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

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 16, 1968
MEMO TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
We have received information that the Executive Director of State Technical Assistance Office (Mr. Clyde Mathews) is proposing a training session for Board Members February 1, 2, and 3.
This training session will be conducted by the Western Center for Community Education and Development (WCCED) and is open to Members from all four of the CAP Boards in the state of Nevada.
Final plans have not been completed. It is anticipated that the sessions will be held in the Stardust Hotel beginning at Noon on February 1. Special sessions are being planned for Board Members who cannot attend daytime sessions because of employment committments. As soon as plans are completed, we will relay this information on to you.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
January 16, 1968
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1968
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
THE AGENDA
1.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 1967.
2.
LETTERS FROM MANPOWER DIRECTOR CONCERNING OPERATION INDEPENDENCE, (copies attached)
A.
Letter of January 9 directed to Chairman
B.
Letter of January 10 directed to Executive Director
3.
STATUS OF NEW CAREERS APPLICATION.
4.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT AMENDMENTS (Congressional Action).
A.
Possibility of Funding Manpower under Title I.
B.
Possibility of Funding Day Care (non Head Start) under Title V.
C.
"Green Amendment" and other changes.
5.
EXTENSION OF NYC PROJECT; STATUS OF 1968 PROJECT.
6.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STAMP PLAN.
7.
STATUS OF BOARD MEMBERSHIP.
A.
Possibility of Adding Representation from New Groups.
B.
Filling Vacancies on Executive Committee.
8.
WCCED TRAINING CONFERENCE FOR BOARD MEMBERS.
9.
MEETING OF REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND DUDLEY EVANS.
10.
OTHER ITEMS TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 22, 1968 EOB Offices (932 W. Owens)
3:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Emory Lockette, Ted Lawson, Harvey Dondero, Charles Spann, Daisy Miller, Thomas Wilson
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, LaMar McDaniel, Sylvia Staples
Guests: George Gant
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 1967: The Chairman called for corrections, additions, or deletions. Mr. Dondero stated that on page 3 he did not intend to say that Mr. Dudley Evans should not have any further hearing, and said the statement should be corrected to state only that Mr. Evans had had ample opportunity to present his case before Executive Committee members. Also, Mr. Dondero continued, on page 7 he did not wish the comment made regarding Mr. Fahey to be incorporated in the minutes and asked that it be deleted. With these corrections, the Chairman ruled subject to objection that the minutes to stand approved.
LETTERS FROM MANPOWER DIRECTOR CONCERNING OPERATION INDEPENDENCE: Members had been sent copies of letters from Mr. Gant, Manpower Director, addressed to the Executive Director and Chairman of the Board. The Chairman asked Mr. Gant to speak. Mr. Gant advised that he was present to seek direction and guidance in regard to actions which have been taken by the Operation Independence Board which were outlined.in some detail in the two letters.
Mr. Gant stated that it was his opinion that the Chairman of the Operation Independence Board has transcended his position as Chairman and moved into the administrative area which has impeded the Manpower Development Center program. He further stated that the Chairman has gone against the By-Laws, Mr. Cottrell advised members that Mr. Gant has brought this situation to the attention of the Operation Independence Board and apparently felt that the Board had not properly responded and so is not coming to the EOB Executive Committee without the knowledge of the Chairman of the 01 Board and of the Executive Director of Operation Independence.
Chairman White stated that the Chairman of 01 had not been notified to attend today’s meeting as the purpose of this meeting Is to try to deal with whether or not there are any grounds for the complaints.
Mr. Gant continued that he has an employee who in a period of 2£ months was not capable of carrying out the duties of the position of Training Coordinator for which she was employed. After writing an evaluation of performance, Mr. Gant stated that he gave the employee a copy and approximately 2 to 3 weeks later asked for her resignation.
He said he was subsequently called by the Chairman of the 01 Board to come to his office. At that time the Chairman advised Mr. Gant that he had appointed a Personnel Committee who was considering a request from the employee who had been requested to turn in a resignation. Mr. Gant stated the committee suggested that if he asked for her resignation, the Board would ask for his.
Mr. Gant said he contends the Chairman had illegally selected this Personnel Committee and therefore every action the committee took was illegal. He said the situation had snowballed to such a point that the Committee was meeting in regard to him, telling him what he could do and couldn’t do. He said the Committee had several hearings and made determinations; that the Committee had granted a hearing to the employee in question but had. not granted a hearing requested by the Manpower staff.
Mr. Gant stated that Operation Independence Board has not followed their By-Laws which can be proven conclusively by the minutes of the meetings held on December 13, January 4th, and January 8th. He stated that the Manpower Program is in jeopardy.
The Chairman advised that the only item which EOB had to be concerned with at this time was-whether or not Operation Independence has abided by the By-Laws they themselves drew up, including the question of whether the Personnel Committee was illegally appointed, the number of members on the 01 Board and Executive Committee, etc. He noted that a function of’the EOB is to see that delegate agencies follow their By-Laws and other guidelines which have been set forth.
Ln further discussion Mr; Gant stated that if a Director is not allowed to. function, the program is hindered. He said that Ol’s By-Laws provide that the Chairman of the Board shall select Chairmen for special committees, but that names for committee members shall be presented by the Nominating Committee to the Executive Committee for ratification. X? si’tr/rwtf
He further stated that the function of the Personnel Committee is to deal with functions of personnel policies; that if policies have been transcended the committee would have a cause for action, but in the present situation no policies were transcended. He further advised that the Personnel Practices and Procedures adopted by Operation Independence provide permanent employees with procedures for appeal from dismissal, If presented to the Executive Director first; however, there is no provision for probationary employees for such an appeal.
Mr. Lockette said that this seems like a simple matter of dealing in whether or not Mr. Gant has been denied the responsibility of following his job description and whether or not Operation Independence is operating within their rules and regulations. He suggested that Inasmuch as the EOB'has various committee he would suggest that copies of necessary material be submitted to such a committee for study and determination of the charges made.
Mr. Spann stated that he concurred with Mr. Lockette, but there Is some clarification needed as to whether Mr. Gant has been allowed to function within his job description and whether 01 Board realizes what their responsibility is.
Mr. Dondero asked what authority the EOB has if it is determined that 01 is not carrying out their By-Laws. The Chairman noted that the EOB would insist that By-Laws and rules and regulations be followed. The Chairman also noted that the employee in question was not a permanent.employee, and under the Personnel Policies of 01 she had no right of grievance before the Board or Committee of the Board.
-2-
The Chairman appointed the already-existing Manpower Committee, elected at the annual meeting of the EOB and consisting of Messrs. Lawson, Lockette and Kline, to study the charges. He instructed Mr. Lawson, as Chairman of this Committee, to set up a meeting.
Mr. Spann asked whether Mrs. Johnson as Executive Director of Operation Independence was involved in the situation. Mr. Gant advised that Mrs. Johnson had protested very strongly against the actions of the Board.
STATUS OF NEW CAREERS APPLICATION: Mr. Cottrell advised that the Bureau of Work Programs has at first indicated they wanted a New Careers Program in operation by December 31; however, this was not feasible. A conference was then called in San Francisco and there is now a new timetable which asks for programs to be in by March 15 and to be in operation by June 30. He advised that several agencies have expressed interest in participating.
Mr. Cottrell said that the BWP is now saying they will not fund any project for less than $200,000, and paying the going rate on training positions would mean that as many as 35 or 40 New Careers enrollees could be funded. In the program would be included their wages, medical support, and educational support. He said that BWP had also indicated that only cities with CEP (Concentrated Employment Programs) would get New Careers programs.
Mr. Spann asked where the idea was conceived to have the New Careers program under the NYC staff.
Mr. Cottrell explained that BWP wants to combine the New Careers project staff with staffs they are already involved with; that NYC would have to assume some of the administrative load. He advised that if the program is considered for $200,000 it would Justify employing additional staff. He further explained that the purpose of "New Careers" Is to create new types of sub-professional jobs to provide meaningful Jobs for low-income people. BWP wants enrollees to identify with the agency with whom they are training.
He said there would not be as much coordinating needed as there Is with the NYC project because there would not be more than five or six agencies as it is not feasible for the agencies to give training to less than five enrollees. Agencies must guarantee employment and must guarantee they will continue the training positions after special funding ends. The first year the wages for the trainee are paid in full by BWP; the second year they are paid half by the agency with which the enrollee is training.
■ 1967 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT AMENDMENTS: Mr. Cottrell advised that the Regional Office has been instructed not to interpret any amendments until interpretation is received from Washington.
Possibility of Funding Manpower Under Title I. Mr. Cottrell said there is now a provision in Title I under which the Manpower Program can possibly be funded. This would probably be under the Bureau of Work Programs, and it seems the type of Manpower Program now in operation under Operation Independence is the type which can be funded under Title I.
-3-
Possibility of Funding Day Care (non-Head Start) under Title V. Mr. Cottrell stated That in Title V there is now a provision for day care centers, which presumably would be under the Social Security Administration. Funds could possibly be obtained to supplement the existing Operation Independence day care centers. This program is funded 90# Federal with 10# required I oca Ily.
Mr. Cottrell advised he has called these provisions to the attention of the Regional Office and has alerted them that the EOB would be interested in obtaining such funding.
"Green Amendment*1 and other changes. Mr. Cottrell advised that though there is not yet an interpretation of this amendment, it appears to give local governments, (state, county and municipal) some additional voice in community action agency programs. He noted there are four task forces that have been trying to figure our how this is going to be handled but in the meantime there is no change. Mr. Cottrell stated that in EOB’s case it may make relatively little difference astpublic agencies have always been represented on the Board, and have constituted one-third of the Board membership.
EXTENSION OF NYC PROJECT; STATUS OF 1968 PROJECT: Mr. Cottrell advised this is only an informational matter. He said the NYC project was due to end December 31 but has been extended to February 15, and at the moment the NYC program is operating on a second extension of last year's project. Mr. Cottrell said he is not sure what is involved and whether it is a question of other than congressional funding alone. He said that Regional BWP has also suggested they may want to cut back the 1968 project so it will end August 31 rather than December 31 as originally proposed. He further explained the details of how funding is handled through BWP.
REFUNDING OF 0E0 PROGRAMS: Mr. Cottrell also reported that the EOB programs are operating on a 30-day extension and are using money left over from the Manpower grant to do this.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STAMP PLAN: Mr. Cottrell advised that Mrs. Van Houten, District Welfare Division Administrator, was in the process of getting new information on the food stamp plan. He said that in a newsletter received from Washington it is indicated that food stamp plans are now 100# federal costs. The problem in the past had been that State Welfare did not have funds to administer the program. He noted that whether or not EOB will be involved is another question as there are many details to be worked out.
Mr. Lockette asked if quesIificat ion had any connection with income of families. Mr. Hoggard advised that he understands that any family or person receiving, or eligible to receive, public assistance is automatically eligible, and that anyone who can be certified as meeting poverty guidelines is eligible. Mr. Cottrell noted that one of the problems in administering the program is the question of certification of eligibility for participation.
The Chairman directed the Executive Director to obtain further information.
-4-
STATUS OF BOARD MEMBERSHIP: Mr. Cottrell advised there are several groups which have been represented on the Board in the past but who do not have representation at the present time. He said there are now 30 members on the full Board. He noted as examples these agencies to be the Juvenile Probation Department, the 01 Parents Advisory Committee, and the American Association of Retired Persons.
Mr. Cottrell advised there are also two vacancies on the Executive Committee; that the By-Laws call for 9 to 11 members and there are presently 9 members.
Following brief discussion Mr. Spann moved to defer any additional appointments on the Board and Executive Committee until the interpretation of the Green Amendment is made known to the Board. Motion seconded by Mr. Lawson; and on the vote, motion carried with one naye vote.
