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

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
642-0707
July 18, 1967
TOi Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC 8. WHITE
Chairmen
RE« NOTICE OF MEETING
Pleas® be advised that the monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board Executive Committee will be held)
MONDAY, JULY 24, 1967 3t30 P.M,
£00 OFFICES (932 West Owens)
AGENDA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1967.
AGREEMENTS ON CHECK SIGNING PROCEDURES.
RECLASSIFICATION OF NYC POSITION FROM COORDINATOR TO COUNSELOR-COORDINATOR.
DAY CARE PROJECT FINANCES — STATUS OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, ETC.
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DAY CARE FUNDS TO BRING PROGRAM UP TO OEO GUIDELINES.
ROLE OF E.O.B. AND OTHERS IN EVENT OF CIVIL STRIFE
NEW CAP MEMOS CONCERNING: FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, INCREASE IN NON-FEDERAL SHARE, TRANSFER OF FUNDS AMONG COMPONENTS AND BUDGET FLEXIBILITY, RENNOVATION OF HEAD START FACILITIES, ANTI-RIOT PROVISIONS, AND POLICY ON LOBBYING.
OPERATION OF SUMMER PROJECTS.
BREAK-IN AND ATTEMPTED THEFT IN EOB-MANPOWER-NYC OFFICES.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
642-0707
July 20, 1967
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
Executive Di rector
RE: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FOR MEETING JULY 26.
I.
New CAP Memos.
There are several new CAP Memos which are of more than just administrative nature. Included are the following which are briefly summarized for your information. Complete copies of all of these are available to any Board Member at the office.
CAP Memo 60 - Financial Responsibility. This applies to both grantee and delegate agencies. A preliminary audit survey, to "evaluate the adequacy of the grantee organization's and its delegate agencies' accounting systems and internal controls", must be made within threq months after a grant is received.
Annual audits of grantees and delegate agencies are now to be made directly to 0E0. Each audit must include "a written certification as to the adequacy of the grantee accounting system" for all components. Audits must be submitted at the time application is made for refunding.
CAP Memo 61 - Increase in Non-Federal Share Requirement. This p ro v i des for a transition from the 10$ local share to the new requirement of 20$. In our case, programs operated after October of this year will require a 20$ share. Pro-rating this over our program year which ends December 31, 1967, means that we must have an over-all share of 12$ for the current year. This will require approximately $12,000 additional local share during the current year. For next year, it will mean a local share of about $50,000 more than the original amount required for this year.
The increased local share will not increase our level of approved program. The increase in local share must "be offset by a corresponding decrease in Federal support for the component projects in question.” We are : seeking to increase our local share by counting more volunteered timp in year-round and summer Head Start, and by counting services provided by the state dental clinic as local share. Our summer programs also have more local share than will be required for their operation, and this can be pooled with other projects.
MEMORANDUM (Continued)
However, a great deal of effort is required to meet the 20$ share for next year. Any suggestions as to how this can be attained will be very welcome. We must seek additional volunteered services and efforts as well as increased financial support from local sources if we are to be able to continue all programs in operation as they are now funded.
CAP Memo 63 - Transfer of Funds; Rate of Expenditures; Budget Flexibility. This memo tightens up transfer of funds between projects, and makes absolute prohibitions against certain types of transfers. We are npw prohibited from transfers to or from any earmarked programs, such as Head Start and Legal Aid. The memo also sets forth more strict requirements on making changes in program and in budget over the permitted fI ex i b iIi ty.
The memo also states that "Al I requests to CEO for changes in component budgets must be submitted by the grantee, not by the delegate agency."
CAP Memo 64 - Repairs and Renovations of Space for Head Start. Thi| outlines conditions under which such work may be done, but specifies that "expenditures must be made within the current level of approved program...This means that no additional 0E0 grant funds will be provided above the grantee’s current level of approved program for the purpose of paying for capital costs of facilities." All proposed expenditures must be approved by the 0E0 Regional Office.
CAP Memo 65 - Anti-Riot Provisions. This implements an amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act which prohibits any "payments, assistance, or services" to any individual convicted of "inciting, promoting, or carrying on a riot" which results in damage to property or injury tp persons. Responsibility for enforcement is placed with the local grantee.
CAP Memo 66 - Policy Guidance on Lobbying. The memo provides that project funds may not be used for any activity planned and carried out to disrupt the orderly conduct of business by an legislative body; for any demonstration, rally, picketing or other form of action aimed at the family or home of a member of a legislative body for the purpose of' influencing his actions; for any campaign of advertising through commercial media for the purpose of influencing the passage or defeat of legislation; or for any campaign of letter writing, other mass communications or mass visits to individual members of Congress or state legislatures for the purpose of influencing the passage or defeat of legislation.
The memo does not "prohibit purely informational and educational activities involving target areas and groups;" nor is it intended to "limit the rights of individuals to express their personal views on. public issues so long as they do so in their capacity as private citizens" and not as employees.
-2-
MEMORANDUM (Continued)
2.
Application for 1968 NYC Project.
The application for the 1968 project (to be effective from January I to November I, 1968) has been submitted. It calls for an increase from 70 to 85 enrollees, as previously approved by the Board.
3.
Current NYC Out-of-SchooI Project.
The current NYC project became effective June 16. This is the first new contract signed since October, 1965. It provides for 40 hours per week for 70 enrollees. The project is funded through December 31.
4,
Legal Aid Project.
We have been informed (so far only verbally) that this project is funded for the remainder of this program year (to December 31). Apparently it was approved in essentially the form submitted. You may recall that the application was submitted in July of last year. It calls for the services of a full-time attorney to assist low-income persons. The project will' be operated by the Clark County Legal Aid Society, and will provide service in the Neighborhood Centers as well as the central office.
5.
Summer Projects.
Both summer projects are well underway. For the camping program we have received over 200 applications from children who qualify for the 120 camping slots. In the jobs-for-youth project we currently have 44 youth working and are placing additional young people each day. When fully operational this project will provide 50 jobs.
6.
Summer Head Start.
The Summer Head Start project is now in its fifth week of operation. A total of 350 children are enrolled in the 22 classes which are in operation. Twelve sites in Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Moapa Valley and unincorporated areas of the county are being used. The medical and dental support projects are well underway; each child will be examined by a doctor and a dentist and necessary treatment and medical or dental services will be provided. The medical and dental follow-up treatments will continue in some cases untiI December.
7.
Manpower.
As most of you know we received approval from the Regional Office on the salary and manpower experience for Mr. George Gant, who accepted appointment by Operation Independence. Mr. Gant will be on the job full-time as of July 31. This project should be fully operational by September I, if not earlier.
-3-
MEMORANDUM (Continued)
8.
Refunding Schedule for 1968.
It is again time to begin working on refunding applications for the 1968 program (calendar) year. We must have the completed applications into the Regional Office no later than October I. This means final approval must be granted by the Board at the September 27 meeting. We.hope to have work program descriptions available for distribution at the August 30 meeting, thus al lowing a month of study prior to the approval deadline. This will also permit Neighborhood Councils to study the proposals* .
9.
Enclosed Items.
Enclosed are up-dated copies of the following:
A.
List of Board Members and groups represented.
B.
Alphabetical listing of members, home and business phones, etc.
C.
List of officers and committee members.
D.
List of terms of office and incumbents in Board positions.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
642-0707
July 20, 1967
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: ACTION ITEMS FOR BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1967.
I.
Confirmation of Appointment of Summer Project Director.
We are fortunate to have been able to secure the services of Mr. James Anderson as Project Director for the summer programs. Mr. Anderson has been on the job since July 6 and is doing an excellent job of getting programs underway.
Our Personnel Policies and Practices require Board confirmation ofprof-essional staff appointments. Confirmation of this appointment is hereby requested.
2.
Supplemental Request for Day Care Centers.
At the time our request for funding for 1967 was made we did not have the complete HEAD START guidelines. As a result our Day Care Center program is not operating with the full staff recommended by 0E0. (For instance, we should have 8 Teacher’s Aides but are funded for only 4.) In addition the medical and dental programs need upgrading to meet the minimum 0E0 standards.
We are therefore requesting authorization to (I) prepare a supplemental request, based on the recommendations of the Regional Dental and Medical Consultants and after consultation with the delegate agency and County District Health Department; and (2) submit the request to the Regional Office without returning to the Board for specific approval. This would be for a supplemental grant for the period September I through December 31 of this year.
We also request permission to ask for a transfer from surplus funds (from either the Hot Lunch Program of the Manpower Program) in order to provide the additional funds required for the Day Care Project.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
642-0707
July 20, 1967
Members of the Board
ISAAC R. WHITE Chai rman
NOTICE OF MONTHLY BOARD MEETING
PLEASE
BE ADVISED
OF DIRECTORS WILL IN THE AUDITORIUM
THAT THE REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING OF THE BOARD BE HELD WEDNESDAY, JULY 26< 1967, 7:30 P.M., OF THE CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
THE AGENDA / f&J
ACTION ITEMS:
. SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
yt. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1967.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR JUNE, 1967.
^I< REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
/X REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF SUMMER PROJECT DIRECTOR.
/X AUTHORIZATION FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL r REQUEST FOR DAY CARE CENTERS.
y V—
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
REPORT ON E.S.E.A. AND IN-SCHOOL NYC PROJECTS (MR. MERZ).
9. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
New CAP Memos. *
NYC Application for 1968.-*^^^ ‘
Current NYC Project (June 16 - December 31).
Legal Aid P rog r am
Summer "Crash" Programs. 1
Summer Head Start.
Manpower Project.
Refunding for 1968 Projects.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
July 24, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices (932 West Owens Avenue) Las Vegas, Nev.
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Emory Lockette, Harvey Dondero, Daisy Miller, Dorothy King, Peggy Smith
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Doyle Longhurst, Sylvia Staples
There being a quorum present, Chairman Isaac White called the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board to order.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1967: The Chairman called for corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes as presented. There being none, Mr. Dondero moved that the minutes be approved. Motion seconded by Mr. Wilson and carried.
AGREEMENT ON CHECKS I GM ING PROCEDURES: The Chairman informed members that at a special meeting attended by new officers and outgoing officers of the Board, the procedure for checksigning had been established. He added that at the May Board Meeting, members had voted that the Executive Director be one of the signators on the checking account. Mr. Cottrell reviewed the checksigning procedure agreed upon by the officers; that the Executive Director would normally be one signator and the Treasurer would be the second. The other signatdrs on the account (the Chairman and Secretary) would be used as needed.
RECLASSI Fl CAT I GM OF NYC POSITION FROM COORDINATOR TO COUNSELOR COORDINATOR: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that originally all of the counseling for NYC enrol lees was to be done by the Opportunity Center. As it has worked out, this has not proven practical, as the Opportunity Center counselors cannot give two hours per week to each enrollee as required by NYC. NYC Coordinators have been doing counseling, and changed B.W.P. criteria now permits counseling by them.
The project which has been in effect since November 1965 was to have ended June 2 but was extended to June 16. The new project budget provides for a second Counselor-Coordinator. The present Coordinator is performing the same functions as the Counselor-Coordinator whose reclassification was effective last year and was provided for in a modification to last year's Contract. Though the present budget provides funds and approval for this position, it must first be approved by the Board.
Approval of NYC reclassifications have not been requested from the Board in the past because NYC personnel were not treated as if they were subject to EOB personnel policies; however, it is now necessary to bring NYC personnel in line with general policy. Mr. Cottrell advised that the salary for these positions had been set at a very low entry level, and that these persons are performing functions which require additional training above and beyond what is being required of Manpower Aides and Neighborhood Service Workers. He stated that this reclassification from Coordinator to Counselor-Coordinator would provide a slary commensurate with the duties this person is performing.
Mr. Lockette asked if there would be- any administrative problems if this reclassification were approved. Mr. Cottrell stated there would be none. Mr. Lockette moved that the Board approve the recommendation of the Neighborhood Youth Corps Di rector and that the matter be put on the board agenda requesting approval of the position of nYC Coordinator to be reclassified as Counselor-Coordinator. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
Mr. Lockette questioned whether there was conflict in personnel policies resulting because monies came from two federal departments — 0E0 and U.S. Department of Labor. He asked if NYC personnel are included in the review being made by the Personnel Committee?
Mr. Cottrell advised that NYC was being included in this study.
DAY CARL PROJECT FINANCES: Mr. Cottrell advised that the EOB had found it necessary to temporarily cut off funds from Operation Independence — basically for two reasons: (I) The person hired as bookkeeper was not capable of being a full-charge bookkeeper. As of one week ago the 1966 books had not been closed out and balanced properly; the year-end balances had not been carried over to the 1967 books and 01 did not know where they stood; (2) Operation Independence has not submitted a monthly reconciliation of accounts.
Mr. Cottrell stated that he had called this to Mrs. Johnson’s attention several times but finally reached a pbint where the grantee could not advance more money. He added that 01 was given enough money two weeks ago to meet payroll, but that as of last Friday, the agency still did not have their books up to date or their reconciliation prepared so they were again given the funds required to meet their payrolI. Mr. Cottrell advised that since this action was taken, Operation Independence has released their former bookkeeper and has arranged with the accounting firm of Flora Dungan to perform their bookkeeping services.
Mr. Cottrell stated that there will be a six month audit of Operation Independence as there will be of all components for the period, January I through June 30, 1967. He noted that the members of the 01 Executive Committee are aware of the situation and are interested in resolving the current problems.
Mr. Lockette stated that the accounting firm is engaged on a temporary basis. He said that it has been suggested that Operation Independence could justify hiring a CPA to handle Day Care and Manpower accounts. He said that it seems that such an arrangement would save money and problems. He asked if there was anything that would prevent Operation Independence from hiring a CPA to handle both accounts as he has been told that there might be resentment if a CPA was employed at a higher salary than that paid the Finance Officer of the EOB.
-2-
Mr. Cottrell advised that he did not know that this was an issue but that the major concern was whether one person could handle the two sets of books. He added that a good full-charge bookkeeper should be able to do this if it were possible for an individual to physically take care of both projects. He stated that there is justification for two full-time bookkeepers; however, if one could do both projects, there would not be any objection.
Mr. Lockette said that he did think that the EOB office and Board should take steps to see that the individual is qualified to fill the job. He noted that there would be a maximum of 60 people employed in the Manpower Program and 30 in the Day Care Program (correction was made by the Executive Director that there would be 60 employees between the two projects). Mr. Lockette stated that this is a very important position and this Board should take necessary steps to see that Operation Independence gets a qualified person to handle the books.
Mr. Cottrell stated that the position the grantee is constantly in is that it is the CAA's responsibi lity to see that the delegate has a qualified bookkeeper and proper accounting of funds; and on the other hand, the delegate agency is an autonomous corporation, and they feel it is their prerogative to correct these situations themselves.
Their Board does want to correct the problem, but it is the feeling of the members that it is their problem, their employees, and they would like to take care of it. The EOB staff is continually in the position of wanting to help but cannot dictate to 01 on who to hire. The grantee must take care of its responsibi lity and at the same time let 01 handle its own internal affairs and problems.
Mr. Wilson asked if there weren't certain qualifications for a position. Mr. Cottrell stated that there were; but 0E0 philosophy is that there be no discrimination against people who have not had job opportunities in the past, therefore, there is prohibition from specifying educational requi rements.
Mrs. Miller asked when the Agency could start to work on Ol's books, and would their money be tied up until that time? Mr. Cottrell stated that it would, though they have a certain amount of cash on hand and are not operating at a deficit.
Mr. White stated that he would like to see this committee go on record as advising Operation Independence that the agency will have to come up to standards or the grantee wiII have to dictate to them as to people they hire so that their books are kept in order. He added that there is a job to do, and Operation Independence is not doing it as far as their books are concerned.
Mrs. Smith stated that the job of Bookkeeper is a rather flexible one, and since we are not using people who come up to strenuous qualifications, it should be requested that the person have some sort of training. She added that she would hate to see us lay the law down on any part of the program that is to be flexible.
-3-
Mr. White noted that it is not helping 01 by having their funds cut off, and that the grantee must go by guidelines set by Federal 0E0 and if there is money appropriated, a qualified person should be employed.
Mr. Cottrell stated that the grantee has been in a position of conflict in that it has audited programs, and on the other hand should be helping and advising those being audited. He explained that the grantee no longer performs audits of delegate agencies and, hopefully, will be able to give additional help and advice. The problem again is that if EOB does assist or advise, when things go wrong the blame is often laid with the EOB.
As an example, Mr. Cottrell advised that regarding the employment of the last 01 Bookkeeper, the EOB Finance Officer had interviewed this one person. She had some reservations she did express, however, the person was selected by the Executive Director of Operation Independence. He added that the EOB Finance Officer did spend quite a bit of time with the bookkeeper, but she simply did not have enough background to do the work requi red.
Mrs. Smith stated that it doesn’t seem necessary to get as qualified.a person as you would in the business world. Mr. Cottrell explained that this may have been true in the beginning but now 0E0 insists on proper accounting, and there are much stricter auditing requirements. He noted that when an audit is made now, it wiI I go directly to San Francisco Regional 0E0. He said that it is not in Ol’s interest that these financial problems continue; and that there has been indication from Regional 0E0 that a special condition might be attached requiring that bookkeeping be done by the grantee. He added that the EOB does not want to do this.
Following this discussion, Mr. Lockette moved that when Operation Independence books are returned from the accountant, the grantee organization review them for corrections and report to the Executive Committee, in addition, that the grantee give a report as to the qualifications of Ol's new bookkeeper pertinent to keeping the books straight in the future. Seconded by Mrs. Mi Iler, motion carried.
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DAY CARE FUNDS TO BRING THE PROGRAM UP TO 0E0 GUIDELINES: Mr. Cottrell advised that at the time the budget was submitted last September for the year-round day care program, the new medical and dental guidelines had not been published. Consequently, this portion of the budget is inadequate in terms of providing enough money for the services which 0E0 requires under Head Start criteria. In addition 0E0 cut out certain items necessary because of lack of understanding of what was involved; eg. a budget for laundry was deleted; however, each child has a sheet that must be laundered everyday. Insurance is required by 0E0, yet this was deleted.
-4-
Mr. Cottrell stated that all these items snoula be put into one request for a supplemental budget, which would probably be in the neighborhood of $25,000, to be transferred from other programs where money would be available; in this instance, the Manpower Program because it will not be in operation until August although it has been funded since January I. The supplemental request would be for the period September through December, and next year these items would be included in the regular budget. Mr. Cottrell added that 0E0 also specifies that the Head Start program should have an aide for every teacher which will make it necessary to ask for four additional aides in order to meet 0E0 standards.
Mr. Lockette stated that though he realized there was not an actual breakdown, he would like to know the approximate amount that is going to 01 and that is going to other agencies. Mr. Cottrell reviewed these amounts.
Mr. Dondero asked if it was wise to give 01 additional funds before the bookkeeping is straightened out. Mr. Cottrell advised that by the time this budget is approved by 0E0, the bookkeeping situation should be corrected.
Mr. Lockette stated that this supplemental request would enhance the day care centers, and the Executive Committee should take action so that the paperwork can get started.
Mrs. Smith asked if the funds, when approved, could be frozen in the element of expense for which they are budgeted. Mr. Cottrell stated that this is standard procedure and shows up in the monthly financial report. There is only a certain amount of flexibility; however, the contract spells out exactly what can be spent.
Mrs. Smith asked if there has been any actual mi sappropriation of funds from the Day Care Project. Mr. CottrelI said that there is no evidence that there has been.
Mr. Lockette stated that he could not agree with penalizing kids at the expense of Operation Independence when this Board has a responsibility to see to it that 01 gets in line. If the Board does not approve this supplement, he said, the kids are being penalized.
Following brief discussion on paperwork and the amount of time before approval would be received, Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the Day Care Supplemental Budget be approved for submission to 0E0. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
ROLE OF EOB AND OTHERS IN EVENT OF CIVIL STRIFE: Mr. Cottrell asked that the E0b staff be authorized to attend meetings to discuss what role the EOB might play in the event of civil strife.
Mrs. Smith stated that she felt the best thing the EOB could do was to make continuous efforts to keep destitute people involved not only in the financial gains but in the part of the poverty program where they can let off a little steam. She noted that one of the problems in the community has been that the rapport has been lost with the hard-core poor.
The Chairman stated that this is a problem which each Board Member should give serious thought to and bring suggestions back to the Board.
-5-
Mr. Cottrell asked the Committe if they would have any objection if he were to attend a meeting of the Human Relations Commission to determine what they may be doing or planning to do.
Mr. Lockette stated that he felt the Executive Director should, at his own discretion, attend any meetings pertinent to this item. He noted that he agrees with Mrs. Smith that with informed people you do not have civil strife, and he would like to see more preventive measures pursued rather than any action on drawing up guidelines on what to do after a riot has started. Mr. Lockette stated that he realized that it is not easy to attend meetings after an 8-hour day but even if it is necessary to financially compensate a person, there should be speeches made to improve communication in an effort to eliminate civil strife by keeping people informed.
The Chairman asked that Mr. Cottrell report on the Human Relations Commission meeting at the next Executive Committee Meeting. Mrs. Miller asked if it would be possible to organize a large annual meeting to really explain this program to people, as there are many people who just do not know what is happening. Mr. Cottrell advised that informing people is part of the function of the Neighborhood Councils.
Mrs. Smith stated that the trouble with Neighborhood Councils is that when a Council has become established, interest falls because the job which was available during the organizational period has been filled. She said that after the worker has been put on the payroll, he no longer tries to reach the people, and there is no longer interest or knowledge. Mrs. Smith noted that she would like to see every home have some information as to what part they can play.
Mr. Lockette stated that in view of discussion on Neighborhood Councils, he would suggest that Mr. McDaniel, the Project Director, be given time on next month's agenda to bring the Executive Committee up to date at the next meeting regarding activities of the Councils.
Mr. Hoggard noted that there is an upcoming joint meeting of all Neighborhood Councils. Also, he advised that Neighborhood Service Workers have been asked to bring in any suggestions in line with refunding to make programs more effective.
Mrs. Miller questioned the status of the VISTA project. Mr. Cottrell advised that the project request has been submitted; however, 0E0 is requesting supplemental information.
CAP MEMOS: Mr. CottrelI advised that brief resumes of the recent CAP Memos have been sent to Board Members to apprize them of the information contained in the memos. He further noted that a telegram had been received this morning from Sargent Shriver reminding CAAs that anyone found guilty of engaging in riot activities cannot be funded by 0E0.
-6-
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mr. Cottrell at this point advised Board Members that the EOB has, by a telephone call from Regional 0E0, just been authorized to purchase roofing material for the 01 Day Care Center. There was brief discussion on money available and the cost of the items needed for the Day Care Centers.
Mr. Cottrell discussed the fact that next year OEO-funded programs must be matched with 20% contribution from the community. The Chairman stated that it is very important that we let the community know that they will be expected to participate and the way to do it seems to be through the news media. He noted that it is up to Board Members to help see that people are aware of this.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the State Technical Assistance Office plans a statewide publication, and he noted that this could be a real help. The EOB also hoped to get our more information, particularly to city counci I men, commissioners, assemblymen, board members, etc. Mr. Cottrell said that a weekly news column would be helpful.
Mr. Lockette stated that the EOB is going to have to face reality about the 20% local share; that this is a county board but we need to set up some communication to the county commissioners and to the city councils as to what the needs are going to be. He said that the EOB cannot wait until the 20% is needed. Mr. Lockette noted that the federal government is putting money into the community; however, the state and county has a certain say and this gives them a certain responsibility. He stated that we simply have to get their help in supporting these programs.
SUMMER PROJECTS: Mr. Hoggard reported that the 1967 Summer Crash Programs are in operation; that the Project Director and two of the Supervisors have been hired; 30 young people and 16 camp aides have been employed. He further advised that the program to send youngsters to camp has had 230 qualified applicants; physicals are being obtained; equipment has been purchased where necessary; personal items for the campers have been arranged for through the Service League, etc. He noted that Neighborhood Service Workers have been active in helping in the camping program. He said that the Girl Scouts are planning to take an additional 20 to 30 girls at no cost to 0E0.
Mr. Lockette stated that he was very glad to hear the nice report, but feels that Boulder City is not getting their proper share. Mr. Hoggard said that if there is someone who is qualified from Boulder City, the staff will be glad to check it out.
BREAK-IN AND ATTEMPTED THEFT IN OFFICES: Mr. Cottrell reported that during the night of July 12 someone had broken into the offices through the-roof where a ventilator had previously been situated. He stated that the petty cash was stolen along with duplicate keys, so all the locks have been changed; the postage stamps also were gone. Mr. CottrelI advised that the very next day, there was another attempted theft; however, the boys were scared off and did not get away with anything. He reported that the EOB is covered by insurance, and a rider had just been taken out on the manpower equipment. The insurance adjustor has stated that he thought everything would be covered, and would probably total around $125. Mr. Cottrell advised that the landlord has taken care of roofing over the ventilator through which the break-in occurred.
-7-
GRIEVANCE OF JO MACKEY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: The Chairman stated that he had just received a letter from the Chairman of the Jo Mackey Council requesting that travel due the Neighborhood Service Worker be paid to her. Mr. White further advised that he had reviewed the daily log and the travel statements of this worker, and the two do not coincide. He said that this worker evidently has made a mistake though she seems to think she should be reimbursed for her mileage as presented on the travel expense forms. The Chairman noted that his contention is that no funds should be released until the mi leage has been corrected, and further cited two situations on the travel sheet which do not seem to be allowable.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the travel expenses of this worker have been a matter of concern over two or three months; that appointments have been made to go out to clock the mileage she claims but the worker has not kept the appointments.
Following further brief discussion and Mr. Lockette's statement that this situation be handled by having fixed mileage established for routes traveled often, the Chairman directed that the matter be handled by the administrative staff.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Executive Director
WFC:sds
-8-
I
ECONOMIC OPPOPTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Ower Las Vegas, Nevada
July 27, 1967
TO: MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE, CHAIRMAN
NOTICE OF MEETING
Vje were not able to obtain a quorum for the meeting scheduled for July 26 — only II Trustees had arrived by 8:30, although 16 had said they would be present. We need at least 16 to have a quorum.
There are three items which cannot be postponed until the regular August meeting. Therefore, under provisions of Article VII, Section 2, I am calling a meeting for
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT. AUDITORIUM
PLEASE NOTE THE CHANGE OF TIME. WE HOPE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER PROMPTLY AT 8:00 P.M. PLEASE ARRIVE ON TIME SO THAT WE MAY COMPLETE OUR BUSINESS AND ADJOURN AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE;
THE SAME AGENDA AS MAILED TO YOU FOR THE REGULAR JULY MEETING WILL BE FOLLOWED. PLEASE BRING YOUR MATERIAL WITH YOU.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
August 2, 1967 Clark County District Health Auditorium
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), William Merz, Douglass Pushard, Emory Lockette, Stella Fleming, Harvey Dondero, Charles Spann, Angel Nieto, Ted Lawson, Joe Braswell, George Keyes, Nancy Williams, Woodrow Wilson, Rev. Newton Tigner, Charles Jones, Charlotte Hill, Thomas Wilson, Daisy Miller, Ferren Bunker, Peggy Smith, Altoine Crochette, Dr. Paul Marshall, Don Dawson, Father Charles Shallow, Rev. Donald Clark, Rev. Melvin Pekrul
Guests: Lee Adler, Antonio Flores, Sarah Ray, Leo A. Johnson Evelyn Evans, Faye Mullen, Obera Turmon, Hazel Geran, Faye Todd, Charlene Thrower, Owen Nitz, Lucille Gee, Sam lacovetto, Letha Mobley Evelyn Coleman, Mary V. Smith, Rev. D.M. Clark, James Anderson, George Gant, Mrs. Lubertha Johnson, Robert Granert, Gerry Stephens
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, L. Lamar McDaniel, Sylvia Staples, Evelyn H. Mauldin
The Chairman advised that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order, noting that the meeting was being held because of cancellation of the July 26 meeting due to lack of a quorum.
PRESENTATION OF GAVEL TO PAST CHAIRMAN, CHARLES W. SPANN: Chairman Isaac White presented a gavel to the past Chairman, Charles W. Spann, from members of the Board in appreciation of Mr. Spann's services as Chairman during the year 1966-67. Mr. Spann thanked the members and congratulated the new Chai rman.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: Mr. Don Dawson was seated as a member of the Board representing the Board of Clark County Commissioners. Dr. Paul Marshall of Henderson was seated representing Mayor W. R. Hampton.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1967: The Chairman called for corrections, additions, or deletions. There being none, Mr. Dondero moved and Mr. Merz seconded that the minutes be adopted as presented. (Motion carried.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR JUNE, 1967: The Executive Director briefly reviewed the contents of the financial statements for June. He advised that for the OEO-funded projects, the expenditures represent 50% of the program year. There being no questions from members, Mr. Spann moved that the financial statements be adopted as presented. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman advised that the Executive Committee had met and as a result of its discussions recommend as follows: (1) that the Board approve the recommendation of the NYC Director to reclassify the position of NYC Coordinator to Counselor- Coordinator; (2) that the Board approve the preparation of a supplemental budget request for the Day Care Centers to bring the program up to 0E0 guide Iines.
