy Smith was seated as a member of the Board.
The Chairman advised that he also had a petition from the Las Vegas prosperity Club to seat a representative of their group as a member of the Board, noting that certainly the people who are members of the club can be categorized as poor.
Mr. McDaniel noted that the persons in this club live in areas which have representatives on the Board through their Neighborhood Councils. The Chairman stated that it is not the intention of this Board that the community be cut up into entities and that the Councils alone select representatives to the Board. Mr. Cottrell further added that this was representation based on something other than geographic Iocat i on.
Mr. Braswell noted that certainly the group would meet the criteria of any bonafi.de organization consisting of poor persons to petition fc, representation and asked if this Board has the procedure established for handling such a petition.
Mr. Lockette recommended that, inasmuch as this is an action item, he does not feel the Board is in a position to act.
Motion: Mr. Lockette moved that this petition be placed in the hands of the Executive Committee to determine whether the group meets the criteria for being a group of the poor and that the Executive Committee aiso recommend criteria to be established to handle such petitions in the future. Motion seconded by Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Smith and carried with two naye votes cast by Mrs. Fahey and Mr. Jones.
Neighborhood Youth Corps Meeting: The Executive Director stated that Mr. Merz, Mr. Longhurst, and he had attended a meeting in San Francisco at which there was a proposed allocation of in-school and out-of-schooI NYC programs. He said that Clark County is in a position whereby they can recoup some of the cut in enrollment occasioned by other NYC programs in the state. He stated that he is asking the Board for permission to
-10-
accept the increase in NYC work stations for Clark County which would be an increase in the out-of-schooI of from 70 to 85 work stations, and from 120 to 150 in the in-school.
Mr. Bunker moved that the Board ratify the increase in the number of NYC work stations. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dondero.
At this point it was alleged from the audience that a vote could not be taken because Board Member Mrs. Pat Fahey had just left the room, and there was no longer a quorum present. A count of the members present confirmed the allegation.
Mr. Merz noted that Mr. Fahey, who had been seated in the audience, had apparently left the room for the purpose of telling Mrs. Fahey to remain outside. Mrs. Miller noted that she had observed Mr. Fahey talking to his wife just outside the auditorium door.
Mr. Lockette then recommended that this action on the part of Mr. Fahey be noted, and said that Mr. Fahey, of one of the participating agencies, seems to feel that he has the authority, or takes the authority, to put obstacles in the way of the operation of the Board to gain his requests at any cost, and the Board in the future should take some serious study of The complications which have resulted from such actions by Mr. Fahey.
Mr. Merz further recommended that the Bishop at this Diocese be contacted and that the activities of this sort be detailed to him. He noted that the Board now cnnot vote on a motion because ''Mr. Fahey has us all tied up".
Mr. Lockette further suggested that the Board consider the action and conduct of each Board Member and whether this action and conduct is in the interest of the program within Clark County and the people served by the program or whether there is a personal interest.
Mrs. Fahey re-entered the meeting at this point.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Mr. Bunker and seconded by Mr. Dondero. Motion was carried.
Question Regarding Representatives of Board Members: Mrs. Lubertha Johnson asked if, in the case of legitimate agencies such as Operation Independence, its representative could not be present, would the Board permit some other person to sit in as a representative. The Chairman advised that there is no provision for this except in the case of representatives of the local governments. Mrs. Miller noted that she did not feel this was fair to the other agencies if the governments can do so. The Chairman further noted that this is the way the By-Laws have been established.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
L 4 •
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
ApriI 20, 1967
TO: Board Members, Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. Cottrell, Executive Director
SUBJECT : Information on Action Items for Board Meeting Wednesday, ApriI 26
1 . Seat i ng of Mew Members
So far we have only one response in regard to representation of low-income groups (in addtion to the petition received at the last meeting). The American Association of Retired Persons has elected Mr. Solomon Perry as their representative. If any of the other groups contacted (Indian Colony, Senior Citizens) respond prior to the meeting we may have others to seat. The Nominating Committee recommended that those elected by these groups be seated, without further consideration of the individuals named.
2.
Financial Statement.
Again it is imnossible to present a complete financial statement. The auditors have finished their field work but have not yet presented the final report, and consequently we cannot present an up-to-date financial statement. In addition, our Finance Officer is involved with audits of Operation Independence, Summer Head Start, and Health Services (Summer Head Start) in order to furnish the Regional Office with the required statements before April 30. Consequently, the only materia! being furnished you this time are the statements of expenditures for 0E0, NYC, Neighborhood Councils and Manpower.
3.
Representation of the Poor
I he question of criteria was referred to the Executive Committee at the lasd Board meeting. This will be discussed at the meeting on Monday, and a report and recommendation made to the Board on Wednesday. The Board must adopt both the criteria and procedures to be followed by groups of the poor desiring representation as matters of policy.
4• Election of Replacement for Nominating Committee.
Mrs. Ethel Lucas, Neighborhood Council representative from Henderson, has resigned. Therefore we need a replacement on the Nominating Committee. The By-Laws provide that members of the Nominating Committee shall be elected by the Board. Her replacement must also be a representative of the Councils, or some other Board member who is a representative of low-income persons.
B.
CAP Memo 61 provides guidelines for the new local share requirement. The last session of Congress increased local share from 10$ to 20$ effective July 1, 1967. However, there is also a provision that each agency may operate for a total of 32 months at 10$ level. Our 32 month period will expire in September, giving us 3 months at the higher level to the end of the current funding period. There are some questions involved in just what our share will be, and we have asked the Regional office for clarification.
5. Other Material
Enclosed with this memo and the agenca are copies of the including the amendments adopted at the last meeting, as expenditure statements for the month of March.
revised By-Laws, well as the f i nanci a I
April 20, 1967
TO: Board Members, Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. Cottrell, Executive Di rector
SUBJECT: Informational I terns for Meeting April 26, 1967
1.
Status of Upward Bound
The University of Nevada has been funded for $103,395 to provide for 75 Upward Bound enrollees from throughout the state. The program is a precollege preparatory program designed to generate skills and motivation necessary for success in education at the col lege level among young persons from low-income backgrounds who have inadequate school preparation.
The project provides for an 8 week summer program on the University campus in Reno, followed up with weekly sessions in the individual's home communities. About 40 out of the total will come from Clark County, and Nevada Southern University will provide the foliow-up. It is anticipated that the program next summer may be held on the local campus.
The E.O.B. has been asked to serve as the local screening agency. Names of individuals who a re eligible and interested will be sought f rom hhe schools, probation department, etc. In addition our Neighborhood Counci Service workers will spread the word among their clientele.
2.
Manpower Project
Operation Independence has taken action to ( 1) appeal the rejection by 0E0 of the latest nominee considered for appointment, who was rejected on the grounds that he did not meet the two-year experience requirement; and (2) attempt additional recruitment in other areas through cooperation of Urban Leagues, Employment Service Offices, and other agencies having access to or knowledge of persons who would be qualified. Interviews are being scheduled in these cities, since we cannot pay the cost of travel for ... being interviewed to come to Las Vegas under Federal travel regulations.
3.
Summer Head Start.
A training session for CAP Directors and project directors is to be held in Tucson on May 5 and 6. Dr. Caliguri and his staff are spending a good deal of time lining up teachers and others to staff the summer project. Dr. Joyce Huggins, Regional Training Officer, has made several visits and the pre-service training program is well along in the planning stage. Conferences have been held be+ween school and health District officials to coordinate the medical and dental support phases of the project.
4.
New OEO Regulations
A. CAP Memo 23-B provides supplemental regulations concerning comparability of salaries for local positions. This material, along with all other pertinent data, has been submitted to the Personnel Committee for their information and consideration when studying our job classifications and salary levels.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
642-0707
Members of the Executive Ceram Ittae
Charles W. Spann
Cha I man
APRIL MONTHLY MEETING
Please be advised that the regular monthly meeting of the ExacutI Ccfamlttoe of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County Is scheduled as follows:
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
Criteria
CAP Memo
AGENDA
of the Minutes of the March 27 meeting!
representation of the poor, as required by
>pward Bound. 3 f if a
Voter feg I strati on Record Sult
J.;| Request of North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council for / Additional Space In Old Washington School.
CAP Momo 29-A: Reimbursements
Revised Policy on Allowances and for Low Incone Members of CAP boards.
Memo 23-8: Practices.
Additional Supplemental Personnel Policies
CAP
Memo 61: Requirement for 20^ Local Share After
32 Months of Operation.
Report by 01 Executive Director on the Status of Selection of a Manpower Director.
10. Other Business.
ApriI 24, 1967 3:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
APPROVAL
CRITERIA
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
EOB Offices
•932 West Owens, Las Vegas
Charles Spann (Chairman), Ted Lawson I saac White J^arl es' Sha II ow' Daisy Miller, Harvey Dondero, Emory Lockette, Lamer unar
s+aff. W.F> Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples declared present.
- ™ =^xs»;p,ions'
Nhitl' That ^^utes'be approved as presented. Monon earned.
FOR REPRESENTATION OE THE POOR AS REQUIRED BY CAP MEMO NO 57-A: The Chairman reviewed the ba^°^d°*h^etTpUlTTad been presented ^e^^h^rXetlng aTt at members had ^-mmended that the
gathered regarding the Prosperity Club.
Board Members were given copies of^0^x00^!ve Director, who reviewed the propo Articles of Incorporation could
members. Mr. Dondero ! noted crj+erla asked for apy
onerofUArtlc1et of Incorporation, or By-Laws, or minutes-of meeting, e c.
There was discussion regardiX^^^^theloard^'r! Wh?^e move^th^ to be considered for representa . current membership
membership of 20 persons red w.th^ of^c
S9CZ"“XlXtuX groups that are already represented on the Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson.
Shallow and Mr. Emory Lockette entered at this. __cor +hAQA. two members what had transpired
X>.fX reviewed for these two members regarding criteria for petition by groups of the poor.
felt a croup of 20 was too small to be
Mr. Lockette stated that he $ shallow stated that a lot of
eligible to turn in a Pe+./"Xr membership was required.
older people would be excluded if g P Board, the number
—iP — - -
whether membership needed to be
active, etc.
Mr. Lockette i that any and । petition for the number of CAP Memo 57.
that in setting this criteria, it should be set so , individual that wants to get a group +°|^er and reoresentation could not do so, and stated that he telT ma '20 is too much below the minimum of 50 members by 0E0
noted
every
On the vote, the motion carried with one opposed. The Executive Director was directed to reword the suggested criteria to include the suggestions of the Committee.
PETITION FROM PROSPERITY CLUB: The Chairman stated that a petition is now before the Executive Committee to seat a representative of the Las Vegas Prosperity Club. He asked the Executive Director to report on the findings regarding this organization. Mr. Cottrell advised that he and Mr. Hoggard had talked with Mrs. Schwartz and made arrangements to go to the club, a copy of the By-Laws had been obtained, locations of the addresses of the signators of the petition were reviewed and it was indicated by these addresses that the group was made up of low-income persons. He stated they are primarily persons who make use of the services of the Soup Kitchen for their noon meal and who live in the fringes of downtown Las Vegas or on the Westside.
Mr. Hoggard further reported that he had attended the Executive Committee meeting of the group held in the St. Vincent's Dining Room. He advised that Mr. Edward Smallwood is Chairman; Mr. Jack Wiriek is Vice Chairman; and Mr. Ed Charleton is Vice Chairman; the Secretary had recently left the city, and Mrs. Fahey was acting as secretary for the meeting.
Mr. Hoggard said that minutes of the previous meeting were read, the matter of housing for older people, particularly single men, was discussed, noting that public housing is not available to single men. They discussed the project of Sheriff's Cards which Mr. Hoggard reviewed for Executive Committee members. He advised that there are 45 signators on the petition requesting representation on the EOB.
The Chairman asked Mr. Hoggard if he would recommend, from his findings, that a member of the Prosperity Club be seated. Mr. Hoggard stated he felt that one should.
Further questions were raised by members. Mrs. Miller asked when the organization was formed and Mr. Hoggard stated that to the best of his knowledge it was in November or December of 1966. Mr. Lockette asked if Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws had been obtained. Mr. Cottrell replied that he did have By-Laws which he briefly reviewed.
Mr. White asked if the group has filled out all the paperwork according to criteria. Mr. Cottrell advised that criteria has just been established, though all that is necessary is certification from the group that they are in sympathy with the goals of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 as amended.
Mr. Lawson moved that the Committee recommend to the Board that a representative of the Las Vegas Prosperity Club be seated as a member of the Board. Motion seconded by Mr. White and carried with one member opposed.
Father Shallow asked if this criteria would apply to other groups that have petitioned for representation. Mr. Cottrell noted that criteria established applies only to groups of the poor, and that no other groups have petitioned to date.