WCCED TRAINING CONFERENCE FOR BOARD MEMBERS: Mr. Cottrell noted that local CAPS, the Regional Office and Board members themselves have expressed an interest in training and conference-type discussions for Board members, covering such areas as the purpose and function of CAP Boards, relationships with the Regional Office and delegate agencies, functions of the staff and relationships with the Board, etc.
He said that at the request of the State Technical Assistance Office, the Western Center for Community Education and Development has arranged for a State-wide Board-member trailing conference which will be held in the evening. Additional information will be available at the Board meeting.
MEETING OF REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND DUDLEY EVANS: Mr. Cottrell advised that the Regional representatives who will be in Las Vegas for the 3-day conference have invited Mr. Evans to meet with them at the EOB Office on February 1. *
PLANNING GRANT: Mr. Cottrell stated the new "ACT" states that any funded agency must show planning capability, and that 0E0 is making available planning grants to CAAs to provide technical assistance to local agencies to help them in long-range planning and coordinating. He said that because Nevada is so small and there are only four community action agencies in the state (including the Inter-Tribal Council), 0E0 is suggesting that the three funded through Regional go together for a total planning grant of $35,000. He said that it has been tentatively decided to create a nonprofit corporation, the Board of which would consist of representatives from the CAAs and the State Technical Assistance Office. This Board would then employ the staff to perform the function for everyone in the state.
Mr. Cottrell noted that the alternative is that each agency alone would be entitled to $5,000 each, and 0E0 would not fund a program for less than $20,000. Following brief discussion, Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Director be empowered to proceed with necessary action to jointly cooperate with the other three CAAs,,pending the approval of the other CAAs. Motion seconded by Mr. Dondero.
In discussion on the motion, Mr. Cottrell advised that the major functions of the staff employed under the grant would be as follows:
(This was subsequently changed, and the meeting was held in San Francisco on Monday, January 29).
-5-
/\. To plan for each CAA, on request, for specific projects or areas such as Neighborhood Councils; providing data and analysis for the Board and staff, evaluating proposals submitted to the Board, helping to strengthen funding proposals submitted to CEO or other agencies, etc.
B.
To provide a statewide voice in planning at the state level and to provide contact with state and regional offices of various agencies with which CAAs work.
C.
To collect data at the state level, and to make it available to the local CAAs — information dealing with population trends, economic conditions, etc. — as may be requested by each CAA.
D.
To assist local CAAs to improve their planning capabiIities, including training in and evaluation of planning techniques.
Ek To assist CAAs to coordinate planning with other agencies providing services to the poor.
F.
To work with the proposed evaluation center in evaluating operation of programs as a part of the process of planning for improvements in programs.
G.
To evaluate current Management Information Service efforts and to assist CAA’s work towards improvement in the M.I.S. system, forms, etc.
On the vote, motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Executive Committee the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
WFC:dm
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 24, 1968
TO: Members of The Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: ITEMS RELATED TO AGENDA FOR MONTHLY BOARD MEETING -- JANUARY 31
There are a number of items of information which would be brought to your attention, particularly since there was no Board Meeting in December.
I* Legal Aid Project. The Legal Aid Society has been unable to recruit a staff attorney at the previously authorized salary in spite of continuous advertising throughout the state. The Regional Office continues to take the position that it cannot authorize any outside practice. However, under new legislation local agencies can request permission to pay salaries higher than the previous maximum of $15,000, and the Legal Aid Office has suggested that this appears to be the method we should use to put the program in operation.
We have had some conversation with the President of the Society, and he is to discuss the matter with the Legal Aid Board. We hope to have a recommendation from them at the Board meeting next Wednesday for your consideration.
2.
Proposal for Project under Higher Education Act. This Act provides funds to universities for projects related to community development and overcoming certain types of urban problems. The University Cooperative Extension Service has proposed a project (to be funded by the Reno Campus', and Mr. Bunker has indicated that he would like to discuss the proposal briefly so that the Board will be aware of the nature of the project.
We are not directly involved in approval of the project — these are not funds administered through 0E0. However, it is important that all agencies be aware of an involved in all projects which will be operating in the community.
3.
Refunding Status. Four of our projects (Neighborhood Counci Is, Legal Aid, Day Care, and Conduct and Administration) were due to expire on December 31. However, Congress did not vote appropriations for DEC until late in December. Therefore, pending refunding we have been authorized to continue in operation until January 31, using funds remaining from the 1967 projects. It is anticipated that proposals will be approved and we will be refunded by February I. If action cannot be completed on 1968 projects by that date we can request an additional extension — there are sufficient funds available to remain in operation for several weeks after that date.
Page 2
Whi Ie there has been no formal action, we have had some discussions with our Field Representative. The general indication is that we will be funded essentially as requested — with the exception of the Day Care Project, which was reduced from our request of $234,000 to the amount granted in 1967: $158,000. (The revised budget for this project was approved by the Executive Committee at its December meeting, inasmuch as there was no Board Meeting in December.)
Carlton Dias, our new Field Representative, will attend the Board Meeting next Wednesday. Hopefully he will be able to inform us by that date of final approval.
4.
Status of New Careers Application. We were originally asked by the Bureau of Work Programs to submit a project to be in operation by December I. This proved to be an unreasonable date, since this project involves features which require much more planning and agreements with various agencies:
A.
The agencies must guarantee.employment for those completing training.
B.
The agencies must assume at least 50^ of training costs the second year.
C.
The agencies must agree to continue training positions after the end of federal support.
D.
The agencies must make a commitment to (and make necessary adjustments in their organization and operations to accomodate) the concept of subprofessional careers.
We now have a new timetable which includes submission of a proposal no later than March 15, with projects to be in operation no later than June 30. We have met with a number of agencies which have expressed interest in the program and have given tentative commitments.
5.
N.Y.C. Project Status. Our 1967 project was due to expire December 31, and the 1968 project was to run from January I through October 31, 1968. However, due to late funding our proposal was not refunded, and we were extended to January 16. A second extension of 30 days has been granted, and we have been required to revise the budget to include this extra period.
It is now anticipated that our 1968 project will be for a period from February 16 to August 31, although we have been instructed not to submit the revised project budget at this time. The 1968 project provides for 85 enrollees, an increase from the 70 authorized during 1967.
6.
0E0 Planning Grant Application. New legislation requires that CAAs be capable of planning on a long-range basis. In order to assist local agencies to improve their planning capabilities, 0E0 is making grants available. In Nevada a sum of $35,000 has been
Page 3
alloted for use statewide by the three agencies — Washoe County, the 15 Rural Counties, and Clark County. (The Executive Committee has recommended that we be authorized to proceed with the other agencies to make application for this money.)
The general functions to be performed (through a nonprofit corporation, which would have a governing body made up of representatives from the three CAAs, as well as Inter-Tribal CAA and the State Technical Assistance Office) would include the following:
A.
To plan for each CAA, on request, for specific projects or areas, such as Neighborhood Councils; providing data and analysis for the Board and staff, evaluating proposals submitted to the Board, helping to strengthen funding proposals submitted to 0E0 or other agencies, etc.
B.
To provide a statewide voice in planning at the state level and to provide contact with state and regional offices of various agencies with which CAAs work.
C.
To collect data at the state level, and to make it available to the local CAAs — information dealing with population trends, economic conditions, etc. — as may be requested by each CAA.
D.
To assist local CAAs to improve their planning capabilities, including training in and evaluation of planning techniques.
E.
To assist CAAs to coordinate planning with other agencies providing services to the poor.
F.
To work with the proposed evaluation center in evaluating operation of programs as a part of the process of planning for improvements in programs.
G.
To evaluate current Management Information Service efforts and to assist CAA’s work towards improvements in the M.I.S. system, forms, etc.
7.
Congressional Changes in Legislation. There are many changes in the 1967 amendments. As yet neither the national nor regional offices of 0E0 have been able to reduce to writing the effect these changes will have. However, there are several points which are worthy of note:
A.
"Green Amendment" - We had hoped to have additional interpretation and directives on this amendment, which gives greater power and authority to local political subdivisions, but to date have received nothing. It appears that the effect locally will be minimal, since our Board already has one-third representation from public officials, including elected officials.
Page 4
B.
Title i Amendments to this title provide for funding of manpower outreach programs located in low-income neighborhoods. It appears that this may be a source of refunding for the Manpower Program.
C.
"Title V" - Amendments to this title provide for day care projects, (not HEAD START programs), which are to be 90^ federally funded. When more information is available, it may be that we will want to consider funding (or supplementing) the existing Day Care Project (Full-Year HEAD START) from this source.
8-
Board Member Seminar. The statewide training seminar for Board Members will be held at the MINT HOTEL, beginning 9:30 A.M. on Thursday, February I. Sessions will continue until 2:00 P.M. on Saturday, February 3. We do not yet have a more detailed agenda, but evening sessions will be definitely scheduled — we know it is difficult for most Board Members to get away from jobs or homes during the day.
Board Members from throughout the state will be attending. It wilI be an excel lent opportunity to get to know other Boards, their problems and successes, and to discuss items of mutual interest, including the functions of the Board, relationships between staff and Board, relationships with the Regional Office, with delegate agencies, etc.
9-
Approval of VISTA Program. Although new VISTA Volunteers were assigned in late November, and others transferred from Operation Independence, our project was not formally approved until recently. We have signed the agreement which is based on provisions of the application we submitted last June, and returned the final paperwork to the Regional Office. There is a temporary problem of transportation, since the funds for VISTA transportation are included in the Neighborhood Counci I Project.
Western
t N I t f< FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
..I COMMUNITY ACTION TRAINING 0 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION
January 24, 1968
Mr. Harvey Dondero
Clark County School District
P. 0. Box 551
Las Vegas, Nevada
Dear Mr. Dondero:
You are invited to participate in a Community Action Program Training Workshop. The Workshop will be held from 9:30 A.M.
on February 1st to 2:00 P.M. February 3 at the Mint Hotel in Las Vegas.
Participants, such as yourself, who receive invitations will be paid for established expenses, as allowed by 0E0 regulations by their respective agencies. The training will be focused on the governing board of the local Community Action Agencies.
Present plans anticipate covering:
1
- The make-up, role, and function of the board;
2
- How the board is affected by 0E0 regulations and policy;
3
- How the board serves and relates to the paid staff, State Technical Assistance, Regional and National OEO, and local and other resources;
4
- Other related areas as influenced by the participants.
As a selected participant for this Workshop we sincerely hope that you can attend. Maximum benefit to each individual will depend greatly on attendance and participation at all sessions as the design of the Workshop will emphasize participation rather than lectures and speeches.
The following Regional OEO representatives and members of their staff plan to be at this Workshop; Lawrence Horan, Director;
Carl Shaw; CAP Manager; Louis A. Ruybalid, District Supervisor, Arizona-Nevada;
1.
WESTERN
f tNI tK FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT I COMMUNITY ACTION TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION
- 2 -
Agencies to be involved in this Workshop are: Rural Counties Community Action Program; Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada; State Technical Assistance; Washoe County CAP; Clark County CAP.
If you plan to attend this Workshop and wish to make reservations, please make arrangements with Mrs. Michele Volk, RUCAP, Fall & King Streets, Carson City, Nevada, telephone area code 702, 832-7728. Also, notify your CAP agency so that pre-planning and registration can be arranged.
We will be looking forward to seeing you at this Workshop.
PSL/gg
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nev
January 25, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE CHA IRMAN
RE: NOTICE AND AGENDA OF JANUARY BOARD MEETING
You are hereby notified that the regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1968 8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT. AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
I.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1967.
(Minutes of the December Executive Committee Meeting are enclosed also.)