Mr. Lawson moved that the Board adopt the two recommendations of the Executive Committee. Seconded by Mr. Braswell, motion carried.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE. The Chairman advised that the Personnel Committee has met and has submitted a partial report which has been distributed to members. He further stated that because all members had not received the report prior to tonight's meeting, action of the Board will not be requested until the August meeting.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF SUMMER PROJECT DIRECTOR: Mr. White advised that Mr. James has been appointed to the position of Director for the two summer crash programs; and that according to the EOB By-Laws, this appointment must be confirmed by the Board. Confirmation was so moved by Mr. Lawson and seconded by Mr. Jones. Motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DAY CARE CENTERS: Mr. Cottrell stated that the action necessary for this authorization has already been taken by the Board by its adoption of the recommendations made by the Executive Committee. He did, however, review the subject, advising that when the project was submitted in October, 1966, guidelines were not available for the medical and dental components of the day care program and therefore the budget is inadequate. The submission of a supplemental budget will bring the program up to guidelines, will permit upgrading of teacher's salaries commensurate with salaries paid by the School District, and will permit addition of teachers aides positions as per 0E0 specifications.
REPORT ON ESEA AND IN-SCHOOL NYC PROJECTS: Mr. Bill Merz reported that under the provisions of Title I, ESEA, four programs are being offered by the Clark County School District to provide compensatory education to treat various problems of culturally disadvantaged children. These programs are (1) Remedial Reading Development Program; (2) Bi-Lingual Language Development Program for Spanish Speaking Students; (3) Junior High School Enrichment Program; (4) Remedial Program for Migrant Students. Mr. Merz briefly discussed the scope of these projects, summaries of which were also distributed to members. He noted that the School District had hoped to expand beyond those listed, but because Congress had not passed hoped-for legislation funds are available only for these four programs.
He also reviewed the funding which had been available the previous year, notinq that the summer programs which had been added to this year's grant are either just now being completed or wiI I be completed within the next few weeks.
Mr. Merz advised that the in-school NYC program was authorized 70 additional slots for the summer to work not only in on-campus jobs but in municipalities, state offices and public agencies. He added that the program is going quite well; counseling services and medical examinations have been added, and that staff is attempting to insure that the youngsters who are ready to attend col lege in the fa I I are put in contact with the work-study program. NYC enrollees are also being encouraged to enroll in Southern Nevada Vocational Technical School.
-2-
Mr. Lockette asked for a report at the next board meeting as to the breakdown of the four programs included in the local allocation of $353,000, noting that he was concerned with the relationship of dollar per pupil being spent in this program and that being spent in Head Start programs. He stated that these figures could further be used for comparison of spending for personnel under the Manpower Program. Mr. Merz said he would be happy to supply the figures.
Following further brief discussion, it was moved by Mr. Braswell and seconded by Mr. Jones that the Executive Director be authorized to sign the checkpoint forms on the Title I ESEA programs. Motion carried.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
New CAP Memos: Mr. Cottrell advised that in the material sent to Board Members he has summarized the contents of the new CAP Memos, noting that all of these guidelines point to further tightening up of administrative requirements on the part of the federal government. There are specific requirements to indicate that an agency is financially responsible — considerably more stringent than previously. He noted that it is indicative of further improvements in 0E0 programs.
Mr. Cottrell stated there is now a congressional requirement that 0E0 fund programs with 20^ non-Federal share, which means this CAA will probably need in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000 more in local share for the 1968 program year. Most of the present local share is now in the form of space, equipment, etc. rather than in cash.
NYC Project: The Executive Director advised that the NYC program application has been submitted for 1968; that the current project was effective June 16 and runs through the end of 1967. The 1968 program will be effective January 1 through November 1, and will call for 85 enrollees.
Legal Aid Program: Mr. Cottrell stated that the approval of grant has been received from the Regional Office, and has been referred to Mr. Owen Nitz President of the Legal Aid Society. Mr. Cottrell reviewed briefly the contents of the grant: funding for a full-time staff attorney, a full- time legal secretary, to provide legal services to low income people in the community; supportive services in terms of supplies, equipment, etc. He noted that the work program provides essentially what was requested last year in the submittal, though including several changes and special conditions imposed by 0E0. One major change provides for a general advisory council consisting of two representatives from each Neighborhood Council. He called upon Mr. Nitz to discuss the program insofar as the Legal Aid Society was concerned.
Mr. Nitz advised that he had met with members of the Legal Aid Society. Reviewing the background, he explained that the Legal Aid Society h s been in existence sine 1959 or 1960 and has been entirely funded by United Fund. It is still supported by United Fund and will continue to be. The Services have been entirely on a volunteer basis by members of the Bar.
-3-
He noted that after application was filed for 0E0 funds, it seemed that approval would not be received; thus at the beginning of this year, the Board of Trustees decided to try and expand the services themselves. A plan for this was submitted to United Fund to pay for a half-time attorney, and United Fund had approved this request just prior to receiving the 0E0 grant. Since the full time attorney has been funded by 0E0, Mr. Nitz advised, United Fund has withdrawn funding to pay the half-time attorney.
He noted that the terms of the grant from 0E0 are reasonable and will give the opportunity to reach into the areas where help is really required. Mr. Nitz said he feels a need does exist for education wherein perhaps the staff attorney could conduct short seminars and give basic information to residents.
In answer to a question from Mrs. Hill as to who will hire the staff attorney, Mr. Cottrell answered that he will be hired by the delegate agency.
Mr. Lockette asked the amount of grant for this program, which Mr. Cottrell reviewed, stating that though the program was submitted for a one-year period, because the EOB is now on a program year the project was funded for six months through December 31. The funding for six months is $9,557 federal share and $1,888 non-Federal share, for a total grant of $11,445.
There was further Board discussion on the educational aspects of the program and the prevention of litigation.
Following explanation by Mr. Nitz of the advantage to the program of being able to obtain an attorney who is experienced, he requested that the Board ask for a modification of the program in that the attorney employed be able to have a minimal private practice. Mr. Wilson moved that the modification be requested from 0E0. Seconded by Mr. Tigner, motion carried.
It was moved by Mr. Merz and seconded by Mr. Bunker that the Board accept the Legal Aid grant and authorize the Executive Di rector to sign the approval of grant. Motion carried.
Mr. Keyes expressed concern because items listed as informational on the agenda were becoming action items, and he recommended that when discussion goes to action items that are still listed under information, the Chair clarify the situation as it may not be legally within the Board’s power to take action on some items.
In answer to a question as to whether the Legal Aid Project specifies specific hours to be spent by the attorney in the target areas, Mr. Cottrell advised the project outlines that a minimum of 32 hours per month be spent in the Westside; 16 hours per month in Henderson.
Summer Crash Programs: Mr. Cottrell commended the Project Director, Mr. Jim Anderson, for getting the programs under way and the jobs filled in a short time. He advised that many more applications for summer camping were received than could be handled, though the Girl Scouts have offered to take an additional 30 girls without cost to the 0E0 grant. The Summer Jobs for Youth Program will be engaged in installing a new roof and upgrading the plumbing facilities at the Day Care Center No. 1, among other projects.
Mr. Keyes stated that he would like to see that some sort of certificates of appreciation be adopted by the Board to be rendered to individuals or organizations deserving of such.
In connection, Jim Anderson advised that the YMCA, Boys Club, and Boy Scouts have considerably amended their program to make it possible for the low-income youngsters to go into their camping programs at a very late date. He said that the children who have already attended have expressed themselves regarding the camping session as someone who might have gone to Europe.
Mr. CottrelI said that a vote of appreciation should be given to Board Members, Mrs. Charlotte Hill, who spent quite a lot of time developing the organizational aspects of the camping program, and to Mr. Hoggard for getting it off the ground.
Mr. Spann moved that a certificate of appreciation be developed suitable for framing to be given to both individuals and organizations who contribute withoug pay to the benefit of anti-poverty programs. Seconded by Rev. Tigner. Mr. Lockette asked that Mr. Spann amend his motion to include a letter of commendation to be extended to fit the appropriate case as the Executive Director sees fit.
The amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. On the vote, motion carried.
Mr. Anderson noted that the Board should also be aware of the cooperation of the Neighborhood Service Workers in getting the summer programs operati ng.
Manpower Program: The Chairman advised that a Manpower Director, Mr. George Gant, has been employed by Operation Independence. He introduced Mr. Gant to the Board.
Summer Hoad Start Program: The Executive Di rector stated that the EOB staff has had a very good working relationship with the delegate agency (the Clark County School District). The program has had assistance from Regional Office technical people. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Summer Head Start classes will be ending August 11.
Operation Independence Thrift Shop: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that the Operation Independence Thrift Shop has been managed by Mrs. Kincherlow who serves as instructor for NYC and Title V trainees who are taught seamstress work. Mrs. Kincherlow has been funded by NYC; however, Regional NYC has now indicated they can no longer fund this position. He noted that many people are interested in seeing this operation continue as it has been one of the most successful of the grass roots program in the Westside. Mr. Cottrell advised that one of the suggestions has been
to consider an amendment to the Manpower Program to see if the position could be funded under Manpower. He noted that it is now being partly funded by Title V.
Mr. Keyes said that we are looking at a program that is going to be dropped, and he requested the dates so that action can be taken if needed.
Mr. Cottrell stated that NYC is paying Mrs. Kincherlow’s salary through next Friday; then Operation Independence funds will pay the salary through most of September and what happens after that depends on what 01 requests of EOB or any other agency to carry on the program.
The Chairman recommended that this information be submitted to the 01 Board.
Mr. Lockette asked if this means that NYC is going to cut off the funding for the position but still continue to use the person to train NYC enrol lees.
Mr. Cottrell explained that NYC does not usually fund such a position; that supervisory time for the NYC enrollees is always donated by the agency to which the enrollee is assigned. He also advised that the only thing that has been funded is Mrs. Kincherlow’s salary; that the building is rent-free and the utilities are paid through the sales made by the Thri ft Shop.
Mr. Lockette asked why the program couldn’t be written up as an independent program with funding requested from 0E0. Mr. Cottrell said that it possibly could be if we were not in the situation of Clark County being far beyond its guideline share in allocated funds.
Mrs. Smith recommended that the information concerning the thrift shop be forwarded to Mr. Gant so that he might utilize it in his manpower project if he so wishes. The Chairman advised that the difficulty in this would be that function performed by the Thrift Shop was not incorporated in the original project which means that an amendment would be necessary to fund the position. In discussing training provided under the Manpower Project, Mr. Cottrell advised that the program as funded does not provide for any direct training except for the manpower staff itself; that the program utilizes existing training programs operated by many other agencies.
Mr. Braswell moved that, in the event Operation Independence sees fit to request an amendment to an existing project for which they are a delegate agency to include funding of the Thrift Shop, this Board go on record as having approved such action and authorize the Executive Director to take necessary action on the request. Motion seconded by Charles Jones.
Mr. Lockette stated that the Board is setting a serious precedent in taking action on information items, noting that this is not good procedure and this Board should not set such a precedent.
The Chairman stated that he generally would agree; however, this is a pressing matter, and it would seem to be in order to submit it to the Board tonight, rather than postpone action for a month until the next regular meeting. Mr. Wilson said this is like signing a blank check as the Board does not know what Operation Independence will request.
-6-
In answer to a question, Mr. Cottrell advised that if this were held over to the next Board Meeting he did not think it would work any hardship unless Operation Indeepndence did not have enough money to carry the position through September.
Mrs. Johnson was asked to discuss the situation. She stated that this matter has been discussed thoroughly with the EOB Director for some time. According to the "Clampitt Report", a study of state technical assistance, the thrift shop program was one of the best programs under 0E0. Mrs. Johnson stated that the project benefits people outside of 01 a great deal more than it benefits anyone in 01. She noted that 01 has some commitments but they are not enough to cover a salary, and it would mean going out and trying to raise funds. Mrs. Johnson said that it seems this program belongs in Manpower. She also noted that the first NYC project was written by Operation Independence and under this program, 01 was guaranteed supervisory help.
Mr. Keyes noted that it looks like we are about to lose one of the "bright stars" and he suggested that the problem be given to the Project Director to look into for development of the program for support by either Manpower or another program and that findings be reported back to the Board at its next meeting and action taken at that time. He said that this would give all proposals a chance to be looked into.
The question was called for on the motion made by Mr. Braswell. On the vote, motion carried.
Mr. Lockette stated that Mr. Cottrell had said this program could not be written up by the EOB office without Operation Independence recommending this. Mr. Cottrell said that he had not made this statement. Mr. Lockette continued, stating that the EOB has responsibility to write any program that they see as advantageous to the community and he could not see why this Board cannot write a proposal for this and make the program self- sufficient. He noted that he did not see why the community should continue to support it, and he would suggest that the EOB look into this and see if a program can be worked up that would be acceptable to 0E0 for funding.
i Mr. Merz noted that this is what the motion is proposing, but it also
intends to allow Operation Independence to ask for such an amendment.
SEATING OF TWO BOARD MEMBERS: Rev. Donald Clark, representing Operation Independence was seated as a Board Member. Mr. A Itoi ne Crochette, representing the
[ Henderson Neighborhood Council, was seated as a Board Member.
TITLE V: Mr. Braswell advised that the Board was given a resume at the March Board Meeting of the renewal request for the Title V Program in Clark County. Since that time congressional action has been taken which sent into effect July 1, and it is now necessary that not only HEW and State Welfare approve such projects but the Department of Labor must also be involved.
He said that the application had asked for an increase from 300 authorized slots to 480, but this is now out, and it will be fortunate if the program 1 funds 280 trainees, noting also that programs thoughout the country are
being reduced.
-7-
Mr. Braswell reported that the current caseload is 269 participants, of which there are 150 males and 119 females. Requirements state that 60 slots must be maintained for those receiving public assistance; and presently there are four openings in this category with 28 pending applicants. In the remaining slots there are 26 openings with 71 pending applications.
Mr. Braswell said that the project has been extended for two months; and by October, following the joint evaluation by the Department of Labor and HEW, there should be a determination as to what will be done for the next year.
NEVADA CATHOLIC WELFARE BUREAU: The Chairman instructed the Secretary to read a letter that had been hand delivered this evening from the Nevada Catholic Welfare Bureu, advising that the agency "has no other alternative at this time but to decline as delegate agency for the Manpower Project." Mr. White advised Board Members that this means the Board is now in the position of having the two Manpower Outreach Stations in Henderson and North Las Vegas without a delegate agency. Mr. Cottrell noted that this letter was received this evening so no one has had a chance to consider alternative methods of handling the situation.
Mr. Spann stated that the simplest course of action would be to extend all of the Manpower Project to the already existing delegate agency, Operation Independence.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Spann moved that as a result of Nevada Catholic Welfare withdrawing responsibility of the two outreach stations, the EOB recommend to the Regional 0E0 that Operation Independence take over the five outreach stations. Seconded by Mr. Bunker. In discussion Mr. Keyes stated that the Board does not want to railroad, and before action is taken everyone should know what is going on. He asked if there might not be other agencies interested in the project. The question was called for. On the vote, motion carried.
Reverend Clark, Chairman of Operation Independence stated that the Agency would accept the program.
OTHER: Mr. Lockette suggested that the Chairman appoint a committee to meet
officially with the County Commissioners and City Councils to point out what the Board will be faced with next year in regard to the 20^ local share of cost of programs.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
August 24, 1967
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
Execut i ve Di rector
RE: AGENDA ITEMS FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 1967
I,
Election of a Member to the Executive Committee.
You will recall that at the annual meeting in June there were three vacancies on the Executive Committee to be filled. The By-Laws provide that the chairmen of standing committees are automatically members of the Executive Committee. Therefore, one place was left for the Chairman of the Nominating Committee, and two other persons were selected for the Executive Committee.
At a recent meeting of the Nominating Committee Mr. Ted Lawson was re-elected Chairman. However, Mr. Lawson is already a member of the Executive Committee (in his capacity as Secretary of the Board). Therefore the Board should select a member to serve as a member of the Executive Committee. There are no restrictions on this selection, inasmuch as all other standing committee chairmen are now members and at least one-third of the membership is from representatives of low-income persons.
2.
Report of the Personnel Committee.
Enclosed is the final report of the Personnel Committee. This includes (I) the report with recommendations; (2) a chart showing proposed allocation of jobs to salary ranges; (3) a list of jobs for each component with present salaries and proposed salary ranges; (4) the proposed salary schedule; and (5) a memo from the Executive Director to the Personnel Committee dated May 15 in which a number of recommendations were made for revisions to the Personnel Policies and Practices.
We will need to have action approving this report (with any modifications the Board may feel desirable) at the August 30 meeting. This is necessary in order to prepare the detailed budgets to submit to the Board for approval at the September 27 meeting, which in turn is necessary to meet the October I deadline for refunding with the Regional Office.
3.
Work Program Descriptions.
We hope to have five work program descriptions for 1968 projects to send with the Board Meeting material: (I) Conduct and Administration, (2) Neighborhood Councils, (3) Manpower, (4) Day Care Centers, and (5) Legal Aid Project. We are not asking for refunding of the 0E0 support component for NYC, inasmuch as the Bureau of Work Programs is now funding supportive services (medical, educational, etc.) for NYC enrollees directly.
Page 2
These five components constitute the "package" for which we must seek refunding by October I. Other on-going projects (such as Migrant, Summer Head Start, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and VISTA are not due for resubmission at this time). The School District is currently making application for the NYC in-school project, as authorized by recent board action.
While final approval is not necessary at this time we would like an expression of approval in general, in order that we may complete the application package for refunding to submit to the Board at the regular September meeting.
Requests from the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council.
We have received the following list of suggested programs from this Council. (Some of these appear to be requests which could be met from
an existing program, as indicated.
Project
Placement and Skill bureau
Small Job Placement Bureau
Aptitude Testing of Adults
Self-Help Goodwi11 Industry
After-School Study Group
Weekly Newsletter
Rent Committee (to gather information on rentals which are avaiI able)
Clean-up Committee
Annual Cost Could be Served by:
$5,200 Manpower Project;
Opportunity Center.
5,200 Same as above.
5,200 Employment Service;
Opportunity Center; School District.
None Would work with Catholic Welfare and Salvation Army
None Would work with Title V, MOTA, OJT, etc.
1,200
None
900
Beautify Neighborhood Council Building 1,200
Form an Orchestra 16,400
Form a Drama Group 41,152
Provide a Hot Lunch Program in 36,660
all Schools in Poverty Areas
Expand to 10 Councils; add 2 workers 73,200 to each Council; hire an additional
Project Director
Provide Day Care for 24 Children
59,000
Page 3
In a separate request the North Las Vegas Council has asked the assistance of the EOB in obtaining meeting space in the Washington School, in order that Council meetings may be held within the target area.
5. Letter from Legal Aid Regarding Salary.
We have received a reply from the Legal Aid Office (Regional) rejecting the request that the staff attorney be allowed a minimal outside practice (see attached copy of letter). At the same time a recommendation is made to increase the salary from $12,600 to $14,000. This has been referred to the Legal Aid Society for their consideration, and concurrently we are referring it to the Board. We need to resolve the matter in order that the Society can make a selection for the position and get the program off the ground.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
642-0707
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF AUGUST EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Please be advised that the meeting of the Executive Committee will be held:
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1967
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
AGENDA t/f. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 24.
AUDIT REPORT FOR DAY CARE CENTERS - OPERATION INDEPENDENCE.
DISCUSSION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT FOR 1968. ^/RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE.
v/5. DISCUSSION OF "LOCAL SHARE" AS PROVIDED BY COUNTY AND FOUR CITIES.
|/6. REQUESTS FROM NORTH LAS VEGAS COUNCIL:
/v Thirteen (13) Projects — suggestions.
vB. Request for space in Washington School.
\£. Request for Day Care Program.
ROLE OF EOB STAFF IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.
V8. REPORT ON CONTACTS WITH HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AND OTHER AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH PREVENTING CIVIL STRIFE.
MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
August 28, 1967 EOB Offices (932 West Owens)
3:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), Ted Lawson, Charles Spann, Daisy Miller, Thomas Wilson, Sr., Daisy Miller, Peggy Smith, Dorothy King, Harvey Dondero.
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, LaMar McDaniel, Sylvia Staples
DISCUSSION PRIOR TO AGENDA ITEMS: The Chairman congratulated Mr. Cottrell on being selected "Boss of the Year" by the Mojave Rose Chapter of the American Business and Professional Women's Club.
Newspaper Pub Iicity: The Chairman advised that he wished to discuss several news articles which had appeared in the Review Journal Thursday August 24 and Friday August 25. He stated that the Minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting held July 24 had been mailed only to Executive Committee members on Tuesday, August 22, and it was Board policy that information not be released to the Press until it has been made official and approved by the Board. He noted that the reporter from the Review Journal himself had obtained a copy of the minutes from which he obtained the information on withholding of Day Care funds from Operation Independence pending straightening out of their bookkeeping situation.
Mr. White stated that this Board is here to do a job and each member should be sincere in doing this job. He noted that the programs are attempting to build a better community and help the people for whom they are designed, adding that doing this type of thing does not help. He said that he could not point a finger at anyone as he did not know who released the information; and that the Board is not trying to hide anything and would like to have a good relationship with the Press. Mr. White stated that if the person who did give this information to the Press before official approval of the Minutes was in fact a member of the Committee, he would certainly hope that in the future that person would refrain from this type of thing. He added that if a Board Member disagree with policies set by the Board, he should take it up with the Board or the Executive Committee, he should take it up with the Board or the Executive Committee, and that all members of the Committee should uphold the decisions made by the majority.
There was discussion on the situation. Mr. Cottrell advised that he was disturbed about quotations allegedly made by Mrs. Johnson when contacted by the newspaper reporter. Mrs. Peggy Smith noted that she had heard part of the conversation between the reporter and Mrs. Johnson and several statements in the news article were taken completely out of context of the conversation.
Mrs. Miller suggested that each Committee member present be asked directly if he or she gave the information to the Press. This action, however, was not taken.
There was discussion regarding the possibility that Minutes of the meeting under discussion could have been obtained by a person other than Board Member simply by picking them up at the EOB office. It was also noted that following Board approval, minutes are a matter of public record and available to anyone interested in seeing them.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 24: The Chairman called for corrections, additions or deletions to the minutes. There being none, Mrs. Smith moved and it was seconded by Mr. Wilson that the minutes be accepted as written.
AUDIT REPORT FOR DAY CARE CENTERS - OPERATION INDEPENDENCE: Mr. Cottrell advised that all members of the Executive Committee had been given copies of the'audit report. The report has been discussed with Mrs. Johnson, the Operation Independence Executive and Finance Committee members, and with Mrs..Flora Dungan, the accountant currently employed by Operation Independence to perform their accounting work. Mr. Cottrell explained that the procedure which the Regional 0E0 has directed that the EOB follow is to give Operation Independence 30 days in which to explain questioned costs; the EOB will then make decisions as to any items that would be disallowed. Operation Independence may then appeal to Regional 0E0 who will assign an auditor to review the decision made by EOB.
Mr. Cottrell noted that it may be that many of these items can be justified; many are apparently due to sloppy filing and handling within the office. He added that Mrs. Johnson is probably correct when she says that most items can be answered, and noted that at the time the audit was being made some material simply could not be located. He said there were a number of costs that had to be questioned simply because they were not backed up by invoices, purchase orders, contracts, or other documentation. He advised that 01 has 30 days from August 18 to secure baqkup or explanations to the items questioned.
Mrs. Peggy Smith stated that she has been working for the past week to gather items to answer the audit report, and the only area that she was not able to obtain documentation for is for the time that the books were out of the 01 office and in the EOB office and entries were made, adding that $3.50 could not be accounted for. She stated that the filing cabinet in question was a donated gift and no federal funds were used for purchase.
Mrs. Smith continued her discussion of audit items when the Chairman noted that it was not necessary to go into discussion at this time. Mrs. Smith did, however, state that Operation Independence people were not aware there was an audit going on. Mr. Cottrell noted that this seemed inconceivable.
Mrs. Smith requested that other Board Members be as interested as she was and make some effort to see whether 01 does have valid answers. The Chairman answered that the Board is as much interested as Mrs. Smith, but added that people in the community seem to feel that EOB is trying to point a finger and say there has been misplacing of funds and this is not the situation at all. He noted that the EOB office should not have been placed in the position of auditing delegate agencies but this had been a necessity at the time. In the future all formal audits will be conducted by outside auditing firms, since 0E0 policy has now been changed.
-2-
Mrs. Miller asked how much money cannot be accounted for. Mr. Cottrell explained that there was no allegation that funds were missing; that items have been questioned for different reasons such as contracts not being on file, back-up documentation not being available, etc. Mrs. Miller asked if the cash suspension was still in effect. Mr. Cottrell advised that it has been lifted, since 0.1. had brought the books up to date and had made arrangements for competent personnel to handle financial liiatters related to the Day Care Program.
DISCUSSION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT FOR 1968: Mr. Cottrell advised that Board Members have received copies of the Work Program Description for Neighborhood Councils in their monthly mailing. Mr. Spann asked w-hat the relationship was between the Neighborhood Councils and the Manpower Program. Lamar McDaniel, Neighborhood Council Project Director, explained that the Neighborhood Councils would continue their functions with the exception of handling employment situations which they had done temporarily prior to institution of the Manpower Program.
Mr. Cottrell further explained that three Manpower people will be located in each Neighborhood Center and in addition one or two Neighborhood Service Workers would be housed in this Center. Mr. Hoggard referred the committee members to the goals listed in the Neighborhood Council Project work program description.
Mrs. Miller explained that members had been wondering about the efficiency of the Neighborhood Service Workers in getting to the people, and the request that had been intended was to have Mr. McDaniel and some of the workers in for discussion. She noted that she has been told that some people have never seen a Neighborhood Service Worker, though she did realize that they each had a large area to cover door-to-door.
Mr. Wilson said that we are not arousing community interest enough in the Councils, and that it is only the same fistful of people who attend time after time. He suggested that good old-fashioned soapbox talks might help.
The Chairman suggested that a way to get more people involved might be by having those who do attend call a friend, possibly pick the friend up and take him to the meeting, and that person in turn would do likewise.
Mr. McDaniel stated that he too was very much concerned about getting more participation by the people in the Neighborhood Councils and cited an example whereby members had gotten all fired up about a situation but after the meeting broke up no one would carry through to take action. He noted that if he pushed an issue, he was sometimes called a "dictator." Mr. McDaniel noted that his present plan is to extensively document and and report back to Councils, follow-up actions, or the reason that no follow-up was possible.
The Chairman noted that if we are not getting the community involved, we might just as well forget it; that this is a difficult task but somehow it must be accomplished. He directed that the Project Director attempt to find a solution and report back to the Executive Committee as to his progres in six months.
-3-
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: The Chairman advised that members have been given copies of the report of the committee, prepared after eight weeks of study and meetings. Mr. White further reviewed the entire report of the Committee and explained the thinking behind the recommendations made.
The relationship between the Neighborhood Service Workers and the EOB was discussed. Mr. McDaniel stated that if selection of the Neighborhood Service Workers was made by the EOB rather than by Council members, the Councils would lose some of their autonomy which would defeat one of the basic purposes of the project — helping Io w-income persons to become more self-sufficient.
Mr. Hoggard advised that it is being suggested in the 1968 program that Councils receive applications for the worker’s position; and that from among these applications the Project Director choose three names to submit back to the Council for their selection. He also advised in regard to the question of higher salaries being paid to the workers, that the theory is to get the poor involved and if the poor are to be involved as Neighborhood Service Workers, they are not usually people who are qualified for a salary at the professional level.
He stated that the position of Service Worker is not intended to be a long-term job; that Neighborhood Service Workers, because of experience gained in their work in the Councils should be upgraded and go on to a better job allowing another person to fill the position for a time.
Mr. Hoggard also noted that 0E0 would not fund a Neighborhood Council Project where the Councils were not designed to be autonomous.
Mrs. Smith suggested that many of the workers do feel that they have a job that is of a long-range nature.
Mr. Cottrell stated that there are several changes proposed in the Neighborhood Council Project; not major ones but they are designed to overcome some of the problems that have been encountered.
There was discussion on whether it is intended that the Neighborhood Service Worker be elected yearly, and it was advised that the 1968 refunding program proposes that the Service Workers be elected annually along with officers of the Councils.
In discussion of the salaries proposed by the Personnel Committee, Mrs. Miller asked what portion was for operating costs. Mr. Cottrell advised that the anti-poverty programs are selling services, and salaries constitute the major cost in service-type programs. He said that E.O.B. projects average about two-thirds of their costs in the personnel category, which is very much in line with costs of government programs at al I levels.
The Chairman and members discussed particular salaries and reasons for changing the allocation of various positions, and differences among the salaries were explained.
-4-
Mrs. Smith stated that she had taken the Personnel Committee’s report back to her Council and there were very few areas of argument. She noted that as a representative of her Council she would like to offer a vote of commendation to the committee who compiled the report. She also noted that the Neighborhood Service Worker is not required to have any formal job skills and formal education attainment is not a pre-requisite for employment, since the idea is to hire low-income people from the neighborhood who can't "reach" the people who need services.
Mr. Dondero moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the report of the Personnel Committee be accepted. Motion seconded by Dorothy King. On the vote, motion carried with one naye vote.