-2-
Father Shallow expressed dissatisfaction with the Board because he felt the same rules did not apply to other groups or organizations as did to Catholic Welfare; eg. Catholic Welfare projects are referred to committees and never heard from again. He stated that he was not objecting to criteria, but if the Board is going to measure Catholic Welfare by criteria then everyone should be measured by it.
Mr. Lockette stated that he agrees with one point made by Father Sha I low that the Board should attempt to operate under the same criteria with any group. He further said that the Board has now adopted this criteria and then turns around and permits a group to come in that does not really meet the criteria. He said there are some 40 names on the petition from the Prosperity Club and it was pointed out that some of these individuals were probably living in a flop house. He said that he would like to know what percent of these 40 names the EOB office can recognize as bonafide individuals who meet the criteria? He added that the Committee is not here to pass, in some rapid file order, on a petition; it should know what it is passing on and he would like to know what percent of these 40 individuals the office knows as being bonafide low-income peopIe.
Mr. Cottrell noted that there are between 26,000 and 27,000 persons in Clark County who qualify as poor; it would be impossible to know all of these people. Mr. Lockette suggested that there should be a routine check something like a civil service investigation; that there should be something more than recognition of two or three names.
The Parents Advisory Committee of the Day Care Centers was brought under discussion, and Mrs. Johnson advised that the persons on this committee represent 102 low-income families who have children in the day care centers.
Mr. White moved that all groups petitioning for representation or asked by the Board to elect a representative shall be required to meet the criteria established by the Executive Committee. Motion seconded by Father Shallow. Following further discussion, Mr. White withdrew this mot i on.
PROJECT UPWARD BOUND: The Executive Director reported that, as a result of the discussion at the previous month's Executive Committee meeting, through inquiry it was found that the University of Nevada did make application for an Upward Bound project; that they did not coordinate with the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board as required; and that the project was funded in Washington without a checkpoint approval from Clark County. The University of Nevada has since appointed a Project Di rector who has expressed interest in working through the EOB in connection with those students from Clark County.
The Project is funded for 75 students (sophomores or juniors) who because of low-income circumstances, lack of motivation, etc. appear to be poor risks for col lege-level work without help. The program will permit these students to go to the University of Nevada, Reno Campus for an eight-week summer course. The program will include academic subjects taught both by high school and university faculty members, as well as counseling, tutoring, developing motivation, self-image, etc. in order to prepare the students so that they will hopefully be better prepared to go to college and be successful.
-3-
During the school year following the summer course, the students will be counseled locally. Mr. Cottrell further advised that of the. 75 students, approximately 45 will be selected from Clark County, and further that the EOB’s Neighborhood Service Workers would be helping with recruitment and applications for Clark County students. He noted that the funding of Project Upward Bound does not come from Clark County guideline monies. Mr. Cottrell stated that the statewide committee will have at least two representatives from Clark County.
Mr. White stated that he thougltthis Project was very worthwhile and suggested that the Board give their wholehearted support to the program noting that there are students who have the ability but do not have the necessary help.
VOTER REGISTRATION RECORD SUIT: Mr. Cottrell advised that he had gone to court and based his defense on the fact that there was no contract for the technical services performed, as is required in the CAP Guide. The Judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the JP Court does not have jurisdiction over a federally-funded organization. Mr. Cottrell noted that the person who had brought suit, Mr. Roy Ward of Dynamic Sound, did indicate that he would consult his attorney.
REQUEST OF NORTH LAS VEGAS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE IN WASHINGTON SCHOOL: A copy of a letter from the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Counci I was provided to each member. Members also indicated they had individually received a letter from Mr. Abraham Lublin, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the Counc iI.
In answer to a question from Mr. Dondero, as to what space the Neighborhood Council is now using, Mr. Cottrell advised that the EOB has a lease for the administration bui I ding and is using two of the four rooms. He noted that the Neighborhood Councils are not legal entities; thus any leases must be entered into by the EOB. He reviewed the request for additional space and noted that what is being proposed would involve some expenditures, and if the Committee felt it to be worthwhile a budget would be required, with a work program description, and submitted to 0E0. He advised that presently 0E0 is not in a position to accept additional projects for Clark County as we are funded up to and beyond our guideline monies. He stated that this has been explained to Service Workers;
but the Council felt it was nevertheless worth requesting.
In answer to a question as to who Mr. Lublin was, Mr. Harold Ortega, Neighborhood Service Worker, explained that he is a member of the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council who is an attorney by profession and is a volunteer legal advisor to the Council.
Mr. Lockette stated that in view of the fact that city fathers are aware of this proposal and inasmuch as they apparently are going to provide space in the community center complex when it is built, it would seem more appropriate that the Neighborhood Council approach the city or some of the organizations within the city to come up with the small expenditures they have outlined. He noted that the EOB should attempt to assist the Council in doing this but should not go to Regional 0E0 to ask for additional funds for something that the City of North Las Vegas will take care of at a later date.
-4-
Mr. Ortega advised that the Council had talked with the Optimist Club, who indicated they would pay the light bill which means that the only item EOB would be requested to pay would be the liability insurance. He noted that the Council has received an okay from the District Health Department for a well-baby clinic and are requesting the additional space in the Washington School until the clinic facilities are built. He stated that if the EOB would pay for the liability insurance, the Council would see that the rest of the bills are paid.
Mrs. Miller asked Mr. Ortega why it was necessary to have a health center in North Las Vegas when there is a modern Center for Clark County on Shadow Lane. Mr. Ortega advised that the people in the target area do not have money for transporation to the Health Center; and that there are from 100 to 200 persons who would utilize these facilities.
Mr. White questioned what financial obligations the EOB would have if it agreed to request the additional space to house the Clinic. It was noted that immediately upon leasing the space, the EOB would have to have IiabiIity i nsurance. Mr. Lockette said that it would appear to be easier to get the people to the existing Center by furnishing transportation for them, as he would not like to see the Board make a precedent of assuming such a financial obligation.
Father Shallow suggested that the Board help the Council get the additional space but at this time not obligate itself financially, and further that Mr. Ortega get an estimate of what the liability insurance would cost. There was further discussion on cost of liability insurance.
Mr. White moved that the EOB send a letter back to the Council and ask them to resubmit the proposal with estimated cost figures, to be reconsidered at a later date. Mr. White accepted the amendment of Mr. Dondero that the North Las Vegas City Council be asked for its approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Wilson, and carried.
CAP MEMO NO. 29-A: Mr. Cottrell reviewed this memo which concerns travel reimbursement for Board Members, noting that this was being brought to the Board s attention because there will soon be a representative on the Board from the Migrant Council in Moapa Valley.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Lockette moved to accept the provisions of CAP Memo No. 29=A for low-income members who make a round trip of 20 mi les or more. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
CAP MEMO NO. 23-B: Mr. Cottrell stated that this memo contains additional supplemental personnel policies and practices. He noted that basically this requires a certification for every job to the effect that salaries are comparable to local salaries. He said that all of this information.has been turned over to the Personnel Committee and that the certification is due in Regional 0E0 by July 15.
CAP MEMO NO. 61: The Executive Di rector advised that this memo implements congressional action which states that after July 1, 1967, the local share for program funding will be increased from 10% to 20%. He noted that a program can operate 32 months at 10%, however, before being required to pay the 20%. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Clark County EOB's 32 months wi II run out in September. He noted that he has asked Regional 0E0 for clarification of this memo, since it is unclear as to the percentage to
-5-
be paid for the months after expiration of the 32-month period but prior to the end of the current funding period (December 31, 19b/).
Discussion ensued on community participation for the 20$ matching requirement. Mr. Lockette noted that the federal government is bringing dollars into the community and that the Board should now see that letters ar sent to the local governments spelling out the local share will e increased from 10$ to 20$ and notify the particular municipality of what its share will be. Mr. Cottrell stated that the municipal governments do not have this kind of money in their current budgets, and that con ri u tions have just been requested and received from their 1967-68 budgets for their fiscal year which begins July 1, 1967. He br
He briefly reviewed how the 10$ local share was now constituted and what possibilities there might be in increasing local share as far as in-kind contributions are concerned. Mr. White also stated that the Board shouid notify the municipalities that the CAA stands a chance of losing programs if the community does not participate in its 20,o share.
She
REP0RT on STATUS OF SELECTION OF A MANPOWER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Lubertha Johns , Executive Director of Operation Independence, was asked to report, reviewed the contacts made in recruitment for a Manpower Director, noti g that 32 applicants have been interviewed including the persons who came in prior to court action. In recent recruitment Urban Leagues in Arizona, Oakland, San Francisco and Los Angeles have been contac d. Employment Offices and Community Resources have been contacted in these cities; and six individuals suggested by Mr. Harold Moore have been
contacted.
She stated that from all these contacts, not much progress has been made noting that problems have involved non-interest in the position_because of the salary; others, though interested, have not had the required two years of manpower development experience. She stated that arrangements are now made to make a trip to the San Francisco area to interview qualified candidates.
Board Members discussed the meaning of "manpower" experience Mr. Cottrell reviewed OEO’s definition in that an individual must have had such experience in job development, training and retraining programs, outreach programs^ i.e. working in these areas rather than in the trad.tional areas of testing, etc.
ehAirman Soann asked if Mr. Leo Johnson, an employee of the NYC program, HT»! Ifv Mrs Johnson stated that she did not know if he «ould qualify; that'he was interviewed but was not recommended by the Screening Comm i ttee.
I^dXination’as to whether tbey^ouid^ack ?ha^ihiseieSon"sa^ckgrounrquallfles him to perform the duties required bv the job^description for the Manpower Center Director. He noted tha. it would seem that the EOB and the 01 Board is in a position to determine XZr an individual can successfully accomplish the job moreso than Region can.
-6-
Mr White noted that Mr. Moore of Regional 0E0 had indicated that 0E0 would not accept anyone who did not meet the two-year manpower experience qualification and that there has been no progress m.finding someone To can meet the requirement. Mr. Cottrell stated that though there have been no results, there has been progress, and that the problem seems be that qualified people are making higher salaries in their present locations.
Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Director be instructed to write a letter to the Regional Director pointing out what the situation is, the time that has been spent in attempting to comply with the special condition, the importance of the manpower program to the entire county; and request that in view of the recommendations of the Operation Inde rendence Director, its Board, and Screening Committee, that this Committee recommends that the requirement of two years of manpower experience be waived. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dondero and carried.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Employee Grievance: The Chairman invited Mr. Tony McCormick into the meetTnq and read his letter requesting a hearing on his salary.
Mr. McCormick advised that he did taIk with Mr. Cottrell and Mr. Hoggard about this situation, and stated that when he terminated with the Neighborhood Council project he was earning $450 per month and when he was then transferred to the Manpower Project as a temporary Manpower Aide he had to accept a salary of $408 per month.
e+a+ed that since he has been working as a Manpower Aide he has been doi I al s XIII amount of work and doing hi s best w I th I I mi ted amount of material and know-how. He said that he has helped quite a few people and noted that his complaint is that he has been transferred tothe lowest category of Manpower Aide when there are higher-paying positions in the program. He stated that because there is no Director he has been helping people get jobs, etc. and feels that since he is doing th.s he should not be the lowest paid person in the manpower program. He father stated that he is actually doing work as developer of Program^d^ might continue for six or seven.months.
wages were justifiable when he is doing the
said that he did not feel his
He
work under some other classification.
Mr.
Cottrell advised members that
nroiect if not elected as neighborhood service workers. He said there areJhigher-paying positions but they are professional and require certa n nuaM locations and experience. He noted that the EOB is not in a pos.tion to hire anybody for anything other than manpower aides on a temporary ^sis since this is the prerogative of the two delegate agencies. He noted’also that when the Board adopted a bi-weekly pay scale the actua salary checks for employees are smaller though there ,s ho salary cut.
Mr McCormick was asked further questions, and Mr. Lockette noted to him that' ?f°this was a matter of leaving a $450 position and accept.ng a $408 position, this was strictly a decision he had made.
-7-
Mr. IcCormick said that when he first started working with Neighborhood Councils, there was a $450 per month position; and that at that time he had been told that if he was not elected as the Neighborhood Service Worker he could go into the Manpower program. Mr. Wilson questioned whether he had been told at that time what the salary would be on the Manpower program. Mr. McCormick stated that he did not think it had been anticipated that far; and that though the budget originally showed a salary of $450, it was later adjusted to $408. Mr. Wilson asked
Mr. McCormick if he was asking for an adjustment because of the amount of work he was doing. Mr. McCormick stated that the work he is now doing includes the same duties as the Training Coordinator.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the temporary manpower personnel were told in writing that their appointments were on a temporary basis; that this did not commit 01 or Catholic Welfare to employ these persons, so technically this does not mean that the temporary positions would become permanent when the program is on-going.