2.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: EOB and NYC for November, 1967.
EOB and NYC for December, 1967.
3.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
A.
Recommendation that the Board rescind action taken at the November meeting regarding the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee in view of letter from Region (attached)
(This recommendation was made at the December Executive Committee Meeting)
B.
Recommendation that the staff proceed with development of joint application with other Nevada CAAs for funding of 0E0 statewide planning grant. (Recommendation made at January Executive Commitee Meeting)
C.
Recommendation that no action be taken to fill vacancies on Board or Executive Committee until effect of Congressional amendments is known. (Recommendation made at January Executive Committee Meeting)
4.
RESOLUTION OFFERED FOR CONSIDERATION BY BOARD MEMBER WENDELL WAITE (copy of resolution enclosed)
5.
PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED BY UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE TO UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA FOR FUNDING UNDER TITLE 1 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT - presentation by Mr. Ferren Bunker.
conti nued
Page 2 of Agenda
6.
COMMUNICATION FROM LEGAL AID SOCIETY RECOMMENDING CHANGE IN PROPOSED SALARY - Mr. Richard Bryan, President, Legal Aid Society of Clark County
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
A.
Status of refunding Day Care, Neighborhood Council, Legal Aid, and Conduct and Administration.
B.
Status of application for "New Careers" project.
C.
Status of Neighborhood Youth Corps Project — extension of 1967 project, required revision of 1968 proposal.
D.
Planning Grant.
E.
Congressional changes to Economic Opportunity Act:
—"Green Amendment" (subject to receipt of additional information)
—Title I - possibility of funding Manpower Project.
-----Title V - possibility of funding Day Care as such (rather than HEAD START).
F.
W.C.C.E.D. Conference for Board Members.
G.
Approval of VISTA proposal.
8.
OTHER ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 25, 1968
REMINDER
State Board Member Training Conference and Seminar
MINT HOTEL
Las Vegas, Nevada
9:30 A.M. - THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1
to
2:00 P.M. - SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
(1)
The make-up, role, and function of the board;
(2)
How the board is affected by 0E0 regulations and policy;
(3)
How the board serves and relates to the paid staff, State Technical Assistance, Regional and National 0E0, and local and other resources;
(4)
Other related areas as influenced by the participants.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
January 31, 1968 Clark County District Health Dept.
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), Wendell Waite, Pat Fahey, Victor Hall, Ferren Bunker, Thomas Wilson, Charles Jones, Harvey Dondero, Charlotte Hill, Woodrow Wilson, Stella Fleming, Douglass Pushard, Emory Lockette, Lee Walker, Bob McPherson, Charles Spann, Dorothy King, Maney Williams
Guests: Peggy Smith, Ethel Pearson, Florence Elmore, Letha Mobley, Hazel Geran, Gloria Rome, Claudet Jamerson, Carlton Dias, W.J. Wynn, George Gant, Dorothy L. Collins, Donald Collins, Rose Marie Lee, Evelyn Coleman, Roosevelt Lee, Tony McCormick, Bill Carlos, Art Grant, Allen Sanders, Mike Banovetz, Phillip Edden, Jim Gantt, Lubertha Johnson, Kathryn James, Clara W. Edden, Harold L. Ortega; Roy C. Brooks, Richard Bryan
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples, Evelyn Mauldin, Lamar McDaniel
Chairman Isaac White called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.OF THE BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 29, 1967: The Chairman called for additions, deletions or corrections to the minutes. There being none, the Chairman ruled the minutes approved as presented.
INTRODUCTION OF.NEW FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, MR. CARLTON DIAS: The Chairman at this time introduced Mr. Carlton Dias who will be the Field Representative from Regional 0E0 assigned to Clark County.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EOB AND NYC NOVEMBER, 1967 and December, 1967: The Chairman called for questions. There being none, it was moved by Mr. Bunker and seconded by Mr. Waite that the financial statements stand approved as presented. On the vote, motion carried.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman noted that two letters had been received just prior to the meeting from the Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee and since these items might be concerned with matters on the Executive Committee report, he directed that they be read. (Letters are made part of these minutes and herewith attached).
Mr. Wendel Waite moved that inasmuch as Board Members have just received this material and have not had time to study it, the matter be referred to the Executive Committee for their study and whatever recommendations they should make. Seconded by Mr. Bunker , motion carried with one naye vote cast by Mrs. Fahey.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: The Chairman advised members that at the December Executive Committee Meeting, a motion was made and passed to recommend that the Board rescind action taken at the November meeting regarding the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee in view of letter from the Regional Office, a copy of which had been sent to all Board Members.
Mr. Jones moved that this recommendation be tabled due to the fact that he had not received a copy of the letter and thus North Las Vegas Neighborhood Council has not had a chance to review it. Motion lost for lack of a second.
Following brief discussion, Mrs. Fahey moved that this matter be referred to the Executive Committee and a motion brought back to the ^bard. Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried with one naye vote.
The Chairman advised members of the second recommendation of the Executive Committee, made at the meeting of January 22, that the staff proceed with development of a joint application with other Nevada CAAs for funding of an CEO statewide planning grant. Seconded by Mrs. Fahey motion carried.
The third recommendation of the Executive Committee made at the January meeting was read by the Chairman: "That no action be taken to fill vacancies on the Board or Executive Committee until effect of Congressional amendments is known." Following discussion, it was moved by Mr. Pushard that the recommendation of the Executive Committee be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Bunker, motion carried. Mrs. Fahey abstained from voting.
COMMUNICATION FROM LEGAL AID SOCIETY RECOMMENDING CHANGE IN PROPOSED SALARY: The Chairman invited Mr. Richard Bryan, President of the Legal Aid Society, to speak on this subject.
Mr. Bryan stated that in July of 1967 funding had been approved for the Legal Aid Program; however, the program isn't yet underway because the Society has not met with success in obtaining a full-time staff attorney. Mr. Bryan advised that letters had been circulated throughout the state advertising the position with the salary ranqe set at $12,600 to $14,000. He said that in the entire state only two individuals had applied.
He noted that many attorneys had expressed an interest in the position if they would also be permitted private practice; however, the Society had been advised that 0E0 policy will not permit private practice.
Since this time further word has been received from the Regional Office saying they would consider a modification of the project to bring the salary level up to a maximum $18,000. He noted there had previously been a statutory maximum of $15,000 on all 0E0 positions, but this had apparently been changed by recent Congressional action to provide for higher salaries under certain circumstances.
Mr. Bryan explained that after receiving this information, he convened a meeting of the Legal Aid Society and members unanimously recommended that a request be submitted to modify the grant to permit a salary maximum of $18,000. Mr. Bryan said that in his own judgment, the presence of a full-time attorney is imperative, and he was confident that if it is possible to get a negotiation upwards, there will be a good many more applicants and the Society will have a greater range of choice.
Mr. Cottrell added that the $18,000 salary was mentioned as a maximum that Regional Legal Aid staff felt could be approved. He said the fact that the Society has not been able to attract attorneys in the numbers
-2-
that would be expected at the present salary is indicative of the situation arid ihe program is impaired because the position has not been fiI led.
Mr. Bryan noted that applications have been received from people who are interested in coming in from outside the state; however, the problem is that a lawyer must be licensed to practice in Nevada. In the case of a person from outside the state, it would take six months to establish residency and then he must wait until the Bar examination is given.
He continued that members should also be cognizant of local conditions; that Deputies in the District Attorney's and Public Defender's Offices start at a salary of approximately $10,500 per year, and in addition are permitted to maintain a private practice. He cited reasons why Regional OEO may not consider an outside practice as being appropriate.
Mr. McPherson asked the Field Representative, Mr. Dias, if there are other Legal Aid Programs where private practice is authorized. Mr. Dias said that he doesn't believe there is any Congressional provision specifying that outside practice is not permitted, but believes it ,is a policy established to prevent a conflict of interest.
Mr. Cottrell noted that the EOB did receive a written communication from the Regional Legal Aid staff indicating that it was a general nationwide policy of OEO not to permit attorneys in Legal Aid projects to have any outside practice.
Mr. Lockette asked when information had been received that a request could be made to elevate the salary to a maximum of $18,000. Mr. Cottrell advised he had received a telephone call to this effect on January 23.
In answer to a question from Mr. Lockette as to how many applications had been received for the position, Mr. Bryan advised there were two who were Nevada residents and members of the Bar. Mr. Bryan further reported that it was the feeling of the group that it would be desirable to have a larger number from which to make the selection. He said it is important that the program get off to the right start with the right selection of a person for this position.
Mr. Lockette said he is interested in the job starting off on the right track but rather than being concerned about getting numbers of applications he would be interested in whether an individual can do the job. He further noted he did not see how an out-of-state applicant could be eliminated or disqualified because he is not a Nevada resident.
Mr. Woodrow Wilson asked who will make the final determination on the selection of a staff attorney. Mr. Cottrell explained this will be done by the delegate agency, the Legal Aid Society Board, which will be expanded according to the Special Condition which requires that there be Neighborhood Council representation on the Board.
Mr. Bunker moved that the EOB staff be directed to submit the request for waiver on the previous salary limitation and to request the upper limit of the salary to be set at $18,000. Seconded by Mr. Waite. On the vote, motion carried with two naye votes cast by Mr. Lockette and Mr. McPherson. Mrs. Fahey abstained from voting.
-3-
Mrs. Fahey questioned the scbpe of the project and asked if it included new developments in the juvenile area. Mr. Cottrell explained that the project is designed to provide legal assistance in civil cases only, not criminal cases. He noted the only exception is a gross misdemeanor case if the State Law provides for public defense and there is no public defense available. He said the program also excludes divorce activities.
SEATING OF REPRESENTATIVE OF NEVADA FUTURES, INC.: Mr. Charles Jones questioned the status of the seating of a representative on the Board from Nevada Futures. Mr. Cottrell advised that he had communicated with the President of Nevada Futures, Mr. Fred French on December 1, asking him To get in touch with the Chairman of the Board if the organization wished further clarification following action taken at the November Board Meeting, but noted that he had not had an answer to this communication.
RESOLUTION OFFERED FOR CONSIDERATION BY BOARD MEMBER WENDELL WAITE: Copy of a Resolution regulating debate and discussion before the Economic Opportunity Board, which had been mailed to Board members with the agenda, was proposed by Mr. Waite.
Mr. Waite advised that this resolution is not meant to hamper the democratic process, but indicates proper procedure, and he moved its adoption to be made part of rules governing EOB action. Motion seconded by Mr. Hall.
In discussion of the resolution, it was noted there was no conflict between the resolution and the EOB By-Laws. The Chairman-advised that each Neighborhood Council has a representative on the Board and material js mailed out for the representative to discuss with his Council, and if there are complaints to be voiced they should be voiced through the representative of the Council. Several members questioned that material arrived to allow enough time for representatives to discuss it with their Council members prior to the monthly Board meeting.
Mrs. Fahey noted that she would propose an amendment to the motion "that discussion time be limited after each item on the agenda rather than do away with it entirely." She noted that this would give opportunity to hear views of those who have not been informed.
Mr. Waite said the purpose of the resolution is to provide an orderly meeting to keep the Board on an’’even keel" to accomplish work that members came to accomplish.
Mr. Lockette stated that he was in sympathy with the intent of the resolution but would not like to see such a resolution enacted because this program is one for the community and if the people are interested enough to come out they should be permitted to speak. He said the control and running of the meeting could be handled by the Chair rather than by a lot of rules to prevent individuals from speaking.
Mr. Waite said he agreed; however, the resolution does not preclude the opportunity of debate wherever the Board feels it is warranted; that anyone may be allowed to speak for a limited amount of time.