DISCUSSION OF LOCAL SHARE AS PROVIDED BY COUNTY AND FOUR CITIES: The Chairrpan reviewed for members that in the coming year it will be necessary to provide 20% local share. Mr. Cottrell advised that a suggestion had been made at the last meeting that a committee be appointed to meet with the county commissioners and city councils to discuss this situation. He also cited different ways by which local share could be increased; eg. volunteer time, adding that local share had to be documented. The Chairman stated that he would appoint a committee at the next Board meeting.
REQUESTS FROM NORTH LAS VEGAS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL:
Thirteen Projects Proposed: Mr. Cottrell explained that there is not money available from Clark County's assigned guideline funds to fund additional projects, noting that a memo had just been received that Nevada is 106% over their guideline allocations. He noted that the only way new projects could be funded would be to cut back or cut out existing projects.
Mr. Cottrell stated that the staff needs advice from the Executive Committee or the Board as to how to handle requests for new projects and what position the staff should take as far as advising groups soliciting 0E0 project funds. He noted that the EOB is being accused of being dictatorial when groups are advised that there is no money available for new projects.
He pointed out that before a project is submitted to 0E0, it must first be approved by the Board with budgets, etc. worked out in detail.
Mr. Cottrell said that the problem is whether to advise the Councils and other groups that there are no funds or whether to let them go ahead with the effort it takes to work out projects when it is known that there is no money available.
He further advised that a group called Nevada Futures, Inc. has sent a project for $3,385,000 to San Francisco 0E0 and to the State Department of Economic Opportunity.
Mrs. Miller noted that when Councils first became organized, members were under the impression that they were supposed to bring in ideas and write up programs that would improve the community, adding that it this is no longer true this information should be made clear to the Counci Is.
-5-
Mrs. Smith noted that some of the projects being proposed by the North Las Vegas Council are for services already being provided by 0E0 programs and which could be extended and the Council should be so advised. She said that a directive should be handed down to the Councils advising them as to how they might seek out channels of using existing services and extending present ones.
Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the Councils be instructed not to transmit any request for new programs requiring funds at this time because there are no available funds. ‘ Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
Mrs. Smith inquired as to whether there would be additional slots requested for the day care programs which might be extended to North Las Vegas.
Mr. Cottrell stated that there would not be; that perhaps we will be required to reduce slots to obtain the necessary funding to bring the program up to CEO guidel ines.
Request for Space in the Washington School: The Chair reviewed that the Neighborhood Service Worker for the North Las Vegas Council had petitioned several months ago to request space in the Washington School. The Executive Director noted that he had received a call from the Service Worker stating that the matter was on the agenda of the North Las Vegas City Council meeting and it seemed that no further action would be needed untiI the City Counci I had taken action.
Request for Day Care Program: The Chairman advised that this had been covered under the first reguest.
ROLE OF EOB STAFF IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT: Following brief discussion and based on previous discussion, the Chairman ruled subject to objection by any member, that the staff be directed not to take up time to write new programs unless directed by the Board to do so.
REPORT ON CONTACTS WITH HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AND OTHER AGENCIES CONCERNED WITH PREVENTING CIVIL STRIFE: Mr. Hoggard advised that the committee appointed by the Human Relations Commission has held several meetings and as a result have come up with a number of jobs. These jobs have been turned over to Manpower and placement is being done out of that office. There was discussion on other activities along this line, one of which is the Teen Council, an organization formed under the guidance of NYC Counselor-Coordinator, George Lawson.
SUMMER CRASH PROGRAM: The Chairman stated that Ray Johnson, a Supervisor in the Summer Crash Program, has contacted him in regard to a continuation of the Summer Crash Program to continue the clean-up portion of the program in the Westside area. Mr. Johnson had advised him that the City is willing to furnish two drivers and two trucks to continue this program, and Mr. Johnson is proposing that he be supervisor. He is willing to continue the job at the same salary as he is being paid in the Summer Crash Program.
Mr. Hoggard reported that the Regional Office has been requested to extend the summer crash program with unexpended funds; however, an. answer is not immediately available. He noted that if the Westside
-6-
clean-up portion of the program could be continued on a regular basis, it would possibly motivate people to take care of their property. Mr. Hoggard stated that continuance is only a question of funds. No action was taken on this request, pending an answer from 0E0 as to extending the Summer Crash Program.
Mrs. Miller requested that the Executive Director give the Councils a rundown on the Summer Crash Programs as to number of youth who had the opportunity for summer employment, opportunity to go to camp, etc.
JOINT MEETING OF EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS: The Chairman advised that 15 requests had been submitted to him, signed by the Chairmen of the eight Neighborhood Councils. .These requests were read to Committee members. Mrs. Snrith noted that though she signed the proposal as Chairman of her Council, she had not attended the joint meeting and had noted the requests with which she was not in agreement. Following discussion, Mr. Dondero moved to acknowledge receipt of the proposals and advise the Councils that they will be studied from the standpoint of those that can be met and those that are necessary. Motion was seconded by Thomas Wilson and carried.
REPORT OF JO MACKEY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: The Chairman acknowledged the report from the Jo Mackey Council.
LETTER FROM 0E0 LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION: The Secretary was instructed to read the letter received from the 0E0 Regional Legal Services Director, Marha Tucker, which was in answer to the request by the EOB that the staff attorney for the Legal Aid Project be permitted a minimal outside practice. Miss Tucker stated that this is not advisable and recommends that the Board request that the salary for the staff attorney be raised to $14,000 for a person with considerable experience and that if a suitable person cannot be found at this salary, the request wi II again be taken under consideration.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Dondero moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the EOB fol low the suggestion from the Regional Office concerning the salary of the Legal Aid Attorney. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
LETTER FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC.: The Secretary read a letter from an organization called Nevada Futures requested that they be delegated the portion of the Manpower Program which had been relinquished by Catholic Welfare. Mrs. Mi Iler noted that it would seem to be more workable to keep the program under one operation rather than have it split up between two organi zations.
Mrs. Smith moved that the Executive Committee recommend that the Board acknowledge this request and study it for action in the future. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
PETITION TO BOARD TO SEAT A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC: A letter from Nevada Futures, Inc. was read asking that Mr. Frederick French be seated as a member of the Board, representing Nevada Futures. There was discussion on what was known about the organization. The Chairman stated that he had received a telephone call from Mr. French and had advised him that funds were not available at this time to fund new projects.
-7-
Mrs. Smith indicated that some thought should be given to "double" representation on the Board, noting that this organization consists of members of the Neighborhood Councils and another representative could be construed as double representation for the North Las Vegas Council.
Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive Director be instructed to make a study of the organization and bring the information obtained to the Wednesday night Board Meeting at which time the Board can consider the request. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
CONTINUED GRIEVANCE OF DUDLEY EVANS: The Chairman advised that a registered letter had just been received from Dudley Evans, again reopening his grievance against the Economic Opportunity Board. It was noted that Mr. Evans was requesting that a third party be appointed to act as mediator between he and the Board to attempt to settle the matter.
Mrs. Smith moved that the same answer be submitted to Mr. Evans, repeating the decision which had been reached by the Executive Committee in'March. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Executive Director
WFC:djm
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF AUGUST BOARD MEETING
Please be advised that the monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1967 8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT. AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
READING OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 26, 1967.
fc#. FINANCIAL REPORTS FOR THE MONTH ENDING JULY 31, 1967.
j/. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
^8. REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.
j/6. ELECTION OF A MEMBER TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
tff. REPORT OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE. /£ A
(Action requested to approve recommendations of the Comrfnttee in order that budgets may be prepared for 1968 application for refunding.)
WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS FOR 1968 REFUNDING.
(No action required at this time, other than approval for preparation of complete applications to be presented for Board action at September meeting.)
0 d) NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR PROGRAMS.
/
i/UfO. REQUEST OF NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD.
Jil4. REQUEST OF NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR CONSIDERATION AS DELEGATE
Y AGENCY FOR NORTH LAS VEGAS AND HENDERSON MANPOWER OUTREACH STATIONS
12.
CONSIDERATION OF. SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR LEGAL AID STAFF ATTORNEY
13.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:/
A.
Status of Anti-Poverty Legislation
B.
Management Information System
MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
August 30, 1967 Clark County District Health Dept. Aud.
8:00 P.M. [_as Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (Chairman), Ferren Bunker, William Merz, Peggy Smith, Wendell Waite, Newton Tigner, Lee Walker, Bob McPherson, Thomas Wilson, Charles Jones, Rev. Donald Clark, Joe Braswell, Don Dawson, Webster Butcher, Doublass Pushard, Woodrow Wilson, Daisy Miller, Harvey Dondero, Dorothy King, Pat Fahey, George Kline, George Keyes, Nancy Williams, Rev. Melvin Pekrul, AI toine Crochette
Guests: Geraldine Schwartz, Frederick R. French, Frederick B. French, Sarah Ray, H. L. Ortega, Lee Adler, Ethel R. Pearson, Florence Elmore, Mary V. Smith, D.L. Harris, Letha Mobley, Addie Reid Blake, Evelyn Coleman, R. G. Reid, Hazel Geran, Rosie L. Smith, Bill Carlos, Lubertha M. Johnson, George W. Gant, Inez H. Archie.
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, Sylvia Staples, J. David Hoggard, L.L. McDaniel, Doyle Longhurst, Evelyn Mauldin
The Chairman requested visitors to bring forth items they would like to have discussed. He further welcomed visitors and asked that members encourage others to attend meetings.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: There were no new Board Members to be seated.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF JULY 26, 1967: The Chairman noted ' that members were mailed copies of the minutes, and he called for corrections, additions, or deletions. There being none, Mr. Braswell moved that the minutes be adopted as presented. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MONTH ENDING JULY 31: Mr. Cottrell reviewed briefly Items of the financial report, noting that the expenditures represented a period of 7 months. It was moved by Mr. Waite and seconded by Mr. Merz that the report be adopted. Motion carried.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman reviewed the recommendations of the Executive Committee as determined at their meeting held on Auaust 28. They are:
(1)
That the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the report of the Personnel Committee be accepted;
(2)
That the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the Councils be instructed not to transmit any requests at this time for new programs requiring funds because there are no available funds.
(3)
That the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the staff be directed not to write new programs unless directed by the Board to do so.
(4)
That the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the letter containing 15 requests from the joint Neighborhood Councils be acknowledged and advised that the requests will be studied from the standpoint of those that are necessary and can be met.
(5)
That the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the EOB follow the suggestion from the Regional Office concerning the salary of the Legal Aid Attorney. (A copy of this letter was furnished to Board Members) It recommends that the Board request that the salary for the staff attorney be raised to $14,000 for a person with considerable experience; however, if a suitable person cannot be found at this salary, the request to allow minimal outside practice would again be taken under consi deration.
(6)
That the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the request of Nevada Futures, Inc. be acknowledged and studied for action in the future. This request was that Nevada Futures, Inc. be granted the portion of the Manpower Program which had been re Iinguished by Catholic Welfare.
(7)
That the Executive Di rector or his appointee make a study of the organization known as Nevada Futures, Inc. in regard to their request to seat a representative on the Economic Opportunity Board.
In discussion of the recommendation that the staff be directed not to write up projects unless specifically directed to do so by the Board, Reverend Clark stated that in regard to there not being additional' funds available, we are only assuming that Congress will not appropriate additional funds.
Mr. French advised that in November he had come before the EOB requesting funding of a Credit Union and was told that it was impossible to obtain funds. Since that time, he said, 24 poverty-type credit unions throughout the country have been formed. Mr. French stated that it is about time we start sending more request for projects even though we are not sure of obtaining funding.
In answer to a request to do so, the Chairman read the 15 requests submitted by the 8 joint Neighborhood Councils.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT: The report of the Nominating Committee was read by the Secretary as follows:
"The Nominating Committee met on August 9, 1967. Members of the Committee present were: Ted Lawson, Thomas Wilson, Emory Lockette, and William Merz. Absent were Woodrow Wilson, Father Charles Shallow, and Daisv Miller. y
In accordance with the By-Laws, Article VI, Section 6C
(1)
The Committee nominated the following persons to be seated as members of the Board:
Rev. Donald Clark, representing Operation Independence, Inc. Dr. Paul Marshall, representing the Mayor of Henderson
Mr. Altoine Crochette, representing Henderson Neighborhood Council Mr. Don Dawson, representing Clark County Board of Commissioners.
(2)
The Committee re-elected Mr. Ted Lawson as its Chairman to serve for the year July 1967 through June, 1968.
-2-
ELECTION OF A MEMBER TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE: The Chairman reviewed that at the time of the annual meeting there was a vacancy on the Executive Committee; however, the Board had decided to wait until the Nominating Committee's report had been received as to selection of that Committee's Chairman. He advised that Mr. Lawson had been re-elected Chairman of that Committee and because he was already on the Executive Committee by virtue of his office as Secretary, a vacancy on the Executive Committee now exists.
The Chairman opened nominations. Reverend Tigner nominated Reverend Donald Clark. Charles Jones nominated Nancy Williams. It was moved by Mr. Kline and seconded by Reverend Tigner that nominations be closed. A secret ballot vote was taken. The Chairman appointed Rev. Tigner to assist the secretary in counting the vote. The ballot showed that Mrs. Nancy Williams was elected the new member of the Executive Committee.
REPORT OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: Mr. White called on the Chairman of the Personnel Committee, Bob McPherson, to give a brief summary on the Personnel Committee's recommendations of which Board Members have received a written detai led report.
Mr. McPherson emphasized that the attempt of the committee was to provide Personnel Policies and Practices in line with other public agencies in Clark County as well as competitive salaries. The basic criteria under 0E0 directives is the average of comparable jobs in the community and this was the criteria used by the committee.
The Committee also recommended a salary structure competitive with other political entities in the area, providing a salary range of six steps with 4% raises. He advised that adjustments were made in various job classifications; and one that the Committee felt strongly about was that of the Neighborhood Service Worker.
Mr. Jim Anderson, Summer Crash Project Director, stated that he had reviewed the salary scale of the Employer Relations Representative position in the Manpower Program, noting that there was only one comparable salary which is this same position with the OJT Program. Mr. Anderson stated that the salary for this position in the Manpower Program is much too low and unrealistic. He stated that the salary scale for the manpower employees seem to be discriminatory, and this should be corrected.
Mr. Gant, Manpower Center Director, stated that he might agree with Mr. Anderson in some respects but disagrees entirely with the matter regarding competency of the staff and he did not know that Mr. Anderson's comments were appropriate.
Mr. Anderson noted that he had made no reference to the quality of the manpower staff; that he was only saying that the comparable job for the employer relations person is not the state job which was used for comparison by the Personnel Committee.
Mr. Merz advised that he was concerned about the EOB setting ranges for delegate agencies; that as it now stands he does not see any conflict in salary ranges but is wondering about setting these ranges. He no+ed that
-3-
two projects for which salary schedules are being set are delegated to Operation Independence and the third is delegated to the School District. He asked if the Board is not setting up some conflicting salary ranges if either of these agencies would adopt a different salary scale.
Mr. McPherson advised that the intent of the committee was that, since this Board is responsible for funding all programs, that there be consistency between delegate agencies. He noted that if a conflicting situation occurs, the matter might then be reconsidered.
Mr. Keyes stated that the EOB must assume the responsibility for the actions of all delegate agencies as far as being responsible for funds, and the EOB must certify that the salaries are comparable.
Reverend Clark stated that the EOB should not set precedent of establishing salaries for delegate agencies and for projects which they do not run.
Mr. Braswell noted that the Committee's report does point out that any delegate agency has recourse of taking the matter to the Personnel Committee if they disagree with suggested salary level.
Mrs. Miller questioned how many of the employees will actually reach the top step to get the top salary. The Chairman advised that only the Neighborhood Service Worker might not unless re-elected by his Council for six years.
Mr. Bunker stated that if the report is accepted on the basis of all the positions and adopted for all of the delegate agencies, it appears that the Board is assuming a responsibility which it should not assume. He said that if the Board is to take action it should recommend adoption of the salary schedule as recommended for those operating within the scope of 0E0 Programs but not to designate this schedule for all delegate agencies.
Mr. Anderson said that when the Personnel Committee was established, it was established for the purpose of dealing with employees of the Board. He noted that anytime the Board usurps the authority of establishing salaries for delegate agencies that are independent of the Board, it is taking away a right established by law, and this Board should be very cautious of setting itself up as the judge and jury.
Mr. Dondero moved and Mrs. Williams seconded that the recommendations of the Personnel Committee be adopted. A show of hands vote was taken. There were 13 yes votes; 9 votes naye. The report of the Personnel Committee stood adopted.
The Chairman thanked Mr. McPherson for his leadership as chairman of the Personnel Committee.
WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS FOR 1968 REFUNDING: The Chairman advised that the Board was being asked this evening to approve the work descriptions for refunding in principle only and final approval would be requested at the September meeting. Mrs. Smith who wrote the work descriptions for the projects. Mr. Cottrell advised that there are five components, for which skeleton information was submitted to the Project Directors who were asked to make suggestions or changes desired and furnish information so that it
-4-
could be put in final form by the EOB staff. He advised that these components have also been mailed to the Chairmen of the eight Neighborhood Councils; and the two projects administered by Operation Independence have been submitted to the 01 Executive Committee for their consideration and suggestions.
Regarding the Neighborhood Council Project, Reverend Clark asked if there wasn’t a conflict of interest in that the program was not administered by a delegate agency. The Chairman advised that this was in order for the Councils to keep their autonomy; that there would be a conflict if they did have a delegate agency, that the present operation seems to be the most justifiable.
Reverend Clark asked how the Councils could really be independent if the Board is administering the program? The Chairman advised that the Neighborhood Service Workers are hired by their Councils who also determine activities. Reverend Clark noted that the Councils are not getting proper representation and asked that the Neighborhood Service Workers be allowed to speak for themselves. He also stated that there is no comnunicat ion; that Neighborhood Councils are not aware of what is going on.
The Chairman advised that one-third of this Board is made up of members representing the poor including one representative from each Council, and that he disagrees that the Councils are not represented. He also stated that it is the responsibility of the representative to inform his Council or group what is going on.
Mrs. Fahey moved to suspend the agenda to allow Neighborhood Council people to talk. Motion was seconded by Nancy Williams.
Mr. Merz moved to amend the motion to include that the discussion involving Neighborhood Council workers be limited to 30 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Braswell. On the vote on the amendment, it was carried. On the vote on the motion, motion was carried.
Mr. Anderson stated that his understanding of the poverty program is that the Neighborhood Councils are the lowest level of action — they are the people who reach into the hard core and their responsibility to the war on poverty is to fit into this Board the things that the hard core want done. He said it seems that any proposals brought up should be given the full consideration that would be given to proposals written up by delegate agencies, noting that the enthusiasm of these people will determine the success of any program of the Board.
Mr. Anderson said that he feels very strongly that it is a subversion of the outlines and purpose of the EOB unless the suggestion of these people (Neighborhood Service Workers) are heard. He said that to administratively say that the staff should not take up time to write up their proposals is to kill their enthusiasm.
The Chairman advised that the Service Workers are also part of the staff, and the Director is to act as liaison between the EOB, EOB staff, and the Councils and Service Workers.
-5-
Mr. Ortega (Neighborhood Service Worker) said that the 8 Councils were organized too late in 1967 to submit proposals for funding; however, now that it is funding time again they are submitting proposals and if the Board keeps shooting them down, the people will get discouraged and the whole program will go to helI.
Mrs. Johnson stated that Operation Independence was started as a grass roots organization sometime ago, and needs to have closer association with the people in the so-called ''pockets of poverty". From this need came the idea of adding Neighborhood Workers. She said that we are getting a little bit away from the original idea of setting up programs in a given community — and the need for these people to coordinate and work together. She said that she could not see why we can have people going off in all directions establishing different agencies to try to get federal funds to set up more and more programs. Mrs. Johnson added that the Neighborhood Workers are in a fine position to work with agencies, to strengthen programs, and to expand. She said the original idea was to work together to meet the needs of the community.
Reverend Clark stated that if we are going to have a poverty program in a target area, we are going to have to look forward to self-development and the community is going to have to learn to stand on its own two feet. He said that if the Westside does not have a chance to develop itself there will be poverty until kingdom come. He said that he did not see.why residents could not administer their own programs in their own areas; that people must be given an opportunity. Reverend Clark stated that if EOB staff continues to write programs, etc. when will the poor stand on their own two feet?
Reverend Clark moved that the Board go on record to solicit delegate agencies for the Neighborhood Council Project. However, it was ruled that a motion was not in order at this time since the agenda had been suspended.
Mr. French said that somewhere along the line the Board has come into a conflict of interest with Neighborhood Councils as the Board is conserving funds that have been allocated for the Neighborhood Council budget citing the monthly financial statement and indicating that there is a lot of money left, but the Councils cannot get supplies. Mrs. Mauldin, EOB Finance Officer, advised that the financial report does not show the true amount expended in the supply budget, due to the fact that all items have not yet been posted from the central supply inventory.
Mr. Merz said that this discussion demonstrates a lack of understanding of a "game" we must play; that this Board is bound to certain obligations by a contract. He further stated that the possibility of Nevada getting additional monies is very small and we are operating on a very tight margin, with it being this Board's responsibility to provide coordination.
Mrs. Pearson, Neighborhood Service Worker, asked who is doing the work and who got this all in operation. She stated that the Councils are doing the work; that the workers get out in the hot sun doing the work and are getting less consideration than anybody here. She asked, "Why don't you respect the people who are carrying the load? We don't ever know whats going on and we are doing the work."
-6-
The Chairman ad.ised that it is the responsibility of the Counci I Is representative on the Board to inform the Council of the actions of the Board; and if the representative has been negligent, the Council members should be made aware of this.
Mr. Keyes said that if the Neighborhood Councils cannot get supplies such as papers and pencils as has been claimed, someone should initiate an investigation as to why they cannot obtain these basic elements. He noted that in his Council, they did take up collections to buy stationary.
Mr. Cottrell noted that he does not know of any case in which a Service Worker has requested supplies and been turned down unless it was not within normal needs, adding that the Neighborhood Councils have not been furnished letterhead stationary; however, this can be done if the Board so des i res.
Mrs. Blake asked if the Neighborhood Councils would get any recognition of the proposals submitted. The Chairman advised that the Executive Committee had voted that the requests would be studied and those that were feasible and necessary would be recognized.
Mr. Kline stated That there seems to be some inadequacy of the administration; no one has been checking workers to see what their needs are, and this program is too important. He said that if these people cannot have adequate supplies, we are defeating the purpose.
The Chairman asked Mr. McDaniel, Project Director, if he wished to answer regarding the comment on inadequacy of administration. He stated that he did not; however, Mr. Kline noted that this comment does not necessarily refer to Mr. McDaniel.
Mr. Ortega noted that he had put in 3 written and about 7 verbal requests for envelopes and hadn’t ever received them. Mrs. Coleman said that Mr. McDaniel knows what the Service Workers are doing; that he hasn’t any staff and cannot do all the work.
The Chairman advised that the 30 minutes was up, and the meeting would revert back to the agenda of the Board.
Regarding the priority set by the Board on projects, Mrs. Fahey noted that projects had been rated priority-wise by the Board last year. She asked if this would be done again this year. Mr. Cottrell stated that the priority system is still in effect until the Board changes it. Mrs. Fahey said that perhaps we could have the projects priority-rated by everyone involved including staff since we are starting earlier this year.
Following brief discussion, Mrs. Fahey moved that the EOB establish a Priority list whereas all the people actually involved in the War on Poverty would be able to list programs by priority. Seconded by Peggy Smith, motion carried.
Regarding the work program descriptions for 1968 refunding, Mr. Braswell moved that the complete write-up of the five projects be approved and presented for action at the September board meeting. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
-7-
Regarding the work program descriptions for 1968 refunding, Mr. Braswell moved that the complete write-up of the five projects be approved and presented for action at the September board meeting. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
Mr. Bunker asked if it is correct that the policy of the Board is that any group may prepare and submit projects. The Chairman advised that this is so and is also part of the federal guidelines. Mr. Bunker suggested that if there are any projects in the mill, or if someone desires to write one, this Board should review it. He noted that no one should feel that he cannot submit projects to the Board, stating that the only reason the Director has written the descriptions is that he has felt an obligation to do this and to have them properly prepared.
Mr. Braswell said that one of the things pointed out is that each Neighborhood Council has ideas and rather than have eight different groups, there should be coordination; if the Councils came up with ideas together this would insure getting full consideration by the Board.
Mrs. Miller asked why Councils should waste time working up projects when they have been informed that there is no money available.
Mr. Keyes stated that we are to train from the grass roots up; and though funds are not now available, a windfall might come along and funds will become available. In this case projects should be accepted from the Counci Is.
Mrs. Pearson asked what this organization was built on, and didn't the Councils make this organization. She said that the Councils were working before this organization ever got together.
The Chairman stated that the EOB is here to channel funds and coordinate 0E0 programs, and is also here to seek information, projects, etc. from the grass roots elements. If these projects are workable and funds are available, it is the responsibility of the Board to see that they are instituted.
Mr. Cottrell stated that the way the EOB operated in the beginning was that somebody had an idea for a program, it was worked up, considered by the Board, and if approved was funded. The trouble now is that the U.S. Congress has seen fit to do otherwise; and has taken this method of operation away by the process of earmarking or voting certain elements of money for certain types of programs. He continued that each local area has a guideline figure for versatile funds; additionally there are earmarked projects such as Head Start, Legal Aid, Migrant, etc. He explained that the fuideline for versatile funds in Clark County is $156,000, yet the EOB is administering a total of $1,250,000.
The EOB has only three projects under versatile funds: Conduct & Administration, Neighborhood Councils, and NYC support. If this Board wishes, it can eliminate or reduce one of these projects and fund something else. The Board can decide what it wants from versatile funds. Mr. Cottrell read an excerpt from a memo received from Regional 0E0: !'We must operate on the assumption that there will be no additional funds this year..." He advised that Nevada’s needs for 1968 refunding is $180,000 above guideline funds allocated.
-8-
Regarding Mr. French’s earlier comment on credit unions, Mr. Cottrell stated that there are no funds available in Clark County from versatile funding unless the Board sees fit to take money from some current project. He noted that we are faced with some tough problems ancj it isn’t the same ballgame it was three years ago. The rules have been changed, and the is has not been done by Las Vegas, San Francisco, or Washington CEO but by the U.S. Congress. Mr. Cottrell said these are the facts we have to deal with; however, this Board can change projects funded with versatile funds simply by voting to do so.
Mr. Keyes said he has been listening to what his government is doing; but, he added, when you say the Congress, the House, it is just like saying it is us. We are the grass roots, and if we in turn can find something, they too will flex, and there is nothing concrete when it comes to dealing with human bodies. Mr. Keyes said that the question is "Should we be a little flexible or stick to certain CAP guidelines?" They are not concrete, and they will listen if you prove you can accomplish something. He added that there is flexibility whenever there is a budget.
Mr. Merz said that this is not a true fact; that when there are earmarked funds there is not flexibility.
Reverend Clark stated that his argument is not the flexibility of funds. He said that the programs we have should be given to the people to run and the Board itself should not administer them. The Board cannot run a program and police it at the same time. Reverend Clark said we should give it to the people we already have.
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR PROGRAMS: The Chairman ruled, subject to-objection by any member, that the policy of the Board be as recommended by the Executive Committee -- that the Councils be instructed not to transmit requests for new programs requiring funds at this time because there are no available funds. No objection was voiced by any Board member.
REQUEST OF NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD: The Chairman stated that the Executive Committee had directed the Executive Director to obtain information on this organization and report to Board Members in regard to the request to seat a representative. Mr. White said that a copy.of the Articles of Incorporation was made available; that the By-Laws' are in process of being drawn up.
Further information obtained is that approximately 36 meetings have been held since January when the group got together; that meetings are called as there is a need to work on projects; and the reason the group got together was because project ideas being submitted at Council meetings were always discouraged, thus this group of people from various councils decided to form a corporation to submit projects.
There are presently six (6) members: They are: Frederick B. French, Chairman; Sarah Ray, Vice Chairman; Leo Johnson, Secretary-Treasurer and Business Agent; Art Grant, Board of Directors; James Chaney, Board of Directors; and Frederick R. French. The Chairman directed the Secretary to read copies of correspondence between Nevada Futures, Inc. and the Labor Department, in which Nevada Futures cited grievances with the EOB
-9-
Mr. Keyes asked what the purpose of this organization is in wishing a seat on the Boa.d of the organization they feel will disintegrate do they come forth to help it disintegrate?
Mr. French said that the letter to the Labor Dept, does not state that the EOB would disintegrate, but that the programs being submitted wop Id disintegrate if it was necessary to involve them with the EOB.
There was general discussion on criteria for seating representatives. There was a question from Reverend Clark regarding two members of Nevada Futures, Inc. who are employees of the poverty program.
Lee Walker moved to hold in abeyance any action until the By-Laws have been drawn up. Seconded by Mr. Merz, motion carried with one naye vote. Mrs. Fahey abstained from voting, noting this for the record.
REQUEST FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR CONSIDERATION AS DELEGATE AGENCY FOR NORTH LAS- VEGAS AND HENDERSON OUTREACH STATIONS OF THE MANPOWER PROGRAM: Reverend Clark asked if there was not a stipulation that a delegate agency must be in operation for a certain length of time before becoming a delegate agency. Mr. Cottrell said that he was not aware of any such stipulation. Following very brief discussion, Mr. Walker moved that again action be held in abeyance on this request until the By-Laws for the organization have been drawn up. Seconded by Mr. Bunker.