Mr. Lockette pointed out to Mr. McCormick that this Board does not have jurisdiction over the manpower salaries and could not recommend any increase. Mr. McCormick stated that because he is supervised by the EOB, this would seem to be the agency he should appeal to and he does feel that he has a legitimate gripe.
Mr. Spann stated that the Board certainly appreciates that Mr. McCormick is doing a job that his job description might not call for; however, the Manpower Program does not yet have a Di rector which is something that must be contended with for the time being.
Mr. Hoggard advised that there are several misunderstandings. He stated that the two temporary Manpower Aides have been working under his direction; that they have been doing interviewing, job placement, some record keeping, but all of this is part of an Aide’s duty and that there is nothing being asked of these two employees that is beyond their job descri ptions.
The Chairman stated that though the Committee has now heard the complaint and carefully considered it, members do not feel there is anything that can be done. Mr. Lockette recommended that a copy of the EOB salary scale be furnished to Mr. McCormick and to Mrs. Johnson.
Letter from Regional OEO on Hot Lunch Program: Committee Members were provided copies of this letter, which Mr. Cottrell advised, states that by the 30th of April the Board must state specifically how it would guarantee serving hot lunches on this program. The letter also specifically states that the Regional Office will not accept the substitution of a sack lunch for a hot lunch.
Mr. Lockette questioned why OEO approval is needed when the only thing they should be concerned with is the approval of funding. Mr. Cottrell advised that this is not all they are concerned with; that they are concerned that a hot lunch be served as the work program description specifically provided.
-8-
Mr. Lockette stated that "this Moore" (referring to the Field Representative) is just too much and he is being ridiculous expecting the Board to come up with a hot lunch program on the funds allocated. He added that if 0E0 wanted this information by April 30 they should have indicated this in the letter they sent concurring with the requests made by EOB.
Mrs. Miller asked if there was an answer to the request that the $3,000 from the Synanon project be transferred to hot lunch. Mr. Cottrell advised that it could not be transferred because 0E0 will not transfer funds to a program that is not operating. In addition, the Synanon funds were for the project period which ended last December 31.
Mr. Lockette stated that the Committee should now get together again to try to work out a program; that Mr. Westover of the School District did not turn down a hot lunch program and that other School District officials said they would go as far as they could to get the program ongoing. He suggested that the CAP Form 28 should be submitted with the explanation that a program will be worked out and submitted at a later date. This suggestion was concurred in by a majority of those remaining.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN
Cha irman
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held as follows:
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1967 7:30 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
THE AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS
1.
SEATING OF NEW MEMBERS:
A.
Representative of American Association of Retired Persons
B.
Others approved at last meeting but not seated then.
2.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 29, 1967.
3.
APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF EXPENDITURE FOR MARCH, 1967.
4.
ACTION ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR REPRESENTATION OF GROUPS OF LOW-INCOME PERSONS ON THE E.O.B.
5.
ELECTION OF A MEMBER OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE (replacing Mrs. Ethel Lucas representative of the Henderson Neighborhood Council, resigned)
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
6.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
A. Recommendation re: Las Vegas Prosperity Club
7.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
A.
Status of Project Upward Bound.
B.
Status of Manpower Project
C.
Status of Summer Head Start
D.
New OEO Regulations:
1.
CAP Memo 23-B: Additional Personnel Policies and Practices.
2.
CAP Memo 61: Requirement for 20^ Local Share Effective July 1.
E.
State CAP Meeting in Las Vegas - May 11 & 12
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
ApriI 26, 1967 7:30 P.M.
Clark County District Health Dept. Las Vegas, Nev.
PRESENT: Charles W. Spann (CHAIRMAN), Douglass Pushard, WiI Iiam Merz, Stella Fleming, Ruth Gould (representing Mayor of Las Vegas), Lee Walker, Charles Jones, Nancy Williams, Don Hampton, Isaac White, Ferren Bunker Emory Lockette, Bud Cleland, Thomas Wilson, Dorothy King, Newton Tiqner George Keyes, George Kline. '
Guests: Addie Reid Blake, R.G. Reid, R.W. Thomas, Pat Whittaker,
H.L. Ortega, John S. Spann, Mrs. Darlene Martin, Bill Staples H. Clyde Mathews, Jr., Evelyn Coleman, Glenn Coleman Lubertha Johnson
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
A quorum was declared present, and the meeting called to order by the Chairman, Charles Spann.
SEATING OF NEW MEMBERS: The Chairman advised that Mr. Soloman Perry, the newly selected representative of the American Association of Retired Persons was present. After ascertaining that Mr. Perry had been certified by the organization, he was seated as a member of the Board.
APPROVAL OF THE.MINUTES OF THE MARCH 29 MEETING: There being no corrections additions, or deletions, Mr. Isaac White moved that the minutes be" approved as published and distributed to members prior to the meeting Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried.
APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF EXPENDITURES FOR MARCH, 1967: There being no questions regarding the expenditure reports, it was moved by Mr. Bunker and seconded by Mr. Tigner that the schedule of expenditures be accepted. Motion carried.
ACTION ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR PETITION OF GROUPS OF LOW-INCOME PERSONS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON EOB: The Chairman reviewed that a petition had been presented by the Las Vegas Prosperity Club at the March meeting, but that at the time of presentation, criteria for representation by groups of the poor had not yet been estab I ished. Mr. Lockette had made a motion which was passed by the Board that the Executive Committee establish such criteria to be presented at this Board Meeting. (Members were given copies of the criteria which had been recommended by the Executive Committee, and which are made a part of these minutes).
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. Merz, seconded by Mr. Lockette, that the criteria recommended by the Executive Committee be approved as presented. In discussion, Mrs. Williams asked if this criteria would apply to all groups. It was noted that it would apply to all groups of low-income persons petitioning the Board. She also asked what constitutes the group as being "in sympathy with the goals of the Economic Opportunity Act?" Mr. Cottrell advised that a written statement to this effect will be requested. On the vote to approve the criteria, motion carried.
ELECTION OF A MEMBER TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE: The Chairman advised that a position was open on the Nominating Committee to replace Mrs. Ethel Lucas who had resigned as a member of the Board. Mr. Jones nominate Mrs. Nancy Williams; Mr. Lockette nominated Mr. Isaac White. (Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. White is not an elected representative of a group of low-income persons, and to meet'the criteria of one-third representation from that group, the person elected must be.)
Mr. Lockette then nominated Mr. George Keyes. Mr. Keyes declined stating that due to work commitments, he is not able to attend meetings before 6:00 P.M. Mr. Lockette nominated Mr. Thomas Wilson. Mr. Wilson nominated Mr. George Kline. Reverend Tigner moved that nominations be closed.
A secret ballot vote was taken, and Mr. George Kline was elected as the member to the Nominating Committee.
ELECTION OF A MEMBER TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman announced that due to the resignation of Mr. Joseph Mankins from the Board, the Board would now elect a member to the Executive Committee. Mr. Cottrell noted that the Executive Committee consists of eleven members and under 0E0 criteria one-third of all committees must consist of representatives of low-income groups. He further advised that the composition of the Executive Committee now includes two representatives of low income groups and the person elected at this time should be from this group.
Mr. Merz nominated Mrs. Dorothy King. Mr. White nominated Mr. George Kline, who declined due to work commitments and hours. Mrs. Williams nominated Mr. Charles Jones. Mr. Kline moved that nominations be closed. On a secret ballot vote, Mrs. Dorothy King was elected as the member to the Executive Committee.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman asked Mr. Cottrell to report on action taken by the Executive Committee regarding the petition presented by the Las Vegas Prosperity Club. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Las Vegas Prosperity Club is a group of elderly men living primarily on the fringe area of downtown and the Westside. By-laws have been adopted; the club has been in existence since late 1966; and members seem to meet the criteria of being low-income. He advised that the Executive Committee has recommended that the Prosperity Club be recognized as a low-income group, and that they be invited to elect a representative to be seated on the Board.
In discussion, Mr. Keyes asked if this was a stable organization or more or less of a migrant organization whose members come and go. Mr. Cottrell advised that it is primarily made up of people who live here all the time. Reverend Tigner asked the condition of the applicants. Mr. Cottrell stated that members are persons who normally make use of the St. Vincent De Paul soup kitchen.
Motion: Mr. Cleland stated that as they do meet the criteria, he would move for approval of the group to seat a member. Seconded by Mr. Merz. Mr. Lockette asked for a show of hands vote. On the vote, motion carried. The Executive Director was directed to advise the group of the action taken.
-2-
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Upward Bound: Mr. Cottrell stated that application was made by the University of Nevada for an Upward Bound Project and funding was approved prior to the knowledge of the EOB. He advised that since this funding, the University has coordinated with the EOB and is interested in working through this agency in recruiting Clark County students.
Mr. Cottrell explained that Upward Bound is a kind of Head Start program for high school students and is aimed at sophomores and juniors who are college potential but who have had problems because of lack of opportunity, lack of motivation, etc. He advised that the summer course on the Reno campus will operate for eight weeks and the students who are selected to attend this will then receive follow-up counseling in conjunction with their regular school-year curriculum. He said there will be approximately 40 youngsters chosen from Clark County out of the 75 budgeted for the program, and that the Clark County EOB has been asked to serve as the coordinating agency, working with other agencies in a position to recommend students for participation.
It is hoped that appl ications will be in and screened locally by the middle of May, with final selection to be made by the statewide committee. He noted that if Board Members know of youngsters who might qualify and benefit, to so notify the EOB office or Neighborhood Service Workers.
Mr. Cottrell said that the program is funded on a 90-10$ basis but that funds are not counted against Clark County's guideline monies.
Status of Manpower Project: Mr. Cottrell advised that the primary concern of the delegate agency now is appointment of a Manpower Director. He stated that Operation Independence had selected an individual though this person did not meet OEO approval because he did not possess the two years of manpower experience which is a special condition of the grant. He advised that the delegate agency has been authorized to travel to other agencies in the western region to attempt to recruit a Director, noting that one of the problems was in that expenses could not be paid for candidates to come to Las Vegas for interviews.
He also advised that OEO has given authorization to indicate to a qualified candidate that the salary can be raised to as much as $10,500. He added that Mr. Hoggard has talked with a candidate who would be interested in considering the position; however, his present salary is $12,500.
Mr. Cottrell said that one trip has been made to the Los Angeles area where eight candidates were interviewed without concrete results, and noted that a second trip is planned to the Bay Area.
Mr. Jones asked if a retired school teacher would be qualified. Mr. Cottrell advised that he would if he had the two years of manpower experience. The Chairman advised members that Mrs. Johnson had given a report at the Executive Committee meeting and that Operation Independence is to be commended for the diligent job at attempting to locate a Director.
In answer to a question from Reverend Tigner as to what the requirements are, Mr. Cottrell reviewed the definition of manpower according to OEO.
-3-
Mr. Keyes asked if there was something in CAP Memo 23 which states that the grantee can see that money is provided for interviews. Mr. Cottrell advised that this is the case only for the Director and Deputy Director of the grantee itself. Mrs. King asked if the Director could be a woman; the Chairman advised that there was no discrimination on the basis of sex. Mr. Cleland questioned how long the program had been in operation. Mr. Cottrell advised that it was funded in October of 1966; however, difficulties have occurred since then so that the program has not begun operation.
There was further discussion on the requirement of two years of manpower experience. Mr. Cleland asked if the regulation couldn’t be bent so that a local person could be employed. Mr. Keyes asked who wrote the job description; the Executive Director advised that the two-year requirement is in the job description, but that this provision was based on a condition of the grant.
Mr. Lockette stated that Board Members should know that Operation Independence has appealed OEO’s decision that the candidate selected was not qualified, and has asked 0E0 to waive the special condition.
Motion: Mr. Cleland moved that the Board appeal to the Regional Office that the qualification of two years of manpower experience be waived. Seconded by Reverend Tigner. Following brief discussion, the vote on the motion carried.
Summer Head Start Program: Mr. Cottrell reported that the program is scheduled to begin June 19 with a training program held the week before. He advised that though final budget approval has not yet been received, the EOB has had verbal indication that it will be approved as requested with the exception of consulting services. He further advised that a conference is scheduled in Tucson which he is planning to attend.
Migrant Program: Mr. Cottrell advised that the Migrant Program is now underway and that the School District staff are to be commended, adding that the Project Director has been employed, the day care supervisor has been selected and the day care program will probably be in operation next week. He noted that anyone who had the opportunity to be in the Moapa Valley area should stop by the Logandale school to see the program in operation.
Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Programs: Mr. Bill Merz reported that the School District has been notified of its total Title I a!lottment which granted an additional $107,000 to be applied to summer programs. He noted that these will be amendments to the programs about which the EOB has previously been advised, adding that program funds will be used to train remedial reading teachers; for follow-up on Head Start; for four programs for youngsters who fall in the special education classification; and to work with Junior High School preparation projects.