-4-
Mr. Jones noted that many Council members feel the EOB Board will not allow them.to have anything to say.
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson was recognized by the Chair. She stated this resolution would be a very undemocratic thing; that she would not like to have something come up involving Operation Independence and be told that she could not speak. She also noted that the person representing any group may not be aware of all the things being discussed.
Mr. Walker stated that If this resolution were passed, he did not believe it would prohibit someone from requesting the right to speak, but said he would be concerned by public reaction to such a resolution. He suggested the By-Laws could provide tot this.
Mrs. Hill asked if the EOB was governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, and ■Bald if this was so then Robert's Rules would govern debate.
Following discussion on this, a vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution regulating debate and discussion at EOB meetings. The motion lost.
The Chairman commended Mr. Waite for the time and effort spent on the resolution.
PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED BY UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE TO UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA FOR FUNDING UNDER TITLE 1 OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT: Mr. Ferren
Bunker reviewed that about three years ago a proposal for a leadership training project was presented and included in the Community Services Center for Operation Independence. This project was approved locally but in the process of approval and funding by the Regional Office this section was omitted.
He stated that recently the University Cooperative Extension Service had an opportunity under the Higher Education Act to resubmit this proposal for funding under Title 1. It has been prepared and presented to the reviewing committee in Reno. Mr. Bunker said it would be of value to the sponsoring agency to know whether or not this Board would support this type of project.
He explained that the project proposes to assist in the development of leadership for programs that relate to consumer education and the utilization of resources that families have. He said the project has a budget of approximately $13,000, and would staff one family life specialist and an aide along with providing for some travel and expense money. Mr. Bunker stated he was asking the Board for endorsement if members felt the program would be of benefit to the community in the low- income areas.
There were questions by Board Members. Mr. Bunker further explained the program will work in low-income communities in all areas though it will be housed in the federal building. He noted that any group could request the program's services and the program would expect to work very closely with the Neighborhood Councils.
-5-
Mr. Pushard moved that the Economic Opportunity Board endorse the project. Seconded by Mr. Thomas Wilson, motion carried.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT: Status of Refunding: Mr. Cottrell advised that though refunding of 1968 programs has not been received, Regional Office has given written authorization for programs to operate on an extension through March 9. He noted that when the grant is received, he would ask the Chairman to call a special meeting of the Executive Committee in order to obtain guidance on special conditions.
Status of Application for "New Careers" Project; Mr. Cottrell stated there is now a new timetable for the "New Careers" Project which calls for submission of preliminary applications by February 15 and final applications by March 15 with projects to be in operation no later than June. He noted that a number of agencies have indicated an interest in this project which is designed to create meaningful work -for low-income people in public agencies and to relieve professional people who are overburdened with detail work.
Status of Neighborhood Youth Corps Project — extension of 1967 project, required revision of 1968 proposal: Mr. Cottrell advised that the NYC out-of-schooI 1967 project was originally scheduled to expire December 31 but was extended until January 16 and then again to February 16.
This means that the 1968 project must be rewritten because the Bureau of Work Training Programs District Office is now requiring that the project expires August 31, 1968. He further noted that the program is gearing up to increase the number of slots from 70 to the 85 previously authorized by the Board.
Mr. Cottrell advised the NYC Program is in the process of increasing enrollee wages from $1.25 per hour to $1.40 per hour and by the time of the summer program all enrollees will be receiving $1.40 per hour.
Planning Grant: Mr. Cottrell advised that his memo to Board Members outlines the major functions of these funds and that the Board has already taken action to authorize the EOB to proceed with development of a joint application with other Nevada CAAs for funding of a planning grant.
Congressional Changes to Economic Opportunity Act: Mr. Cottre I I reported that no definitive information has yet been received on the "Green Amendment"; however, he noted that the EOB may not be affected to any large extent because one-third of EOB representation is already public officials and the size of the Board is in compliance with the new legislation.
He advised that under Title I in the new legislation there is now an authorization for funding of programs which sound similar to Ol’s Manpower Program. He noted that Board Members have been aware that there is a problem in refunding Manpower because it did not fit into any of the categories of programs under the Labor Dept, and it could not be refunded under 0E0. Mr. Cottrell noted there is now a possibility of funding the program under Title I, though none of the basic facts are available at this time.
-6-
Mr. Cottrell reported that under Title V there is a provision for funding day care as such, distinct from Head Start projects. He noted that if thi-s were possible for Ol’s day care centers, it could help the difficulties now present in funding. He further advised that funding under this provision would require only 10$ share rather than the 20$ now required under Head Start.
Approval of VISTA Project: Mr. Cottrell stated that the VISTA project has been approved by the Regional Office, though there is still a transportation problem for the VISTAs because travel authorization is included in the Neighborhood Council project which is not yet funded. He noted there are now seven VISTA workers working with the Neighborhood Counci is.
W.C.C.E.O. Conference for Board Members.: Mr. Cottrell advised that Board Members had received information on a Statewide conference to be held in Las Vegas February 1, 2, and 3. He said this is an opportunity for Las Vegas Board Members to meet with Board Members from Washoe County and the ruraI counties. Plans are to give Board Members a chance to discuss some of the questions which have come up from time to time and to center the conference around subjects of most interest to the Board Members.
The Chairman asked that members attend this conference if at all possible as the information will be very helpful in performance of the Board.
OTHER ITEMS:
Westside School Lease: Mr. Cottrell advised that Operation Independence has for some time been negotiating with the School District to obtain use of the Westside School primarily for 01 projects. He explained that the School District cannot legally lease to anybody other than a public agency and so arrangements were made to lease the School to the City of Las Vegas. The City Commission now has said it would prefer to lease Westside School to the Economic Opportunity Board with the understanding that Operation Independence would have first claim on any or all of the space. He noted this is apparently based on the fact that the EOB is the ’umbrella" organization, and such an arrangement would permit further sub-leasing of space for other programs of anti-poverty organizations if 01 does not utilize the entire school.
Mr. Cottrell emphasized that if a lease is entered into with the EOB, Operation Independence would have first claim on any or all of the space. He noted that at this time he is asking for direction in entering into discussion with the City in order to obtain this space on behalf of Operation Independence and other organizations.
Mr. Lockette asked the Executive Di rector if the City had said they definitely would not lease the building directly to Operation Independence? Mr. Cottrell said he did not know this, but that the City had said they would prefer to enter into a lease with EOB.
Mr. Walker moved that the EOB staff enter into discussions with City personnel to determine what the details are and bring a report back to the next Board Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Lockette.
-7-
Mrs. Lubertha Johnson advised that the Operation Independence Board had already acted on this proposal and approved a lease with the City for Manpower and whatever Operation Independence wished to establish in these buildings. She said she would be required to take this back to the 01 Board and discuss it to find out whether the Board will approve of this new proposal which came from the City.
Mrs. Johnson further noted she had been assured some time ago that 01 would be able to have the use of the building as soon as a lease could be negotiated with the City, and this new development is something that has not been discussed with the 01 Board.
On the vote on the motion for the EOB to enter into discussions with the City, motion carried.
Matters Relating to Jo Mackey Neighborhood Counci I: The secretary was instructed to read a letter from the Chairman of the Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council requesting reconsideration of a work program stipulation that Service Workers must reside in the area in which they are working. Mr. Waite moved that this matter be referred to the Executive Committee for study and recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Spann.
There was discussion on the present status of the Service Worker.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the worker was still on the Job and the only way a worker could be terminated would be through the Neighborhood Council. On the vote the motion was carried with one naye vote cast by Mrs. Fahey.
Correction to Minutes of November Board Meeting: Mrs. Dorothy King advised that the roster of those present at the November Board Meeting did not include her name. The Chairman ruled the minutes be amended to show Mrs. King as being present at the November Board Meeting.
(Secretary’s Note: It has also been noted that Rev. Melvin Pekrul is not shown on the roster of those present for the November meeting and note is hereby made that he was present.)
NOTES FROM CARLTON DIAS, 0E0 FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Dias said he was heppy to have the opportunity to meet with the Board and that it was gratifying to see participants in the audience. He advised he will be coming to Las Vegas to attend Board Meetings at least every other month.
Mr. Dias discussed the training conference for Board Members to be held at the Mint Hotel. He noted the conference will be sponsored by the Western Center for Community Education and Development which is a special training concern. Mr. Dias commended Board Members on their time and effort devoted to anti-poverty programs. He noted that Board Members had been cast into a role that they had to learn about, and Regional 0E0 now hopes to provide more formalized training on a systematic basis. Mr. Dias asked Board Members to take every opportunity available to sit in on some of these sessions which will be of unstructured variety, noting that whatever participants decide to talk about will determine the program.
-8-
Mr. Dias also advised that the grant for Clark County programs is now in the final details of processing; however, an extension on 1967 funds has been granted through March 9.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting stood adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Cl), i
W.F.'COTTRTLL^
Executive Director
WFCrdtn
COPY OF LETTER
COPY OF LETTER
COPY OF LETTER
Cl ark County Joint Neighborhood Council Committee c/o Francis 0. Edwards 2115 Bennett
North Las Vegas, Nevada January 31, 1968
Mr. Isaac White Cha i rman EOB
The Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council has been recognized and approved by the membership of the following Neighborhood Counci Is:
1.
North Las Vegas
2.
Jo Mackey
3.
Highland
4.
Westside
5.
Kit Carson
6.
Henderson
As representative of the preponderance of the Neighborhood Councils, we are requesting the recognition of the Economic Opportunity Board and also that this matter be considered during the meeting scheduled for January 31, 1968, 7:30 p.m.
The.president, Mr. Edwards, is out of town because of death in his family and has asked me to answer any questions which arise in connection with the Committee.
(signed)
Art Grant
President Pro-tern
Clark County Joint
Neighborhood Council Committee
COPY OF LETTER
COPY OF LETTER
COPY OF LETTER
January 31, 1968
Chairman E.O.B.
928 West Owens
Las Vegas, Nevada
Dear Sir:
Attached please find the By-Laws and Constitution of the Clark County Joint Neighborhood Council Committee.
According to the verbal instructions of Mr. Rubai in from regional office, we have the signed approval of five neighborhood councils
It has come to.the attention of the undersigned that the failure to obtain unanimous approval of all neighborhood councils was due to the fact that the staff members of E.O.B. interfered in having the remaining councils exercise their franchise to accept or reject the proposal.
Very truly yours,
(signed)
FRANCIS 0. EDWARDS
Chai rman
Clark County Joint Neighborhood
Councils Committee
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens
Las Vegas, Nev,
February 2, 1968
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC WHITE, Chairman
RE: NOTICE AND AGENDA FOR SPECIAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
You are hereby notified that a SPECIAL meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board will be held:
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7 7:00 P.M.
EOB OFFICES 932 WEST OWENS
AGENDA
1.
Consideration of report from Manpower Committee regarding matters related to Operation Independence
2.
Consideration of special conditions attached to grant for refunding for 1968 projects (IF refunding material is received prior to the meeting).
3.
Question of policy regarding Board members who have had more than three "unexcused" absences.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 7, 1968 EOB Offices 932 W. Owens
7:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Ted Lawson, Charles Spann, Nancy Williams, Thomas Wilson, Dorothy King
staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDINGS OF THE MANPOWER COMMITTEE:
The minutes of the meeting of the Manpower Committee were distributed to members of the Executive Committee* Following time for purusal of the minutes by members, the Chairman opened the meeting for discussion of the matter concerning the statements made by Mr. Gant regarding the Operation Independence Board and matters relating to the Manpower Project.