Mrs. Johnson asked if the Board hadn’t previously voted to delegate the entire Manpower Program to Operation Independence.
The Chairman advised that the Manpower Program has been delegated to Operation Independence for this program year; however, the matter can be taken up again for next year's program.
Mrs. Smith noted, after being advised that 0E0 had approved the request for 01 to be delegate agency for the entire program, that there wouldn't seem to be a time qualification stated in this approval.
Mr. Cottrell said that the point is a technical one; that the grant is funded for one year at a time and if the Board wanted to change anything in the work program description, such as the delegate agency, they could do so in the refunding application for 1968.
On the vote on Mr. Walker's motion, motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR LEGAL AID STAFF ATTORNEY: Chairman White advised that this had been discussed at the Executive Committee meeting, and members have also received a copy of the letter from the Legal Services Department of 0E0 Regional Office.
The Executive Di rector further reviewed that the request had been made to 0E0 to permit the full time attorney to have minimal practice; however, in the answer from 0E0 it was recommended that the salary for the staff attorney be advertised at $14,000 per year for an attorney with considerable experience. 0E0 states that if this proves unsuccessful, the request for minimal outside practice could again be considered.
-10-
Mr. Bunker moved that the Board adopt the recommendation made by the Executive Commi rtee pertaining to the Legal Aid Staff Attorney's . saI ary. He further clarified that his motion include that the positon be advertised at Step 4, Range 38, to fit into the salary schedule adopted by the Board. Motion was seconded by Reverend Tigner. On the vote, motion carried with one naye vote.
There was discussion on various points of the Legal Aid Project; i.e. housing of the offices, where attorney’s time would be spent, etc. Regarding the offices of the Legal Aid Society being moved to the target area, Mr. Cottrell advised that after the program is in operation any part of it can be changed by the Board with appropriate review and approval of the Regional Office. The Chairman said that it would be a job for the Neighborhood Councils if they feel the attorney should spend his time in the target area.
Rev. Clark said that we keep telling people, "We’ll change it later; but these people in the meantime can’t spend half their time running across town for services."
Mr. Woodrow Wilson said that when this item came before the Board, if it was stipulated that the attorney would spend a certain amount of .time within the area, the Legal Aid Society should be held to this.
Mr. Crochette asked if the Chairman had stated that the location of the office is up to the Neighborhood Councils. The Chairman advised that it is up to Councils to make recommendations; that it is up to the Board to make final decisions.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Mr. Cottrell advised that Board Members have received his report in writing; however, if there were any questions Board Members could cal I the office and he would be pleased to discuss any items further.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COIMTY
September 20, 1967
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
Please be advised that the regular monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board will be held:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 WEST OWENS)
AGENDA
I.
CONSIDERATION OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE RESPONSE TO 1966 AUDIT QUESTIONS.
2.
RESIGNATION OF EOB FINANCE OFFICER.
3.
1968 REFUNDING REQUESTS - SHORTAGE OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE.
4.
REQUESTS FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR FUNDING - $3,885,000.
5.
EOB STAFF MEETING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OFFICERS, INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF THE 15 REQUESTS SUBMITTED BY THE EIGHT COUNCILS.
6.
STATUS OF 0.1. THRIFT SHOP AND MANAGER (LETTER FROM MRS. KtNCHERLOW).
7.
LETTER FROM DUDLEY EVANS.
8.
PARTICIPATION IN TELEVISION SHOW.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
September 22, 1967
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
Please be advised that the monthly meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
Z&&NESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1967
(KUo P.M.
Uq/ARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 1967.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTH ENDING AUGUST, 1967.
COMMUNICATIONS
Nevada Futures - Constitution and By-Laws
North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council - re funding of Neighborhood Council Project
Jo Mackey Counci I - same subject
Actions taken at meeting of Neighborhood Councils - same subject
Letter of Resignation from Board Member William Merz
Letter from Mrs. Kincherlow re status of funding of Instructor of Thrift Shop
Finance Officer.
NAACP TO Bl NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS.
GNATED
DELEGATE AGENCY FOR
PETITION BY OPERATION INDEPENDENCE TO BE DESIGNATED DELEGATE AGENCY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
APPROVAL OF WORK PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS FOR SUBMISSION FOR 1968 (FIVE COMPONENTS).
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO WORK TOWARD OBTAINING NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF FUNDS FOR 1968 PROJECTS.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF EOB FINANCE OFFICER.
|Q) REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
September 25, 1967 EOB OFFICES (932 W. Owens)
3:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHA IRMAN), Emory Lockette, Dorothy King, Harvey Dondero, Charles Spann, Peggy Smith, Thomas WiIson
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Evelyn Mauldin, Lamar McDan i eI, Sylvia StapIes
Guest: Radar Rollins
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 28: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Mr. Spann moved that the minutes be adopted as presented. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE'S RESPONSE TO THE 1967 AUDIT QUESTIONS: Mr. Cottrell noted that each member of the Executive Committee has been furnished a copy of the letter dated September 15 from Operation Independence responding to the Audit Report which had been considered by the Executive Committee last month.
Mr. Spann asked the Executive Director if, in his opinion, Operation Independence had satisfactorily answered the questions. Mr. Cottrell advised that he did not feel it could be a blanket judgment, and that the audit report itself indicates questions other than the questioned costs to which 0.1. had responded.
Mrs. Smith asked if the objective is whether we are to allow or disallow the costs. The Chairman advised that Regional 0E0 has directed that it is up to the EOB to determine whether costs are allowable, following which Operation Independence can appeal to Region on judgments they feel are incorrect.
Mr. Lockette suggested that, because there is an already-established EOB Finance Committee, the report be turned over to that Committee; that the report be compared to the questioned items of the audit and determinations be reported back to the Executive Committee.
Mrs. Mauldin, Finance Officer, said that she had requested Mrs. Johnson to provide copies of questioned documents for the EOB files. Mr. Cottrell noted that he has seen evidence that some documents claimed to be on file are in the Operation Independence fi les.
The Chairman ruled, subject to objection by any member, that the Operation Independence audit and response be referred to the Finance Committee of the EOB for determinations to be reported back to the October meeting of the Executive Committee.
In further discussion, Mrs. Mauldin noted that the most important consideration is what is being done to correct deficiencies that have been noted in other areas. Mrs. Smith asked if she had noticed recent accuracy of reports and promptness in submitting these reports.
The Chairman requested that Mr. Radar Rollins, who is presently conducting the January through July, 1967, audit of Operation Independence, be present at the Finance Committee meeting.
Mr. Lockette asked if Regional 0E0 would be formally notified of determinations. Mr. Cottrell stated that they would be.
RESIGNATION OF FINANCE OFFICER: Mr. Cottrell advised that Mrs. Evelyn Mauldin had resigned as Finance Officer; that he had immediately notified the Chairman who directed him to proceed to find a replacement. He said that the position has been advertised in the newspapers and placed with the Nevada State Employment Service; that 10 to 12 persons have applied and been interviewed.
Candidates making applications were reviewed by Mr. Cottrell. He advised that there Is one candidate who appears to be above the others and to whom he would like to give consideration; however, in this case and In the case of three other applicants, the candidates would require something above the beginning rate. He stated that In accordance with the Personnel Policies, he was requesting that the Executive Committee consider this request.
The qualifications of the most qualified candidate were reviewed.
Mr. Cottrell advised that this person would require a beginning salary at Step 3 of the new range with the first step increase in six months; that this would amount to a starting salary of $715 monthly, going to $743.90 after six months.
He said that two other candidates who are qualified, though not as highly qualified, have Indicated they would begin at $687 monthly. The candidate who is fourth choice would begin at the beginning step.
Following discussion, Mrs. Smith moved that, since the position was advertised at the beginning step to the highest step, the staff attempt to find someone who would accept one of the first two steps. Seconded by Mr. Lockette. On the vote, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell noted that this would not permit employment of the person the EOB staff feels to be the most qualified. There was further discussion involving the salary schedule, the range and step for this position, and discussion on starting new employees qt the beginning step.
1968 REFUNDING REQUESTS AND SHORTAGE OF NON-FEDERAL SHARE: Mr. Cottrell advised that Board Members have received preliminary refunding data; that the budgets for the five components being requested in 1968 total $694,500, for which 20$ non-federal share will be required. This amounts to $138,860. He said that the total amount the staff has been able to come up with Is $73,600 which Is $65,000 short of the 20$.
Mr. Cottrell noted that the Board can anticipate an excess in summer Head Start funding in non-federal share of about $9,000; this leaves the budgets about $56,000 short in non-federal share. The budgets for next year are higher than for 1967; and if 20$ non-federal share was calculated on 1967 funding $103,000 would be required which would mean a shortage of $21,000 at the very minimum. Mr. Cottrell advised that he had discussed this problem with Dr. Norvel Smith, Deputy Regional
-2-
Director, who advised that there are being made in Washington and San Francisco to determine where to find the additional non-federal share.
The Executive Director advised that the refunding applications have been prepared on what is felt to be reasonable levels based on 0E0 guidelines; that the programs will be between $56,000 and $21,000 short of non-federal share, depending on federal funding granted by 0E0. He further noted that it is the Chairman’s intention to appoint a committee at the Board Meeting to work on non-federal share.
Committee members discussed problems of obtaining non-federal share. The possibility of "pooling" statewide, should other CAPS in the state have an excess, was discussed.
There was discussion on the possibility of combining the counties in the southern part of the state under one CAA, and pooling the northern counties under the CAA in the northern part of the state. Mr. Cottrell explained this was originally anticipated; however, because rural problems are so different from urban problems, there was need for a community action agency to serve only the rural counties. He stated, however, that there is a possibility of intra-state pooling non-federal share without consolidating operations.
REQUESTS FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR FUNDING: The Chairman tabled this term until next month’s Executive Committee meeting so that all Board Members would have an opportunity to review the proposals.
Mrs. Smith moved that the request of Nevada Futures, Inc. be held for consideration at such time as funds become available.
Mr. Spann suggested that the Executive Committee study the projects in the event it may be possible to fund any portion of the proposal.
Mr. Lockette suggested that the entire Board should study programs submitted by any agency to determine their merits; then consideration should be given to availability of operating money for Clark County.
Mrs. Smith withdrew her motion.
Mrs. King asked if the Neighborhood Councils can submit projects and was it too late to do so this year. The Chairman advised that they could submit projects at any time, though it is too late for this year unless additional funds are alloted to Clark County.
EOB STAFF MEETING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL OFFICERS INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF FIFTEEN REQUESTS SUBMITTED JOINTLY BY THE EIGHT COUNCILS: Minutes of this meeting were provided to Executive Committee members. Mr. Cottrell briefly reviewed the proceedings of that meeting, noting that the Neighborhood Councils would like to see things left the way they are as far as the Councils are concerned; that they are opposed to any change in the present method of selecting Neighborhood Service Workers. They want the report of the Project Director to go to the Executive Committee rather than the full Council, and they want the Project Director in turn to make a report of what he has been doing to the Executive Committee of the Counc iI.
-3-
The Councils were in favor of an Advisory Council consisting of officers of all Councils. They are in favor of a VISTA worker being assigned to each Council. They are in favor of an additional Neighborhood Service Worker being employed to organize councils in areas where there presently are none. They do not agree that a Field Supervisor be added to the staff but do feel there is a need for a full-time secretary for the Project Director.
Regarding the Fifteen requests made jointly by the Councils, Mr. Cottrell advised that these requests were discussed with Council Officers and there was explanation made of why some requests cannot be met and what is being done to meet those which are possible. He noted that there seemed to be satisfaction with the answers and explanations provided.
Chairman White asked how the Councils feel as to delegate agencies.
Mr. Hoggard stated that there was much discussion on this matter, and the majority do not feel that NAACP should be the delegate agency for the Council project. Some expressed similar feeling about Operation Independence or any other agency. There was concensus by vote of six to one that the Councils would like to stay as they are, with the changes they have suggested in the work program descriptions.
Mr. Spann stated that there is a principle involved as to the EOB functioning as an operating agency as they are for Neighborhood Councils and Neighborhood Youth Corps.
Chairman White said that Dr. Norvel Smith had stated that If it IS a choice of Neighborhood Councils being under the CAA or under a delegate agency, it is preferable not to be under the CAA. Mr, White advised that guidelines also state that the CAA will contract these projects unless a qualified agency cannot be found. Mr. White said he feels there is animosity in the community regarding administration of the Councils, and if a qualified agency can be found, the EOB should delegate the Council project. He further stated that if this is done, the EOB should make sure that the administrative part is taken care of —a staff provided, etc.
There was discussion on ’’operation” of the Councils. Mr. Hoggard explained that the EOB staff does not operate the Councils; that the Councils operate themselves and hire their own Service Worker. He said they are responsible to the Project Di rector for day-to-day operation, though the Councils determine what they want their Worker to do. He explained that the EOB at times tries to coordinate some things — such as working on Upward Bound when recruitment of students is needed, or on such other things as are advantageous to every Council.
Mr. Hoggard said that Dr. Smith stated that as a first choice, before any other consideration, the Councils should be autonomous, though he left the impression that any Council can incorporate and become a delegate agency. This is not the same thing as saying that every Council, after it incorporated, would become a delegate agency. He stated that it is hoped that out of the Advisory Council will grow a group that could incorporate to run their own Council project, becoming their own delegate agency.
-4-
Mr. Lockette noted that Dr. Smith had said that administrative procedure should be separate from services. He further said that it should be understood that the EOB is the responsible agency, and if three Councils wanted to separate the EOB would have to decide whether they feel this is. to be in the interest of the majority. He said that all of us in time would like to see the Councils incorporate but at the present time he would question the possibility of separating them from the EOB or making any changes in the plan different from the way it is presently written.
Mr. Wilson stated that it appears that this "autonomy” has confused most of the Councils; that they are never completely autonomous. He noted that as he looks at it, how can you tell one Council they can incorporate and be their own delegate agency if there are six or seven other Councils that do not want to incorporate; can we divide It up this way or should the project be operated together?
Mr. Hoggard explained that available funding determines part of tfiis question; that eight separate projects could not be justified, with eight project directors, eight offices, etc.
Mrs. King said that if the Neighborhood Councils would be on their own, and would become a delegate agency themselves, they would first have to start with a project or business before they can move away from the group.
The Chairman advised that just because a Council becomes incorporated does not mean it would be approved by the EOB as a delegate agency. Mr. Cottrell added that there are some basic criteria which must be met to become approved: an adequate accounting system, as certified by a public accountant or CPA evidence of capability, etc.
Mr. White noted that the Executive Committee had expressed Interest in meeting with Neighborhood Service Workers to spell out duties as some do not seem to have an understanding of their functions, and that he feels it Is necessary for the Executive Committee to meet with the workers to do this.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the 1968 work program and job descriptions specifically spell out who the Neighborhood Service Worker is responsible to and what their duties are.
Mrs. Smith said the EOB is justified to go into "dictating" to the Counci Is though we have attempted to stay away from this. She suggested that perhaps the Council members themselves should be given more information and they should then take the responsibility of laying down the law. She said, however, that at the present time the Councils do not know what their workers are supposed to be doing in the community they serve.
Mr. Lockette asked why the Neighborhood Councils haven’t been given this information. Mr. Cottrell and Mr. Hoggard advised that they have been given information numerous times; however, people don’t attend the meetings regularly, there has been turnover in personnel, and some of the concepts are difficult to explain to disadvantaged persons.
Mrs. Smith moved that the staff be directed to prepare a packet stating in very comprehensive language the duties of a Service Worker, the limitations of a Service Worker, and what the Board expects in the way of activity from the Council in connection with the worker. Motion lost for lack of a second.
Mr. Hoggard suggested that Service Workers be asked to come to a Joint Advisory Council and Executive Committee meeting to again thoroughly review the matter. He further suggested that the agenda be limited to discussion of Neighborhood Councils and the Council’s relationship to the Neighborhood Service Worker.
The Chairman ruled, subject to objection, that each Neighborhood Service Worker and Chairman of each Council be requested to attend the next Executive Committee Meeting at which time information will be spelled out.
Mr. Wilson asked what will happen if Councils do not then abide by this.
Mr. Lockette advised that inasmuch as the EOB is the administrator of projects, it is the EOB’s responsibility to see that instructions are followed and deficiencies are corrected.
Mr. Hoggard asked how this could be done from a practical point of view, because the Service Worker would have the Council stand behind her.
This situation places the Project Director in an akward position. . .he is responsible, to an extent, for the actions of the Service Worker but has nothing to say about hiring or firing the work.
Mrs. King noted that Service Workers are elected each year by the Council, and asked who elects the Project Director. The Chairman advised that the Director should be elected also. The Chairman said that he would disagree; that the Director should be on the same basis as any other staff member.
STATUS OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE THRIFT SHOP AND INSTRUCTOR FOR THE SHOP: The Secretary read a letter from Mrs. Kincherlow who has been the instructormanager of the Thrift Shop. Mrs. Kincherlow requested to know the status of funding for her position.
Committee members discussed the background of this situation. Mr. Cottrell reviewed the history of the position, noting that this position was originally funded by NYC until this arrangement was discontinued because such a position is not an allowable cost in the NYC program.
He said that Mrs. Johnson has since attempted to find other sources of funding and did obtain a portion of the monthly salary from the Title V program. In the meantime the Board authorized submission of an amendment to the Regional Office of DEO, requesting that the Thrift Shop be funded through the Manpower Program.
Mr. Cottrell advised that he has continually tried to find out the status of this request, and was advised last Friday that it is in the process of being approved by Region.
Mr. Lockette said that he feels the Thrift Shop has very much serviced this community, and the Regional Office should be contracted to see that the amendment request is expedited.
Mrs. Smith noted that Mrs. Kincherlow should be told that she is not being funded; that the position of instructor is being funded.
-6-
The Chairman directed that Mr. Cottrell answer Mrs. Kincherlow’s letter and try to obiain information on approval of the amendment by Wednesday’s Board Meeting.
LETTER FROM DUDLEY EVANS FURTHER REGARDING HIS GRIEVANCE: Mr. Lockette moved to table this until a later date. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
PARTICIPATION IN TELEVISION SHOW: Mr. Cottrell advised Executive Committee members that Bob Bailey has a television show, and one-half hour on this show is being devoted to explain and answer questions regarding poverty programs. Members expressed their feelings of this being very desirable In terms of information to the public.
TELEPHONE CALL FROM JAMES ANDERSON: The Chairman advised that he had Just received a note stating that Mr. Anderson was advising the Executive Committee that Mr. Shriver’s office has been contacted regarding duplication of effort in Neighborhood Council and Manpower Programs.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to be brought before the meeting, such was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, to. 4' - W.F. COTTRELL Execut i ve Di rector
WFC:djm
BOARD MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
September 27, 1967 Clark County District Health Aud.
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), Joe Braswell, Pat Fahey, Charles Jones, Thomas Wilson, Nancy Williams, Webster Butcher, Paul Marshall, Don Dawson, Bob McPherson, Ted Lawson, Emory Lockette, Peggy Smith, Harvey Dondero, Charles Spann, Wendell Waite, Ferren Bunker, Dorothy King, Daisy Miller, Father Shallow, Jimmie Green
Guests: Ethel R. Pearson, Florence Elmore, Geraldine W. Schwartz, Addie Reid Blake, Letha Mobley, Marjorie Dudley, Clara Bailey, Mildred E. Fullington, Jessie D. Hutchins, Hazel K. Geran, Rosie Smith, Evelyn Coleman, D. Martin, George W. Gant, Marjorie E. Elliott, Marion Bennett, Kathryn James, Robert Fahey, Clifford Greene, Art Grant, O.N. Abbington, Frederick R. French, Harold L. Ortega, Sarah Ray, Lee Adler, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wells, Lubertha Johnson, Floyd Plymouth
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples, Lamar McDaniel Evelyn Mauldin
MEETING OPENED: Chairman White called the meeting to order and asked that visitors at this time bring forth any items or questions for discussion. There were none; however, Mr. Frederick French advised that the minutes of the August meeting did not show that he had quoted from the EOB By-Laws that "the Board will serve in a non-operating capacity and will serve in an operating capacity only when, in the judgment of the Board, no qualified sponsoring agency exists."
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 30: The Chairman ruled, subject to objection by any member, that with the addition noted by Mr. French, the minutes would stand approved as presented.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTH ENDING AUGUST, 1967: The Chairman advised that because staff members have been working on projects for refunding, the financial statements were not completed in time to be sent out with the mailing and agenda of meeting. It was therefore moved by Mrs. Fahey and seconded by Mrs. Williams that the financial report be deferred for aDDroval until next month. Motion carried.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Nevada Futures, Inc. Constitution and By-Laws; As requested by the Board at last month’s meeting a copy of this organizations’s Constitution and By-Laws was available. The copy was passed around so that Board Members could briefly review them, and the item deferred until the latter part of the meeting.
North Las Vegas Council - refunding of Neighborhood Council Project: A letter from the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council was read, setting forth the Council’s recommendations on refunding of the 1968 Neighborhood Council project. Mr. Jones requested clarification on how much funding would go to North Las Vegas. The Chairman reviewed that Dr. Norvel Smith, 0E0 Regional Deputy Director, had implied that Neighborhood Councils could become delegate agencies - not one individual Council, but collectively - to run the program and then petition to be a delegate agency.
The Chairman said that we cannot have eight Councils going off in all directions. He advised that Councils can submit programs but EOB must make decisions within the limits of guideline funding.
Letter from Jo Mackey Council - refunding of Neighborhood Council Project:
Mr. Jim Anderson commented on items not relating to the agenda. The Chairman ruled this to be out of order, and continued with the business of the agenda. The letter from the Jo Mackey Council, setting forth that Council’s recommendations regarding refunding of the Neighborhood Council Project was read by the Secretary.
Actions taken at Joint Meeting of Eight Neighborhood Councils regarding refunding of Neighborhood Council Project: Chairman White advised that members have in their packet the minutes of a meeting called on September 18 by EOB staff for the purpose of discussing with officers of the Councils refunding of the Council Project for 1968.
Letter of Resignation of EOB Finance Officer: The Chairman advised that this item has been withdrawn.
Proposal from Theta PI Lambda of Alpha Phi Alpha, Inc,; This communication, read by the secretary, proposed funding for a cultural and educational program for the target area in order to enhance the learning and preparatory schooling for the children of the area.
Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Merz had stated that this program might be eligible for consideration for funding under Title I, ESEA; that it probably could not be funded under 0E0 Title I I-A because cultural enrichment programs are low-priority.
Following a reguest by Mr. Jim Anderson that this Board recommend approval of the project, and Mr. Cottrell’s comment that it would be his personal recommendation that the project be approved, though it is up to the Board, Mr. Spann moved that the Board submit the project to the School District for consideration under ESEA funding with the recommendation that the EOB feels it to be a worthwhile program and recommends approval. Seconded by Rev. Clark, motion carried. Mrs. Fahey suggested that in the transmittal, it should not be recommended only for Title I funding, because Title II and Title III also have provisions for these programs as well as some of Title V.
RESIGNATION OF FINANCE OFFICER: Mr. Jones asked why this matter had previously been withdrawn from the agenda. The Chairman advised that the Finance Officer has decided to withdraw her resignation. Following discussion and comments, Mrs. Fahey moved that because all matters of personnel were subject to closed meetings, these remarks be stricken from the record. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried.
GENERAL DISCUSSION: Regarding program priority comments made by Dr. Norvel Smith, Mrs. Miller asked if it was not said that the Board could set their own priority for programs? Mr. Cottrell advised that the statement made by Dr. Smith was that in his personal opinion, the CAA should have more determination, and he hoped this business of priorities would be eliminated.
-2-
However, at the moment it had not been eliminated, Mr. Cottrell advised. He further not d that Dr. Smith had asked that he write him a letter indicating this agency’s position relating to versatile funding. A compilation indicates that only 12% of EOB funds are versatile — all others are earmarked.
Regarding the proposal received from Alpha Phi Alpha, Mr. French asked the date the proposal had been received. The Chairman advised it was Monday, September 25. Mr. French indicated that he was unhappy that such fast action was not applied to Nevada Futures’ requests.
Mrs. Smith, referring to withdrawal of the resignation of the Finance Officer, commented on statements made by her regarding selection of a person to fill the position. The Chairman ruled these comments out of order due to the fact that she was referring to proceedings of the Executive Committee of which the minutes had not yet been approved. Regarding a comment on the salary for this position, Mr. Cottrell advised that there has been no change in salary.
Mr. Woodrow Wilson asked that this discussion be discontinued due to the fact that a motion has been passed to do so.
REQUEST FROM THE PRIDE OF THE WEST DISTRICT ASSOCIATION TO BE MADE A DELEGATE AGENCY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS PROGRAM: This request, signed by Reverend Simmons, was read to the Board.
Mr. Cottrell explained that NYC programs are funded under the Labor Dept with no delegate agency arrangement; that the EOB is the contractor or sponsor of the program. Under BWP guidelines, the grantee is the prime contractor or sponsor unless the BWP has convincing reasons why the grantee cannot or should not be such. He advised that to change this arrangement, BWP would have to determine that there is a valid reason why the Board should not be the prime contractor. Consideration of a request from another agency would have to be submitted to BWP.
Mr. Anderson commented that he had prepared this request; and asked if the EOB were not funded as the grantee in 1968, wouldn’t this place upon the Labor Department the responsibility of finding an organization to which to contract the NYC program?
Mr. Cottrell advised that if the EOB was not in existence, this would be so.
Mr. Braswell suggested that the Board direct the Executive Director to inform the organization that their proposal has been submitted to the wrong agency.
Mr. French commented that anytime these programs are submitted directly to the Regional or National Department, they are sent back requesting that they be submitted to the community action agency.
Rev. Clark said that the Board should either make a recommendation or vote a recommendation down.
Following further discussion, Mr. Lockette moved that the EOB review the proposal just received and determine if the EOB is the proper agency to take action; if EOB is not the proper agency to recommend to which agency
-3-
it should be submitted; further that this be done without concurrence or non-concur,en<of the program by the EOB. Seconded by Mr. Jones, motion carried.
SEATING OF REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HENDERSON NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL: A letter was read from the Chairman of the Henderson Council stating that the Council’s representative to the EOB would be Mr. Jimmie Green. Mr. Green was seated with the recommendation that his name be submitted to the Nominating Committee for formal appointment. The Chairman welcomed Mr. Green as a member of the Board.
PETITION BY NAACP TO BE DESIGNATED DELEGATE AGENCY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT: The letter of request was read.
Mr. Braswell stated that inasmuch as the Board has not included in the 1968 work program a provision for any delegate agency, that this would require reconsideration to provide for any delegate agency.
Mr. Spann noted that in the next agenda item, Operation Independence also requests to be made the delegate agency for the Neighborhood Councils.
He said that the principle of whether the Councils should be placed with a delegate agency should first be. decided; then determination made as to who the delegate agency should be.
Mr. Lockette moved that the request by NAACP be turned over to the Executive Committee and a report of their comments be brought back to the next Board Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Waite.
Rev. Clark asked the deadline for submission of projects. Being advised that it was October 1, Rev. Clark asked how the Executive Committee can discuss this and bring it back to the Board when the deadline has already passed.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the programs do not go into operation until January 1, and if the Board voted to take action to change any provision this could be done by requesting a change in the work program. He further advised that though amendments can be proposed at any time, Regional 0E0 must approve any amendments, noting that 30 days must be allowed for 0E0 action on an amendment.
Rev. Clark stated that the Board itself is now seeking the contract, yet there is a motion that the Board will study the request of another agency to operate the program. He asked if the Board could make an independent choice when it now operates the program. He continued, saying that Board Members are under the impression the Councils are autonomous; but this is not the truth and we are deliberately misinforming Board Members when statements such as this are made. He said the facts are d i storted.
Mrs. Fahey discussed the work programs of projects, explaining that they are nothing more than a set of blueprints on something to be built; that the question of who is going to build it is the equivalent of a delegate agency. She said the Board should take first things first, and should first decide what should be built. Then if there is a need for a delegate agency, this should be stated in the program; but the Board has not yet voted on the program.
On the vote on the motion to refer the request of NAACP to the Executive Committee, motion carried. Mrs. Fahey abstained from voting.
PETITION BY OPERATION INDEPENDENCE TO BE DESIGNATED DELEGATE AGENCY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS: Mr. Bunker moved to submit this item to the same question as the previous item. Seconded by Mr. Lockette motion carried.
Rev. Clark asked that the letter of request from Operation Independence be read. The letter was read, following which Mr. Lockette moved that copies be made and furnished to each Board Member to be made an attachment to the minutes. Seconded by Mrs. Smith, motion carried.
Mr. French states from the audience that discussion of both these previous items is illegal inasmuch as the Board of Directors has not voted that there should be a delegate agency for the Neighborhood Council Project.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman reported on the meeting of the Executive Committee. He advised that:
1)
a motion had been passed that the answer to the audit of Operation Independence Day Care Centers be referred to the Finance Committee for recommendations. Chairman White thus asked Mrs. King, Chairman of the Finance Committee, to call a meeting for this purpose and report back to the next Executive Committee meeting.
2)
the request for funding of programs proposed by Nevada Futures was deferred until next month’s Executive Committee meeting, to give members an opportunity to read the proposal. The Chairman noted that EOB staff hadn’t received a copy of the proposal and thus it has rot been provided to Board Members other than the Chairman.