Mr. Merz stated that Title I funds for Clark County will be expended in a responsible and valuable way and that he believes that the programs proposed are in complete keeping with the spirit and intent of programs the Board approved earlier this year.
-4-
NEW OEO REGULATIONS:
CAP Memo No. 23-B. The Executive Director reviewed the policies set forth in this memo, stating that regulations are necessary because of action taken by Congress last fall. It requires that CAAs shall make a report of all staff members earning in excess of $10,000 and that the CAA certifies that all jobs are in accord with local pay scales. He advised that the Personnel Committee has been furnished with up-to-date job descriptions and comparable salaries from other public agencies in Clark County. In addition the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Bob McPherson, has requested additional information to be supplied to the committee for its meeting, and has asked that it be reported to the Board that the Committee has met and is diligently working in order to make their recommendations to the Board.
CAP Memo No. 61. This memo advises of the Congressional action taken last fall which increases the non-federal share for community action projects to 20$. Mr. CottrelI stated that a CAP agency can, however, operate for 32 months under the 10$ non-federal share, with the E.O.B.'s 32 months terminating October 1. He noted that he has asked the Regional Office for clarification as to whether Clark County is liable for 20$ non-federal share for the remaining three months of 1967, adding that the 20$ must be provided for all 1968 programs.
He said that of the 10$ non-federal share which is now being provided, only $3300 is in cash; the remaining $76,952 is in-kind in the form of space, equipment usage, volunteer time, etc. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Manpower Program is funded and administered by the Labor Department and he does not yet know what criteria will be used and whether OEO in-kind share can be pooled with Labor Department in-kind share. He added that obtaining the added non-federal share will be a problem, and all staff and Board Members should be thinking about what can be done to increase the local share.
Mr. Keyes asked if it wouldn’t be wise to notify the local governments now. Mr. Cottrell noted that the fiscal year for local governments begins July 1 and the municipalities have already made commitments to the EOB from that budget period, but that it will be necessary to advise them of the situation before they begin the next budget session this fall or early in calendard 1968.
Councilman Cleland, representing the City of North Las Vegas, stated that there was quite a bit of reluctance on the part of North Las Vegas to contribute toward the 10$ share; that the Council felt they were not well enough informed of the projects and operations of the EOB. He said that it would be well for this Board to inform the various entities in condensed form of what they are doing, how they are doing it, who benefits, and noted that the Board then might not find this kind of reluctance.
Mr. Cottrell stated that, hopefully, the representatives on the EOB would take such information back to the entity they represent; but that the staff is hoping to do more in terms of public information. Mr. Cleland stressed that information should be in condensed form so that the Councilmen and City Managers can read it.
-5-
Mr. Keyes stated that he objects to rendering a service that is a responsibility of the Board Member to take back to the entity he is representing.
He added that every little piece of paper is going to take more of the time and effort of the Executive Director and it seems easiest to add this to his workload. He stressed again that it is the responsibility of the Board Member to relate this to the Board, group or council he represents.
Motion: Following further discussion on this subject, Mr. Merz moved that the Executive Director furnish the municipalities a briefing in writing of the EOB programs. Seconded by Nancy WiI Iiams, motion carried with two naye votes.
STATE 0E0 MEETING: The Chairman stated that the Board was honored with the presence of Mr. Clyde Mathews, Director of the State Department of Economic Opportunity, and called upon Mr. Mathews to discuss the coming State 0E0 meeting.
Mr. Mathews told Board Members that the work they are doing is very much appreciated by Governor Laxalt and by himself also. He discussed an evaluation study made for 0E0 throughout the United States, and noted that this study shows that 64$ of the poor people reached by CAPs report significant changes in their own and their children's lives as a result of participation; that 73$ of the community leaders give positive support;' that over-all the vast majority of the people interviewed evaluated the CAP as highly successful.
Mr. Mathews also discussed the outcome of the Harris Survey which shows in September, 1966 only 23$ were in favor of War on Poverty programs; that the same survey two weeks ago shows 60$ of the people are in favor of the War on Poverty. He noted that the more people understand the program the more support there is for it, and the War on Poverty program is gaining support because people are taking a dedicated stand in doing the best job possi bIe.
'’■'Mathews then advised Board Members that the State Office in conjunction with the Regional 0E0 is having a conference in Las Vegas May 11 and 12 at
the Stardust Hotel. He said that the main item on the agenda are the role
of the Regional Office and the role of a CAP Board Member. Mr. Mathews asked Board Members if they would be willing to attend an evening session
during this conference to discuss the role of a CAP Board Member. The
Board Members present unanimously voted to include the evening session and indicated their willingness to attend.
Mr. Mathews stated that he looks forward to real progress in the next few months. He advised that the State Office is planning to put out an 0E0 Newsletter to be circulated to about 1500 persons in Nevada including public officials.
AUDIT PERFORMED BY SALGO AND ROLLINS: The Executive Director advised that an audit of five components for the program year ending December 31, 1966, was recently completed by Saigo and Ro I Iings, Certified Pub I ic Accountants. He read the letter of transmittal from the Auditors and noted that anyone was welcome to come into the office to review the audit report.
-6-
HOT LUNCH PROGRAM FOR WEST LAS VEGAS SCHOOLS: The Executive Director advised that
a meeting had been held at which a solution was discussed; that of including one or two hot items to overcome Regional OEO’s objection to a "sack" lunch. However, at the conclusion of the meeting a School District official stated that the kitchen planned to be used would probably not be available. He advised that the deadline of April 30 to submit a guarantee of a hot lunch had been waived.
Mr. Merz noted that Mr. Westover of the School District is investigating the possibility of using space in other schools; however, if the situation is such that facilities cannot be found, the hot lunch component cannot be provided. He also stated that he had been advised by School Officials that it would be best not to request the Board to consider expanding kitchen facilities for this program, since such a request might well result in requests for kitchens in other schools, which would be too costly in terms of providing each school Class "A” meals of any kind.
Mr. Cottrell discussed the background of the grant and advised that the alternative now is to appeal the cold Class "A" turndown from Regional CEO on the grounds that elementary children in general do not get hot meals; that 0E0 has approved a cold sack lunch for summer Head Start programs.
Mr. Lockette said that he did not see that Board action was required; that the Committee is still active and they should be notified to keep working.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Mr. Bunker moved for adjournment. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:dj
MEMORANDUM
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN CHA IRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
May 22, 1967
Please be advised that the regular monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board will be held as fol lows:
FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
Please note the change in the day of the meeting — IT WILL BE ON FRIDAY THIS MONTH RATHER THAN MONDAY. Also, it will be appreciated if members will make an effort to be here on time so that the meeting can begin at 3:30 P.M. and adjourn as soon as possible.
THE AGENDA
I.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1967.
2.
AUDITS
A.
Regional Auditor’s Findings on Audit of October, 1966.
B.
Saigo and Rollins’ operational and administrative recommendations.
C.
Contract for 1967 audits - preliminary and final.
3.
VISTA PROGRAM - (Proposed Application by E.O.B.)
4.
MANPOWER
A.
Findings re: Nelson Amendment Status.
B.
Recommendations from 0.1. on appointment of Director.
5.
PROGRAM EVALUATION — Coming Requirements.
6.
OPERATION INDEPENDENCE REQUEST TO SCHOOL DISTRICT.
7.
ABSENCE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 25, 1967
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Members of the Board
CHARLES W. SPANN
Cha i rman
NOTICE OF MAY BOARD MEETING
Please be advised that the regular monthly meeting of the Board of Directors will be held on Wednesday, May 31, 1967, at 7:30 P.M., at the Auditorium of the Clark County District Health Department.
AGENDA
I.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 26, 1967
2.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - EOB AND NYC FOR MARCH AND APRIL, COMBINED.
3.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
ACT I ON ITEMS:
4.
VISTA APPLICATION.
5.
MANPOWER DIRECTOR’S SALARY.
6.
CONTRACT FOR AUDIT FOR 1967.
7.
OTHER ITEMS TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
8.
PROGRAM EVALUATION.
9.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
A.
MIGRANT PROJECT STATUS
B.
SUMMER HEAD START STATUS
10.
OTHER ITEMS TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 26, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices - 932 W. :;Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
/ '
PRESENT: Charles Spann (CHAIRMAN), Harvey Dondero, Dorothy King, Thomas Wilson, Daisy Miller, Ted Lawson, James Snowden
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, Sylvia Staples, Evelyn Mauldin, David Hoggard
Guests: Mrs. Alice Keyes.
A quorum was declared present and the meeting called to order by Chairman Spano.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1967: The Chairman’asked if there were any corrections, additions, or deletions. There being none., Mr. Wilson moved that the minutes be approved as presented to the committee. 'Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
AUDITS: Regional Auditor’s Findings: The Executive Director reviewed the report
made by’Mr. Phillip Megna, 0E0 Regional Auditor. He stated that only three questions were raised: one concerning alleged unauthorized salary ... payments of $580 which was for an individual hired by the Acting-Executive...
Oih^ctor, Mr. <Peltz. Mr. Cottrell stated'that in reply he was taken / exception to this because in a later budget supplement CEO approved payment of this salary and granted the funds to do so, and therefore the _ Regional Auditor should not disapprove it. »
The second item questioned was.payment for a psychological evaluation for*: •this individual; however, Mr. Cottrell advised that he has requested that this not be disallowed because our Personnel Policies provide that this may be done as part of the examining process. .
The Auditor also questioned consultant payments without contracts which involved two persons, Mrs. Ada Burbridge and Mrs. Ruth Berg. The primary concern here was that there was no contract for these people to perform the services. In discussion with the Regional Auditor concerning_
this, he had indicated that if contracts were drawn-up and signed by the persons who had performed the services, the payment would be allowable. Mr. Cottrell advised that signed contracts have been obtained and submitted to the Regional Office.
The last item questioned was the voter registration record in which the Auditor recommended that no funds be disbursed for this. The Executive Director advised that no payments have been made on this item.
' Mr Cottrell stated that he felt confident that all except possibly the psychological evaluation would be accepted by the Regional Office: and that he has already responded in writing but has not yet received a decision. Mr. Cottrell also advised that the only further action necessary would be if Region did disallow some of the items presented. It was moved by Mr. Lawson, seconded by Mrs. King that the Regional Auditor’s report be accepted. Motion carried.
CPAs (Saigo and Rollins) Operational and Administrative Recommendations: Executive Committee members were provided copies of a letter dated May 9, 1967, received from the CPA's, and Mr. Cottrell discussed the recommendations. The Auditors recommend that the NYC checksigner not be used for the EOB account and further recommend that the signature*} be changed. They also recommended that more stringent control be used for the keys to the checksigner. They recommended that the Executive Director be one of the signators on the checking account.
In discussion it was pointed out that of the three persons authorized for checksigning there is often a problem in obtaining two signatures. Following discussion on use of the checksigner, Mr. Dondero moved that there be restrictive use of the checksigner for 0E0 funds (only in case of emergency) except for NYC enrollee checks. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
Concerning the Executive Director's signature on the checksigning^ Finance Officer, Mrs. Mauldin, noted that the auditors stated that the Executive Director is responsible for funds no matter who signs the checks so it seems that there should be the convenience of having him sign so that only one additional signature needs to be obtained. In answer to a question from Mrs. Miller regarding the procedure in obtaining the Board Members's signatures, such was discussed. Following thi$, the Chairman ruled, subject to the objection of any member, that the Matter of the Executive Director's signature on the checking account be deferred until the full Board meeting.
Mr. Cottrell called the Executive Committee's attention to the Auditor's statement that funds had been withdrawn from letter of Credit in excess of immediate requirements. He advised that the only reason this had happened was because the EOB has not exercized enough control oveY the delegate agencies and delegate agencies sometimes had requested more than they needed.
Another item raised by the Auditors was that Manpower equipment for which purchase orders were issued in December was not received until after the expiration of the funding period on December 31, 1966. Mr. Cottrell advised that this was an unusual situation; however, the Auditor's recommendations will be complied with in the future.
The Auditors recommended that since 0E0 places responsibility for program operation and accounting with the grantee, more stringent controls over delegate agencies should be exercized. Mr. Cottrell advised that as the grantee is responsible, more controls are planned. He noted that the EOB does not have the staff to do audits of the delegate agencies and do the regular bookkeeping work of the grantee in addition. He stated that it also puts the grantee in a conflicting situation with delegate agencies because the grantee is supposed to be helping the delegates, and then when the Grantee performs the audit they are in the position of having to criticize. Mr. Cottrell advised that recently published CAP Memo 60 now makes it mandatory that audits are done by outside auditors, as 0E0 has recognized that they have been putting grantees in this conflictive situation an d are now attempting to correct this.