In answer to a question by Mr. Spann, Chairman White explained that the problem the Director of the Manpower Center presented to the EOB is that Rev. Clark the Chairman of the Operation Independence Board, had allegedly acted improperly in appointing a Dersonnel Committee. Mr. White advised that in studying the By-Laws thd Committee felt that Rev. Clark had improperly appointed the Personnel Committee; that the Chairman seems to have misinterpreted the By-Laws to allow him to appoint a Special Committee when in actuality the By-Laws provide only that the Chairman of the Board may appoint chairmen of special committees.
Chairman White said that Mr. Gant also questioned whether the membership of the Board was adequate to meet the By-Laws which call for a minimum of 15 members. In regard to this question, a number of those who were listed as Board members appeared to be disqualified. However, the Manpower Committee felt they did not have the power to say whether a person is actually a bonafide member. The committee did question that Operation Independence had enough members to constitute the minimal requirement of the Board
The Chairman advised that the third item considered by the Committee was their finding that if the Manpower Director acted within the guidelines and proper procedures in terminating the employee in question, the Board of Operation Independence should enforce the decision of the Director.
The Chairman also reviewed the situation which had prompted the charges. Mr. Spann noted that it was his understanding that Mr. Gant and Mrs. Johnson were to be on a joint status in rank of position and therefore it would stand the 01 Board itself, chaired by Rev. Clark, would be considered Mr. Gant’s direct supervisor. He suggested that because some misunderstandings appear to exist, he would propose that the Executive Committee ask Rev. Clark and Mr. Gant to meet with the committee so that responsibilities of both the Chairman and the Manpower Director can be reviewed and explained.
Mr. Spann also stated that if it is determined that the Personnel Committee was not legally constituted, this should be explained and the Chairman be advised that at such time a committee is legally constituted they would
have the au+ho'-ity to proceed with personnel action, in accordance with the Operation Independence By-Laws and Personnel Policies.
Mr. Cottrell pointed out that Operation Independence’s Personnel Policies do not provide a orobationary employee with right of appeal when terminated. Mr. Spann noted that even if the employee was on a probationary status, if the complaint seemed justifiable, a hearing should be p rov i ded.
Mr. Wilson asked if it had been determined that Mr. Gant acted according to guidelines in terminating the employee. The Chairman advised that the Committee did not go into this question, since it did not have all the facts before it on which to make such a decision.
Board Members discussed the obligations of the grantee in the existing situation. Mr. Cottrell pointed out that the grantee must require that anyone who operates programs must operate them in accordance with 0E0 policy, Special Conditions, and the delegate agency’s own guidelines.
Mr. Wilson noted that the whole point is that the 01 Board.Chairman did act contrary to policies of the organization.
Mrs. Williams stated that instead of assuming that Mr. Gant is correct, the EOB should ask 01 to conduct the hearing properly; then if they cannot come to a satisfactory agreement it would be proper for EOB to mediate and weigh both sides.
Mrs. Wilson noted that Hr. Gant's letter to the EOB asks only what is now being proposed — that the Chairman be instructed as to what he can do and what he can’t do.
Mrs. Williams said that since Mr. Gant is charging that 01 is not following their By-Laws, why not instruct the Chairman that the proceeding was improper? She noted she could not see any purpose in having both persons come before the Executive Committee.
Mr. Spann stated that if the 01 Board ignored Mr. Gant’s appeal, it seems both parties should appear before the Executive Committee for the proper rules to be laid out with instructions that they be followed.
Mr. Spann therefore moved that in order to correct the problems brought to light by charges made against the Operation Independence Board, a meeting be established and Mr. Gant and Rev. Clark be asked to appear before the Executive Committee. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lawson and carried with one naye vote cast by Mrs. Williams.
The Chairman directed that this meeting be scheduled to take place at the next regular meeting of the Executive Committee to be held Tuesday evening February 20th at 7:30 P.M.
CONS I DERATION .OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO REFUNDING GRANT: Mr. Cottrell advised that the refunding grant has not been received, therefore this item cannot be considered at this time.
-2-
QUESTION OF BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE MISSED THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS: Mr. Cot+relI asked the Board’s direction regarding policy for Board Members who have missed three consecutive meetings without prior notification, as is provided for in the By-Laws.
Following discussion, Mr. Lawson moved that it be recommended to the Board that if a person ignores the letter which is sent to him after having missed the second meeting and then misses the third meeting without prior notification, the member be automatically removed from the Board. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
INFORMATION REGARDING LEASE OF THF WESTSIDE SCHOOL: Mr. Cottrell advised he had met with the Deputy City Attorney and City Manager, and the City’s position is that they reiterate that if there are other agencies or other programs that can benefit from the Westside School Building they would want the space made available. They also emphasized that the lease would be under the condition that Operation Independence have first choice on space they need and want.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the only other question was the amount of insurance, and noted that the City must require liability insurance in the amounts imposed by the School District in their lease with the City. He further noted that a draft of the proposed lease is being prepared to present to the City Commission on February 21, and therefore we should have a copy to present to the Executive Committee at its meeting on February 20.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:dm
Or'fXjp.ioiM 1TY oOnRu OF ClARK CUjHi^
>32 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
February 15, 1968
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 of Clark County will be held:
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20
7:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 W. Owens)
AGENDA
Review and approval of minutes:
(A)
Executive Committee Meeting - January 22
(B)
Special Meeting - February 7
Meeting with Rev. Clark and Manpower Director Gant to discuss matters previously brought to the attention of the Committee.
Matters relating to Joint Neighborhood Advisory Committee (referred to the Committee by action of the Board at January 31 meeting):
(A)
Previous recommendation to the Board to rescind the action taken at the November Board Meeting regarding recognition, etc. of the Joint Neighborhood Advisory Committee.
(B)
Letters from the Joint Neighborhood Advisory Committee received at the January Board Meeting (copies attached).
(C)
Letter from the Westside Neighborhood Council pertaining to Joint Neighborhood Advisory Committee (copy attached).
Special Conditions (provided that 1968 refunding package is received).
Letter from the Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council relating to residence of Service Worker (referred by Board action at January Board Meeting - copy attached).
Draft of proposed lease with City of Las Vegas for Westside School (draft to be available from the City by time of Tuesday meeting)
Comprehensive Medical Planning Meetings - involvement at local area Ieve I.
Model Cities applications (North Las Vegas and Las Vegas) and involvement of CAA and neighborhood residents.
minutes of the executive committee meeting ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 20, 1968 EOB OFFICES (932 Owens)
7:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Harvey Dondero, Emory Lockette, (Dorothy King - arrived late)
Staff- W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
Guests: George Gant, Rev. Donald Clark, Art Grant, Rev. Marion Bennett, Less Jones
Though a quorum was not present, the meeting was convened for discussions of matters which did not require action.
DRAFT OF PROPOSED LEASE WITH CITY OF LAS VEGAS FOR WESTSIDE SCHOOL:
Mr. Cottrell advised that this item cannot be considered at this time as a copy of the proposed lease is not yet available from the City.
Mr. Lockette asked with which Agency the City proposed to negotiate on the lease. Mr. Cottrell stated the basic contract would be with the Economic Opportunity Board with the stipulation that Operation Independence would have any or a I I of the space the agency could beneficially use.
Mr. Lockette questioned whether the City had given any indication as to why they prefer to enter into the lease with the EOB rather than directly with Operation Independence. Mr. Cottrell advised the City felt that whatever use was made of the school should be that which would be most beneficial to the community. He noted the School District cannot lease directly to other than another governmental agency or subdivision who can then in turn lease to other agencies.
Mr. Cottrell said the City prefers to enter into the lease with the EOB because EOB is the umbrella organization of the anti-poverty programs which would make any unused space available to other programs related to the War on Poverty. Mr. Lockette noted though he has no objection to the EOB entering into the lease, he was curious as to whether this was due to a change of policy by the City.
Rev. Clark advised he had received a letter from the City Manager, Mr. Trelease, therein advising that it was his own decision that the EOB should enter into the lease and he took full responsibility for this decision. Rev. Clark noted he would bring a copy of the letter to the E.O.B. office so that the Executive Director might see it.
COMPREHENSIVE MEDICAL PLANNING MEETINGS: Mr. Cottrell advised Congress has required that Health Agencies formulate comprehensive local health plans involving both public and private sectors of the medical field in planning for total health needs of the community. He said the Clark County District Health Department had invited him to attend a meeting which was an introduction to comprehensive medical health planning, and further that Mr. Hoggard had been invited by the American Health Association to attend a detailed seminar in Los Angeles on this same subject. Mr. Cottrell noted this was for the purpose of involving agencies which are involved with low-income people. He said each state will be required to have a state plan also to be divided into area plans in which representatives of low-income people
will oe involved In the planning process.
MODEL CITIES APPLICATIONS (Las Vegas and North Las Vegas): Mr. Cottrell advised that both Las Vegas and North Las Vegas have applied for Model Cities grants under the revised criteria which calls for more involvement by residents of the areas being served by the Model Cities Programs. He stated that EOB has received material from 0E0 on criteria, standards, etc. as to what can be accepted in the proposals as minimum involvement by residents of areas being served.
Mr. Cottrell said he has informed the cities of the desire of Councils to be involved and further has notified the Councils that they will probably be called upon to become involved in the planning applications for the Model Cities Programs. Mr. Cottrell further advised that as part of the Model Cities Plan, an incorporated body made up of low-income residents of neighborhoods must be established and must be funded to hire its own expert advisors to give advice so they can have something more than their own knowledge of the neighborhoods.
(Mrs. Dorothy King arrived at this time, and the Chairman declared a quorum present. The meeting officially convened).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MEETINGS OF JANUARY 22 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, Mr. Wilson moved that the minutes of the Executive Committee Meeting of January 22 be approved as presented. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
There being no corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes of the special meeting of the Executive Committee of February 7, Mr. Wilson moved that they be approved as presented. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
Mr. Lockette stated that sometime ago it was decided that a certain time should be set for regular monthly meetings of the Executive Committee. He noted that the meeting being held tonight deviated from the time set for the regular meeting which made it rather difficult for some people to attend. He said that unless there was some specific reason to deviate, the meetings should be held at the regularly designated time.
The Chairman advised that at the last special meeting it was the concensus of the members present that this meeting be held on a different day and . time so that the persons requested to be present on the Manpower Program could be in attendance.
Mr. Lockette noted his opinion that the regular meeting should be held at the regular time and date and then if there was need for discussion *. on other matters, a special meeting should be called.
MEETING WITH OPERATION INDEPENDENCE CHAIRMAN CLARK AND MANPOWER DIRECTOR GANT: The Chairman reviewed that Committee Members have been discussing the Manpower situation and the statements made by Mr. Gant that the Manpower Program might be impeded because of certain actions of the 01 Board and its Chairman. He advised that the Manpower Committee had been directed to take the problem under consideration which they did and made recommendations on findings back to the Executive Committee. Executive Committee members by motion then recommended that both Rev. Clark and Mr. Gant be requested to appear before the Committee so that proper rules could be laid out with instructions that they be followed.
-2-
Chairman White noted that the main concern of the EOB is that this program not be jeopardized, and it was the concensus of the members that this meeting be an attempt to iron out differences.
The Chairman requested Mr. Gant to speak on the matter. Mr. Gant advised that, as he had indicated In a letter sent to EOB, he felt there were actions taken which somewhat obstructed the fulfillment of the Manpower Program according to the guidelines, proposals, segments of the By-Laws, and Personnel Policies and Practices.
In answer to the Chairman's request of Rev. Clark to speak, Rev. Clark stated that in order to participate intelligently, he must know what he is being accused of.