Mr. French asked why the Executive Committee is putting this proposal off until next month, yet proposals just received tonite have been acted on and the Nevada Futures program which has been in the hands of the Chairman and Mr. Cottrell for two months will not be acted on until the next Board Meeting.
Mr. Cottrell corrected this statement, advising Mr. French that the program has never been submitted to him or to any other EOB staff member.
APPROVAL OF WORK PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS FOR SUBMISSION FOR 1968 REFUNDING:
Mr. Cottrell advised that five projects are included in the request for 1968 refunding, and budgets and budget justifications for these five projects have been mailed to all Board Members with work programs having been mailed the previous month. He noted that these budgets have been prepared on the basis of 0E0 guidelines, in particular guidelines for Head Start which resulted in requesting an increase in funding for the day care centers in order to provide the services which 0E0 sets forth.
He advised that the total request for funding is higher, and 20^ of the program cost must now be provided through non-federal share. Mr. Cottrell stated that the budgets as presented include committments from the various agencies who have provided non-federal share in the past.
Mr. Anderson commented on offers of space from the Moulin Rouge; the Chairman thanked him.
-5-
The Chairman advised he felt it was necessary to appoint a committee to see what couiu be done to obtain additional non-federal share. He appointed Mr. McPherson as Chairman, and as members Mr. Bunker, Mr. Thomas Wilson, Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Williams.
Mr. Bunker moved that each of the five projects be approved as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Waite, motion carried with one naye vote.
Mrs. Fahey abstained from voting. Mr. Lockette noted that it was not that he was against the programs, but felt that they should be voted on separately.
Mr. Cottrell advised that there was expectation on the part of the Neighborhood Councils that their recommendations would be considered along with consideration of the Neighborhood Council Project. The Chairman ruled that subject to objection, each recommendation would be reviewed. Mr. Lockette objected, stating that the intent of the Neighborhood Councils was to bring recommendations before the Board rather than office staff.
In view of the motion just completed, he suggested that the recommendations be turned over to the Executive Committee and brought back to the Board but in any event that the recommendations be presented. Seconded by Rev. Clark. On a show of hands vote, the motion was carried by a 16 to 3 vote.
Mrs. Fahey asked if the Neighborhood Council proposals are now considered an amendment to the Work Program. Mr. CottrelI advised that the only way they could be incorporated in the work program would be by an amendment. Mrs. Fahey stated that the Executive Committee then would not have the final authority; that the proposals would still need to come before the Board. The Chairman advised her that this was so.
There was discussion on the employment of personnel of the Neighborhood Councils. Rev. Clark stated that it is said the Neighborhood Councils employ the workers, but it is the EOB who gives them direction and who pays their salaries. Chairman White advised that the Service Worker is hired by the ConeiI itself.
Rev. Clark said that each member knows that Mr. McDaniel gives the Councils orders; that you can ask the workers themselves.
Mr. Lockette noted there is a lot to be debated about administration of Neighborhood Councils; however, this Board will have the final say so there is nothing to accomplish by discussing who is "boss".
The Chairman advised it is not necessary to ask the Service Workers anything; that this is a meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board and the Service Workers are paid personnel. He said if there is something that the Service Workers are unhappy with they can meet together and submit their complaints to the Board. Mr. White stated that the Board Members are responsible for taking action on the agenda and this is what will be fol lowed.
-6-
REPORT OF THE EXECU'iiVL DIRECTOR: Mr. Cottrell advised that information has just been received from the Regional Office that the amendment to the Manpower Program, providing the salary for the Thrift Shop Instructor, will be approved; also that the supplemental funding request for Day Care Centers will be approved.
Mr. Cottrell advised Board Members that he has been requested to sign a checkpoint form for the Boy’s Club, which is working with the City of Las Vegas on an application to the Community Facilities Administration for a multi-purpose neighborhood center to be built at Highland and Washington. Further Mr. Murray Hoyt has contacted him regarding signing the checkpoint for Clark County’s request for a Neighborhood Facility in Moapa Valley. He explained that the facility would basically include medical facilities; that this would supplement the migrant project of the EOB as well as make up for the lack of medical facilities in the area.
Mr. Braswell moved that the Board authorize the Executive Director to sign off on both of the projects he has just discussed. Seconded by Mr. Waite.
Mr. Lockette asked Mr. Cottrell’s recommendation on these two projects. Mr. Cottrell advised that he would recommend concurrence by the Board.
On the vote, motion carried.
GENERAL DISCUSSION: Mr. Spann moved that all previous members of the Board be issued certificates of appreciation. Seconded by Mr. Dondero. Mr. Lockette moved to amend the motion to include ’’that the staff get with it and get these letters out." Seconded by Mr. Spann. On the vote on the amendment, it was carried. On the vote on the motion, motion carried.
NEVADA FUTURES - CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS: The Chair was reminded that this item had not yet been completed. The Chairman advised that the Constitution and By-Laws had been passed around for members to review. Mr. Bunker questioned whether the organization has been properly recognized through the Secretary of State. Mr. French asked where it is required that the Secretary of State has to authenticate the By-Laws — that only the members of the Board need to do this.
In discussion it was discovered that the Constitution and By-Laws had not been passed around to all members, and they apparently had been misplaced and were not available to the Chair. In view of this, Mr. Lockette moved that a copy be made available to each Board Member for next month’s meeting and this matter be tabled until that time so that members will have an opportunity to review them. Seconded by Mr. Bunker. On the vote, the motion carried.
GENERAL DISCUSSION: Mrs. Fahey asked if the Clark County School District would be serving as a delegate agency for any projects in 1968. Mr. Cottrell advised that the School District is now delegate agency for two projects Summer Head Start and Migrant and sponsor for one NYC In-School Program.
Mrs. Fahey asked if the School District’s Board of Trustees had acted on these projects. Mr. Cottrell advised the proj'ects have not yet been prepared for refunding: thus the Board has not yet acted.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to bring before the Board, the meeting was adj’ourned.
Respectfully submitted,
/'/y
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
October 12, 1967
TO: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: ISAAC WHITE CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby advised that the monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
MONDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 W. Owens)
AGENDA
I.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25.
2.
REPORT (RECOMMENDATIONS) FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REGARDING 1966 OPERATION INDEPENDENCE AUDIT.
3.
REQUEST FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR FUNDING OF $3,885,000 PROJECT (copy of requested projects is enclosed).
4.
REQUEST FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. TO SEAT A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD (copy of Constitution and By-Laws is enclosed).
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS REGARDING FUNDING AND WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FOR 1968. (copy is enclosed)
6.
REQUEST OF NAACP TO BE A DELEGATE AGENCY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS (copy of letter of request is enclosed).
7.
REQUEST OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS (copy of letter of request is enclosed).
8.
APPLICATION FOR 1968 SUMMER HEAD START FUNDING.
9.
DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION REGARDING CHANGE OF TIME AND DATE OF MONTHLY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
10.
REVIEW OF LISTING OF BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE MISSED THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS.
II.
OTHER BUSINESS.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
October 16, 1967 EOB Offices (932 W. Owens)
3:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Harvey Dondero, Dorothy King, Nancy Williams, Emory Lockette, Daisy Miller, Ted Lawson
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
Guests: Lubertha Johnson
QUORUM NOT PRESENT: Though the meeting was not officially called to order due to there not being a quorum present, the Chairman called for discussion of the audit report of Operation Independence for the period ending December 31, 1966.
Mr. Cottrell stated that each member has been provided a copy of the recommendations from the Finance Committee Meeting held October 4 for the purpose of discussing the audit report. He noted that most questioned costs have been recommended for allowance with the stipulation that further documentation will be secured by Operation Independence.
The Chairman asked Mrs. Johnson if she was able to provide the additional documentation at this tiem. Mrs. Johnson advised, in regard to sufficient documentation as to hours claimed as in-kind for services by the Clark County District Health Department, it has been impossible to secure the further documentation because these records were not kept.
Regarding the payment for audit services in the contract with Mr. Stanford McNair, the 01 Board had previously authorized the maximum figure to be changed from $100 to $400, and this change has been initialed by Mrs. Johnson and Mr. McNair.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25: There being no additions, deletions or corrections by any member, the Chairman ruled the minutes to stand approved as presented.
REPORT (RECOMMENDATIONS) FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE REGARDING 1966 OPERATION INDEPEN_ DENCE AUDIT: Mrs. Johnson continued her report on obtaining necessary documentation to comply with the directions of the EOB Finance Committee so that questioned costs could be allowed.
Regarding accounting services performed by Mrs. Dorothy Harper for which the billing did not show the number of hours spent, Mrs. Johnson advised the Committee that additional information has been obtained which spells out the number of hours and the amount per hour.
In payment made to Dr. Hess amounting to $20 per hour ($160 per day which is more than can be paid according to 0E0 guidelines without prior 0E0 permission) Mrs. Johnson advised that she is able to provide names of persons who worked with Dr. Hess and who are included in the billing of $20 per hour. She further noted that Dr. Hess has advised he charged 50$ of what he normally charges in conducting such a training session. Mrs. Johnson stated that Operation Independence did benefit from the training programs.
Regarding payment to Mae Perrin made on the basis of a retainer contract, Mrs. Johnson stcted she has obtained necessary documentation with Mrs. Perrin’s signature showing the actual work performed, request for extension of her services (including why work was suspended and then continued at a later date), and number of hours spent. She also noted that Mrs. Perrin had given six weeks of free training which is not included in the contract at all.
The Chairman invited members to examine the documentation Mrs. Johnson has obtained if they so wish. He requested the pleasure of the Executive Committee regarding the proceedings of the Finance Committee Meeting of October 4 at which the recommendations were made.
Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive Committee accept the minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting of October 4. Seconded by Mr. Dondero.
In discussion, Mrs. Williams asked If an adequate telephone budget had been provided for in the future, due to the fact that this was the cause of overspending a line item. She was advised that there has been.
Mr. Lockette asked if the Finance Committee had requested Mrs. Johnson to appear at this meeting. The Chairman advised that the Finance Committee requested only that the necessary backup documentation be submitted.
Mr. Lockette said the documentation could have gone to the Finance Committee to make final recommendation to the Executive Committee, further noting the Finance Committee should be held responsible for recommendations.
Regarding a statement Mr. White had made at the Finance Committee meeting that he felt the Finance Committee must take the responsibility for reviewing the questioned costs and making recommendations to the Executive Committee, Mr. White explained that this statement was his personal opinion. Mr. Lockette stated he disagreed with this statement and asked to amend the motion to include that this statement by Mr. White be deleted.
It was pointed out that this could not be done; that the Executive Committee was not approving the Finance Committee minutes, but was considering their recommendations regarding the 1966 audit of Operation Independence Day Care project.
On the vote on the motion to accept the minutes of the Finance Committee Meeting, motion carried with one naye vote.
Mrs. Johnson discussed the VISTA expenditures which were being questioned because funds were spent after termination of the grant. She said she had nothing to dindicate that funds had been frozen.
Chairman White suggested that the Executive Di rector write a letter to Regional, explaining the situation and asking for a ruling, so that these expenditures might be allowed. Mr. Dondero moved that the documentation presented by Operation Independence be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Wilson motion carried.
The Chairman directed that a copy of the documentation just reviewed be furnished the EOB Office in order that it can be presented to the Regional Office, if so required.
REQUEST FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR FUNDING OF $3,885,000 PROJECT: The Chairman advised that members have been mailed a copy of this application.
There was discussion on the description of the target area included in the project. The Chairman stated that though funds are not available, this organization should be given a fair chance by determining if there are portions of this project which might be beneficial to the community as a whole. He requested members to make such recommendations.
There was discussion of the number of families this project planned to serve. Regarding the 19,000 families included in the project application, Mr. Wilson noted that he questions this to be the total number of families as much of the area described is vacant land.
Mrs. Williams advised that the project includes only the depressed area of North Las Vegas. She said that although the project is a good idea, there does not seem to be anything that can be done right now to implement it because of the lack of funds. She noted that as she understands, Nevada Futures had to submit the program to this Board before they could submit it to any other group; the organization did not expect to get funding through EOB but this is a formality which has to be done.
Mrs. Williams noted Dr. Norvel Smith had said the Councils could get together and incorporate and form their own delegate agency, which is what Nevada Futures has done.
Mr. Lockette stated that the Councils were given the impression by Dr. Smith that all they had to do was incorporate and be out from under the EOB. He $$[Mained that the request to become a delegate agency would have to come before the EOB for approval, and if approved, submitted to Regional 0E0.
Mr. Lockette asked if there was any single portion or idea in the proposal from Nevada Futures that is not a duplication and that could be utilized. The Chairman said that if there is something that might be beneficial, it should be considered; that though there are no funds available at this time there may be at a later date.
Mr. Wilson stated that most of the items have already been taken into consideration in existing programs and he could not see the point in "dividing up the horses;" that the more division you have the less effective programs are going to be.
Mrs. Williams stated that it is a very ambitious program and she felt the Committee should make a recommendation to give Nevada Futures best wishes but advise them there is no money available to fund the program. She said she disagreed with Mr. Wilson's position that "if there is a store in one part of town you should not put another one there."
Mr. Wilson moved to recommend that inasmuch as the funds are not available, the request be denied. Motion lost for lack of a second.
Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that in view of the number of programs administered in Clark County under EOB and the lack of funds available for instituting new programs, and federal restrictions upon instituting new programs under the CAA, the requests as submitted from Nevada Futures be denied. Seconded by Nancy Williams, motion carried.
-3-
Mr. Dondero moved to recommend that the Board commend Nevada Futures, Inc. for the work done in developing this proposal and for their interest in furthering the welfare of the people in this particular community. Seconded by Mr. Lockette and Mrs. Williams, motion carried.
REQUEST FROM NEVADA FUTURES, INC. TO SEAT A REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BOARD: The Chairman advised that all members have been furnished a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws of Nevada Futures which had been requested by the Board before taking action on this item.
Mr. Lockette moved to recommend to the Board that after review of the Constitution and By-Laws a representative be seated on the Board. Seconded by Nancy Williams, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell advised that in the criteria for seating representatives of low-income groups which has previously been established by. the Board, criteria includes that the group have no less than 20 members.
The criteria established for low-income groups was reviewed and discussed by members, following which Mr. Lockette moved that it be recommended to the Board to apply criteria which has previously been established for low- income groups to this organization, excluding the portion which requires that a majority of the members be low-income people. Further, that the EOB Office request Nevada Futures to have the necessary information available for the Board Meeting of October 25. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
It was noted that before a representative can be seated, the Board must first adopt the recommendation to apply criteria developed for low-income groups to Nevada Futures.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS REGARDING REFUNDING OF WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS FOR 1968: Mr. Cottrell advised that Committee members have been provided with copies of the recommendations made at the joint meeting of the Neighborhood Councils held September 18, and also with copies of the portion of the work program description to which these recommendations apply. He explained that work program descriptions will go into effect as originally written and approved by the Board January 1, 1968, unless there are modifications requested from the Regional Office.
There was discussion on the recommendations. Mrs. Williams stated that she felt the report of the Project Director should be submitted to the Executive Board of each Council rather than to the open Council meeting. Mrs. Miller disagreed, stating it is the Council who employs the worker.
Regarding manner of selection of the Neighborhood Service Worker, Mrs. Williams said she is very much in favor of the worker being selected as in the past and not as proposed in the work program description.
She moved to amend the work program description to continue selection of the Service Worker by the majority vote of the Council. Motion lost for lack of a second.
Mr. Lockette noted that screening of applications and presentation of three applicants by the Project Director to the Council would seem to alleviate some friction in that the Project Di rector seems more qualified to screen applications. Mrs. Williams asked if this implies that the Council is not qualified? Chairman White noted the Project Director is more apt to be
qualified to make recommendations as far as the Council is concerned.
Mrs. Williams said she does not feel the existing Project Director is any more qualified than many in the Councils as far as determination as to who should be hired to do this job.
Mr. Wilson noted that he feels the Project Director should screen applicants and present three applications to the Council; that this still leaves the final choice with the Council. He said it is not a point of whether the Council is qualified, and quite often selection is nothing more than a clique deciding who is to be hired.
Mrs. Miller noted she had been under the impression the Councils had suggested that they select the three persons and the Project Director make final selection from those three persons. She then moved that the project be amended so the Council may continue to select its Service Worker as it has done in the past. Seconded by Mrs. King. On a roll call vote, motion lost.
Mrs. Miller asked if the Project Director will have any more authority than he has at the present time under the new proposal. Mr. Cottrell explained that as the work program now stands, the Council will submit applicants to the Project Director who will select three of the most qualified persons to submit back to the Council for their selection.
Mr. Lockette discussed relationship as far as responsibility between the Service Worker and Project Director, noting from what he has heard and seen it seems that some of the Councils are doing a good job in supervising their workers, others are not. He said that he can see a problem when you have a whole Council trying to supervise an individual. He said some designation of supervisory responsibility should be set up.
Mr. Cottrell reviewed that on a day-to-day basis, supervision comes from the Project Director;.determination of the areas or projects the Service Worker works in comes from the Council.
The Chairman noted that most Service Workers feel the Project Director has no supervisory authority whatsoever, adding it is not workable to have a Director to whom the people working under him do not have to report.
He added that if the Service Worker is supervised by the Council, there is no need for a Project Director.
Mrs. Williams noted the Project Director is written up only as a consultant and coordinator; the Service Worker goes to him to find how best to accomplish things. Mr. Cottrell stated that Mrs. Williams was reading from an outdated job description. There was discussion on the present job descriptions of the Project Director and Service Workers. The Chairman asked to whom the worker would be responsible, assuming the Council had told him to do one thing and the Director had told him to do another.
Mr. Cottrell explained that a basic principle of administration is that you are responsible to the person by whom you are appointed; and this is a situation where the Project Director does not appoint the person who is responsible to him.
After further discussion, the Chairman directed that each Council officer, Service Worker, and Council representative on the Board be sent a copy of revised job descriptions for the Project Director and Neighborhood Service Worker.
REQUEST OF NAACP TO BE NAMED DELEGATE AGENCY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT: Mrs. Williams moved to recommend to the Board that the request of NAACP to be designated the delegate agency for the Neighborhood Council Project be denied in view of the fact that the Neighborhood Councils desire to remain as they are. Seconded by Mr. Wilson.
In discussion, Mr. Lockette stated he did not know how the Board could make this decision without really knowing how NAACP proposes to run the project. Other Committee members noted that NAACP had not proposed anything but to be delegated the project, which is what the decision would have to be based on. On the vote, motion carried.
REQUEST OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT: Mr. Wilson noted he could not decide from the letter specifically what Operation Independence was requesting.
Mrs. Williams moved, in view of the fact that the Neighborhood Councils themselves voted to remain as they are, the Committee recommended that the Board deny the request of Operation Independence. Seconded by Mrs. King. Mr. Wilson noted that as he understands, EOB now acts as delegate agency. Mr. Cottrell explained there is no control of Council policy decisions by EOB, though the Project Director does supervise day-to-day activities, and EOB makes out paychecks, gathers statistics, orders supplies, and takes care of other "housekeeping" functions.
Mr. Wilson questioned whether the Board could state there is no qualified delegate agency when Operation Independence is requesting to be named such and is already a delegate agency for other projects.
Mr. Lockette said he personally feels the program should remain as it is for another year, working with the Advisory Council and after that year the Board should study the project in terms of setting up its own delegate agency. He noted he does not see how moving the Council Project under either proposed agency at this time would improve it.
On the vote to deny the request of Operation Independence, motion carried.
APPLICATION FOR 1968 SUMMER HEAD START FUNDING:
Mr. Dondero moved to approve development of the application for the 1968 Summer Head Start program. Seconded by Mrs. Williams, motion carried.
DISCUSSION AND DETERMINATION REGARDING CHANGE OF TIME AND DATE OF MONTHLY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING: There was discussion on holding the Executive Committee Meeting on the Monday of the week prior to the Board meeting so recommendations made can be included on the agenda of the Board Meeting. There was also discussion on changing to evening meetings for convenience of the Neighborhood Council representatives; however, it was noted that all representatives now members of the Committee were generally able to attend afternoon meetings.
-6-
Mr. Wilson moved to change the Executive Committee meeting to 3:30 P.M. on the Monday p.eceding the week of the Board Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
REVIEW OF LISTING OF BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE MISSED THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS: It was noted that Mr. Don Hampton, representing the County Juvenile Probation Department, had missed three meetings.
Though Father Charles Shallow has missed many recent Executive Committee meetings, the Chairman advised he had discussed this with him and was informed by Father Shallow that he is still interested and it is just a busy schedule which has kept him away.
Following discussion of members being aware of the By-Laws ruling concerning attendance, the Chairman directed the EOB office to send a letter to a member after he has missed two consecutive Board meetings advising him of such. He asked that this be done as a matter of general policy.
OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Cottrell advised there are preliminary unaudited financial statements for the period January 1 thru June 30, on file for all EOB-funded projects. They are available for review by any Board Member.
A letter to the Chairman of the EOB from Mr. Sargent Shriver was read, commending the work of members of community action boards. The Chairman asked that the names and addresses of all Board Members be sent to Mr. Shriver’s office so that current information can be sent directly to each member.
Mrs. Miller suggested that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that no last minute business on which a vote is needed be presented to members the evening of a Board Meeting. She added that not having had an opportunity to review material, members do not know what they are voting on.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL
Execut i ve Di rector
WFC:dm
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
Meeting Held 10/16/67
REQUEST OF NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR PROGRAM FUNDING TOTALING $3,885,000.
The Executive Committee recommends that the Baord deny the request as submitted by Nevada Futures in view of the number of programs administered in Clark County under the EOB, the lack of funds available for instituting new programs, and federal restrictions upon instituting new programs under this CAA.
The Executive Committee further recommends that Nevada Futures, Inc. be commended for the work done in developing this proposal and for their interest in furthering the welfare of the people in this particular community.
REQUEST OF NEVADA FUTURES, INC. FOR REPRESENTATION ON THE EOB:
The Executive Committee recommends that the Board apply criteria which has previously been established for low-income groups to this organization excluding the portion which requires that a majority of the members be low- income people.
Nevada Futures, Inc. has been advised to have the necessary information available for the Board Meeting of October 25.
The Executive Committee further recommends that if the Board accepts the recommendation to apply this criteria that a representative be seated on the Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS CONCERNING 1968 REFUNDING:
Recommendations made by the Neighborhood Councils were discussed and considered by Executive Committee members.
There is no recommendation from the Executive Committee to change the work program description which was approved by the Board at the September meeting.
REQUEST OF THE NAACP TO BE DESIGNATED DELEGATE AGENCY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT:
The Executive Committee recommends that the Board deny the request of NAACP to be designated delegate agency for the Neighborhood Council Project in view of the fact that the Neighborhood Councils desire to remain as they are.
REQUEST OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE, INC. REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL PROJECT:
The Executive Committee recommends that the Board deny the request of Operation Independence inasmuch as the Neighborhood Councils themselves voted to remain as they are.
October 19, 1967
TO: Members of the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. COTTRELL, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Items for Consideration at October Board Meeting.
1.
Financial Statements.
You will recall that the August statements were held over from the September meeting. Therefore you have two sets of statements to consider, those for September and October. Copies are enclosed with this memo.
2.
Report of the Executive Committee
The Executive Committee has agreed to meet the Monday of the week before the monthly Board meeting. This will permit us to report recommendations of the Committee to the Board prior to the Board meeting. We also hope to have the minutes of the Executive Committee ready for distribution at the Board meeti ng.
The recommendations of the Executive-Committee are attached. In addition, the following items which relate to the recommendations of the Committee are enclosed, as directed by the Board at the September meeting:
A.
Copy of the request of Nevada Futures, Inc. for funding for programs in the amount of $3,885,00.
B.
Copy of the Constitution and By Laws of Nevada Futures, Inc.
C.
Copy of Letter from the NAACP requesting designation as delegate agency for the Neighborhood Counci I project.
D.
Copy of letter from Operation Independence, Inc. relating to the Neighborhood Council project.
3.
Summer Head Start Application
We have been notified that applications for 1968 summer projects must be submitted to the Regional Office by November 15. The school district and EOB staff are currently working on the application, which is much reduced in content. We are also informed that funding will be based on the dollar level of the 1967 program, and that 1968 program must conform to new, revised guide Iines.
Based on this information we request authority to submit a project based on serving 330 children, divided into 22 classes of 15 children each, to be located in 12 schools in various target areas within the county, with medical, dental and other supportive services in accordance with 0E0 Head Start guidelines. (There is no work program description to be submitted this year).
*4. Henderson Neighborhood Council Representation
At the last Board meeting action was taken to seat Mr. Jimmie Green as representative of the Henderson Neighborhood Council. The next day we were informed that Mr. Jimmie Green is the brother of the Service Worker, Mr. Clifford Green. Chairman White immediately wrote a letter to the Council pointing out that this is contrary to the provisions of CAP Memo No. 23-A, and that either Mr. Jimmie Green be replaced as representative, or Mr. Clifford Green must relinquish his job as Service Worker. (The memo prohibits employment of anyone closely related to a member of the CAP Board or other policy- making Board which has authority over the position in question).
5. Executive Director’s Report-
A.
Preliminary Statements
We have received preliminary statements of the auditors, Saigo and Rollins, Certified Public Accountants, of the following components for the first six months of this program year: Conduct and Administration, Neighborhood Councils, Manpower Development, Day Care Centers, and NYC Support. These statements (unaudited) are on file in the EOB office for inspection.
B.
Manpower Audit
Operation Independence, Inc. requested a complete audit of the Manpower Program covering the period during which the component was temporarily administered by the EOB staff, pending appointment of the Manpower Director. This audit has been completed and copies forwarded to Operation Independence Chairman and Executive Committee, Executive Director and Manpower Center Director. Copies are also on file in the EOB office for inspection by anyone interested.
C.
Designation of Field Representative.
We were notified on Tuesday, October 17 that Miss Connie Cox, of the Nevada/Arizona/Hawaii team in the Regional Office has been designated as the Field Representative for the Clark County EOB, in addition to CAA's in Tucson and southern Arizona counties. Connie replaces Harold Moore, and she hopes to attend the Board meeting next Wednesday.
D.
Status of Legal Aid project
Funds have been released by the Regional Office upon our submission of certification of local non-Federal share, which is to be provided in the form of additional volunteered services by local attorneys for the position of Staff Attorney for the project. We hope to have the program in operation very shortly.
E.
Status of VISTA Application
We were visited several weeks ago by representatives of the VISTA program office in Phoenix, who advised us that our project will be administered through that office. We have heard nothing further from Phoenix and are in contact with the Regional VISTA Office in San Francisco to get clarification on the matter.
-2-
5.
F. Migrant Project
Project Director, Melvin Marshall and his staff are preparing for the influx of migrants, which has already begun. Mel plans to open the day care facility on Monday, October 30, and additional programs (tutoring for high school students, adult education programs, etc.) will be reinstituted as the migrant population in Moapa increases.
The Logandale School, which serves as the project headquarters and includes the day care facilities, has been rennovated and painted during the summer. Additional equipment has been installed since spring and the facility is now well equipped to handle the crib-care and day care programs.
Two seminars dealing with teaching English as a second language have been held during the summer, and additional teaching material (including Spanish texts) has been obtained. A consultant from the University of New Mexico participated in the seminars. The Project Director also attended a Management Information System seminar in California.
6.
Revised Personnel Policies as recommended by the Personnel Committee and approved by the Board are enclosed.
-3-
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
October 19, 1967
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE AND AGENDA OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of
Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1967
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
I.
RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
2.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1967.
3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
A.
EOB and NYC for month ending August 31, 1967.
B.
EOB and NYC for month ending September 30, 1967.
4.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REGARDING:
A.
Request of Nevada Futures, Inc. for program funding totaling $3,885,000.
B.
Request of Nevada Futures, Inc. for representation on the EOB.
C.
Recommenaations of the Neighborhood Councils concerning 1968 refunding.
D.
Request of the NAACP to be designated delegate agency for the Neighborhood Council Project.
E.
Request of Operation Independence, Inc. regarding the Neighborhood Council Project.
5.
SUMMER HEAD START APPLICATION FOR 1968 (Authorization requested to submit project on same criteria and number to be served as in 1967.
6.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NON-FEDERAL SHARE.
7.
REPRESENTATION OF THE HENDERSON NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL.
8.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
A.
Preliminary statements from auditors - January I through June 30.
B.
Audit of Manpower Project - January I through August 31.
C.
Designation of Field Representative.
D.
Status of Legal Aid Project.
E.
Status of VISTA application.
F.
Migrant Project.
9.
OTHER BUSINESS TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
October 25, 1967 8:00 P.M.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
Clark Co. District Health Dept. Auditorium Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: ISAAC WHITE (CHAIRMAN), Fr. Charles Shallow, Charles Spann, Emory Lockette, Dorothy King, Wendell Waite, Pat Fahey, Thomas Wilson, Victor Hall, Stella Fleming, Charles Jones, Douglass Pushard, Bob McPherson, Nancy Williams, Daisy Miller, Rev. Donald Clark.
Guests: William Bailey, Sr., Sarah Ray, Art Grant, Harold L. Ortega, Robert R. Martinez, Lubertha M. Johnson, Inez H. Archie, Evelyn Coleman, Phillip Edden, Jimmie L. Greene, Samuel Baynes, Clifford B. Greene, Hazel Geran, Rosie Smith, Rev. C. C. Smith, Addie Reid Blake, Ethel Pearson, Florence Elmore.