-2-
Contract for 1967 Audits — Preliminary and Final: Mr. CottrelI stated that the audits just completed by Saigo and Rollins were fop the year ending 1966; however, CEO’has now stated that when an application for refunding is submitted an audit is required to be included with the application. He advised that Mr. Megna, the Regional Auditor, has approved, and accountants Saigo and Rollins have also suggested, that a six-month preliminary audit be done.
Mr. Cottrell asked the Board for authorization to enter into a contract both for a six-month audit ending June 30, 1967 and for a final audit for the period ending December 31, 1967. He noted that if funds budgeted for auditing are insufficient in the current grant, the first six month’s billing can be paid from the 1967 budget and the audit ending December 31 can be charged to next year’s budget. He added that the audits to. be contracted for would include all components except the NYC projects which are audited by the Labor Department.
Mrs. Miller asked if the audits would include delegate agencies also. Mr. Cottrell advised that it would include all seven projects currently funded by 0E0.
Mr. Lawson moved and Mr. Dondero seconded that a contract be entered into to perform a six month audit in addition to the yearly audit. Motion carried.
VISTA: The Chairman reviewed the present status of VISTA Volunteers in Las Vegas;
that as many as eleven Volunteers have been assigned to Operation • Independence. Mr. Cottrell stated that only three Volunteers can be justified by 0E0 for placement at Operation Independence, and the Regional VISTA office has asked if the EOB would be interested in having the other e i ght assi gned.
This proposal was discussed, and EOB staff is proposing that the eight VISTAs be assigned one each to the Neighborhood Councils. Supervision would be provided through the Neighborhood Council Project Director, Program Coordinator, and Executive Director. The Executive Director noted that this would involve no local expenditures of funds; that VISTAs are paid directly through the VISTA Office. He stated that some of the same workers would be transferred from Operation Independence and the remainder would be supplied by VISTA in Washington. He asked the $oard for authorization to submit a project proposal requesting the eight VISTAs.
Mr. Lawson moved that the Letter of Intent and formal application be submitted to 0E0. Seconded by Mr. Walker. In further discussion Mrs. Miller stated that though she had no objection, if the Neighborhood Councils needed more help she wondered why couldn't additional funds be requested for staff workers. Mr. Cottrell advised that Clark County is funded to the extent of its guidelines and additional funds are not available.
On the vote on the motion, motion carried. (Mrs. Miller was excused from the meeting.)
MANPOWER PROGRAM: Mr. Cottrell advised that he had recently learned that the Manpower program was not funded under the Nelson Amendment which is to be administered by the Bureau of Work Programs), but under 0E0. Regarding
-3-
the situation of the appointment of a Manpower Director he noted that the position had been budgeted at $9,000; OEO then authorized going as high as $10,500 if someone qualified could be found. He advised that out of two recruiting trips and interviewing 33 people, one individual was found who was both qualified and interested in coming to Las Vegas, and available, but this person's minimum salary requirement is $12,000. He read a letter from Operation Independence recommending that this individual be appointed at $12,000.
Mr. Cottrell advised that OEO will not act on this recommendation until the EOB makes a determination on the salary being raised from $9,000 to $12,000. He stated that the question is "Does the Board want to attempt to justify the salary figure that is required to attract this individual to come to Las Vegas?" He added that if it weren't this individual, the question is still of a salary which is high enough to attract someone who can meet the requirements and is interested in coming to this area. He added that the Regional Office has not so far lowered the manpower experience requirement. He cited the three conflicting requests which Region had received from EOB and Operation Independence, being letters dated April 4, 1967, and April 6, 1967 from 01 and a letter from.EOB dated May 21, 1967.
Mrs. Alice Keyes stated, as a member of the Executive Committee of Operation Independence, that she did not feel there would be a lowering of requirements. She added that if the Executive Committee would recommend pursuing of that course, it will only be another delaying action. She further stated that the personal interview with Mr. Barringer was highly rewarding and gratifying, and that it is her personal feeling that Mr. Barringer should be given every consideration possible, as he had the experience and know-how to do the job. She also noted that he had been offered another job in Washington. He is presently employed, but the reason he is planning a move is because there is a philosophical difference between he and the Executive Director by whom he is employed in San Jose, and because he is dealing for the most part with a rpinority of Mexican-Americans. He felt that Las Vegas would be a chailenge because he would be working in a situation where a majority of the deprived are Negroes.
(Mr. Lawson was excused from the meeting. Mr. Snowden entered.) Mr. Barringer was further discussed, and it was advised that he is Coordinator of NYC for San Jose, and that he directs a staff of 14 or 15 persons. Also it was noted that he has had manpower experience on several projects; that all of his references that came back were. enthusiastic and glowing with the only negative one from a job nine years ago which was primarily a desk job stating that he was inclined to spend too much time in community activity,
Mr. Hoggard stated that he wished to convey to members what he feels is the necessity of the Board approving a salary of $12,000 for Mr. Barringer. He stated that extensive recruiting has been done and that Mr. Barringer's resume shows him to be the most qualified person.
Following further discussion, Mr. Snowden moved that the Executive Committee not recommend the $12,000 for approval. Motion lost for lack of second.
-4-
Mr. Wilson asked if the Board votes to approve the salary, why not ask for Region's approval and then advertise for someone in the local community at this salary.
Mr. Spann stated that he felt the Board would be open to criticism if the salary was set at $12,000 and there was no further advertisement in the community.
Mrs. Keyes stated that OEO’s requirements and qualifications are such that this higher salary is necessary in order to attract applicants.
Following further discussion, Mr. Wilson moved that a joint meeting of the Executive Committees of Operation Independence and Economic Opportunity Board be held at 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, May 31, to determine the policy toward the appointment of a Manpower Director. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dondero, and carried.
OPERATION INDEPENDENCE REQUEST TO SCHOOL DISTRICT: Mr. Cottrell advised Executive
Committee members that he would be on vacation for three weeks beginning June 2 and that Mr. Hoggard would be in charge of the office.
VISIT FROM 0E0 OFFICE OF INSPECTION: Mr. Cottrell stated that several complaints
were filed with the Washington, D.C. Office of Inspection regarding the migrant project. He added that an inspector had visited the project and apparently was satisfied that basicaHy there was no validity to the comp I a i nts.
BOARD APPOINTMENTS: The Chairman advised that he had written to the newly-elected
Mayor of Boulder City and to the Chairman of the Clark County Board of Commissioners regarding the appointments of Board Members from those municipalities. Mr. Spann stated that the Boulder City Council has reappointed Mr. Emory Lockette and that the Clark County Commissioners have appointed Mr. Darwin Lamb.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
Executive Director
WFC:dj
MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
MMay 31, 1967 Clark County District Health Dept. Auditorium
7:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Charles Spann (CHAIRMAN), Isaac White, Bob McPherson, Thomas Wilson, Sr., Dorothy King, Douglass Pushard, Lee Walker, Father Charles Shallow, Ferren Bunker, Nancy Williams, Stella Fleming, Bill Merz, Bud Cleland, Pat Fahey, Charlotte Hill, George Keyes, Angel Nieto, Peggy Smith
A quorum was declared present, and the meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board was cal led to order. -L
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 26: There being no additions, corrections, or deletions, Mr. Cleland moved that the minutes of the meeting of April 26, 1967, be approved as presented. Seconded by Father Shallow, motion carried.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR MARCH AND APRIL 1967: The Executive Director advised that the reason for combining the statements for two months was that March statements were not prepared at the regular time due to the audit being conducted. He noted that the percentages shown of the budget spent indicate the percentages for 1/3 of the budget year. Mr. Bunker moved that the statements be accepted as prepared. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: The Chairman read a letter submitted by the Lps Vegas Prosperity Club certifying Mr. Webster Butcher as the duly elected representative of the group. Mr. Butcher was not present, and his appointment was deferred until such time as he was present.
Mr. Spann read a letter from the Migrant Project Director, Mr. Melvin Marshall, informing the Board that Mr. Angel Nieto was selected by the Migrant Council as the representative to the EOB. Mr. Nieto was present and was seated as a member of the Board.
A third letter was read by the Chairman from the Clark County Ministerial Association advising the appointment of Reverend Melvin Pekrul as the representative to the Economic Opportunity Board. Reverend Pekrul was not present and his appointment thus was deferred.
VISTA APPLICATION: Mr. Cottrell noted that the eleven volunteers who have been in the community were placed under the supervision of Operation Independence, but that the VISTA Office has now indicated that all of the Volunteers in that project can no longer be justified. VISTA has further indicated their plan to reduce the number of Volunteers for Operation Independence to three and have asked the EOB to accept the others and submit a proposal of request for them. Mr. Cottrell stated that the best place they could be utilized would be with the Neighborhood Councils. He stated that he was now requesting that the Board advise him whether or not to proceed with this application.
Mrs. Fahey moved that the Executive Director prepare a proposal requesting that eight VISTAs be assigned to the eight Neighborhood Councils. Motion was seconded by Dorothy King.
Mr. White asked about the financial obligations for the proposed eight Volunteers. Mr. Cottrell advised that they are paid a small salary and living expenses directly from Washington, D.C., and that the only financial obligations would be in emergency cases for which the EOB would be reimbursed by the VISTA Office.
Councilman Cleland asked if the VISTAs would replace any of the work now being done by the Neighborhood Service Workers. Mr. Cottrell advised that VISTAs would supplement this work; that the Neighborhood Council workers have been engaged in quite a bit of additional activity in which the VISTAs could be helpful. He further advised that there are any number of things that the Councils could be doing if they had the help to do. it.
On the vote on the motion, motion was carried.
SALARY OF THE MANPOWER DIRECTOR: The Chairman reviewed the background of happenings in the Manpower Program, and advised that an individual has been located who is interested in the position but who requires a salary of $12,000 to come to Las Vegas. He advised that the Executive Committee discussed this and decided to hold a joint meeting with the Operation Independence Executive Committee to determine how to proceed. The Chairman noted that the joint meeting had been held previous to convening this Board Meeting, and it was then determined and a motion duly passed that the Executive Committees recommend to the Board that a request be made to the Regional Office that a salary of $12,000 be approved for the Manpower Director and that Mr. Albert Barringer be approved as a qualified person fqr appoi ntment.
Mr. Bunker moved that the Board adopt the recommendation of the Executive Committees of Operation Independence and the Economic Opportunity Board. Seconded by Isaac White, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell advised that this does not guarantee that the Regional 0E0 will approve this salary but noted that the Regional Office had advised they would not take any action until the EOB had made its recommendation.
In answer to a question from Mrs. Fahey regarding whether this meant that the Director would have his salary increase, the Chairman advised that Regional's approval will be requested and if approved Mr. Barringer would be offered this salary which will be a beginning salary.
Mr. McPherson noted that the $12,000 for the Manpower Director would cause problems in the Personnel Committee as far as salary comparability within the community and comparability within the organization.
Mr. Cottrell further explained to Board Members what was required by 0E0 in certifying that salaries were comparable with others in the community.
In answer to a question from Mrs. Nancy Williams as to whether the Manpower Program will be funded under the Labor Department. Mr. CottrelI advised that though that had been the understanding, we have now been advised that it will be continued under CEO at least for this program year.
-2-
CONTRACT FOR AUDIT FOR 1967: Mr. Cottrell stated that under provision of a new CAP Memo, an audit is required when an application for refunding is submitted to 0E0. He said that he has requested OEO's permission to submit an interim audit for the.first six months of the program year and a final audit at the end of the year and further advised that the Regional Auditor has approved this. He added that if there is any additional cost it will be slight. He also proposed that all delegate agencies be audited by the same firm of CPA's at this time so that the grantee would not be in a position of auditing itself when it is also serving in an advisory capacity to the delegate agencies.
Councilman Cleland moved that the EOB enter into a contract with the CPA f i rm of Saigo and Rollins to perform a pre Ii mi nary six month audit and a final audit according to the recommendations of the Executive Director. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried.
SIGNATURE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ON CHECKING ACCOUNT: The Chairman reviewed that the signatures of three Board Members are presently authorized on the signature cards and that two of these three members are required to sign checks. He noted that it seems to pose a problem to the staff to get the signatures of two Board Members. He further advised that the Auditors have recommended that the NYC checksigner not be used for EOB checks and that the Executive Di rector be one of the two signators. The Chairman called for discussion on whether to follow the recommendations of the Auditor or to retain the system now in existence.
Following discussion, Mr. Bunker stated that he felt the Auditors had a good point, and moved that the Board adopt the proposal of having the Executive Director with one presently authorized Board Member sign the checks. Motion seconded by Mr. Cleland with the clarification that-the Executive Director's signature would be in addition to the three authorized Board Members and that any one of the three Board Members would be the Second signature.
There was -further brief discussion and Mr. Bunker changed his motion to state that the Executive Director's signature be added to the signature cards and that any two of the four persons be authorized to sign the checks.
Mr. Bunker further amended his motion to add the phrase that the use of the checksigner be discontinued for other than NYC checks.