The Chairman advised Rev. Ci ark that the EOB is not accusing him of anything. He said that Mr. Gant has stated that segments of Operation Independence By-Laws had not been followed. He noted that following study of this by the Manpower Committee and Executive Committee, some inadequacies were found. He pointed out the appointment of the Personnel Committee by the Chairman and noted that the By-Laws allowed him to appoint special committee members. Chairman White also advised that the Manpower Committee questioned the membership of the 01 Board in that the By-Laws state there is to be a minimum of 15 members and the roster of members indicated the Board might not have 15 legal members.
Three communications from the Manpower Director to (1) members of the Operation Independence Board; (2) Chairman of the EOB; (3) Executive Director of the EOB were read. These letters pointed out the specific allegations made by the Manpower Director, and requested in the letter to the Chairman of the EOB that guidance be given the Operation Independence Board Chairman.
Rev. Clark stated these allegations were written as a matter of "you say and I say." He asked if the EOB Committee checked the minutes of the 01 meetings. Chairman White advised they did have available the minutes of the meetings of December 13, January 4, and January 8.
Mr. Lockette suggested that the charges be set down to specific incidents rather than hear debate from both sides. He noted that the specifics have been narrowed down to the following: (1) That the Chairman of the 0I Board is not operating in accordance with the By-Laws of the Board or in agreement with the contract; (2) That Mr. Gant requests that this committee review all of the minutes to determine if the actions taken in the December and January meetings were proper; (3) The Personnel Committee which was appointed as illegally appointed and it is being requested that any action by that committee be null and void; (4) The legality of one of the members of the committee is being questioned.
Mr. Lockette asked Mr. Gant if these four specifics basically set forth the complaints. Mr. Gant advised these are basically the things he did point out, a copy of which had been given to 0I Chairman and members of the Board.
Chairman White advised that the Manpower Committee had been emplowered to and did consider these complaints individually, and the motion which had been made by Mr. Spann at the last Executive Committee Meeting was to
bring both oarties together to attempt to set forth guidelines so t.,cr the problem could be ironed out.
Rev. Clark stated that the EOB held a Committee meeting at which they found the Chairman of the 01 Board to be wrong. He said he is not right in some areas and not wrong in some areas. He further noted that the EOB had held a meeting to which he was not invited but to which the Manpower Director was invited, and the Executive Committee is now calling on him without having first heard his side of the story. Rev. Clark stated that he will correct whatever is wrong with the Board that in his evaluation this present matter is being handled improperly, as he should have had the right to be present at the prior meeting as well as Mr. Gant.
Chairman White stated the Committee had not felt it necessary to invite the 01 Board Chairman to the prior meeting for the purpose of determining the merits of the al legations posed by Mr. Gant.
Committee members further discussed the manner to be employed in handling the complaints. Mr. Lockette was of the opinion that each specific complaint should be discussed separately with Mr. Gant and Rev. Clark having the right to intervene. Mrs. King felt that the Executive Committee should give direction to the two individuals to follow guidelines.
Mr. Wilson also felt it would be best to explain guidelines with instructions that they be fol lowed.
Mr. Gant stated that he hoped the EOB and 01 Board did realize that his endeavors are only to open up communications; that he was not trying to force issues on the 0.1. Board or remove authority from the Board but only to insure that the Board worked within the confines of guidelines and By-Laws. He noted that he was also asking for assistance to decide what is policy and what is administration.
Rev. Clark stated he is only Chairman of the Board, yet an accusation has been made that he had disrupted the Manpower Program. He said he would admit there are some inadequacies concerning the Board but one of the problems is that it has been used as a 'wastepaper basket"; that there are also inadequacies in personnel and when personnel succeed they feel they should have the credit, but when they fail the blame is put on the Boa rd.
Rev. Clark reviewed that a complaint had come to the Board; that he appointed a committee to investigate the complaint and that committee informed the 01 Executive Committee they felt that Mr. Gant was at fault. He noted that 01 had appointed a Director to solve problems and not to create them. He said the 01 Board has a responsibility to see that the program is carried out as it should be and he felt the members have done a fine job.
Chairman White, addressing himself to Rev. Clark, stated that his recommendation would be that though 01 is dealing with grassroots people there are guidelines to follow and he would suggest that they be followed or certain actions would be taken by the EOB Board. To Mr. Gant, Chairman White said he has noticed the atmosphere of the staff of the Manpower Center and is of the opinion that the Chairman of the Operation Independence Board deserves more respect than what he has received from the Manpower employees.
To both gentlemen, Chairman White stated there should be more rappoi r between the Chairman and Director in order that the program to be carried out will be carried out properly. He continued that it is the duty of the 0.1. Board to make policy and once the policy is made it is the job o f the Director to see that it is carried out. He said that if the Director is following policy, the Board should not stand in the way of letting him carry out the program which the Board has so instructed him to follow.
Chairman White advised there are drastic actions which can be taken until delegate agencies prove they will follow their guidelines. He noted the two gentlemen should establish some type of rapport as the program cannot successfully operate within the existing situation.
Following this recommendation of the Chairman, the members of 01 Board and Staff were excused from the meeting.
Mr. Lockette then stated that he felt it would not have been necessary to handle the situation as it had been handled tonight; that the EOB Chairman and Executive Director should have been able to tell the two gentlemen all that had been said tonight.
The Chairman advised that this had originally been his suggestion; however, members of the Executive Committee had recommended that the persons appear before the Committee. Mr. Cottrell pointed out that if this had been strictly an administrative matter, it would have been handled administratively; however, the matter also concerned the 01 Board, and the staff did not feel they were in a position to admonish a policy-making body directly, but that any such action should be taken t"' the parent policy body, the EOB.
MATTERS RELATING TO THE JOINT NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: The Chairman advised that Executive Committee itembers have been mailed copies of two letters from the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee, and have also been mailed a copy of a letter from the Westside Council stating that Council had not approved By-Laws of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee as had been stated in letters from that group.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the Executive Committee had previously made recommendations that action taken last November be rescinded; however, the Board had not taken action on this recommendation but had again referred it back to the Executive Committee. He advised the Executive Committee had then been provided with the two letters from the Advisory Committee and with those from the Westside Council which pertained to the matter.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Dondero moved that it be again recommended to the Board that action taken at the November Board Meeting be rescinded. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
In further discussion, Committee members decided that it should be recommended to the Board that no further action be taken in regard to a Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee until the 1968 Neighborhood Council project is funded.
-5-
ADJOURNMENT: Due to the quorum of the meeting being lost, there was no consideration of the letter from Jo Mackey Council regarding the residence of the Council’s Service Worker. The meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
WFC:dm
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 23, 1968
TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: ITEMS FOR BOARD MEETING AGENDA - WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1968
1•
Request from Jo Mackey Counci I regarding residence of service worker.
This item was received at the last Board Meeting and referred to the Executive Committee. However, the Committee lost its quorum before this item was considered at the meeting on February 20. (Please see copy of letter attached.)
The work program description for this project provides (and always has provided) that the Service Worker be selected from among the members of the Counci I (and to be a member of the Council, you must live in the neighborhood). One of the reasons behind this requirement is that the Worker’s value to the Council is that she knows the neighborhood, its residents and their problems. The original work program provided that "tach Council will elect a Neighborhood Service Worker from the Council membership itself..." The 1967 work program provided further that "All Neighborhood Service Workers will also be residents of the areas they represent." These provisions are continued in the 1968 work program.
In the present situation the Service Worker has (apparently) moved outside the Council area, and outside any low-income neighborhood. The question which now arises is: Does this disqualify her from employment as a Neighborhood Service Worker? The Jo Mackey Council feels that such a move should not disqualify their worker. It appears that to grant the request of the Council would require a change in the approved work program. Does the Board wish to request such a change?
2.
Refunding and Special Conditions.
As of this date we have not received the refunding package. However, if the material arrives prior to the Board Meeting we will ask for the Board’s consideration of any special conditions which may be attached, and authorization to accept the grant (if acceptable) on behalf of the Board.
Page 2 of Memorandum
3.
Proposed Lease with City of Las Vegas for Westside School.
This matter was referred to the Executive Committee at its meeting of February 7. We had hoped to have a draft of the lease for the February 20 meeting, but were unable to obtain it at that time, we now hope to receive a copy prior to the meeting next Wednesday.
The City desires to enter into a lease with the E.O.B., inasmuch as it is the "umbrella" organization for all anti-poverty programs. The lease will require the following: (I) that the lessee assume all maintenance, operating and related costs (such as utilities and custodial service); (2) that insurance in the amount of $1,000,000/ $3,000,000/5500,000 be provided to protect the City and the School District; and (3) that Operation Independence have first choice in the use of all (or as much as they can beneficially use) of the space.
We have checked out the buildings and feel that much of the space can be used. Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Gant have made some tentative space allocations. There will be some maintenance work required before some of the space is useable (such as repair of lighting fixtures, checking and possibly repairing heating and cooling equipment, checking water .and sanitary facilities, and general clean-up). Mrs. Johnson feels that much of this work can be done on the basis of community effort and involvement.
We feel that the E.O.B. should enter into an equitable agreement with the City to enable Operation Independence (and perhaps some other agencies who may be interested)- to make beneficial use of this property, with Operation Independence (and such other agencies, including the E.O.B.) to assume proportionate shares of the cost of insurance, utilities, etc. chargeable to the appropriate project budgets.
4.
Status of Planning Grants.
We understand that money which was to have been available for planning grants (including $35,000 for Nevada) may no longer be available. Therefore, we may have no need to proceed with formation of the nonprofit corporation which the Board approved at the last meeting. We hope to have a definitive answer on this matter from the Regional Office prior to the Board Meeting and to make a full report at that time.
5.
Requirement for Program Evaluation.
A Regional Memo received on February 20 requires that we extend up to 3$ of all 0E0 funded programs (including CAP versatile, HEAD START, Legal Aid, Migrant, etc.) for program evaluation. (We have included $14,000 in the 1968 C & A budget for this purpose.)
The communication also encourages participation by each CAA in subregional evaluation centers. Criteria for formation of such centers is currently being developed and should be available by March 1.
Page 3 of Memorandum
Section 233 of the 1967 amendments requires continuing evaluation of programs. This funding will enable us to comply with the requirement. We will be required to develop a plan for the current program year by May T. The plan must include (1) evaluation "suitable to the Regional 0E0 office," (2) a schedule for reporting evaluation results to the Regional Office, (3) a budget for evaluation purposes, and (4) a specified person, firm, etc. who will conduct the evaluation. We are also required to report by April 1 whether or not we plan to enter into a contract with a sub-regional evaluation center.
It is felt that the four CAAs in Nevada will have sufficient funds (perhaps $30,000) for development and operation of such a Center, probably to be governed by a non-profit corporation consisting of representatives of all CAAs, as was proposed for the planning grant. Unless the Board wishes to suggest an alternative, we will proceed along these lines, with assistance from the Regional Office and in coordination with other Nevada CAAs.
6.
Participation in Model City Plan Development.
The cities of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas intend to apply for Model City grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the second round of funding. We have received much information from 0E0 in relation to participation of neighborhood residents in the process of developing the application and then the process of identifying problems and suggesting solutions. We anticipate that EOB staff and Neighborhood Council representatives will be fully involved in this process. The revised Model Cities criteria call for much more resident participation and identification of problems during the initial stage than was the case formerly.
7.
Participation in Comprehensive Health Planning.
New federal requirements call for a comprehensive health plan for urban areas. The Program Coordinator attended a three-day seminar (under a grant from the Public Health Association) on this subject in California while the Director attended a one-day conference locally.
It is anticipated that various programs (and particularly the Neighborhood Councils) will be involved in this process once it becomes operational. The plan is to identify health needs and to make coordinated plans for providing the facilities, manpower and programs to meet those needs. Certainly one of the immediate needs is for provision of existing services in low-income neighborhoods.
8.
Information on the "Green Amendment".