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, LaMar McDaniel, Sylvia Staples
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The Chairman asked the Executive Director to give his report since a quorum was not yet present and no action could be taken. Mr. CottrelI advised that each member of the Board has received a copy of a memo which briefly reviews the items of his report.
Unaudited Financial Statements: Mr. CottrelI noted that the EOB has received preliminary statements from the auditors covering the period January I through June 30. They are not audited reports; however, copies are available for review by members. These statements cover Conduct and Administration, Neighborhood Councils, NYC Support Component, Day Care Centers and a final audit on the Manpower Program for the period from January I through August 31 during the time EOB temporarily administered the project. (Mr. Lockette requested a copy of the Manpower Program audit; he was advised it would be sent.)
Status of Legal Aid Project: Mr. CottrelI reviewed that when the Legal Aid Program was funded by 0E0, the non-federal share from the Senior Citizens project had been inadvertently included in the grant by the Regional Office. This amount, however, was not allowed; and the Legal Aid Society has submitted a listing of volunteer time promised by attorneys. This was accepted by 0E0 and the money has been released. Mr. Cottrell advised the job now is to find a qualified attorney for the position of Staff Attorney to be hired by the Legal Aid Society. The Legal Aid Society is presently advertising the position and accepting applications.
Mr. CottrelI advised that Washington CEO had invited no more than two Legal Aid Board Members to attend Legal Aid and Defender National Conference in Philadelphia during the week of October 25. The Legal Aid Board President has been advised and plans are being made accordingly.
VISTA Project: Trie Executive Director stated that approval was expected shortly of the VISTA Project submitted in June requesting eight VISTA workers to work with the eight Neighborhood Councils.
Migrant Project: Mr. Cottrell advised that migrants are beginning to arrive in Moapa Vai ley, and plans are being made to open the day care center on October 30 with at least one class. Consultants, primarily interested in the teaching of English as a second language, have visited the Migrant Project. The tutorial and adult education classes will be started as soon as there are enough migrants in the area to set up one or more classes.
Memo from Regional Director: Mr. Cottrell stated that an additional memo on interim funding policies for 1968 has been received from the Regional Director, as Congress still has not taken action to appropriate money for the fiscal year beginning July I, 1967. He noted the major points of the memo: (I) Head Start Programs funded for eight months or more shall be refunded for the same Federal dollar amount as the last fiscal year and any cost increments must be absorbed within that dollar amount, (2) Legal services programs shall be based upon last year’s funding level; (3) Versatile programs will be limited to the same amount as last year. Mr. Cottrell advised that Clark County’s funding level for versatile programs is $156,000; and that the emphasis in this memo is that the Board should not count on additional federal dollars above what has been received for 1967 programs.
Mr. Lockette questioned what will be done in the situation of the day care centers, with that budget having been submitted at approximately $100,000 higher than last year. Mr. Cottrell advised that if 0E0 insists the program be operated under guidelines, there isn't much alternative but to reduce the number of children served by the program. Mr. Lockette noted that parents should write letters to Congressmen to explain the needs and importance of Head Start.
Mr. Cottrell said Congress has not voted any appropriation so at the moment no one really knows what the final legislation will contain, or how much money will be appropriated. Region is advising not to count on any more money than was allocated last year and further noting that this maximum is dependent on what Congress finally passes and appropriates. He noted that the Board should face the possibility of having to decide where to make cuts. He pointed out that this agency was not faced with cuts in funding for this year, as many CAAs were, and that we are now facing what many communities had to do a year ago.
Mr. Lockette asked where the programs fit in view of priorities set by the Board? Mr. Cottrell advised that of the programs this year, only 12$ are in versatile funding. He said other programs such as NYC which is funded by the Labor Department, are not involved in these discussions. He further noted the 12$ in versatile funding includes Conduct and Administration, Neighborhood Councils and partly Summer Crash though these were additional monies voted by Congress. Thus, he noted,the Board has little discretion in determining priorities since 88$ of our funds come from "earmarked" funds.
-2-
QUORUM PRESENT: The One i. .iien advised that a quorum was now present and called the ■ meeting to order.
RECOGNITION OF VISITORS: Chairman White introduced Miss Connie Cox who is the new Field Representative from San Francisco, replacing Mr. Harold Moore. He welcomed Miss Cox to the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPw-.BER 27, 1967: The Chairman called for additions, omissions, or corrections to the minutes as presented. It was moved by Mr. Waite, seconded by Father Shallow that the minutes be approved as read. Mrs. Fahey moved to amend the motion to include in the minutes the accusation made by Mr. James Anderson against Catholic Welfare, concerning a coalition between Saul Al insky and his groups and Catholic Welfare agencies across the nation. Motion seconded by Nancy Williams. Mrs. Fahey noted this statement should be inserted at the top of page 2, following the sentence "HE advised that Councils can submit programs but EOB must make decisions within 1 he limits cf guideline funding."'
On the vote on the amendment on the motion made by Mrs. Fahey, motion carried. On the '/ote on the motion to adopt the minutes as amended, motion carried.
SEATING OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE FROM HENDERSON: The Chairman advised that at the last meeting of the Board, a representative elected by the Henderson Neighborhood Counci' had been seated. However, Board Members did not realize that this person was closely related to the Neighborhood Service Worker. He said that the Henderson Council Chairman had been advised that Mr. Jimmie Green cannot be seated as a Board Member while his brother, Clifford Green, is an employee of the EOB.
Chairman White said that the Henderson Council has thus elected another representative — Mr. Victor Hall. Mrs. Williams moved that the Board accept the name of Mr. Victor Hall to be submitted to the Nominating Committee and to be seated as a member of the Board representing the Henderson Neighborhood Council. Seconded by Mr. Jones.
In discussion, Mr. Lockette stated that though Mr. Jimmie Green is the brother of Mr. Clifford Green he questions that the CAP Memo involving this would apply; that it was his. opinion that the memo refers to members within one family; and not brothers living in separate households. He further said that if the people in Henderson had made no complaint, he feels the Board should make an effort to have a waiver granted as long as the situation does not cause any conflict.
The Chairman quoted the section of CAP Memo No. 23-A pertaining to members of the family and read the listing of relatives which are considered to be members of one family. He noted that in his opinion it would be illegal to seat Mr. Jimmie Green as a member of the Board.
Mr. Lockette said he did not think the immediate family stretches from one household to another, and rather than be hasty he would suggest that an inquiry be sent to Regional Office.
-3-
Mr. Spann stated that the regulation in the CAP Memo does not seem to need an interpretation; that though Board members may not concur, it is nevertheless a regulation. Mr. Spann noted that the regulation is clear and questioned why the Board should ask for an interpretation on something that is clearcut.
Chairman White asked Miss Cox, the regional Field Representative, to comment. Miss Cox advised that a CAA had just recently requested a waiver to this regulation, and were advised by Regional Counsel that the regional office does not have the authority to waive provisions of CAP Memos.
A vote was called for and taken on the motion to seat Mr. Victor Hall as the representative from the Henderson Council. Motion carried.
Mr. Lockette moved that EOB request the Regional Office to give this Board their interpretation of "immediate family" so that in the future there would be a verification and understanding of what this means. Seconded by Rev. Clark. On the vote, motion lost.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: The Chairman advised that members are being asked to review two sets of financial statements — for the months of August and September. Mrs. Miller asked for explanation of two checks, Nos. 5478 and 5543, made out to Automated Office Machines, and partially charged to Neighborhood Council budget. Mr. Cottrell advised that he did not have the details offhand but would check the invoices the next day and advise Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller also asked what is included in the public information category. Mr. Cottrell explained this includes such items as mimeograph paper, stencils, copying paper, etc.
Mr. Lockette asked if the alloted funds to Neighborhood Councils are divided equally among the Councils or if they are spent as needed by all the Councils. Mr. Cottrell advised there is no individual Council allocation; expenditures are allocated for the entire project, and supplies and materials are distributed to individual Councils on the basis of their individual requisitions .
Mr. Waite moved that the financial reports for the months of August and September be approved as presented. Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Mrs. Williams moved that this item be tabled, and she then read the following letter signed by the Chairmen of the eight Neighborhood Councils: "Due to the fact we have not met with the Executive Board as promised to us by the Chairman of the Executive Board, we are unable to amend or discuss the proposals on tonight’s Agenda concerning Neighborhood Councils, until after we have held a joint meeting with the Executive Board. The Councils would like to have any items or proposals on tonight’s agenda be tabled until the Councils have jointly met with the Executive Committee." Motion was seconded by Mrs. King.
Mr. Wilson questioned that the entire report of the Executive Committee should be tabled when all items do not pertain to Neighborhood Councils. However, it was pointed out that the motion was to table the entire item. On the vote, motion carried.
-4-
SIJMMER HEAD START APPLICATION FOR 1968: Mr. Cottrell advised that authorization is required for the =taff to submit the 1968 Summer Head Start application to Regional and that the submission date is November 15. He noted the School District staff wilI need to go to the School Board to get authorization to proceed with the application. Mr. Cottrell explained that in view of the fund limitations, it was proposed to submit the program on the same basis as last year — to serve 330 children in 22 classes of 15 children each, with almost the same staffing pattern.
Mrs. Fahey moved that the staff be authorized to go ahead with preparation and submission of the Summer Head Start application for 1968. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
Mrs. Fahey noted that she had had occasion to read an evaluation of the 1967 Summer Head Start program, and that a recommendation was made by the Parents Advisory Council that more emphasis be placed on follow-through in kindergarten, first and second grades. Mrs. Fahey noted that at that time there were no funds available for followthough; however, at this time she would request the Board’s pleasure in recommending that the Clark County School District seek funding for followthrough in working out the 1968 project.
Mrs. Fahey moved to recommend to the School District that followthrough funds for Head Start be requested. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
Mr. Lockette noted that quite a few tests have been administered to Head Start youngsters and he would like the Board to be given a resume prepared by EOB office to show some of the advantages or disadvantages of the money being spent under Head Start. Mr. Cottrell advised that a one-page resume had been prepared by the School District and this could be made available to the members of the Board. Mr. Hall noted that the ESEA Title I Remedial Program could be altered to give more direct follow-through to the Head Start program; but the motion should have stated to either provide additional funds or reorient Title I program to cover the gap between these two programs. Mrs. Fahey stated the intent of her motion was to reorient the Title I program
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NON-FEDERAL SHARE: The Chairman asked Mr. Bob McPherson Chairman of the Committee on Non-Federal share to report. Mr. McPherson advised that a preliminary meeting had been held. He said that local entities are being asked to double their contributions in 1968 and it does not seem there would be a likelihood of getting more than the doubled contribution. He said the committee discussed several possibilities such as requesting funds from United Fund; however, it is too late this year to make application; of soliciting local businesses; of requesting state funds. Mr. McPherson noted the most likely possibility is counting services from different entities. He advised there will be another meeting at which time the committee will meet with EOB representatives from the cities and Clark County.
Rev. Clark questioned how much would be needed in the form of cash from the four cities and the county. Mr. McPherson advised an additional $20,000 would be necessary to provide the full non-Federal share based on 1967 funding, and the entities are now being asked for $6,600 cash, and that the total share available including in-kind is $78,000, not including Summer Head Start.
-5-
Rev. Clark said that raising that amount of money should not be a problem if the community really wants to support the programs. He said that the local city governments should be able to provide this sum. Mr. McPherson asked if Rev. Clark would like to serve on the Non-Federal Committee, and he indicated that he would.
Mrs. Fahey asked if the proposed salary increments for employees can be counted as in-kind contributions. There was discussion on this with the point being made that 0E0 regulations prohibit counting any part of services as ’’volunteered" if any portion is paid for from Federal funds.
Mr. Lockette moved that the Board accept the report from the Committee on Non-Federal Share. Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried.
LETTER FROM SARGENT SHRIVER: A letter directed to the Chairman of the Board, from Sargent Shriver, was read. Mr. Shriver commends the community action Board for their work and encourages continuation.
ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Spann made a motion to adjourn; motion was seconded by Mr. Waite. Mrs. Fahey turned to discussion of the cutback in the Title V program suggesting that the EOB may take some action.
The previous question was called for. On the motion to adjourn, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
November 15, 1967
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE' NOTICE OF MEETING
Please be advised that the monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
AGENDA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1967 (copy enclosed).
REPORT
A.
B.
ON STATUS OF DAY CARE CENTER ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
(See copy of letter from Auditor attached.) Discussion with Auditor, Mr. Rader Rollins.
3.
MEETING OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS — (to be held Friday, November 17).
APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO EXTEND MANPOWER PROGRAM BEYOND EXPIRATION DATE.
"NEW CAREERS" PROJECT - Request to authorize staff to develop project for funding by Labor Department - $120,000 for 25 trainees. /?,, RETIREMENT FUNDING - Discussion of availability of retirement plans,
o 0
funded by OEO, for project staffs.
STATUS OF FUNDING (if Congress has finally acted on appropriations and if information is available from Regional Office).
NEVADA FUTURES REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION — Lack of response to request for information on membership.
fg. DUDLEY EVANS’ GRIEVANCE
A.
Suit against United States of America
B.
Letter from Regional Civil Rights Coordinator
C.
Numerous Letters from Dudley Evans
10. OTHER ITEMS TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
November 20, 1967 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices (932 W. Owens) Las Vegas, Nev.
PRESENT: Emory Lockette (FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN), Charles Spann, Harvey Dondero, Dorothy King, Nancy Williams, Isaac White (latter part of meeting).
Guests: Rader Rollins (CPA), Francis Edwards
Staff: W. F. Cottrell, Evelyn Mauldin, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
First Vice Chairman, Emory Lockette, called the meeting to order. He advised members that the Chairman, Mr. White, would not be able to be present until the latter part of the meeting.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16: Mrs. King asked whether the documentation mentioned in these minutes and which had been requested of Operation Independence had been received. The Executive Director advised that as far as we know it has been.
Mr. Lockette requested that the fifth paragraph on page 2, last line, be changed to read: "for comments and final recommendation to the Executive Committee", that paragraph 6, following the word "he" read: "receiving the answers and for making recommendations to the Executive Committee on items pertinent to finance."
Mrs. Williams requested that on page 4, the subject reading "Recommendations from Neighborhood Councils Regarding Refunding of Work Program Descriptions for 1968", should be changed to read "Regarding Refunding of Neighborhood Council Work Program No. 7-13."
Mr. Spann moved that the minutes be approved to include the changes made by Mr. Lockette and Mrs. Williams. Seconded by Mrs. Williams, motion carried.
APPROVAL OF REQUEST TO EXTEND MANPOWER PROGRAM BEYOND DECEMBER 31, 1967, EXPIRATION DATE: Mr. Cottrell reported that the 1967 funding grant for the Manpower Program,
contained the stipulation that funding would be through the Nelson Amendment under the Bureau of Work Programs, U. S. Department of Labor.
He advised it was mistakenly funded in the Region through 0E0 above the 0E0 guidelines for versatile programs in Clark County. It was not until June or July of this year that 0E0 became aware the program was not funded the way it was supposed to be.
Mr. Cottrell reviewed the programs which are funded from versatile funds — Conduct and Administration, Neighborhood Councils, and NYC Support, as well as a part of Summer Crash; that though it isn't known yet what versatile funding will be for 1968 the assumption in the Regional Office is that it will not be any more than it was last year. He advised that it is now necessary to look around for other ways to fund the Manpower Program, and BWP (Bureau of Work Programs) has said there is no way to fund it if it does not fit into the category of one of the four areas of BWP Programs which are "NYC", "New Careers (Scheuer Amendment)",
’’Operation Mainstream (Nelson Amendment)", and "Special Impact (Kennedy- Javits)".
Mr. Cottrell said the Manpower Project Director, Mr. Gant, has suggested extending the existing project with the amount of money that is left over from 1967, and the Operation Independence Board has further authorized that this.be requested. Mr. Gant has traveled to San Francisco and made a presentation as to why the program should be extended, though Region had already indicated they would extend the program. He said the Executive Committee now needs to take action to officially ask for approval to extend the program.as far into 1968 as existing funds will permit, and if the Board takes this action it will authenticate what has already been done informally by the delegate agency.
Mrs. King requested an explanation of why Manpower has 12 Aides and what their duties are. Mr. Cottrell explained the duties of the aides, the purpose of the program, its objectives, etc. Mrs. King asked if certain aspects of the Aides’ duties are not duplicating those of the Service Workers. Mr. Cottrell explained that the Manpower Aides are interested only in assisting people with employment problems while Service Workers are involved in carrying out Council projects and assisting individuals with problems in other fields, such as welfare, health, etc.
The Acting Chairman requested that discussion be limited to what is pertinent to the matter being considered. Mrs. King stated she felt this was pg'rMnent to the question.
In further discussion, Mr. Coffrell pointed out that the Manpower Program as it presently operates will be out of existance December 31 unless there is a request for extension into 1968. He noted that the program has probably done more, particularly in view of the relatively short time it has been in operation, in providing services to hard-core lew-income people than any other program. He said that other programs have a limited scope and this is really the only program involved with direct services to adults in the area which the Board has set as first priority — employment and jobs.
Following comments that this was not the time to discuss evaluation of the program, Mr. Dondero moved to recommend to the Board that approval be requested from 0E0 to extend the Manpower Program to be operated during 1968 until such time as al located funds are exhausted and that EOB staff be authorized to do whatever is necessary to accomplish this. Seconded by Mr. Spann, motion carried.
REPORT ON STATUS OF DAY CARE CENTER ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: Members had been mailed a copy of a letter from Mr. Rader Rollins, Certified Public Accountant, whose firm has been retained to perform auditing services for all 0E0 components. Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Rollins was present at this meeting because the Executive Committee had asked that a report be brought back on the status of the 01 bookkeeping system when a bookkeeper had been employed. He further noted that though Mr. Rollins is doing preliminary work of the Day Care grant, an actual audit will not be completed until after December 31, 1967, the close of the program year.
-2-
Mr. Rollins advised that he has stated in his letter that it is his opinion the people at 01 at the time would not get the job done. He noted that since then Miss Dungan called and stated that one of her personnel was working at the 01 office now.
Mr. Cottrell noted that while the Board is responsible for all projects, and the Board can suggest, offer advice, offer help, etc., sometimes this is not acceptable to the delegate agency. Negatively, the grantee can cut off the funds but this does not solve the problem; it just brings it to a head. He said the Regional Office also can impose conditions on the grant.
Mr. Lockette noted that the EOB should not wait for Region but should take the necessary steps to correct a situation which is not right. He said that sometime ago he had recommended that 01 hire a qualified bookkeeper-accountant for that office.
Mr. Rollins said he has discussed the situation with Mrs. Johnson and gave his opinion that the best way would be for 01 to hire a person to do the day-to-day details and have the final accounting for both programs (Day Care and Manpower) done in the EOB office.
Mrs. King asked if the budget provided for a competent bookkeeper, and if so why is it that 01 does not use the money to employ one. Mr. Cottrell reviewed the history of the different methods that 01 has requested and tried in handling their accounting.
Mr. Lockette stated that the EOB should not act in a service capacity to delegate agencies and that would be the case if the final accounting were done in the EOB office. He noted that he thought it the responsibility of the EOB to make a recommendation to the 01 Board to employ a qualified bookkeeper. He discussed the amount of funds available in both the Day Care and Manpower budgets, looking toward the possibility of employing one person, qualified, to take care of both grants. It was estimated that the combined total amount budgeted for accounting services for both projects is $939.00.
Mr. Lockette suggested that a special meeting be called of both the EOB Executive Committee and the 01 Board and 01 Executive Director for discussion of what 01 proposes to do to correct the existing situation.
Mr. Rollins advised that though the same circumstances at 01 exist now as did a year ago, the problems are not major.
There was discussion on whether to discuss the situation and hear
Mr. Rollins’ opinions, due to the fact that there was no representative from the 01 office present. Mr. Spann then moved that a meeting be called between EOB Executive Committee and 01 Executive and Finance Committees for the purpose of discussing problems found in the 01 bookkeeping system. Seconded by Mrs. Williams, motion carried.
-3-
tsJEW CAREERS PROJECT: Mr. Cottrell reported that "New Careers" is one of the projects delegate" by 0E0 to the Labor Department and is designed to create new kinds of jobs for low-income subprofessional people with the hope of advancing to other higher-paying positions. He said it woud mean working with various agencies in the area of human services, and that the agency involved would have to make a committment to create a job and if the trainee is successful to hire him. The agency would be required to pay half of the trainee’s salary the second year and after that make a committment to employ the person and pay his full salary.
Mr. CottrelI advised that the EOB has been invited by the Bureau of Work Programs of the U. S. Department of Labor to submit an application for this program. Mr. Spann moved that the Board give authorization for EOB staff to move with full speed in developing the project and obtaining funding for a New Careers Program under the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Work Programs. Seconded by Mrs. King.
Mr. Lockette asked if there has been any indication from the agencies with which the program has been discussed as to whether there would be placement for the proposed 25 trainees. Mr. Cottrell advised that the program would probably provide for 20 trainees, and he felt confident these positions couId be filled.
Mr. Lockette asked if the program would require additional staff. Mr. Cottrell noted it would require supplemental staff to the NYC program, possibly one or one and one-half persons.
The question was called for. On the vote, motion carried.
RETIREMENT FUNDING: Mr. Cottrell advised there are many CAP agencies funded for retirement plans for their employees. He indicated that the EOB staff would like to look into this further and he was asking for authorization to do so and possibly to have agents discuss such with the Executive Committee at a future date.
Mr. Dondero moved that the EOB staff be granted permission to look into retirement plans and to request agents to attend Executive Committee meetings to explain such. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
STATUS OF FUNDING: Mr. CottrelI reported that an amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act facing us is that half of the local share (10% of the total project cost) be in cash. He said in Clark County this could mean as much as $100,000 cash necessary for EOB programs, but that probably programs will be funded at a level at which $50,000 in cash would be required. He noted that the present cash received in 1967 is $3300 and the amount being requested for 1968 is $6600. Of the $6600 total, Mr. Cottrell said there has been some indication from municipalities that this amount may not be available.
He noted before the next Board Meeting, there should be further information about the 10# cash requirement amendment but noted that if the 10# cash requirement remains, we should face the fact that we are in for some hard times. Mr. Cottrell stated the only two things definite now are
-4-
(I) not to expect any more versatile funds, and (2) that year-round Head Start has to be reverted back to the 1967 funding level.
Mr. Lockette asked if the Committee on Non-Federal Share had as yet met with the governmental agencies. Mr. Cottrell advised they are waiting until Congress acts so that information as to what is needed will be definite.
(Chairman Isaac White entered the meeting.)
NEVADA FUTURES, INC. REQUEST FOR_REPRESENTATION ON THE EOB: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that at the last Executive Committee meeting a number of recommendations were made to the Board which were then tabled at the meeting of the Board. He said the Executive Committee had asked that information be obtained from Nevada Futures to determine question of representation; that the Executive Committee had recommended the same criteria be used as previously set up for low income people with the exception of the requirement that a majority of the membership be low-income persons. He advised a lette had been sent to Nevada Futures requesting this information; however, to date no information has been received.
DUDLEY EVANS' GRIEVANCE: Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Evans has filed suit in United States District Court against the United States of America alleging among other things, that he has been discriminated against. Mr. Cottrell said he has talked with the U. S. Attorney who advised that the EOB would be contacted by the 0E0 General Counsel.
The Executive Director also reported that the EOB has in addition received a four-page letter from the 0E0 Regional Civil Rights Coordinator asking questions about the complaints, and noted that he has prepared a twelve-page response setting forth the full history and attaching numerous exhibits as backup. Mr. Cottrell said that in essence the question now before the Executive Committee and Board is "Does the Executive Committee feel that Dudley Evans has had every consideration that he should have had (in which case there really isn't anymore action to take). On the other hand, if the Committee feels he has not had every consideration, then perhaps members wilI want to recommend to the Board that Mr. Evans be given a public hearing.
There was general discussion and review of the situation. Mrs. Williams asked if Mr. Evans was ever given a chance to aire his complaints before a body. Mr. Spann noted that Mr. Evans had had a hearing before the Executive Committee in March and his complaints were denied as the Committee found there was no basis for his accusations. Mrs. Williams asked if other persons were called in before the hearing to be questioned. Mr. Spann said the burden was placed upon Mr. Evans to back up his complaints and to submit his grievance.
Mr. Spann said that if Mr. Evans has already filed a suit in District Court, the matter has gone beyond the Board.
-5-
Mr. Cottrell noted that Mr. Evans is entitled to administrative recourse as well as judic; I, and he might be arguing that he has never had an administrative hearing on the complaint of discrimination. He said the EOB has been advised to expect communication from the Regional Counsel of 0E0.
Mr. Lockette suggested that the position of the EOB now be to furnish information and backup to 0E0 on past action. Mr. Cottrell advised that since the end of October the EOB office has received 15 letters from Mr. Evans which the office will respond to.
There was discussion of the hiring of Mr. Evans and the question of whom he was hired by. The decision of the Executive Committee was to furnish Mr. Evans everything he has requested which is required by appropriate federal regulations, and to furnish all information pertaining to the case requested by Federal authorities.
MEETING OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS: Chairman White reported that Executive Committee members had met Friday evening, November 17, with representatives of the Neighborhood Councils and Neighborhood Service Workers. The Council representatives voiced their feelings about decisions made by the Board on.the projects submitted for refunding with particular reference to the Neighborhood Council Project. Councils also read a special condition saying that programs must be submitted to the Councils for review and approval.
Mr. White said that the Executive Director has advised that this special condition had been altered through the Field REpresentative at that time to delete the words "and approve," though there is nothing written regarding this. Mr. White stated the Councils have submitted a list of changes they insist the Executive Committee and Board consider or they have stated they will take other action.
The Chairman reviewed that the Executive Committee had discussed the changes requested-, by the Neighborhood Councils at the October meeting but had voted by a tie vote (with the Chairman breaking the tie) to leave the work program description of the Neighborhood Councils as it was origina11y submitted.
Mr. Cottrell advised, regarding the verbal chance made in the special condition, that he had spoken with the present Field Representative who in turn discussed the change with the Area Coordinator, Mr. Louis Ruybalid. He advised that Mr. Ruybalid remembers the special condition being altered and has said that he will send the EOB documentation so stati ng.
Mrs. Williams said there was a special condition put in the hands of the Councils which states "the Councils must review and approve all projects before they are submitted to 0E0." She said this was the circumstance of the meeting that Councils requested with the Executive Committee; that the special condition had not been rriet and therefore the Neighborhood Councils want the Neighborhood Counci I Project changed.
(Mr. Lockette was excused from the meeting at this time; Mr. White chaired the remainder of the meeting.)
-6-
Mr. Cottrell reviewed the happenings-involving the special condition in question. He said there previously had been a special condition that projects affecting Westside b$ submitted to Operation Independence; but the Special Condition received 2/3/67 rescinded that previous one.
Mr. Cottrell stated further that when the special condition was received he questioned the Field Representative regarding whether this implied the Neighborhood Councils could veto programs which the Board had approved. The Field Representative at that time, Mr. Harold Moore, advised that the words "and approved" should be deleted. Mr. Cottrell said this had never been put in writing. However, Regional Office has now indicated they will document this, and it is hoped the information will be received by the time of the Board Meeting.
Regarding the recommendations made by the Executive Committee at the October meeting which were tabled by the Board, the secretary was instructed to again include these items on the Agenda for this month’s Board Meeting.
LETTER FROM EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: This letter was read by the Secretary, requesting continuation after December 31 of the Summer Crash Program. The Committee states that they feel this program is a rehabilitation program as well as a cleanup program, and requests immediate consideration of the Executive Committee in this matter.
Following brief review of funding of the Summer Crash Programs through a special appropriation from Congress with the restriction that the programs end no later than December 31, the Chairman directed that a letter be sent to Region asking if it would be possible to extend the program.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
V. F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:sds
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
Meeting Held I 1/20/67
The Executive Committee recommends that the Board approve request for extension of the Manpower Program to be operated during 1968 until such time as al located funds are exhausted, and authorize the EOB staff to do whatever is necessary to accomplish this.
The Executive Committee recommends that the Board give authorization for EOB staff to move with full speed in developing project and obtaining funding for a New Careers program under the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Work Programs.
Regarding the suit filed in U. S. District Court by Mr. Dudley Evans, the Executive Committee recommends that the EOB Office furnish Mr. Evans everything he has requested which is required by appropriate federal regulations and to furnish all information pertaining to the case which is requested by federal authorities.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 W. Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
November 22, 1967
RE: REPORT ON ITEMS FOR NOVEMBER BOARD MEETING
The majority of action items are covered under the report from the Executive Committee. The following are informational items (several of which are incomplete at time of writing for reasons noted below.
I • Status of Funding for 1968.
At the time of writing the Senate and House have both adopted Bills
!°r fading °E0, but in differin9 amounts — the Senate would provide
$2,060,000,000 while the House Bill is less — $1,600,000,000. The House Bill makes its largest cuts in Job Corps, NYC and Title II
ProJec+s (which includes most EOB programs, such as Day Care, Summer
Head Start, Manpower, Neighborhood Councils, Legal Aid, etc.)