Discussion followed on the problems that could arise if two signatures were not available; and Mr. Cottrell requested that there be a definite policy established regarding the checksigner as there never has been such a policy.
On the vote on the amendment to the motion that the checksigner be discontinued for other than NYC ehcks, there were 8 yes and 8 no votes with the Chairman casting a tie-breaking vote in favor of the amendment.
On the vote on the motion to add the Executive Director's signature and that any 2 of the 4 persons may sign, motion carried.
HOT LUNCH PROGRAM FOR WEST LAS VEGAS SCHOOLS: A letter was read from the Superintendent of Clark County Schools, James Mason, stating that the School District could not enter into the program because they do not have the necessary funds to provide the difference between the sum required and that provided in the grant. (Mrs. Daisy Miller entered here.)
-3-
Mr. Bill Merz explained that though the EOB's Lunch Committee had worked out another proposal, there was a question as to whether 0E0 would approve the kind of meal that could be furnished as it would not have been a complete hot meal, and he also noted that the West Charleston kitchen which was also part of the planned proposal could not be used in view of a new Board policy that once a school abandons a hot lunch program it cannot be reinstated.
The Chairman stated that it seems to be a closed issue at this time unless additional funds from another source can be obtained to make the.program self-supporting. He commended Mrs. Miller, Chairman of the Committee, and other members for doing such a splendid job in attempting to make the program workable.
PROGRAM EVALUATION: Mr. Cottrell advised that funds were included in.the EOB's last grant for program evaluation, and that Regional 0E0 is continuing to. study the feasibility of situating evaluation centers within the region. He said there is nothing definite at this time, but it appears there will be an evaluation center established to cover Arizona and Nevada. In connection with this the National Office is developing a Management Information System which will require a large amount of paperwork and recordkeeping by CAA staff, and will be for the purpose (among others) of indicating to Congress what people have benefited, how they have benefited, etc.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Migrant Program: Mr. CottrelI reported that the migrant program got underway in April with certain phases of it being hurried up to make it available while migrants were in the area this season. He stated that the experience gained during the six week duration has shown some of the problems that will need to be ironed out before the program again goes into full operation in the fall.
Mr. Cottrell noted that during the summer months there will be rennovation and preparation for the full year program next fall. He reported that in addition to the day care and crib care there have been three adult, education courses; conversational english, auto mechanics, and sewing. He stated that next fall there would be a more complete adult education program. There was brief discussion on the licensing by the.Chi Id Welfare Board.
Summer Head Start: Mr. Cottrell advised that though the EOB^had.been assured last November that funding approval for Summer Head Start programs would be received no later than February 28, no funding has been received as of this date and the program is scheduled to begin June 5. He advised however, that a telegram was received today approving a grant for some $100,000 which apparently is for Summer Head Start. Mr. Cottrell asked, the Board for authorization to accept the Summer Head Start grant.when it is received. He further advised that the EOB is aware that certain cuts will be made though it is not yet known what they will be, and the indication is that the School District can live with these cuts.
It was moved by Father Shallow and seconded by Mr. Bunker that the Executive Director be authorized to accept the Summer Head Start grant funding. Motion carried.
-4-
PROPOSAL OF NEVADA STATE WELFARE DIVISION: Mr. Hoggard reviewed the goals of the proposed project of the State Welfare Division for an intensive services demonstration project under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. He advised that the Welfare Division has asked for the EOB's preliminary approval of the program in principal prior to its submission to HEW.
There was discussion regarding the proposal. Mrs. Smith noted that the Welfare Division has extended every courtesy to this Board and their endeavors and said this program should be endorsed. Mr. Cleland asked if it would be out of order to withhold the EOB's endorsement until the project is a little more clear. Mr. White asked what the deadline was for submission of the project and noted that the EOB has had experience in having projects thrown at it with no other information than that given at the Board Meeting. He added that members should have some time to absorb the information.
Mr. Merz moved that the Board support the development of the proposal but that they review the proposal in its total form before it is fully endorsed by the Board. Seconded by Mrs. Fahey, motion carried.
Mrs. Fahey asked if the Executive Committee still reserves the right to meet in an emergency situation should a specific recommendation be needed. The Chairman advised that they did.
Mrs. Fahey moved that in the event that an emergency situation develops and the project needs to be acted upon, the Executive Committee convene and do so. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried.
SUMMER CRASH PROGRAMS: Mr. Cottrell advised Board Members that $75,000,000 has been appropriated nationally for special summer programs of which $28,000,000 will go to CAPS to be administered under 0E0. He said that he had received a call from the Field Representative Monday saying that Las Vegas might be able to get as much as $100,000. Mr. Cottrell stated that the general criteria would be that the project must be in operation no later than June 30 and must terminate no later than the opening day of school. He reviewed further some of the priorities and criteria set fc: "i by 0E0.
Mr. Merz stated that although he agrees in principle and the programs would be very beneficial, such short notice would give nothing but a very difficult time in developing a responsible proposal.
Mr. Cottrell advised that several projects had been worked up last summer which might very well fit into this category; although there are many questions and no guidelines, these programs can do a great deal of good. He requested indication from the Board as to what route to follow in the allocation of summer crash funds.
Mr. White asked if the EOB Office could work up an acceptable proposal in the alloted length of time. Mr. Cottrell said he felt they could particularly in view of their being patterned after the programs written up last year. He noted also that the Board might want to consider using some of the funds for other summer programs; eg. sending youth to camp.
-5-
Mrs. Hill expressed interest in sending deprived youngsters to camp. Mr. White expressed interest in funding cultural trips for deprived youngsters.
Father Shallow moved that proposals be worked up by the staff for presentation to the Executive Committee at a specially-called meeting. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell asked if the Board wished to indicate any particular areas of interest. Mrs. Hill stated that she hoped some of the funds co.uld go for camping involving those agencies who already have summer camping programs in action.
Mrs. Fahey asked if it would be possible for Neighborhood Councis who hav had ideas for projects to submit such to the EOB for consideration for funding under this appropriation. Mr. Cottrell stated that they could; however, that the $100,000 is not an appropriation but only a preliminary figure which was subject to change, and further noted the importance of speed in developing and submitting proposals.
NYC SUMMER SLOTS: Mr. Cottrell advised that there was anticipation of additional summer slots for NYC youth, and asked whether the Board would want to accept them if they are offered.
The Chairman noted that while all summer slots were not filled last year, 300 more youngsters who were working would not have been had the summer slots not been accepted.
It was moved by Councilman Cleland and seconded by Mrs. Williams that the Executive Di rector acquire any additional NYC slots that may become ava iIabIe.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, 6J. 7 ;
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
JOINT MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD AND THE OPERATION INDEPENDENCE BOARD
Mav 31 1967 C,ark Cour,+V District Health Dept.
7:q0 p’M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Economic Opportunity Board Executive Committee: Charles W..Spann (CHAIRMAN), Lee Walker, Dorothy King, Isaac White, Thomas Wilson, Sr., Father Charles Shallow, Daisy Miller
Operation Independence Board Executive Committee: Margaret Quinn, Alice Key, Leola Armstrong, Sarah Ann Knight; Mr. Earl White, Jr., 0.1. Trustee, Mr. Ferren Bunker, 0.1. Trustee
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, Lubertha Johnson, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
INFORMAL DISCUSSION: The Chairman, Charles Spann, opened the meeting for informal discussion as a quorum from the EOB Executive Committee was not yet present. He reviewed the background of the situation to be discussed, that the position of Manpower Director had originally been established at an annual salary of $9,000; as it became more difficult to interest qualified applicants at this salary, permission was granted by 0E0 to offer as much as $10,500 to a qualified applicant. The individual selected by the Operation Independence Board has indicated his interest in the position but only at a salary of $12,000. The question now before the Board is whether or not the Board wishes to request that the Regional 0E0 authorize such a salary for the Manpower Director.
The Chairman asked members"if the Board does request this, does Operation Independence have an obligation to open applications again so that local people may apply?"
Mr. Isaac White stated that this program has been dragging for the last six months, and due to this he could not visualize going back and advertising and then waiting another six or eight weeks while going through screening, etc. He noted that most important thing right now was getting the program off the ground as any further delays may cause the program to be lost.
Quorum Present: Board Member Dorothy King entered at this point and a quorum was declared present for both Executive Committees.
FURTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING SALARY OF MANPOWER DIRECTOR: Mr. Earl White, Jr. speaking on behalf of the Operation Independence Executive Committee, stated that when Operation Independence started with full advertising of the position with its qualifications, a certain number of applications were received. Following that the Screening Committee made a recommendation which was turned down by the 0I Board, and litigation ensued.
Durinq the time of litigation Operation Independence was prevented by the court to close applications. Applications thus remained open until the matter was decided by the court. The Operation Independence Board then met and decided to continue recruitment for the position. It was again thoroughly advertised; more applicants came in and a selection Was made.
Mr. James Shipp was then selected; however, he was turned down by the Reqional 0E0 on the manpower experience qualification. Mr. White stated that it has been the general opinion that the salary has not been realist
i c
He said that as far as any obligation to advertise any further in the local community — there is none. The position has been fully advertised, and a person from the local community has not been found. Operation Independence has had to go outside the community to find a qualified person, and now have been able to do so. That qualified applicant has stated that he is interested in the position but the present salary is not acceptable.
Mr. White continued by saying that the negotiations of the Operation Independence Board with the applicant are merely a matter of getting terms and conditions straight for the position and one of these happens to be salary. Mr. White cited an example of a situation in our own community; i.e. the School District Board had duly advertised fora person to fill the position of Superintendent. At a certain point they found an applicant whose salary requirements were acceptable to the Committee. The matter was taken back to the Board and without further advertising that person was employed. ~
Mr. White reiterated that there is no obligation to advertise any further; that each person interested has had an opportunity to apply. Mr. :White stated that he is very respectfully soliciting the cooperation of the Economic Opportunity Board to help Operation Independence to employ this person to help overcome the hurdle to get the program underway.
Father Shallow asked if Regional OEO will approve the $12,000 salary. The Chairman replied that this was not known as they had requested that the EOB take action before it is considered at the Regional I eve Iy
Mr. Cottrell further explained the position of the Regional OEO; in that they had received three conflicting requests from 0.1. and the E.O.B. and until the local entities involved had reached an agreement they would take no further action.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson, Executive Director of Operation Independence, stated that there were different requests made and these were discussed personally with representatives of OEO. She stated that these requests came out of desperation in a serious effort to find a way to go ahead with the program. Mrs. Johnson said that Operation Independence is feeling the pressures of people who are hoping to find assistance through this program. She said that Operation Independence has never recruited for the position at $12,000; that recruitment outside of Las Vegas was for the same salary as it was for the Las Vegas area.
Mrs. Johnson stated that the proposed appointee is the only person who has all of the qualifications desired by Operation Independence aqd OEO, and because of this his references were contacted and it was found that he is the best qualified person with whom the Board has had the opportunity to negotiate in any manner.
Mr. Spann stated that the question before this joint meeting now is: "Does this joint committee wish to recommend to'the E.O.B. that it propose to the Regional OEO that the salary for the Manpower Director be pet at $12,000 per year and that the proposed appointee be approved by the Regional office as to . his experience qualifications."
-2-
Father Shallow moved and Dorothy King seconded that the Executive Committees recommend to the Economic Opportunity Board that Regional OEO be asked to approve the salary of the Manpower Di rector at $12,000 per year and that Mr. Albert Barringer be recommended for the position. Motion carried.
Mrs. Leola Armstrong suggested that the Regional OEO be advised that this request supercedes any previous recommendations.
ADJOURNMENT: Having completed the discussion of the subject of the meeting, such was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Di rector
WFC:dj
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN CHAIRMAN
Because there are no items this month which require action of the Executive Committee, this is to notify you that there will be no meeting of the Executive Committee during the month of June.
The regular Board Meeting will be held as usual on June 28 the last Wednesday of the month. You will receive notice and agenda for this shortly.
June 9, 1967
TO: Executive Committee Members
Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN Chairman
RE: NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
A special meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board is being called:
TUESDAY, June 13, 1967 4:00 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
There is only a single purpose to this meeting which is to review and take action on the programs to be submitted to 0E0 for funding under the Summer Crash appropriation of which Clark County's share is $40,000.
Please make every effort to attend.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Executive Committee Members
FROM: CHARLES W8 SPANN
Chairman
RE: JOINT MEETING OF 01 AND EOB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
Please be advisee that a joint meeting of 0! and EOB
Executive Committee members will be held: •*=—-
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1967^'
7:00P.M.Z x
CONFERENCE ROOM OF TrtE
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
This meeting will be held on®~half hour prior to the regular Board Meeting and will be for the express purpose of discussing ths situation of the Manpower Program.