We have just recently received a book (of some 144 pages) outlining the changes, procedures, criteria, etc. involved in the "Green Amendment", which gives local governments more voice in operation of local CAAs. The Chairman and Director have been invited to attend a two-day seminar in San Francisco on March 4 and 5 to discuss this and other amendments to the Act enacted by the last session of Congress.
Page 4 of Memorandum
In our case, tne following steps are involved initially:
*The County (and other local governments, presumably the 4 incorporated cities) will designate as the CAA one of the following:
A.
Itself (the political jurisdiction).
B.
The E.O.B. (the existing CAA).
C.
Another non-profit corporation.
In any event there is a three-part Board, very similar to our present structure.
*The timetable for the various initial steps are as follows:
March 15 - The political subdivision must return a Statement of Intention to Designate a CAA to the Regional Office.
May I - The existing CAA (the EOB) must fi Ie a Governing or Administrative Board Composition Form.
May 15 - All local governments must have been notified of the intent
to designate a CAA for the county.
June 15 - All local governments must have responded to the notice.
July I - All applications for recognition of a CAA must be filed
with the Regional Office.
July I - All CAAs must be in compliance with the revised Board Composition requirements.
Nov. I - 0E0 must have completed actions on applications and give recognition to the agency designated.
The requirements for Board composition are as follows:
I.
One -third of the membership must be public officials (elective or appointive), provided that that number is available and willing to serve. (Officials may designate a representative.)
2.
At least one-third of the membership must be representatives of the poor, selected by democratic procedures. (Public officials may not select the representatives of the poor.)
3.
The remaining members of the Board must be members or officials of business, industry, labor, religious, minority, welfare, education or other major groups and interests in the community. Selection of representatives will be made by those interest groups themselves.
4.
Total membership of the Board may not exceed 51 (our present By- Laws call for a maximum of 40).
5.
No individual, other than a public official, may serve on a Board more than 3 consecutive years or more than a total of 6 years (based on service after July 1, 1968).
Page 5 of Memorandum
There are many, many requirements and criteria for the above to be accomplished. For instance, before a CAA can be designated a public hearing must be held, under certain conditions and with adequate public notice, etc. As another example, for a CAA to be recognized it must (among other things) having legal authority under state or local law to:
A.
Conduct a community action program.
B.
Contract with and delegate to public or private organizations (including religious organizations) the operation of programs.
C.
Give preference to the employment of poor people and persons over 55 years of age.
D.
Receive, administer, and transfer funds.
Another example: the CAA must be able to enforce its delegation agreements and procurement contracts by appropriate means, including:
I.
Audit and disallowance of improper costs.
2.
Suspension and termination of the contract.
3.
Court action to require performance.
4.
Court action to recover funds spent or withheld in violation of a delegation agreement.
9. Outlook for Manpower Programs.
The President’s "State of the Union" message emphasized the need for adult employment/training programs. President Johnson called for a 25$ increase in Manpower Programs (about $420 million) for Fiscal Year 1969 which which begins July 1, 1968.
In addition, there is currently increased priority for Manpower programs during the remainder of Fiscal 1968 (which ends June 30). As yet there is no allocation for specific programs (such as NYC, MDT projects, OJT, Job Corps, New Careers, Concentrated Employment Programs (CEP), Title V, 01C Centers, etc). However, concentration in this area — somewhat at the expense of other types of programs makes funding of the Manpower Development Center Project after July 1 look somewhat brighter. Although we have no definite source of funding, we are thoroughly investigating all possible sources in 0E0 as well as the Labor Department, Manpower Administration.
WFC:sds
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
TO:
Membei
FROM:
ISAAC R. WHITE, CHAIRMAN
RE:
NOTICE OF MEETING
If the board of Trustees
February 23, 1968
You are hereby advised of the regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County which will be held WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1968, at the CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPT. AUDITORIUM, 8:00 P.M.
THE AGENDA
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 31, 1968.
2.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR JANUARY:
A, Ful I NYC Statement
/B. Statement of expenditures for OEO projects (complete v* statement cannot be furnished until 1968 projects are funded and 1967 books audited).
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
That the Board adopt a policy (as authorized by Article IV, Section 3 of the By-Laws that any member missing three consecutive meetings without notification of absence prior to the meeting be dropped from membership. (Recommended at Executive Committee meeting of February 7.)
'X^C'That the Board rescind the action taken at the November Board Meeting in regard to the Joint Neighborhood Council, in view of the letter from Regional Office returning the amendments, WR^hat no further action be taken in regard to a Joint Neighborhood Council until the 1968 Neighborhood Council project is funded. (Recommended at the Executive
Comm ittee
Meeting of February 20.)
6.
Consideration of OF THE COUNCIL'S
consideration of
LETTER FROM JO MACKEY COUNCIL REGARDING THE//RESLDENffi SERVICE WORKER. (Copy attached)
1968 REFUNDING AND ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED
(provided that refunding package is received prior to meeting).
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF LAS VEGAS AND E.O.B. FOR USE OF WESTSIDE SCHOOL BY OPERATION INDEPENDENCE (AND POSSIBLY OTHER ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES). (THIS LEASE IS NOT YET AVAILABLE, BUT SHOULD BE BY THE TIME OF THE MEETING.)
REPORT
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Status of planning grants.
Requirement for program evaluation.
Participation in Model Cities programs.
Participation in Comprehensive Health Planning.
Information on "Green Amendment" and local effects;
N.A.C.D. Regional Meeting on Green Amendment and other legislative changes.
8.
ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE FOR AGENDA.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
February 28, 1968 Clark Co. District Health Dept. Auditorium
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Sr., Wendell Waite, Victor Hall,
Bob McPherson, Harvey Dondero, Rev.-Newton Tigner, Dorothy King, Pat Fahey, Woodrow Wilson, Charlotte Hill, Daisy Miller, Don Dawson, Rev. Donald Clark, Fr. Charles Shallow, Angel Nieto
EXCUSED (submitted prior notification of absence): Ferren Bunker, Stella Fleming, Charles Jones, Ted Lawson, Paul Marshall, Charles Spann, Lee Walker
ABSENT (without prior notification): Webster Butcher, George Keyes, George Kline, Emory Lockette, Rev. Melvin Pekrul, Douglass Pushard, Nancy Williams
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
Guests: Mr. Carlton Dias, Regional Office of Economic Opportunity;
Mr. Willie Wynn, State Economic Opportunity Department; Phillip Edden Florence Elmore, Ethel Pearson, Rosie Smith, Frederick R. French, Hazel Geran, Evelyn Coleman, Addie Blake, Carol Miller, Norma Morris, Bill Carlos Robert Stanovik, Allen Sanders, Art Grant, Sarah Ray, Nan Butler Mike Banovetz, Kay Brannan, Madge L. Rugg, Mel Engelstad, M. Fullington, Mel Johnson, Lubertha Johnson, Harold Ortega
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Isaac White, and a quorum was declared present.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JANUARY 31: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, it was moved by Father Shallow and seconded by Councilman Waite that the minutes be approved as presented. On the vote, motion carried.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR JANUARY: The Chairman advised that financial statements including a complete financial statement for NYC and a statement of expenditures for EOB projects had been sent to Board Members. There being no questions, Father Shallow moved the statements be accepted. Seconded by Mr. Woodrow Wilson, motion carried.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Chairman White advised the Executive Committee is recommending the Board adopt a policy (as authorized by Article IV, Section 3 of the By-Laws) that any member missing three consecutive meetings without notification of absence prior to the meeting be dropped from membership.
He further noted that if this policy is adopted it will become effective beginning with tonight’s meeting. Mr. Cottrell also advised the staff had been previously directed to notify members who have missed two consecutive meetings without prior notification that they will be terminated if they miss the third meeting without prior notification.
Following brief discussion regarding what constituted prior notification, Mrs. Fahey moved to adopt the recommendation of the Executive Committee that any member missing three consecutive meetings without prior notification of absence prior to the meeting be dropped from membership.
Seconded by Mr. Dawson, motion carried.
In answer to a question .from Rev. Clark, Chairman White advised that the agency being represented by a person who was dropped would be notified so that agency could submit the name of another representative to replace the person dropped.
Chairman White advised the Executive Committee is recommending that the Board rescind the action taken at the November Board Meeting in regard to the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee in view of the letter from Regional Office returning the amendments; and that no further action be taken in regard to a Joint Neighborhood Council until the 1968 Neighborhood Council project is funded.
Mrs. Fahey asked if it would be possible to make two agenda items of this recommendation as they are two distinct items, and she proposed that the second part providing for recognition of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee become Item 3B of the Agenda, and the first part concerning an activity which came forth from the Joint Advisory Committee be made Item C of the Agenda. The letter from Regional 0E0 returning the amendments proposed by the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee was then read.
Mrs. Fahey stated this is why she suggested that recognition of the Committee be considered by this Board as Item 3B and following (as item 30 the amendments proposed by the Committee be considered.
Mr. Art Grant was recognized by the Chairman. He stated that in all fairness the letter from Regional CEO should have been directed to the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee and further that the Executive Director could have communicated the contents of the letter to the Committee. Mr. Gant stated that according to Robert's Rules of Order a vote cannot be rescinded; that the Board has acted on this proposal and cannot now rescind it.
Chairman White called upon Mr. Dias, OEO Field Representative, for his opinion. Mr. Dias stated that the Board has the option at anytime to act upon any matter it chooses to act upon; and if members choose to act differently than they had at a previous time, that is the privilege of the membership.
Mrs. Fahey moved that the Board take action on the recognition of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee as Item 3-B of the Agenda and consider action taken at the November Board Meeting as Item 3-C of the agenda. She pointed out this was only to change agenda items so that the two distinct items could be voted upon separately. Motion was seconded by Mrs. King, and on the vote carried.
Mrs. King moved that the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee be recognized by the Board. Seconded by Mrs. Fahey.
In discussion, Assemblyman Wilson asked if the Board had received information from the various Neighborhood Councils with regard to who would represent them in this Joint Council or who will formulate or make up this Council. Chairman White advised that letters had been received from the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee stating that six of the Councils had approved the Committee, but noted also that the Board received a letter from the Joint Committee. (Letters from Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee and from the Westside Neighborhood Council were read).
-2-
The By-Laws of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee were read Assemblyman Wilson stated the point he wanted to make was that there is an Operation Independence Board and there is a CAP Board and it would thus seem to be repetitious to involve another organizational structure. He noted the purpose of getting people involved in the 01 and CAP Boards was to have representation from the community within the poverty setup.
Mrs. Fahey stated that the War on Poverty was initiated to make an investment of dollars and time within a certain group of people with the hope that this would some day reap a reward. She said the By-Laws of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee should be applauded and congratulated because this is a perfect example of Neighborhood Council projects being effective. She noted that these are the people themselves doing this. Mrs. Fahey said this Board does not attend Neighborhood Council meetings and most members do not reside within the target areas and are not suffering with the problems and are not expected to find solutions and carry out these solutions. She noted Board Members should give Neighborhood Councils a certain amount of authority to carry out their work.
The Chairman requested Mr. Dias to comment on the By-Laws of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee in view of the Work Program for the Neighborhood Council Project. Mr. Dias stated that the decisions of the Board are paramount, and whatever the Board decides to do is the rule by which it is governed. He suggested that regarding any group appealing to the Board for membership, members of the Board should be aware of what is involved and what is happening. Mr. Dias said he would have no objections to the By-Laws as read and would agree this is certainly indication of community involvement.
He stated that previously a responsible Board had apparently acted prematurely however, he advised the Board to be aware of what is involved and of the existing circumstances which must be taken into consideration. Mr. Dias noted that the existing work program has provisions to cover the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee but reiterated that whatever happens the Board is the supreme authority.