The conference committee report on the two Bills has not been announced but it appears that the final amount authorized may be about $1,900,000,000. This would be slightly more than the total for’this year, but of course we don’t know how it will be ’’earmarked" yet, and therefore don't know what it will mean in terms of funding our local programs.
The Regional Office is not processing applications further until it knows the amount of money to be allocated to programs in the Region. The current feeling is that we will probabIy get about the same number of Federal dollars as during 1967, or maybe less.
2-
Proposed Legislative Changes.
There are a number of amendments (about 15 in all) proposed to the Economic Opportunity Act in the House Bill. The major of these are as foilows:
A.
The "Green Amendment" would provide for increased authority for state and local governments in operation of Community Action Programs (just how this would be accomplished is not clear from what we have read so far). There appears to be some flexibility in this provision, and it seems that the amendment would affect other communities a great deal more than here in Clark County.
B.
The "Gibbons Amendment" provides that CAAs must provide one-half the non-federal share in cash. This would mean that we would be required to provide something like $50,000 or more as part of the 20$ non-federal share. (Our projected cash share for 1968 is only $6,600 at present, of a total of some $130,000 non-federal share.)
Page 2 of Memorandum
As this is written we have not seen the final wording, of course, and the final compromise Bill between Senate and House versions may be somewhat different. We should be refunded before the end of the program year (December 31), but the final amounts will not be known for several weeks.
3.
Possibility of Extension of Summer Jobs Program.
The Neighborhood Counci Is and others have suggested that the Summer Jobs Program (which was previously extended from termination on September I to a date of December 31) should be extended and made a permanent program. We are seeking information from the Region as to the possibility of extending, and hope to have a definite answer by the time of the meeting.
4-
Information on Special Condition Relating to Neighborhood Councils. We have asked for clarification of the special condition relating to review by the Neighborhood Councils of proposed projects prior to submission to 0E0. We hope to have a definite answer prior to the meeting next Wednesday.
5.
Summary of SUMMER HEAD START Program.
As requested at the last meeting, we are submitting a brief summary of the Summer Head Start program as prepared by the project staff.
6-
Suit by Dudley Evans.
Mr. Dudley Evans (former temporary Community Service Aide in Henderson at the time the Council was organized by Nevada Catholic Welfare) has filed suit against the United States of America in U. S. District Court, alleging discrimination on the basis of race. The Executive Committee reviewed this matter and has a recommendation to the Board in its report.
7-
Furnishing CAP Memos to Neighborhood Councils.
Neighborhood Councils have requested that each Council be furnished a copy of each CAP memo which is published. I believe there is some misunderstanding about the nature of these memos. Most of them deal with administrative requirements, and many deal with specific projects or subjects which are not related to Councils or their programs. (Some titles of memos are: Non-Federal Contributions of Local Housing Authorities, Coordination of CAA Programs with ESEA Programs, Submission of Grantee Monthly Financial Report, Use of Component Budget Form CAP 25, Repairs and Renovations of Head Start Facilities, Management Information Reporting, CAP Programs on Federal Indian Reservations, etc.)
At the moment there are about 70 of volume is 384 pages. If we were to Council, the cost just to photocopy
these memos in effect. The total provide just one copy of each per the material would be $168.96.
0. +• dto
WFC:sds
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 W. Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
November 22, 1967
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
This is to advise you that the regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1967
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT. AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
I.
SEATING OF ANY NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING HELD OCTOBER 26, 1967.
3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1967.
4.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING:
(Items Tabled at October Meeting)
A.
Request of Nevada Futures, Inc. for program funding of $3,885,000.
B.
Request of Nevada Futures, Inc. for representation on the EOB.
C.
Recommendations of the Neighborhood Councils concerning refunding of Neighborhood Council Project for 1968.
D.
Request of the NAACP to be designated a delegate agency for the Neighborhood Council Project.
E.
Request of Operation Independence, Inc. regarding the Neighborhood Counci I Project.
(Items Considered at November 20 Meeting)
F.
Extension of Manpower Program beyond December 31 expiration date.
G.
Authorization for staff to prepare and submit New Careers application.
H.
Recommendation regarding suit filed by Mr. Dudley Evans.
5.
PRESENTATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS REGARDING THE PROJECT FOR 1968 (Also discussion of request to furnish copies of al I CAP Memos to each Council.
6.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
A.
Status of funding for 1968 projects.
B.
Proposed legislative changes.-
C.
Information regarding poSslbi Iity of extension of Summer Jobs Program. D. Information from Regional Office concerning special condition.
7.
QUESTION OF HOLDING MEETING IN DECEMBER.
8.
OTHER BUSINESS.
MEETING OF THE
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
November 29, 1967 Clark County District Health Dept. Audit.
8:00 P.M. I_as Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), George Keyes, J. R. McPherson, Thomas Wilson, Paul Marshall, Don Dawson, Ferren Bunker, Douglass Pushard, Wendell Waite, ' Charles Spann, Rev. Donald Clark, Emory Lockette, Newton Tigner, Charles Jones, Victor Hall, Webster Butcher, Nancy Williams, Woodrow Wilson, Fr. Charles Sha I low
Guests: Hazel Geran, Ethel Pearson, Florence Elmore, Leona Calhoun, Addie Reid Blake, Emma Meeks, K.G. Reid, Clara Bailey, Lubertha M. Johnson, Allen Sanders, Mildred Fullington, Marjorie Dudley, Madge L. Rugg, Jessie D. Hutchins, Primas White, Jimmie White, L. Green, Clifford Green, Adeline Duenweg, Iris J. Me inhover, Rose Marie Lee, Dorothy Johnson, Inez Archie Patrick A. Perrott, Michael Banowitz, Evelyn Coleman, Kay Brannan, Kathy Collins, Robert J. Stanovik, Mel Englestad, Rosie Smith, Sallie Clay, Rev. C.C. Smith, Lawrence R. Carter, Ted Travers, Louise Dancy, Frederick R. French, H.L. Oemelas, Bob Z. Taylor, Harold L. Ortega, Nan Butler, Lynn Rayburn, Art Grant, Sammye Blankes, Francis Edwards, Sarah Ray, George Gant, Lamar McDaniel
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 1967: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Mr. Pushard moved that the minutes be approved as written. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried.
INTRODUCTION OF VISTA VOLUNTEERS: Chairman White noted that eight new VISTA Workers had arrived in the community, three to be placed with the EOB to work with Neighborhood Councils, and two to be placed in the Operation Independence Day Care Centers. Following introductions, Chairman White welcomed the VISTAS to the community.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1967: The Chairman called for questions or comments regarding the financial report. Mr. Waite requested an explanation on the payment to WICHD. Mr. Cottrell advised that WICHD is a training program connected with the University of California and operating under an 0E0 grant, and the payment made to them was for EOB community workers to attend a grassroots training session in Carson City.
Mr. Keyes requested explanation of the low expenditures shown under consultant and contractual services" and in several projects the reasons why these categories are "lagging." Mr. Cottrell stated that the amount in the Conduct and Administration grant was put there by Regional Office and is limited to expenditures for EOB's portion of the cost of a Regional Evaluation Center. This Center has never been established; thus the funds have not been expended.
He said the funds in the Manpower Project are for payment to Vocational Rehabilitation and Educational Division for placing persons in a sheltered workshop; and apparently no one has yet been placed. In the Summer Head Start component, this category reflects funds to be spent through the contract with the District Health Department for which there are still large expenditures to be made during November and December.
-2-
Mr. Keyes suggesied consolidating the supply system from which all programs could order their consummable supplies, thus giving better service to all agencies involved.. Mr. Cottrell advised the EOB presently has centralized purchasing for office supplies; however, there are other items in the consumable supplies budgets such as food for the day care centers which are not common to more than one project.
Mr. Keyes, noting that a check had been written for $50 postage, asked what it would take for a nonprofit organization to get a reduction in postage fees. Mr. CottrelI noted that a large bulk of the postage was for sending Board Member material, and though there have been several attempts made to send material 3rd class it was not workable because some of the material was not received by members until a week or so after mailing. There was further discussion on this matter and information provided by the Postmaster from North Las Vegas who was present.
Mr. Waite asked what the allowance was on EOB local travel. Mr. Cottrell advised it is 10# per mile, the maximum under Federal regulations.
Mr. Waite questioned a check written for mileage; however, it was noted that there was an error in his computation and he agreed that the amount paid was justifiable.
Mr. Bunker moved to accept the financial statement for the month of October. Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Chairman White pointed out that at the October meeting of the Board, Items 4 (a) through (e) were tabled and a motion to remove these items from the table would be required if any action were to be taken.
Rev. Clark questioned distributing minutes of the Executive Committee when they had not yet been approved by the Executive Committee and thus were not yet considered to be minutes. He also questioned the discussion of items on the Executive Committee Report because Board Members had not yet had a chance to review minutes. He stated that at the meeting between Councils and EOB that Executive Committee members would not make any decisions on complaints lodged at that time. He further pointed out that the purpose of the meeting was to hear the complaints and take them back to the Executive Committee Meeting for recommendation to the Board.
It was noted by the Executive Director that the Board by-laws require that Executive Committee minutes be distributed at next Board meeting. Following further discussion regarding circulation of Executive Committee Minutes before their approval, the Chairman suggested that Rev. Clark consider submitting a proposed change in the By-Laws.
It was moved by Mr. Pushard to consider Item 5 of the Agenda (Presentation by Members of Neighborhood Councils regarding Neighborhood Council Work Program Description) before consideration of Item 4 (Report of the Executive Committee). Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS REGARDING NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: A letter addressed to the Chairman and Trustees of the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board was distributed by Mr. Art Grant, identified as the spokesman for the group calling itself the "Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee." (This letter, signed by
-2-
Mr. Grant, Acting Secretary, and the attachments thereto are made a part of these minutes and attached hereto).
Mr. Grant read the letter, referring to and discussing portions of the attachments. Regarding the Special Condition attached by the Regional office to the Conduct and Administration component refunding for 1967, he noted that the words "and approval" had been removed from the original wording in that section relating to referral of projects to the Neighborhood Councils. Mr. Grant questioned the validity of this change, noting he rather suspected the change had originated in the local EOB office.
Mr. Grant further stated that Mr. Harold Moore could not countermand instructions of the Regional 0E0 office, and that his alleged verbal instructions to strike the words "and approval" had no effect on the cond it ion.
Mr. Grant also questioned the statement of the Executive Director that both special conditions attached to the Neighborhood Council project refunding for 1967 had been complied with. He said this statement was a gross misrepresentation.
Mr. Grant concluded his remarks by saying that at this time the Neighborhood Councils and the community as a whole are not satisfied with the staffing and performance of the EOB staff, and some councils are willing to take whatever action is necessary to bring this to the attention of the Board.
Mr. Fred French, Chairman of the North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council, stated that the changes to Component 7-13 were made and duly acted upon at a meeting held in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order.
The Chairman requested the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Spann commented that he did not believe anything could be determined and suggested that action be deferred as the members have not had a chance to review the material.
Mr. French said these changes had been presented in a letter from the North Las Vegas Council, in a letter from the Jo Mackey Council, and have been sent out to the Board from the EOB office. He further stated these changes were ignored at that time.
Mr. Harold Ortega, North Las Vegas Council Service Worker, said to
Mr. Spann, "What’s the matter Charlie, were you asleep? Don't you read the material?" Chairman White informed Mr. Ortega that as a staff member he had no right to make those kind of comments to Members of the Board.
Mr. Ortega replied that he would terminate "tomorrow if you like."
Mrs. Williams said the changes being discussed are changes in the Neighborhood Council project which have been recommended by the Neighborhood Councils.
She advised a meeting had been held September 18 at which Council representatives aired their complaints which were then sent to Board Members.
Mrs. Williams said that Neighborhood Councils have been trying to get changes implemented for some time.
Mr. Lockette said he realized Board Members have been furnished the recommendations, and it would appear that Neighborhood Councils do have a valid request that should require the urgency of a special Executive Committee meeting to sit down with the Councils and review changes. He said that "the Board cannot tonight in any rightful way analyze each change." Mr. Lockette stated that though changes have previously been discussed, apparently sufficient Executive Committee members were not present at the last joint meeting to properly arrive at recommendations to bring before the Board.
Mrs. Williams said the Neighborhood Councils did meet with the Executive Committee with no action taken, and she did not believe any action was intended. Following the joint meeting, Mrs. Williams said, the Executive Committee did meet and did discuss what had taken place. The Executive Committee recommended this be referred to the EOB for some type of action.
Rev. Clark asked if this program had been funded yet, and was it feasible for the Neighborhood Council project to be put up for bid from various organizations. He noted he had recently visited projects and all are put out for bid which gives the people a chance to run their program and to develop, and does not set up a beauracracy. He said that if it is feasible he would like this project to be put up for bid to various organizations in the target area and let the Board decide what organization would get the project, then let that organization work the project out.
Mrs. King asked if this wasn't what we have been trying to avoid.
Mrs. Williams said the question Rev. Clark just posed will be discussed later on when Item 4 of the Agenda is considered. She noted that the discussion now concerned certain changes the Neighborhood Councils have requested in the work program of Component No. 7-13; that Regional Office has said the Neighborhood Council project should be submitted for review and approval and though the project has been submitted, the Neighborhood Counci Is have not had a chance to approve it.
The Chairman asked the Executive Director to review meetings, discussions, etc. regarding the submission of the Neighborhood Council work program.
Mr. Cottrell advised that in June notices had been sent out to delegate agencies and the Neighborhood Councils indicating the time table for refunding. On August 25th five work program descriptions for projects (due for refunding January 1) were submitted to all members of the EOB including the representatives of the eight Neighborhood Councils. On August 30th the five work program descriptions were mailed to all eight Neighborhood Council Chairmen, indicating that the Board would act on these at the September 27 meeting.
The Neighborhood Councils then requested a meeting to discuss grievances; this meeting was held September 18, at which time only the Neighborhood Council Program was discussed. The discussion of this meeting, including the wishes of the Councils regarding the work program changes, was recorded and distributed back to EOB Board Members for the September meeting. At the September meeting the Board voted to submit all programs to the Regional Office as they had originally been prepared, and referred the recommended changes of the Neighborhood Councils to the next Executive Committee meeting.
-4-
The proposed changes were then reviewed at the October Executive Committee Meeting and recommendations sent out with the mailing to Board Members to be acted upon at the October meeting. At the October meeting these recommendations were tabled pending a meeting of the Neighborhood Councils with the Executive Committee.
A joint meeting of Neighborhood Councils and Executive Committee was held November 17 at which six Council Chairmen and four Executive Committee members were present. The matter was thrashed out, reported back to the Executive Committee meeting of November 20, and the recommendations of the Executive Committee sent out to the Board for consideration at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Cottrell said as far as the facts and dates and "who received what", this essential Ily outlined the situation.
In regard to the special condition and allegations made regarding it, Mr. Cottrell stated documentation has been requested from Regional CEO. He noted a new Field Representative had been assigned to Clark Courvty, and though he had hoped to be present for this meeting he was unable to be; therefore, there is presently no confirmation from CEO concerning the verbal authorization for the change, given in February by Mr. Harold Moore, who was the Field Representative at that time.
Mr. Cottrell noted that this change had not been made recently, as was alleged, but was made following receipt by the EOB of the 1967 refunding package in February. He said he heartily agreed that a verbal authorization was not the correct manner by which to change a special condition; however, he had been assured by Mr. Moore that if a question arose over this change, he (Mr. Moore) would answer it. Since then Mr. Moore has returned to graduate school, and is not available to confirm this verbal authorization for change.
Mr. Grant asked at what time the Neighborhood Councils or any members of the target area were actually involved in the composition of the Neighborhood Council Project for 1968; and stated that had-they been, this situation would probably not exist now.
Mr. French stated that while the statements made by Mr. Cottrell are tr<ue there are a few things which have been left out. He said the proposals which the Neighborhood Councils are requested to be changed are proposals just recently put in the work program by three members of the staff.
Mr. Keyes asked the Chairman if action was required on Item No. 5 of the Agenda on whether to furnish CAP Memos to all Neighborhood Councils. He then moved that the amount of $167 quoted in the Executive Director’s memo be spent to photocopy all CAP memos and that this action be expedited so that these memos can be placed in the hands of the Councils allowing them too to better understand.
Chairman White ruled this motion out of order until Item 5, granting 20 minutes for the Neighborhood Councils, was completed.
Mr. French stated from the audience that on behalf of the Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee he would ask the Board to make a motion that the requested changes of the Neighborhood Councils be approved. Following further brief discussion, Mr. Jones moved that the recommended changes
-5-
from the "Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee" be accepted as stated. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
The Chairman advised Board Members that one of the changes being requested by the Neighborhood Councils is that a I I staff positions in the Neighborhood Council component be selected and approved by the Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson, Executive Director of Operation Independence, was recognized by the Chair. She asked where and how changes were made in view of the fact that Operation Independence not only originated the Councils but have supported the Councils since their inception. She asked to whom Operation Independence should make a request if they wish to ask for some consideration for the support that they feel should be given by the Counci Is.
The Executive Di rector advised that requestes should be made to the EOB, which is the policymaking body. A Board Member said that if the request concerns all eight Councils, it should be submitted to the Joint Advisory Committee.'-Mrs..Johnson asked who the joint Advisory Committee was. Chairman White stated that personally he does not know who the Committee is.
Mrs. Williams said that the Neighborhood Council work program makes a statement that officers of each Council should join together and form an Advisory Committee and that the Executive Director also stated at the September 18 meeting that it was being proposed that members of Councils form an Advisory Committee. She noted that the people did get together and form this Advisory Committee.
The Chairman advised that the work program being referred to is the one proposed for 1968 but which has not yet been approved by Regional 0E0. He further advised that the last motion approved, concerning the recommended changes by the Councils will be submitted to Regional 0E0 for consideration, and final approval of these amendments will be dependent upon Regional 0E0.
Mrs. Williams said that she had heard a story, which she did not know to be true, that Mrs. Johnson of Operation Independence had requested Service Workers to carry children to clinics, etc., and this request had been denied her by the Neighborhood.Counci I Project Director.
Mrs. Johnson stated she feels she should not have to go and beg Council workers to give a certain amount of cooperation; that some provision should be made officially for the Neighborhood Workers to work with Operation Independence.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Mr. Waite moved to remove Item 4 from the table. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
Request of Nevada Futures, Inc, to fund programs totaling $3,885,000:
The Chairman read the recommendation of the Executive Committee which fol lows:
"The Executive Committee recommends that the Board deny the request as submitted by Nevada Futures in view of the number of programs administered in Clark County under the EOB, the lack of funds available for instituting new programs, and federal restrictions upon instituting new programs under
-6-
federal restrictions upon instituting new programs under this CAA. The Executive Committee further recommends that Nevada Futures, Inc. be commended for the work done in developing this proposal and for their interest in furthering the welfare of the people in this particular commun i ty."
Mr. Jones stated that the request from Nevada Futures was not intended to expect funding from the EOB.
Mr. Dawson moved to abide by the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried.
Mr. French (from the audience) rose to a point of order, stating that Board Members have just voted on a false recommendation from their representatives. He said that Nevada Futures never did submit a request for funding to this Board for $3,885,000. The Chairman ruled that Mr. French was out of order, inasmuch as he is not a member of the Board.
Request of Nevada Futures, Inc, for Representation on the EOB:
The Chairman read the recommendation of the Executive Committee: "The Executive Committee recommends that the Board apply criteria which has previously been established for low-income groups to this organization, excluding the portion which requires that a majority of the members be low-income people. Nevada Futures, Inc. has been advised to have the necessary information available for the Board Meeting of October 25. The Executive Committee further uecommends that if the Board accepts the recommendation to apply this criteria, that a representative be seated on the Board." Mr. White asked if the necessary information has been received from Nevada Futures. Mr. Cottrell said that it has not.
Mr. French requested an opportunity to address the Board. With permission granted, he stated that the EOB Consititution and By-Laws state the names of persons to be seated on the BOARD come through the Nominating Committee, and Nevada Futures is not asking to be put on the Board as a representative of a group of the poor, which* supposition the staff arbitrarily made.
The Chairman corrected this statement, advising that this criteria was set by the Executive Committee — not the staff; and that it was understood that the group was not to be seated as representative of the poor. He requested the pleasure of the Board.
Mr. Lockette moved that in view of criteria not being met, no action be taken until Nevada Futures met the requests or makes additional requests. Seconded by Rev. Tigner. On a show of hands vote, motion lost.
Request of the NAACP To Be Designated a Delegate Agency for the Neighborhood Council Project.
The Chairman advised that "The Executive Committee recommends that the Board deny the request of NAACP to be designated delegate agency for the Neighborhood Councils Project in view of the fact that the Neighborhood Councils desire to remain as they are."
Mr. Waite moved to accept the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Seconded by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, Motion carried.
Request of Operation Independence, Inc. Regarding the Neighborhood
Counci I Project: ; <
The Chairman advised: "The Executive Committee recommends that the Board deny the request of Operation Independence inasmuch as the Neighborhood Councils themselves voted to remain as they are."
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson requested that the letter from Operation Independence dated September 26, 1967 requesting delegation of the Councils be read to members. The letter was so read by the Secretary.
Rev. Clark asked to have a copy of the minutes stating that the Neighborhood- Councils wished to stay as they are. The Minutes of the meeting of September 18 were referred to, and the following excerpt read: "In discussion of other items, no concensus of a majority of those Councils present was reached on the matter of the delegate agencies. The majority seemed to be opposed to any delegate agency, and the general feeling seemed to be that the Councils should remain autonomous. However, the Chairman of the Matt Kelly Council stated they would prefer to work with (not under) Operation Independence as the delegate agency."
» Rev. Clark said these minutes do not show that there was a vote as the
recommendation, by the Executive Committee states. The Chairman noted this had been a bad choice of words.
Mrs. King moved that the Board accept the Executive Committee’s recommendation to deny the request of Operation Independence. Motion seconded by Mrs. Williams.
Rev. Clark said that the agreement reached by the Executive Committee was based upon the assumption that Neighborhood Councils had voted to remain autonomous. He said that if there is no motion no second, you cannot consider that a vote has been taken, and further commented regarding "railroading this thing."
Mrs. Williams noted that this decision was made by the Executive Committee on the basis of a concensus taken at an informal meeting of Council representati ves.
The question was called. On the vote to accept the Executive Committee's recommendation to deny the request of Operation Independence, motion carried.
A Neighborhood Service Worker commented regarding the minutes of her Council meeting and asked that her representative advise the Board of what her Council wished. The Chairman ruled the Service Worker out of order, and informed her that she is an employee of this Board and if she disagrees or has complaints to lodge against the Board there are channels to follow. He said he would not tolerate employees attacking the Board in public and asked anyone who is an employee to refrain from doing so in the future.
EXTENSION OF MANPOWER PROGRAM BEYOND DECEMBER 31 EXPIRATION DATE: Mr. Cottrell reported that as the Board is aware there is a problem in refunding Manpower for next year. He "Reviewed the history of funding and the fact that the program was originally funded from 0E0 versatile funds, through an oversight in the Regional Office. When it became apparent that 0E0
-8-
would not be able to refund the project as presently constituted for 1538, • there was a good deal of activity in the community as a result of which Operation Independence authorized the Manpower Center Director to travel to San Francisco to request extension of the program from whatever monies were left over in 1967. This trip was made from monies collected in the community since out of state travel must be approved by the Regional Office.
Mr. CottrelI noted that those who have seen what the project has done have been aware that it has operated at a remarkable level in the short time it has been in operation. The Board of Operation Independence adopted a motion requesting that extension be granted from exisitng funds. The Regional Office is prepared to extend the project with two basic stipulations — (1) that the grantee concur in this extension; (2) and that there be no increase in federal funds. Mr. Cottrell advised that in . all probability the program can be extended for six months into 1968 and the Executive Committee is recommending that the Board request approval to extend the Manpower Program on existing funds already on Letter of Credit.
Mr. Bunker moved that the Board concur with ^he recommendations of the Executive Committee. Seconded by Mr. Dawson/ motion carried.
Discussion Regarding Representation on Board for Nevada'Futures: Mrs. Williams stated that the Board had made a motion to seat a represents-’ tive of Nevada Futures.
The Chairman corrected the statement, advising that no motion was made to seat a representative.
NEW CAREERS PROGRAM: Mr. Cottrell advised the Board of the "New Careers" Program which is funded through the Bureau of Work Programs, U.S. Department of Labor. The program proposes to create, in existing agencies, new careers for subprofessional people. He said that the Executive Committee has recommended that the staff be authorized to proceed with preparing the program and obtaining funding from the Bureau of Work Programs.
Rev. Clark asked if there were any other agencies which could qualify for this program. Mr. Cottrell said the requirement is that agencies be either public or private nonprofit agencies in a position to make firm commitments to hire people after their training is completed.
Rev. Clark asked if there are other agencies in this community who could qualify to administer this program. Mr. Cottrell advised that under the BWP arrangements with 0E0, contracts are entered into only between BWP and Community Action Agencies. He noted also that due to the relatively small amount of the grant, no new staff would be set up, and that B.W.P. was requiring that the existing NYC staff be supplemented to administer the new program.
Mr. Waite moved that the staff be authorized to prepare and submit application for a New Careers Program. Seconded by Mrs. Williams, motion carr i ed.
Grievance of Dudley Evans:
The Chairman read the recommendation of the Executive Committee "TO furnish Mr. Evans everything he has requested which is required by appropriate federal regulations, and to furnish all information pertaining
to the case requested by Federal authorities." The Chairman further advised Board Members that Mr. Evans has filed a suit in District Court • against the United States of America alleging, among other things, that he has been discriminated against.
Mrs. Williams moved that the recommendation of the Executive Committee be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried.
REPORT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Congressional Legislation:
Mr. Cottrell reported that Congress still has not acted finally on amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act. He advised that nationwide poverty programs would probably end up with same amount of federal funds as appropriated last year.
Mr. Cottrell discussed the two amendments being proposed which seem to be most important to the Economic Opportunity Act. Regarding the proposed amendment which would require that half of the 20% Meal share be in cash, Mr. Keyes asked the Executive Di rector if he was expressing his personal opinion when he said the EOB would run into trouble obtaining this money. Mr. Cottrell said this was based on past experience of raising $3,300 from local governments. Mr. Waite indicated it would be very difficult for the City of North Las Vegas to come up with any more money at this time, and stated he would back Mr. Cottrell in his statement that it would be difficult to obtain this much money from any of the city governments.
State Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson advised that all of the cities and counties are in dire need of money and are scraping from every angle to find additional revenue for necessities for services for the total community. He further noted that the cities are trying to get on the agenda for the Special Session of the Legislature because of their financial difficulties.
Information Regarding Possibility of Extension of Summer Jobs Program:
Mr. Cottrell advised that a communication had been presented to the Executive Committee from the Neighborhood Councils requesting that the staff check into the possibility of extending the summer jobs program. The Regional Office has indicated it is possible under the condition that there be no additional Federal funds. Mr. Cottrell advised that figures are not presently available which would show how long the program could be extended, but that it should be in the area of two to three months.
Mrs. Wil Iiams moved that the EOB request extension of the Summer Jobs Program. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
Question of Holding Meeting in December:
Following brief discussion, Mr. Jones moved that a Board Meeting in December be dispensed with. Seconded by Mrs. Williams, motion carried with one naye vote.
The Chairman advised that the next meeting of the Board will be held in January.
OTHER BUSINESS: The Chairman called for discussion regarding furnishing CAP memos to each Neighborhood Council.
-10-
Mr. Cottrell advised that CAP Memos set forth administrative procedure and detail and many memos deal with programs which are not funded locally.
Following discussion, Mr. Keyes moved to place this item on the agenda of the January Board Meeting so that he can attempt to obtain the $168 to allow the Neighborhood Councils to have the choice of keeping what they wish to keep in the CAP Memos. Seconded by Mr. McPherson, motion carried.
Mr. Lockette suggested that the CEO office be asked to provide additional copies of CAP Memos.
Letter from Father Shallow Resigning from the Executive Committee:
A letter was read from Father Shallow stating that he wished to resign as a member of the Executive Committee though stiI I wished to retain his seat on the Board. Mr. Lockette moved to accept Father Shallow’s resignation from the Executive Committee. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
Letters from Senators Bible and Cannon: Two letters were read to Board Members from Senators Bible and Cannon providing information on Congressional action regarding Economic Opportunity Act amendments
Presentation by Mr. William Villa: Mr. Villa made an appeal to Board Members to sign a petition he was circulating concerning additional aid to the Blind in the State of Nevada.
Question by Guest: Mr. French stated that the Chairmah had earlier referred to channels of protest, and asked to know what these channels were.
The Chairman advised that he was referring to channels of protest as far as staff was concerned and that such necessary guidelines are set up in the Personnel Policies and Practicies of the Economic Opportunity Board.
Meeting of Personnel Committee: Chairman White announced that after adjournment there would be a short special meeting of the Personnel Comm i ttee.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted
Executive Director
WFC:dm
CLARK COUNTY
JOINT NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 24, 1967
CHAIRMAN AND TRUSTEES CLARK COUNTY
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD
THE CLARK COUNTY JOINT NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS REQUESTED TIME ON THE AGENDA OF YOUR MEETING, TO BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD CERTAIN FACTS. WE HAVE PREPARED A SET OF PAPERS TO ASSIST IN CLARIFYING OUR STATEMENT.