Pleas® make every effort to attend.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: CHARLES W. SPANN CHAIRMAN
RE: NOT ICE OF ANNUAL MEETING
Please be advised that the annual meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1967
7:30 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT. AUDITORIUM
The main item for this meeting is ELECTION OF OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES for fiscal year 1967-68. The Slate being presented by the Nominating Committee is enclosed.
Also enclosed for Board Member information are the work program descriptions of the two summer crash programs, which upon approval of the Executive Committee, were submitted to 0E0 for funding.
The Annual Report for 1966-67 is enclosed also.
AGENDA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 31, 1967.
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MONTH OF MAY, 1967.
0. SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
4.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
(a) Election of Board Members for 2-year term, (b) Election of Officers for 1967-68.
(c)
Election of Finance Committee.
(d)
Election of Special Committees.
1967-69.
5.
ELECTION OF ONE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER (Nominations from the Floor)
6.
ELECTION OF FOUR NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS (Nominations from the Floor)
7.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
JOINT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
June 28, 1967 7:00 P.M.
Clark County District Health Dept. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: EOB Members: Emory Lockette, Ted Lawson, Harvey Dondero, Dorothy King, Thomas Wilson, Sr., Lee Walker
QI Members: Leola Armstrong, Sarah Ann Knight, Alice Keys, Earle
White, Jr., Mrs. V. Smith
Guests: Harold Moore, Field Representative, Regional Office of
Economic Opportunity
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, Lubertha Johnson, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
First Vice Chairman Lockette chaired the meeting in the absence of the Chairman Charles Spann. He explained that the meeting had been called for the purpose of discussing the situation of the Manpower Program.
REVIEW: Mr. Cottrell reviewed the happenings since the last Board Meeting, explaining that Region had been requested to approve the candidate for Director at that time, Mr. Barringer, at a salary of $12,000 annually. He said that this was approved and communicated to Operation Independence; however, when Mr. Barringer was contacted it was found that he had accepted another position. He stated that Mrs. Johnson has since interviewed more individuals in the Los Angeles area.
Mr. Lockette said that if Operation Independence was prepared to make another recommendation of an individual this evening, it can go before the regular Board meeting which commences at 7:30 P.M. He further stated that everyone is anxious to get the Manpower Program underway, and this meeting is an effort to review the candidate selected by Operation Independence and pass on the selection to the Regional Office for its approval as to his Manpower experience and the salary.
Mr. Lockette called upon Mrs. Johnson to make her report.
Mrs. Johnson reported her activities involving the recruitment of a Manpower Director. She stated that she made a trip to the Los Angeles area for the purpose of recruiting applicants to fill the position. She advised Board Members who the various contacts were made with, and that she personally interviewed ten persons in addition to making approximately 31 telephone calls. She advised that she found that the same situation existed as found on other trips -- that the persons who are qualified are already working or had been working and earning from $12,000 up. Mrs. Johnson stated that Knowing tnat she could not negotiate anything above $10,500 made it impossible to secure these persons with very fine backgrounds.
She advised that after reading the resumes and considering the persons interview, she called a sp cial meeting of the Operation Independence Executive Board to which she made the following recommendations:
(1)
That Mr. George Gant be hired at a salry of $11,000 annually.
(2)
That ths EOB be requested to approve the salary of $11,000.
(3)
That EOB and OEO be requested to consider this request an emergency and to act upon it immediately.
She further said that Mr. Gant was highly recommended by persons working in the poverty program, and that he has been associated with the EYOA for almost two years. She noted that she considers him the best qualified person contacted during these past ten days who is available at the requested salary, »-
and that .these recommendations were unanimously accepted by the 01 Executive Committee. She informed members that she was to receive in the mail today a complete resume from Mr. Gant; however, it had not arrived. She read a telegram sent by Mr. Gant's present supervisor stating his over-all qualifications.
Mr. Lockette said this was a request that would have to be approved by the EOB and Regional OEO and that the qualification of two years manpower experience would need to be approved by OEO. He noted that as the program presently stands, Operation Independence has approval to pay up to $10,500 so this would mean a negotiation of a $500 additional salary.
Motion: Mr. Lawson moved that the Executive Committee concur in Operation Independence's recommendation and recommend approval of Mrs. Johnson's report to the full Board. Seconded by Dorothy King, motion carried unanimously.
In discussion, Mr. Earle White asked Mrs. Johnson if they were faced with a time factor, as with Mr. Barringer, that might be necessary' to pass on to the Regional OEO so that this situation might not occur again. ' .
Mrs. Johnson advised that as far as Mr. Gant is concerned he is "" already employed and his Director is reluctant to let him go. She noted, however,that this is considered by the 01 Executive Committee, to be an emergency because of the length of time elapsed and because of the necessity of getting the program underway.
Mr. Lockette stated that he appreciated Mr. White's interest in speeding action and hopes that someone will move at the full Board meeting that the correspondence be forwarded immediately to the Regional Office. He noted that before Mr. Moore leaves, he should be in a position to advise how much urgency the Regional Office will give this request.
Mr. Moore advised that he could only say that the Regional Office is as interested as anyone here in getting the program operational, and that he has made note that it is considered an emergency issue and * deserves highest priority. He said that speaking for himself, he. will try to the utmost to expedite the matter but cannot speak on behalf of others with whom he needs to consult. He advised that as soon as he receives the written recommendation and back-up material he will expedite a decision and forward the decision immediately to
th?. EOB
In answer to a question from Mr. Lockette as to what is needed for • approval from the Regional Offic , Mr. Moore stated that the resume will b" reviewed as soon as the persons responsible can get together. He advised that the qualifications would be considered separately from the salary, but that he doos not see that the salary will create any insurmountable problems.
Mr. Lockette asked if Mr. Gant meets requirements as ths program is written, both as to experience and education, will there be automatic concurrence in as much as the program has been approved by the EOB and Regional OEO?
Mr. Moore advised that concurrence would not be automatic, but if Mr. Gant meets all qualifications this is all that Regional is interested in. However, the qualifications would have to be in accord with the program as written.
ADJOURNMENT; There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Executive Director
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
□ A yb/ Clark County District Health Dept. Auditorium
7:30 P'M- Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Ewry Locke+te (First Vice Chairman)., Bob McPherson, Thomas Wilson, Sr., George Keyes, Lee Walker, Ted Lawson, Peggy Smith, Douglass Pushard, Mayor W. R. Hampton, Harvey Dondero, Ferren Bunker, Dorothy King, ; Bill Merz, Angel Nieto, Stella Fleming, Wendell Waite, George Kline, Woodrow Wilson, Charles Jones, Isaac White, Daisy Miller, . ”• Reverend Melvin Pekrul
T
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples, LaMar McDaniel
Guests: Helen Anderson, Pratt Prince, Barney Cannon, M.V. Smith, Obera Turman, Evelyn Coleman, Emma Colvin, Gloria Rome, Faye Mullen, Hazel Geran, Addie Reid Blake, Lubertha Johnson, Sarah Ann Knight, Dorothy Johnson, Sarah Ray, Earle W. White, Jr., Letha Mobley, Rosie Smith, Ethel Mae Robinson.
DEO Regional Office: Harold Moore, Field Representative.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: Mr. Emory Lockette, First Vice Chairman, advised that the Chairman was unable to be present due to a business trip and that he had been requested to chair the meeting. Mr. Lockette advised that a quorum was present and convened the meeting.
He noted that Mr. Harold Moore of the Regional 0E0 was present, and requested that Mayor Hampton introduce the Counci I men from Henderson, Mr. Barney Cannon and Mr. Pratt Prince.
Mr. Lockette invited any visitors present who had anything they wished to discuss to write such on a slip of paper and time would be allotted for these items.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 31, 1967: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Mr. Bunker moved to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Mr. Lawson, the motion was carried.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 26, 1967: Minutes were distributed to members of the Board.
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING MAY 31, 1967: Mr. Cottrell briefly reviewed the financial reports. Mr. Merz asked if there had been any difficulty caused by the action taken at the last Board meeting disapproving the use of the checksigner. It was noted that there had been no problems. Mr. Walker moved that the financial reports be accepted as presented. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion was carried.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: Mr. Lockette asked if there were any members who were in attendance for the first time. Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson was present and was seated. Councilman Wendell Waite, representing the City of North Las Vegas, was present and was seated.
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE: The Acting Chairman advised that the Nominating Committee had met on June 20 to nominate officers for the coming year and also recommendations of members to fill committee vacancies.
In answer to a question from Mr. McPherson as to the duties of the various special committees, Mr. Lockette stated that though these committees may not meet often, the purpose is to have a body established in the event something comes before the Board that the Chairman can feasibly turn over to an appropriate committee rather than attempt to select a committee from the floor.
The Executive Director advised that the election of Board Members is an attempt to set the terms of office to begin and end at the same time, so that when a member resigns the person who is elected in his place will fill his unexpired term.
The First Vice Chairman then called upon the Chairman of the Nominating Committee to report the Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Ted Lawson then read the report of the Committee, as follows:
Nominated for election as members of the Board for a two- year term 1967-69. (Note: Those Board Members not listed were elected for a two-year term in June, 1966.)
Commissioner Darwin Lamb Councilman C. R. Cleland Mrs. Pat Fahey Mr. Larry Powe I I Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson Mr. Bill Merz Rev. Melvin Pekrul Mr. Thomas Wilson, Sr. Mr. Solomon Perry
Mrs. Dorothy King Mrs. Dai sy Mi Iler Mr. George Kline Mr. George Keyes Mrs. Nancy Williams Mr. Charles Jones Mrs. Peggy Smith Mr. Angel Nieto Mr. Webster Butcher
OFFICERS
Charles W. Spann (CHAIRMAN)
Emory Lockette (1ST VICE CHAIRMAN)
Fr. Charles Shallow (2ND VICE CHAIRMAN)
Ted Lawson (SECRETARY) Isaac White (TREASURER)
FINANCE OFFICER
Isaac White (CHAIRMAN)
Woodrow W iI son
George Keyes
Solomon Perry
Harvey Dondero
-2-
EDUCATION COMMITTEE Harvey Dondero (Chairman) Isaac White Peggy Smith
YOUTH COMMITTEE
Bob McPherson (Chairman) Don Hampton
Nancy Willi ams
MANPOWER COMMITTEE Ted Lawson (Chairman) Emory Lockette George Kline
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
Ferren Bunker (Chairman)
Newton Tigner Charles Jones
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Stella Fleming (Chairman) Douglass Pushard
Thomas Wi I son, Sr.
SENIOR CITIZENS COMMITTEE Rev. Melvin Pekrul (Chairman) SteIla Fleming
Solomon Perry
Mr. Merz stated that he had a question concerning the nomination of Mr. Emory Lockette for First Vice Chairman. He said that though Mr. Lockette has given of his time and service, the individual who fills this position often moves up to Chairman of the Board after ■> serving as First Vice Chairman . He advised that there is a CAP Memo which prohibits or discourages federal employees from serving as Chairmen of CZ(P Boards. He said that the question is of the propriety, not of Mr. Lockette filling the position as an officer but as filling the position of First Vice Chairman.
Mr. Walker said that the idea of advancing the First Vice Chairman is just a practice and that he sees no problem of Mr. Lockette serving in this position as this practice can be abolished next year when a Chai rman i s elected.
Mr. Cottrell read the portion of the By-Laws which stated that reelection to a term of office may be only for one additional year.
Mr. Bunker asked if it would be the prerogative of the Board to make an amendment to the Nominating Committee Report. It was advised that nominations can be made from the floor by Board Members.
Election of Board Members for Two-Year Term 1967-69: The Acting Chairman noted that there was one change in the members being recommended by the Nominating Committee; that Councilman Wendell Waite replace Councilman Bud Cleland. The Board unanimously elected those members nominated.
Election of Officers for 1967-68: Mr. Merz moved that the name of Isaac White be placed in nomination for First Vice Chairman and that Mr. Emory Lockette be placed in nomination for the office of Treasurer. Mr. Merz stated that his reasons for so recommending is that he recognizes that the procedure has been for the First Vice Chairman to succeed as Chairman, and because of the CAP Memo stating that federal officers should not serve as Chairmen, he feels that this wouId be a wise move.
-3-
Mr. Keyes stated that this is a question of the First Vice Chairman normally being elevated at the end of his term in that office and because of his outstanding service during the two years to the office of Chairman. He noted that because of the demands on his time and energy and because he has given enough to community work as First Vice Chairman, he should not be asked to serve as Chairman.
Mr. Merz stated that the precedence has already been set; and if the Board wishes to continue this precedent, this action should be taken. He added that if the Board does not wish to continue this precedent, the action then need not be taken.