ATTACHED IS RECENT LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PARAGRAPH MARKED "A" ON ITEM PAGE 1 —----------
WE WOULD LIKE ALSO, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SAME SUBJECT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO COMMUNITY ACTION GUIDE VOLUME I, PAGE 16, PARAGRAPH 5, SUB-PARAGRAPHS C,D, AND E: WHICH IS MARKED ITEM PAGE II IN THE ATTACHED SET OF PAPERS ---------------
IN THE FACE OF THE ABOVE GUIDES OF ACTION AND THE SPECIAL CONDITION MARKED PAGE ITEM III, AND ATTACHED ---------------------
THERE APPEARS TO BE A GROSS MISREPRESENTATION IN THE PARAGRAPH REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR COMPONENT 7-13. MARKED ITEM PAGE IV: THIS PAGE STATES THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET. ACTUALLY THE SPECIAL CONDITION RELATING TO NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL, WAS NOT MET BEFORE THE COMPONENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE EOB, AND STILL HAS NOT BEEN MET. SEE ITEM PAGE I I I
IN THIS CONNECTION WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FORWARD OUR DESIRES TO THE BOARD THRU THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITH UNFAVORABLE RESULTS. THEREFORE AT THIS TIME, WE PRESENT TO THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO AND ADDITIONS TO COMPONENT 7-13, MARKED ITEM PAGE V
RESPECTFULLY
(signed)
ARTHUR J. GRANT ACTING SECRETARY CLARK COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
COPY OF LETTER
COPY OF LETTER
COPY OF LETTER
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D.C. 20506
Oct. 9, 1967
Mr. Isaac R. White
Chairman of the Board
Economic Opportunity Board of
Clark County
616 Gil day Court
North Las Vegas, Nevada 09030
Dear Mr. White:
This letter to you is long overdue. And it is much deserved. It is an expression of my deep personal appreciation to you and your associates for your service on the Board of your local community action agency. This service, in my judgment, represents the most important single contribution being made by private citizens to the war on poverty. Please express this appreciation on my behalf to all of the members of your Board.
The war on poverty is a national effort. But its Victory must be won on a thousand local battlefronts. Those local victories must be designed and executed by local people. We, at the Federal level, can help, and we must make sure that the Federal mandate is properly carried out — but this is truly a homefront war. And only you can assure its success.
There has been much misunderstanding about what community action means. It has been a difficult story to tel I, and we need your help in getting greater public understanding of it. Community action does not mean control by public officials^ it does not mean control by professional staffs. It means just what the name implies: action by the whole community. It means all of these groups and many more, local citizens working together to seek solutions on which the whole community can agree. It means democracy in action.
The full hope of community action, however, will be realized only if all the participants give it their continued and loyal support. In a few communities, I regret to report, some of the CAP Board members have gotten tired and disillusioned after some disagreements with other members of the Board and have stopped attending and participating in meetings. I hope you will never let this happen in your community.
As I said above, community action is local action. But we are prepared, at the national or regional level, to discuss with you any problems you may have.
Your suggestions for improving the program are earnestly requested.
The Congress is now considering the continuation of your local programs. As soon as Congress has completed action, I will write you again and tell you of its final decision so that you may be fully informed.
S i ncereIy,
(Signed) Sargent Shriver, Director
< P.S. From time to time we’d like to send your Board members some current infor- jz mation about the poverty program. If you think they would like to receive such information, would you please send me a current list of your Board members and the i r addresses?
system,including banks,credit unions, consumer cooperatives and consumer education groups, better business and related business organizations, h. The legal services system including bail-bond procedures,IegaI aid, public defenders,administrative appeals agencies, correctional agencies,and other private and public groups protecting the legal rights of individuals.
Each of these service systems deals with only part of the complex and interrelated causes of poverty. The separate service systems need to be linked in a total network in order to mount an effective attack on poverty. Each applicant agency must demonstrate its ability and intention to mobilize community resources against poverty through the establishment of linkages among and within service systems and through other means.
5. Resident participation. The Economic Opportunity Act requires that a community action program be developed conducted and administered with the maximum feasible participation of the residents of the areas or neighborhoods Tn which the program w~i I I be carried out and of the members of the groups that ft will serve. Among the means" to~ensure participation of residents of the areas and members of the groups served are: a. Representation on the policy-making body and appropriate advisory boards of the community action agency.
b. Use of existing and neighborhood or^ ganizations and the creation of new representative neighborhood organizations for advice on program policy and, where appropriate,for actual conduct and administration of elements of neighborhood-based programs. /^? The provision of meaningful opportu- / nities for residents,either as indi- I vidua Is or in groups,to protest or | t° propose additions to or changes in the ways in which a community action ( program is being planned or under- taken.
d. Employment to the maximum extent feasible,of the residentsof areas being served in jobs created as part of the community action "program i tse I f.
Such jobs shouId i ncIude pos itions which allow residents to influence tTTe ways in which policy decisions afe~made and carrfed out,as well as jobs in which special advantage can be taken of the residents’ knowledge of and familiarity with the area. Such employment opportunities should be maximized through the identified- j tion of tasks not requiring profes-x sional status.
e.Other methods and approaches for involving the poor include:
(1)
Formation of a "grass-roots involvement" committee to focus attention on problems and methods of involving the "hard-to- reach" poor and to evaluate the effectiveness of the approaches adopted.
(2)
Surveys conducted by neighborhood workers.
(3)
Surveys conducted by organizations concerned with poverty.
(4)
Formation of citizen forums.
(5)
Formation of block clubs.
(6)
Block elections, petitions, and referendums.
(7)
Newsletters to neighborhood leaders and potential leaders.
(8)
Neighborhood newspapers.
(9)
Promotional techniques, including use of films, literature, and mobile units operating from information centers.
(10)
Meetings of neighborhood groups with civic and political leaders.
The requirement of resident participation applies to all stages of a community action-, prog ram, from its inception on Achievement of meaningful participation shall be a continuing objective of every community action program,since it is through their own effective participation that the residents and groups to~be served can most ~readiTy achieve the objective of a permanent increase TTTtheir capacity To d'eal with their own problems without further assistance.
6. Participation in policy-making: Broadly-based agencies. The most effective and desirable community action program is
%
Name of Grantee
Grantee No. Prog. Yr Action No.
Operation Opportunities, Clark County
CG 0357 B 0
X Section 204 and or 205 Component No. 7-9
This grant is subject to the special condition shown below, in addition to the applicable General Conditions governing grants under Title I I—A pr I I I-B of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended.
This special condition reverses a prior special condition.
Programs affecting designated target areas or geographical neighborhood council boundaries must be submitted to the appropriate Neighborhood Council for review and approval prior to submission to 0E0.
Prior Special Condition which read " programs affecting West Las Vegas must be submitted to the Operation Independence Board for review and approval prior to submission to 0E0" is now void.
ITEM PAGE
It is the feeling of the staff that each of the 34,000 residents has benefitted directly or indirectly from the services of the project. Approximately 8,000 families in the target areas have been contacted (in person or though the highly concentrated publicity campaign conducted during the first six months of this program year.)
From January 1 through June 30, Service Workers directly assisted 662 persons, including referrals to agencies. Many of these required extensive (an intensive) follow-through efforts.
During the present funding period it was estimated that a minimum of 1,200 persons would be served directly. For the 1968 program year we estimated that the project staff wiI I reach and successfully serve 2,500 persons.
B.
Percentage Meeting Income Criteria
No detailed statistics are available on the income level of those served. This information will be available through the Management Information System for the coming program year. However, it is estimated by the staff that 85# of those served during the current year meet criteria.
X.
Reasons for Increase in Proposal Cost
The increase in funding requested for this project is necessary to pay the salary for one additional Neighborhood Service Worker ($5,362 basic cost under proposed salary schedule), and the salary for the proposed Field Supervisor (not yet established, but estimated at $5,800). Other changes, including normal salary increments, are outlined in the detailed budget explanation and justification.
Dollar increase over current fundin .......................................................... $23,808
Amount attribute to salary increments (4$ of 1967 personnel . 2,056 costs)
Other: (See budget Justification attached to CAP Form 23)
XI.
Efforts to Secure Non-OEO Funding
It is assumed that 0E0 will fund this component, inasmuch as this is a basic 0E0 function. However, the grantee will be amenable to seeking funding from some other source if such source can be identified. It is assumed that such funding would be restricted to non-Federal (Private) sources, w such as foundations. It would be unrealistic in the extreme to hope that the project would be self-supporting, or that existing local government sources would be able to support any appreciable portion of the cost.
( XII- Compliance with Special Conditions
Two special conditions were attached to this component. Both have been comp lied with.
XIII. Manager ia I Competence
The administrative aspect of the project (payroll and other costs) is administered through the grantee. Accountability for project funds thus lies with the EOB and not with the individual Councils. PtT7’
REGARDING PARAGRAPH IV, PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND ADDITIONS TO COMPONENT 7-13 Item A: is rejected in it’s entirety, It is the feeling of the Neighborhood Councils that the Project Director has the responsibility of making himself compatible to the eight Neighborhood Service Workers and Councils, rather than the eight Service Workers and Councils attempting to make themselves compatible to the Director.
ItemB: to be reworded to read that the project director be required to furnish a written report to the Executive Board of the Neighborhood Councils quarterly, and that the Councils execute the quarterly evaluation of the Project Director to be submitted to the EOB.
Item C: Accepted as written.
Item D: Accepted as written.
Item E: Accepted as written
Item F:- That the position of Field Supervisor be abandoned and that the
combined position of Secretary and Neighborhood Council Public Relations Worker be substituted at the same salary range, and that the job description and qualfications for the position be approved by the Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee. (The purpose of this change, is the need to reach the public thru all media and to furnish part time ’ in the office' assistance to the Project Director who should have time for all of his duties, provided he stops other conflicting outside activities.
G. 1. That the project Director be selected and approved by the Joint Clark County Neighborhood Counci I Advisory Committee.
2.
Further that all staff positions in the Neighborhood Council Component 7-13 be selected and approved by the Clark County Joint Neighborhood Councils Advisory Committee.
3.
And Further that EOB institute a positive program for up-grading Neighborhood Service Workers and other employees.
ITEM PAGE V
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
December 13, 1967
TO: Executive Committee Members of the EOB
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF DECEMBER MEETING
You are hereby notified of the December meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board to be held:
MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1967 7:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
PLEASE NOTE THIS WILL BE AN EVENING
MEETING RATHER THAN THE REGULAR AFTERNOON MEETING
AGENDA FOR JOINT MEETING WITH OPERATION INDEPENDENCE EXECUTIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEES:
I.
Letter from Saigo and Rollins concerning Day Care accounting services. (Enclosed)
2.
Report from Operation Independence regarding improvements in accounting services.
3.
Modification of Day Care Program - reduction of federal funds necessitated by policy that program cannot be funded by more than the federal dollars granted in 1967.
AGENDA FOR EOB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING:
I.
Approval of the Minutes of the November 20 Executive Committee Meeting.
2.
Discussion and Action on Amendment of Day Care Program for 1968 (Enclosed)
3.
Neighborhood Council Amendments, Status of Joint Advisory Committee - Communications from Regional Office. (Letter from Mr. Ruybalid enclosed)
4.
Communications from Dudley Evans.
5.
Economic Opportunity Act Amendments and 1968 funding level, etc. (Dependent upon information being available prior to the meeting.)
6.
Letter from Robert Fahey concerning Neighborhood Councils, etc.
7.
Approval for Cooperation with Nevada Southern University in applying for and administering UPWARD BOUND Project.
8.
Discussion of Possibility of Participating in Food Stamp Plan to be Administered by State WEI fare Division.
9.
Other Items.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
December 18, 1967 EOB Offices (932 W. Owens)
7:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada,
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Harvey Dondero, Daisy Miller, Thomas Wilson Dorothy King
Guests: Lubertha Johnson, Dorothy Harper, Rader Rollins, Rev. Donald Clark Clark
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Evelyn H. Mauldin, Sylvia Staples, LaMar McDaniel
NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL AMENDMENTS, STATUS OF JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - COMMUNICATIONS FROM REGIONAL OFFICE: Mr. Cottrell advised that an answer had been received in reply to EOB’s communication regarding a special condition concerning Neighbor-' hood Councils which had been discussed in various meetings. It had also been alleged by Mr. Arthur Grant that the special condition had not been fulfilled. Mr. Cottrell advised the letter from Lou Ruybalid of the Regional Office states the specific condition has been fulfilled since that the Board had listened to modifications proposed but had voted not to recommend an amendment to the work program.
The Executive Director further stated that a second communication has jusf recently been received from Region in response to material submitted when the Board accepted requests made by the group calling themselves the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee. He advised that the Regional Office was returning the material pending verification from the Board as to whether it recognizes and gives sanction to the joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee. The Regional Office also questioned the provision that an Advisory Group should select and approve staff personnel as is shown in one of the amendments.
Mrs. King advised that the words "select and approve" are incorrect and the group is aware of this.
Mrs. Miller asked who the Advisory Committee is. ’The Chairman advised they are apparently members of Councils, but he could not say specifically who the members are and he did not know this Committee existed until last month.
Mr. Cottrell stated Region has said that prior to recognition of any Joint Advisory Committee, evidence should be shown that these people have the sanction and approval of all eight Councils. He noted it was felt this could be indicated in writing from each Council, indicating they had authorized someone from their Council to represent them on the Joint Advisory Committee.
There was further discussion of composition oT the group calling itself the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee. Mrs. Miller stated sh$ had attended a meeting but did not know this was to be an Advisory Committee. Mrs. King said the Advisory Committee is made up of a group of people froip the Neighborhood Councils, and there are two from each Council.
. Mr. Wilson stated that to his knowledge, Westside Council had no participation in this meeting, and no one had informed him of organizing this committee. He noted that he had also talked to the Westside Council Chairman who knew nothing about it.
The Chairman advised that the matter at hand now is what response should be made to Region in regard to the questions asked. He noted that it seems that the Board was in error in approving the requests of this group at the last meeting because the group had not been recognized as the Advisory Committee. He requested the pleasure of Executive Committee Members.
The three specific questions asked by Regional Office were reviewed. In further discussion, Mrs. King said that though Mr. Wilson has stated the Westside Council did not participate in forming the Advisory Committee, the Westside Chairman has been aware of it and Mr. Sanders from Westside Council has been present at meetings. She also stated that Mr. Wilson as the EOB representative, has been contacted. Mr. Wilson again stated that no one has been in touch with him.
The Chairman said the Board has not recognized the Advisory Committee but did honor their demands at the last meeting. He said the minutes should show that approval would be dependent upon the sanction of Regional Office. Mr. White advised that after talking to Regional representatives regarding the situation, it was found the Board had acted in error in accepting the demands of a group which had not actually been recognized.
Mrs. King stated it is true perhaps that the cart was put before the horse; that the Advisory Committee still has not submitted any By-Laws or such; therefore, she did not think the Committee was in a position to select anyone. She said that until By-laws are submitted, the EOB cannot recognize the group.
Chairman White asked Mrs. King if she didn’t think the Advisory Committee should have submitted these things before making demands of the Board. Mrs. King asked if the demands weren’t things the Neighborhood Councils were asking for previously.
The Chairman stated that the group never had been granted their request for a meeting, yet demands were made by them and this is where the confusion lies. Mrs. King said that what is partially wrong is that people say they don’t know anything about it; yet the only reason is because they don’t want to know anything about it.
Mr. Dondero asked if this Committee was to be spokesman for all Neighborhood Councils, and if they were, is there anything on file to say they have thq authority to speak for their Councils? It was noted there is not anything on file.
Following discussion regarding the best course of action by the Executive Committee, Mr. Wilson moved that it be recommended to the Board that previous actions in regard to the Joint Advisory Committee requests be rescinded, and that there be established ground rules and guidelines necessary for a Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee to gain recognition. Motion seconded by Mr. Dondero and carried.
-2-
COMMIN I CAT IONS FROM DUDLEY EVANS: Mr. Cottrell advised that about 20 letters had been received from Dudley Evans in the past two months. He further advised that Mr. Evans ha'* f’led suit in District Court against the United States of America in which the EOB would be involved.
Mr. Cottrell briefly reviewed the history of the temporary employment of Mr. Evans. He said that Mr. Evans may have basis for a claim on the technicality that he has never had a hearing before the Board, although Mr. Evans had been invited to attend an Executive Committee meeting to alre his grievances and did so on March 27, 1967. In spite of this, however, Mr. Evans apparently feels he has not had a proper hearing.
Mr. Cottrell said he did not know that there was anything the EOB could do other than decide (I) whether Mr. Evans should have a full-scale hearing before the Board oif a committee appointed by the Board, or (2) that he has had his "Day in Court" and is not entitled to a further hearing.
He advised members that CAP Memo No. 32 does provide that the Board shalI give a full public hearing to anyone who may ask for it unless the Board votes that such a hearing would be superfluous or repetitious and denies such a hearing by a 2/3 vote of the Board. He noted that at the time it was felt that Mr. Evans had no appeal to the EOB because he was neither hired nor dismissed by the EOB.
Mr. Dondero stated he felt that Mr. Evans had had ample opportunity to present his case before Executive Committee Members.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON AMENDMENT OF DAY CARE PROGRAM FOR 1968: Mr. Cottrell advised that each member has received a copy of the proposed revised budget for the year-round Head Start Program. He reviewed that the original budget had incorporated in it everything that 0E0 guidelines require in the way of qualified teachers, medical care, dental care, nutrition, etc. He said that Operation Independence has never been funded sufficiently to do what 0E0 guidelines dictate.
This original request totaled $234,000 in federal funds. Mr. Cottrell advised that a memo was then received from 0E0 which said the basic financial limitation in each community will be the same number of federal dollars as the program is operating on in the present year. He said a Head Start specialist as well as the Field Representative has been in Las Vegas to go over the budget. It became apparent that to have a program that meets guidelines and at the same time not exceed the federal dollars of the present program, there was a choice of cutting the program from 12 months to 9 or 10 months or to serve less than the present 120 children.
Mrs. Johnson met with the Regional people and worked out a budget, cutting out everything that could possibly be cut out by reducing the number of children and increasing the size of the classes. Full-time positions have been reduced from 28 to 20 employees. Mr. CottrelI advised there was no choice in this matter; that Regional and National Office also had no choice. The Office of the President has decreed that Summer Head Start programs will not be reduced in number of children served and Full Year Head Start programs will have to be reduced if necessary to allow the Summer Programs to maintain the same number of children.
-3-
Mr. Cottrell advised this budget has been discussed with the Operation Independence Board who very reluctantly agreed to the reduction that had been worked out. He said that this budget is now being presented to the Executive Committee for approval subject to ratification at next month’s Board meeting because it is necessary that this be submitted as quickly as possible to obtain funding.
Mrs. Johnson said she wished to emphasize that Operation Independence strongly protests this action because they feel the memo pertaining to Summer Head Start programs does not apply to them, due to the fact that Operation Independence had a Head Start program prior to any in the school system. She said in some areas the agencies have taken funds earmarked for Summer Head Start Programs.
Mrs. Johnson further stated that Operation Independence wishes to include objections to the so-called necessary cutback in funds; that though she realizes the Board has a right to do whatever they wish she hopes this group will go along in protesting this proposal and request of 0E0 that if money does become available at any later date, Operation Independence be given a chance to add this to the Day Care Budget.
Mrs. King commented regarding the proposed "New Careers" Programs and asked how you can consider new programs and cut old ones. Mr. Cottrell explained that funds for "New Careers" are earmarked and are administered through the Labor Department rather than through 0E0. He said that if these funds are not spent for "New Careers", they cannot be spent for anything else.
Mrs. King moved to approve the proposed amended budget for the Operation Independence Day Care Centers. Seconded by Mr. Wilson.
In discussion, Mrs. Miller asked the Director of Day Care Services if the program will be as effective with this cutback. Mrs. Johnson stated that guidelines have been adopted nationally which require Head Start programs to separate children into classes of groups of 15 with at least three persons in attendance at each class, and that certainly if it is necessary to increase the classes to 20 children, they will not be as effective. She said that if staffing is reduced the program will not be as effective.
On the vote to adopt the amended budget, motion carried.
Mr. Dondero recommended that an appeal be made for funds to bring back the twenty children who must be dropped as a result of the budget cut. Mrs. Johnson noted that dropping the twenty children is going to mean a hardship on those parents as they are not earning enough of a salary to pay for child care.
Rev. Clark, Chairman of Operation Independence Board, said that we are really acting upon a situation which is word of mouth. "It is said to be a cutback — a fellow comes down from Frisco and has no real proof that monies will be cut',' he remarked. Rev. Clark stated that to him, it is just mighty poor business to have people acting upon assumption of word of mouth.
-4-
Mr. Cottrell stated that it is not word of mouth a memo that says "the basic financial limitation be the amount of funds granted the prior year." his evaluation, this is just a vague statement.
— that EOB did receive on each community will Rev. Clark said that in
Mrs. Johnson said she certainly does agree that 01 should have some type of written statement that will give them something to show why cuts must be made and why certain jobs are being discontinued. She noted she has been promised a memo from Regional Office but as yet has not received anything.
The Chairman asked about possibilities of obtaining funding requested in the original budget if more funds become available. Mr. Cottrell advised that the point is there are six working days before December 31 before the projects must be funded, and that either Day Care Centers are out of business completely or Region may extend the 1967 budget pending 1968 funding. He said that Region must have something to work with, and they cannot work on the original budget because basic national policy is to provide, at a maximum the same federal dollars as the present year.
He further advised that Mr. Dias, Regional Field Representative, had said that if more funds become available, Regional Office would entertain application to bring project back up to status of original application. Mr. Cottrell advised that the total amount appropriated, $1,773,000 is slightly more than last year but it is not known how much of this is earmarked, and Regional Office does not know where the funds will go.
Rev. Clark asked Mr. Cottrell if the Conduct and Administration Budget has requested additional staff. Mr. Cottrell advised that an additional Clerk-Typist had been requested. Rev. Clark asked if a Head Start Coordinator had been requested. Mr. Cottrell stated that this position is being requested, but it will be funded one-half from Full year Head Start and one-half Summer Head Start funds.
Rev. Clark asked if he was to understand this position would be funded by money allocated for Head Start programs. Mr. Cottrell explained that regional representatives and consultants have suggested that EOB have someone on the staff to coordinate both Summer Head Start and Full-Year Head Start programs as well as the Moapa Migrant project. Upon request from Rev. Clark, Mr. Cottrell named these representatives and consultants — Dr. Joyce Huggins, Regional Training Officer; Dr. Joel Forte, Regional H.S. Medical Consultant; Miss Jeannette Graham, Regional Head Start Specialist; and Dr. Winston Frenzel, Regional USPHS Dental Surgeon, and explained these are people hired by Regional Office to advise CAP programs.
Rev. Clark stated that it seems if this position is partially being paid from Operation Independence budget, that agency should have some say about it —that dropping children is mighty poor operation. He said this position will be taking funds which could bring part of the children back into the program.
There was further discussion on the benefit of a Head Start Coordinator. Mr. Cottrell noted the programs would benefit by having consultive services and in-service training available. Rev. Clark asked if the Executive Director was aware than an Education Supervisor was cut from
-5-
the Operation Independence budget. He further referred to the Executive . Director’s justification for a Head Start Coordinator giving in-service training, stating that 01 had a person budgeted for this but this position was cut from the budget. He said the Summer Head Start program is run by professional people, and he would question that a supervisor was needed there to train teachers.
The Chairman asked Mr. Cottrell if the standards of the program would be effected if the Head Start Coordinator position were not included. Mr. Cottrell stated that the grantee is responsible for both Head Start Programs, and there is now no one on the staff who knows anything about Head Start in terms of child development.
Mrs. Miller asked if there is any written proof that project must be cut. Mr. Cottrell stated that the Regional people came to Las Vegas and told Operation Independence and EOB that the original budget could not be accepted. Mrs. Miller asked if these Regional people are the ones who approve or disapprove programs. Mr. Cottrell said in essence they are..
Mrs. Miller asked if the program without a coordinator has been any less efficient. Mr. Cottrell said he did not know, inasmuch as there is no way of making a comparison since the EOB has never been funded for a Head Start coordinator. Mrs. Johnson stated that Operation Independence wants the kind of in-service training resulting in college credit as far as a degree is concerned. She noted that this Coordinator could not give col lege credit.
The Chairman ruled subject to objection, that though the Executive Committee is in sympathy with losing 20 children, and in view of the motion just passed, the amended budget will be submitted and the EOB will go on record requesting that if any funds become available, the original budget of Operation Independence be updated to reflect the amounts orig i naI Iy requested.
JOINT MEETING WITH OPERATION INDEPENDENCE EXECUTIVE AND FINANCE COMMITTEES: Mr. Cottrell advised that Committee members had deceived a copy of the letter from Saigo and Rollins concerning day care accounting services. He said this is the same letter which was furnished to EOB Executive Committee members last month at which time members voted to have a joint meeting with 01 for purposes of discussing this letter.
Mrs. Johnson reviewed some of the items which had been corrected and submitted to the EOB office, though the Chairman advised that this situation had already been completed, and this was not the subject of discussion.
Members then turned to discussion of the letter from Saigo and Rollins which was written following an interim check of Operation Independence accounting made in July, 1967 as a part of the interim preliminary audit.
Mrs. Harper, Operation Independence bookkeeper, advised that some of the items referred to as being missing actually are in the office and that this possibly happened through records being misplaced as a result of break-ins. She said that she now has most records and is obtaining new records to replace those which cannot be located.
-6-
I
Concerning an item in the letter in which employees were paid 10 working days when they had actually worked only 8 during the conversion from semi-monthly to bi-weekly pay periods, Mr. Dondero asked Mrs. Johnson if this had been done with her approval or knowledge. Mrs. Johnson stated it was not, and she did not know how the bookkeeper thought this could be reconciled.
Rev. Clark advised that all payroll checks and time are now reviewed by the Finance Committee, and since his administration all bills are reviewed by the Finance Committee before they are paid.
Mrs. Johnson advised that her present Accountant is a former auditor and has had a number of years of experience in accounting as well as auditing. Mrs. Johnson also turned over copies of requested material to Mrs. Mauldin. Mr. Rollins expressed his confidence that Mrs. Harper could handle the situation. The Chairman also welcomed Mrs. Harper.
There was discussion on whether a tax exemption number had been obtained by Operation Independence, and Mr. Rollins noted noted this was a very important matter.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT AMENDMENTS AND 1968 FUNDING LEVEL: Mr. Cottrell reported that information has been received advising that final congressional action has been taken, and the amount appropriated for the War on Poverty is $1,773,000,000 which was a compromised amount between the House and Senate. It is not known yet what funds are earmarked for specific programs.
He advised the Green Amendment was retained with modifications, apparently providing that cities and/or counties and/or states may take over community action agencies though they would continue to be governed by a Board of not more than 50 members.
LETTER FROM ROBERT FAHEY OF NEVADA CATHOLIC WELFARE CONCERNING DUDLEY EVANS, NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS, ETC: Mr. Cottrell advised the Executive Committee of receipt of a letter from Mr. Fahey and stated there are charges therein of which members should be aware. Mr. Cottrell read excerpts of the letter. The Chairman noted that when Mr. Evans was given a hearing before the Executive Committee, Father Shallow did not attend the meeting-.
APPROVAL FOR COOPERATION WITH NEVADA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY IN APPLYING FOR AND ADMINISTERING UPWARD BOUND PROJECT: Mr. Cottrell advised that this year and the two Campuses are proposing to conduct an UPWARD BOUND program on each Campus, with NSU applying for 30 students to be drawn from Clark County. He said the CAA is required to sign off on this application for which there is a deadline of January 3.
Mr. Cottrell stated that he is requesting, in the absence of a Board Meeting an expression of interest for cooperation with NSU and permission to sign off on the check point.
The Chairman said he had had an opportunity to visit the Reno Campus this past summe, and observe the Upward Bound program. He noted he thinks it is a very good program and some of the youngsters who participated and had no thoughts of going to college have now been inspired through this program. He mentioned that the program is not geared for a student with a ”D" average; that it is geared toward the student who has the ability but does not have the incentive. He said he had been told that if funds are available, NSU has top priority.
Mr. Dondero moved that approval be granted for EOB’s cooperation with the University in applying for and administering Upward Bound Project and that the staff insure that guidelines are adhered to in the administration of the project. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
DISCUSSION OF FOOD STAMP PLAN TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE WELFARE DIVISION: Mr. Cottrell briefly explained the Food Stamp Plan whereby low-income people are eligible to buy stamps from stores who wish to participate and with these stamps they are able to buy food at a 40$ discount. The State would not be authorized to put the plan into effect unless there is a way of distributing and accounting for the stamps, and determining eligibility for participation.
Mr. Cottrell said it may be feasible to do this through the Neighborhood Service Centers, but he felt that before any plans were made the Executive Committee should be aware of it. Mr. Cottrell said he does not yet know what volume is being considered, how many people would be eligible, what the guidelines and requirements of the Dept, of Agriculture would be, etc.
Following brief discussion, the Chairman ruled, subject to objection, that more information be obtained before any recommendations are made.
OTHER: Mr. Cottrell questioned what should be done in regard to accepting grants,
assuming that refunding is received.
The Chairman asked that the Executive Director get in touch with him when grants are received, and he would determine at that time whether or not it would be necessary to call a special meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:dm