Mr. Lockette asked the Executive Director to read the CAP Memo which pertained to federal employees serving as Chairmen. CAP Memo No. 4^-A read as follows:
"PART B: The federal conflict of interest statutes prohibit all Federal employees from representing any organization in dealings with any Federal agency about grants or contracts. Therefore, Federal employees should not accept positions on the governing body of a Community Action Agency which would require them to represent the CAA in its dealings with 0E0 or with any other Federal agency. In particular, the Chairman of a CAA’s governing body is very likely to have to deal with CEO in the normal course of his duties. For this reason a Federal employee may not normally serve as Chairman of a CAA's governing body.
.(
"In exceptional cases where a CAA desires to elect, or to continue the present service of, a Federal employee (other than an CEO employee) as Chairman of its governing body, an application may be made to the appropriate 0E0 Regional Office for waiver of the rule against his serving in that capacity. No waiver will be granted unless the following conditions are met:
I.
There must be a special showing why such service is important to the CAA and why the purpose sought to be accomplished by having the Federal employee serve in a capacity other than as Cha irman.
2.
There must be a formal rule adopted by the CAA providing that the Chairman shall not represent the agency in dealings with 0E0 or any Federal agency and designating a specified alternative officer authorized to do so. There must be a clear written commitment on the part of the CAA that this division of functions will be respected."
Mr. Lockette stated that he would not accept the nomination for Treasurer. He requested the Chairman of the Nominating Committee to chair this section of the meeting until the completion of election of officers. Mr. Lawson took the chair and called for further nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Bunker moved that the Board accept the Nominating Committee’s report with the already stipulated nominations; that nominations already on the floor remain. Motion was seconded by Mr. Keyes.
-4-
Peggy Williams nominated Mr. Isaac White for Chairman. It was moved and seconded that nominations for Chairman be closed, and that the names of Mr. Charles Spann and Mr. Isaac White appear on the ballot for Chai rman.
Mr. Bunker questioned the status of his motion. A vote was taken, and the motion carried.
Secret ballots were distributed and cast for the office of Chairman. Mr. Isaac White was elected Chairman.
For the office of First Vice Chairman, it was moved and seconded that nominations be closed. Mr. Emory Lockette was declared elected as First Vice Chairman by acclamation.
Mrs. Dorothy King was nominated for the office of Treasurer. It was then moved and seconded that the remaining officers proposed by the Nominating Committee and Mrs. Dorothy King for Treasurer be declared elected, and that the Secretary be instructed to cast a unanimous ballot. Motion carried. \
Mr. Lockette resumed Chairmanship of the meeting at this poi.nt. He then asked the new Chairman, Mr. Isaac White, if he wished to chair the meeting. Mr. White suggested that Mr. Lockette continue chairing this meeting; however, he expressed his gratitude at the confidence expressed in electing him Chairman. He stated that he would serve as best he could and hoped to do the job well. Mrs. King also thanked the Board for electing her Treasurer and said that she would do her best in this position.
Seating of Member: The Chairman announced that Reverend Melvin Pekrul was present, and Reverend Pekrul was seated as a member of the Board.
Election of Finance Committee: Mr. Lockette advised that, as provided in the By-Laws, the Treasurer was automatically the Chairman of the Finance Committee. He advised that the Nominating Committee had proposed the names of: Mr. Isaac White, Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson, Mr. George Keyes, Mr. Solomon Perry, Mr. Harvey Dondero.
Mr. Walker moved that the name of Mrs. Dorothy King be substituted for Mr. Isaac White and that the slate be declared elected as proposed by the Nominating Committee. Seconded by Mr. Keyes, motion carried.
Election of Special Committees: Members reviewed the list of persons recommended for election by the Nominating Committee. Mrs. Smith stated that since the Chairman is ex-officio a member of all committees, except the Nominating Committee, she would recommend that another member’s name be substituted to be a member of the Education Committee.
Mr. Keyes moved that nominations be open for a member of the Education Committee to replace Mr. White. Mr. Walker nominated Councilman Wendell Waite. It was moved and seconded that nominations be closed. On a vote the Education Committee members proposed by the Nominating Committee, with Councilman Wendell Waite replacing Mr. Isaac White, were unanimously elected.
-5-
Mr. Lockette advised that the persons being presented for membership on the Special Committees were selected because of their special ability or concern with the purpose of the committee.
Mr. Walker moved that the entire slate of persons presented for membership of the Special Committees be elected with the change already made in the Education Committee. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried.
ELECTION OF A MEMBER TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Mr. Lockette advised that it has been learned that Mr. Snowden no longer resides in Nevada which creates a vacancy on the Executive Committee. There was then discu-ssion on the status of Mr. Spann and Mr. Walker as Executive Committee members due to the fact that they were members only by virtue of their office. There was further discussion on whether a slot should be left open for the Chairman of the Nominating Committee as provided by the By-Laws. It was decided that a position would be left open until the Nominating Committee meets to elect its chairman. t
Mr. Lockette then announced that nominations would be open to fill two vacancies on the Executive Committee. Mrs. King nominated Mrs. Peggy Smith. Mrs. Miller nominated Mr. George Kline. Mr. Lawson nominated Mr. Lee Walker. Mr. Walker nominated Mr. Charles Spann.
Secret ballots were distributed, votes were tabulated, and Mr. Charles Spann and Mrs. Peggy Smith were announced as the new members of the Executive Committee.
ELECTION OF FOUR MEMBERS TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE TO SERVE A TWO-YEAR TERM: Mr. Lockette reviewed that the Nominating Committee maintains a membership of seven persons; that last year when the Committee was elected the Board was required to designate three members for two year terms and four members for one-year terms to provide staggered terms. He advised that though this had not been done at that time the Nominating Committee itself had since determined that the members who will serve the two-year terms are: Mr. Ted Lawson, Father Charles ■ Shallow, and Mr. Emory Lockette.
Nominations were then opened for four persons to serve on the Nominating Committee for a two-year term beginning July, 1967. Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson asked who the members were whose terms had expired fol lowing one- year. Mr. Lockette advised that they were Mr. James Snowden, Mr. Ferren Bunker, Mrs. Stella Fleming, and Mr. George Kline. The Executive Director read from the By-Laws the provision for the election of members to the Nominating Committee which states that members of this committee cannot succeed themselves.
Mrs. King then nominated Mr. Bill Merz. Mrs. Smith nominated Mr. Thomas Wilson. Mr. White nominated Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson. Mr. Kline nominated Mrs. Miller.
It was moved and seconded that nominations be closed. Mr. Keyes moved that a unanimous ballot be cast for the election of those four persons nominated. Seconded by Mr. Kline, motion carried.
-6-
MANPOWER PROJECT REPORT: Mr. Lockette advised that the EOB Executive Committee had met jointly just prior to the EOB meeting with the Operation Independence Executive Committee. He stated that a recommendation had been presented and approved by the joint committees that Mr. George Gant be named by Operation Independence as Director and approval of Mr. Gant’s manpower experience be requested of the OEO Regional Office. Further, if approved by the EOB, that the administrative procedures be carried out by EOB staff to obtain the necessary information to submit to the Regional Office.
Mr. Lockette advised that Mr. Gant has had two years experience in training programs. He noted that Mrs. Johnson, Executive Director of Operation Independence, was present, and could give additional information if Board Members had questions. Mr. Lockette noted that when he looks at the need for the program in the community the responsibility of not having the program underway rests equally on the shoulders of each Board Member. He cal led for questions or comments from members.
A five minute recess was called.
When the meeting reconvened Mr. Cottrell reviewed happenings concerning the Manpower Program since the last meeting of the Board. He advised that the Board had approved the appointment and requested salary of Mr. Albert Barringer; that this information was immediately submitted to the Regional Office with a request for approval. When approval was received from Regional and Mr. Barringer was so notified, he had in the meantime accepted another position at a higher salary. Mr. Cottrell stated that the recommendation now before the Board is that Mr. Gant's resume be submitted to OEO for approval as to the manpower requirements; and that a beginning salary of $11,000 annually be approved for Mr. Gant.
Mr. Merz asked how long it would take to obtain an answer from the Regional Office. Mr. Harold Moore, Regional Office Field Representative stated that this request will be considered an emergency situation a,nd that he will act as quickly as possible. He advised, however, that he would not be returning to San Francisco until Monday but that he hoped the written request would be on his desk at that time. He said that it was his feeling that there could be a recommendation from the Regional Office in a week to two weeks.
Mr. Bunker moved that the Board approve the recommendation of the joint Executive Committees in regard to this position. Seconded by Mrs. Smith, motion carried.
The Chairman asked Mr. Cottrell to advise the Board the amount of time that would be involved in submitting the information to Region.
Mr. Cottrell stated that Operation Independence does not have the complete resume turned in to the EOB; however, it is anticipated that it will be received the next day and at that time will be sent air mail, with the transmittal letter.
-7-
Mr. Moore was ask&d If Regional could not send a decision by return telegram with a copy to the delegate agency. Mr. Moore replied that he could not speak for others in the Regional Office and could not - promise that a copy would be sent, but that he would attempt to notify the EOB by the fastest means possible.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Summer Crash Programs: Mr. Cottrell noted that Board Members have received copies of the work descriptions of the two Summer Crash Programs which were approved by the Executive Committee on June 13. Mr. Moore reported that the Regional Director has not signed the programs but was expected to do so at least by Friday, June 30. Mr. CottrelI advised that he had learned today that there is all assurance that this program is funded; that the EOB is authorized to employ a Director; that committments may be obtained to enroll the 120 youngsters into the Camping Sessions of the four agencies involved.
Manpower Program: Mr. Cottrell stated that of the five professional positions in the project, three were to be funded by 0E0 until July I, after which time all five were to be funded by Employment Service. He stated that he had received a letter from Employment Service stating that the Department did not have funds for these positions; that he transmitted this information to the Regional Office; and that the EOB has now been informed that this condition has been waived. He requested authorization from the Board to submit the necessary paperwork to have these positions funded under the existing Manpower Project, noting that this would not require additional funds.
It was moved by Mr. Merz and seconded by Mr. Keyes that this be done as recommended by the Executive Director.
In discussion, Mr. Lockette asked if there was concurrence and approval on this from Operation Independence. Mr. Cottrell stated that the EOB is the grantee for the Manpower Program though the actual administration will be carried out by the two delegate agencies — Operation Independence and Nevada Catholic Welfare. He noted that the positions as originally submitted were to have three of the professional positions employed by Operation Independence and two Employment Service employees ancj the only question was who would pay their salaries. He said that this recommended action would not give money to or take money away from^any agency.
Mr. Lockette stated that in the past as far as spending any funds from the Manpower Program, the EOB has respected Ol's position as delegate agency and consulted with them for approval.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the reason for the request is that the staff must certify to the Regional Office that (I) the proposed change has been approved by the Board; or (2) that the Board has authorized the staff to prepare the specific change and submit it for approval.
Mr. Keyes stated that when information is received by the EOB concerning a program involving a delegate agency, the Executive Di rector should consult with the delegate agency before bringing it to the Board. Otherwise, he noted, the EOB could approve something that the delegate agency would not be able to live with.
-8-
Mr. Merz amended his motion to include the concurrence of the delegate agency. On the vote, motion carried.
GENERAL DISCUSSION: Mrs. Miller asked why Operation Independence could not receive direct communication from the Regional Office.
Mr. Moore explained that in funding programs throughout the United States the 0E0 has one contractee — the Community Action Agency within the area. This prime responsibility cannot be delegated — only operation of certain portions of programs can be delegated. In concurring with certain policies set down by 0E0 and Congress, and within the legal confines Regional has to deal with, the No. I contractee in Clark County is the EOB. He further explained that if Regional did bypass the Board and go to the delegate agency, then the EOB could say that they really did not concur in a matter. He stated the Region holds the local CAP Board primarily responsible for administration and policy setting, and they in turn can delegate responsibility for program operation to a delegate agency.
Mr. Lockette stated that most of the requests seem to be directed in a manner by which a negative answer is returned, and asked if there were not some circumstances whereby things pertinent to Operation Independence • would permit direct communication with the Regional Office.
Mr. Moore replied that nothing says that a delegate agency cannot communicate directly, but that contact by a delegate agency when there is a local CAP Board does not constitute a formal communication based on a decision made by the CAA. He stated that he doubted seriously if any member of this Board would appreciate the 0E0 binding the Board to a decision concerning a delegate agency when the E.O.B. had not been consuI ted.
Mr. Bunker noted that this seemed to thoroughly explain the situation*, and moved for postponement of the Administrative Report and adjournment of the meeting. Seconded by Mr. White.
Mr. Lockette asked Mr. Moore if a copy of the telegram regarding Region’s decision on the Manpower Director could be sent to Operation Independence. Mr. Moore noted that he could not answer that question.
Following discussion revolving around adjournment and a motion that the Chair recognize a privileged motion, a vote on Mr. Bunker’s motion was taken and carried.
Respectfully submitted
W. F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:sds