Rev. Clark called for the previous question. On the vote on the motion that the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee be recognized by the Board, the motion was carried.
Chairman White ruled that this motion was out of order. He advised the agenda items cal led for action to accept or reject Executive Committee recommendations that (1) the Board rescind the action taken at the November Board Meeting in regard to the Joint Neighborhood Council and (2) that no further action be taken in regard to a Joint Neighborhood Council until the 1968 Neighborhood Council Project is funded.
Mrs. Fahey then moved to reject the recommendation of the Executive Committee made at their meeting of February 20 to not take any action in regard to the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee until the Neighborhood Council Project is funded, and further to honor the motion so voted previously to recognize the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee. Motion seconded by Father Shallow.
-3-
Mr. Dias stated that Board Members were proceeding at a high speed — that recognition is fine; however, perhaps in another month the Board will have to deal with the same situation again in order to reconcile the new 1968 work program with what presently constitutes the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee. He noted the refunding grant has a provision for establishing a Joint Neighborhood Council organization and the Board will be obligated to follow the work program as funded. He said the Board would have to tie these two matters together and try to reconcile differences.
Rev. Clark stated that too many work program areas have been submitted without the consideration of the people and it is necessary for the people to have representation.
Mr. Dias advised that further provisions have been made as a condition of the Neighborhood Council grant to ensure an opportunity for participation on the part of the Neighborhood Councils. Mrs. Fahey stated it is kncwnthat the Board will have to deal with a work program but right now the Board should honor the wishes and desires of working people.
Mrs Grant stated that the formation of the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee was caused by the fact that three E.O.B. staff members made up the Neighborhood Council work program without consulting anyone in the Neighborhood Councils.
(The Secretary read a letter from Mr. Louis Ruybalid of 0E0 Regional Office which stated that the special condition requiring the work program to be submitted to the Neighborhood Councils for review and approval had been fulfilled.)
Mr. French stated that as long as there is this type of action going on in this EOB there will never be motivation of the Neighborhood people to take an active interest in doing anything. He said when things have been presented to the E.O.B. they have been shuffled around and kicked under the table by the very people the Board is paying to carry on an organization. He stated that the EOB will have to recognize that they are going to have to take positive action on recommendations presented by people in the neighborhood.
Mr. French said further it is only because of narrowmindness at the local level that the Federal Credit Union has not been able to obtain funding, and several other programs presented have never been implemented. He said the people representing the Neighborhood Councils are getting tired of this. Mr. French stated the Executive Director had suggested the Councils form a Joint Neighborhood Council Committee and this has now been implemented. He said 100^ participation has not been obtained because several people felt there was something wrong in the way the Joint Council was set up. He stated the Board needs to take positive action.
Mr. Thomas Wilson stated that there seemed to be some misunderstanding in that the Executive Committee did not recommend to disregard the Joint Neighborhood Council Committee altogether but simply recommended that no further action be taken until the work program is approved.
The previous question was called for by Assemblyman Wilson. On the vote to reject the recommendation of the Executive Committee made at their meeting of February 20 to not take any action in regard to the Joint.Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee until the Neighborhood Council Project is funded, and to honor the motion so voted previously to recognize the Joint Neighborhood Council Advisory Committee, the motion was carried.
The Chairman stated that members of the EOB staff have been attacked on several occasions and he would recommend that the Board at this time either give the staff a vote of confidence or request resignations and obtain new staff people.
Assemblyman Wilson stated that this poverty program is a tremendous thing for the well being of a community and to raise the economic status of the people involved. He said that members of the community should not be carried away with things they hear. He noted it has been mentioned here tonight that most members do not live in poverty areas and could never feel the things that people affected feel; but just for the record, Assemblyman Wilson stated that he has been in a poverty position most of his life and knows what is involved and what it means to people to have something to look forward to.
Assemblyman Wilson further stated that if people continue to hatchet and chop each other down the effectiveness of the entire Board will be destroyed. He stated that if members are really concerned they cannot afford to tear down a program. Assemblyman Wilson noted that there has been a Westside Credit Union for many years, and anyone who wants to participate can joint the NAACP - the very people that this group of people is part of, and he could not find any fault in joining that organization because it has done more to raise the status of the Negro than any other organization.
He.continued by stating that members should try to help and provide leadership rather than chop each other down by trying to make a point. He said the Board should decide whether to support the staff or not; and that he could not find any of the discrepancies which have been mentioned. He said the EOB should understand and scrutinize any new organization; and if the new organization was for the betterment of the people he would be for it but if it was just another organization to call another meeting he would be against it.
Chairman White reiterated it was very important to let the community know if the EOB supported their staff.
Father Shallow said he felt the staff had not done a perfect job; however, a great deal of progress had been made in spite of the fights and a lot of things had served as catalysts to bring some good. Father Shallow stated he did not believe in giving staff 100% vote of confidence but neither did he believe the EOB should blame paid staff completely. He said he would oppose taking any hasty action on this idea but would recommend that further thought be given to the matter.
Rev. Clark stated he thought it would be unfair to people involved when you determine their fate by an emotional motion, but if the Board did not feel staff was performing properly they should appoint a committee to look into staff performance.
-5-
Mrs. Fahey moved that the Chairman empower the already-existing Personnel Committee to evaluate the performance of EOB staff and make recommendations pertaining to a vote of confidence by the Board. Seconded by Rev. Clark. On a show-of-hands vote, the motion was tied. The Chairman voted against the motion. Motion was thus lost.
CONSIDERATION OF LETTER FROM JO MACKEY COUNCIL REGARDING THE RESIDENCE OF THE COUNCIL’S SERVICE WORKER: The Chairman advised that each Board Member had been mailed a copy of this letter along with the agenda mailing.
The letter was read and the portion of the 1967 work program pertaining to residence of the Service Worker being within the neighborhood he or she served was also read.
Mrs. Fahey moved that, because this was taken from the 1967 work project the Service Worker be allowed to remain as the worker for her Council even though living outside the neighborhood she would serve. It was pointed out that special conditions in previously approved work programs must be followed unless they are specifically changed or deleted in a subsequent work program or by CEO. Mrs. Fahey withdrew her motion.
Councilman Waite advised it was his understanding the Service worker had moved back into the area and if this was correct action would be unnecessary.
Chairman White asked Mrs. Sara Ray, the Service Worker in question to clarify whether or not she had moved back into the neighborhood which the Jo Mackey Council served. Mrs. Ray advised that she does now reside on Engelstad St. which is within the area.
Mr. Art Grant said he would also like the Board to consider that all Neighborhood Service Workers are required to have a car; and he did not understand why rules of the work program do not apply to all Service Workers. The Chairman advised that the work program reads that "It shall be required that all Neighborhood Service Workers furnish their own transportation." He advised that this did not mean they must have their own car.
Mr. Grant also read from a letter which he stated was written by the Neighborhood Council Project Director which stated that Service Workers were required to have a car. Mr. Grant provided a copy of the letter to the Chairman. The Chairman then pointed out that the letter stated the Service 'Worker "needed to have the availability of a car."
Mrs. Pearson, Westside Council Neighborhood Service Worker, stated this ruling had not been in effect when she was employed to organize Neighborhood Councils.
CONSIDERATION OF 1968 REFUNDING: Mr. Dias advised the refunding package is all set and that he had personally carried it to the Regional Director for signature. He said that as soon as word is received from Regional 0E0 regarding refunding approval, he would like to be involved in going over the work programs with the Board Members. He said he would encourage maximum attendance at all Council meetings to discuss various aspects of the work program.
-6-
Mr. Dias stated that Regional Office is a strong believer in community participation a, the neighborhood level. He said there is a lot that neighborhood people can do at Board Meetings with the representation they have on the Board, and this representation should be concentrated and maximized to the fullest extent. He advised that in keeping with Regional OEO’s effort to get maximum participation of Neighborhood Councils, on March 15 and 16 the WCCED staff Training Division will be in Las Vegas for special training sessions for members of the Boards of Neighborhood Councils and Service Workers. He further urged that EOB Members also attend.
Mr. Dias further advised there is an attempt at Regional 0E0 to coordinate and work as closely with other departments and agencies of the federal government in order to get maximum support of programs that effect Clark County.
Mr. Dias also said he was happy to see the problem resolved pertaining to the Jo Mackey Service Worker. He stated this is a case where a worker is supposed to live in the area serving a group of people but would have advised that, in view of community interest in saying "We want Mrs. Ray", that the Board consider an affirmative vote, pending the approval of Regional OEO regarding the work program change which would be reguired. He noted that even though the work program had called for something different, the wishes of the community should be taken into consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF 1968 REFUNDING AND ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED: Chairman White advised that refunding grants have not yet been received for 1968 projects, and there is thus nothing to be considered on this agenda item.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF LAS VEGAS AND E.O.B. FOR USE OF WESTSIDE SCHOOL: The Executive Director reguested that the Board consider whether they wish to authorize signing a lease with the City of Las Vegas for use of the Westside School by Operation Independence and other agencies involved in the anti-poverty programs. He advised there is a specific provision in the lease which reads "that Operation Independence, a Nevada nonprofit corporation, shall be granted, by appropriate sublease, such space in said building as it may reasonably use in the administration of its projects, and shall have priority over any other groups or agencies as to the choice of such space."
Mr. Cottrell stated that the premiums for the amounts of insurance required by the School District is a question which must be considered. He said that an expression was needed from the Board as to whether they are in favor of the lease; and secondly, if the Board is in favor, that EOB staff be authorized to sign the lease subject to approval of Board Member Lee Walker as to legal provisions of the lease.
Father Shallow requested clarification on whether the Catholic Day Care Centers were included in the property being leased. He questioned that Operation Independence should be given first choice on the space. Mr. Cottrell advised this property was not part of the lease.
Mrs. Carol Miller of the Job Corps recruitment office expressed hope this would mean that offices of the OEO programs would be consolidated.
Mrs. Lubertha Jonnson stated that everyday people are begging for the day care centers to care for their children. She said Operation Independence had initiated the request for Westside School and she certainly hoped that no one would attempt to make regulations as to whether 01 is going to be able to serve the needs of the community according to the applications and requests for child care services.
The Chairman called for the pleasure of the Board regarding the lease for the Westside School. Father Shallow moved to table the item. Seconded by Rev. Clark. Following brief discussion on the necessity to take action at this time, a vote was taken on the motion to table. Motion was lost.
Assemblyman Wilson then moved that the Executive Committee investigate and obtain legal advice on the lease agreement with the City of Las Vegas and report back to the Board at its next regular meeting. Motion seconded by Councilman Waite.
Chairman White advised members that the Lease is scheduled to be effective as of March 1, 1968.
Assemblyman Wilson noted the reason for his motion was that the cost of insurance was not known, the physical condition of the building was not known, and the legal ramifications of the lease are not known. He said the cost of the insurance might make the lease prohibitive.
Mr. Thomas Wilson asked if it wasn't possible to have Attorney Walker discuss legal ramifications with the staff and if there are no problems involved, authorize the staff to go ahead and sign the lease. Mr. Thomas Wilson moved to amend the previous motion to provide that EOB staff seek legal advice on the lease; and if lease is found to be proper and in order, that the EOB staff enter into the lease with the City. Motion to amend seconded by Rev. Tigner.
On the vote on the amendment, motion carried. On the vote on the motion proposed by Assemblyman Wilson, as amended, motion was carried.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Designation of CAA: Mr. Cottrell reported that the Green Amendment to the EOA requires designation of community action agencies by a governmental entity and, because of the size of the community, the County Government would be the entity to designate a CAA for Clark County.
He advised that a preliminary resolution will be on the agenda for the County Commission meeting of March 5 to designate the E.O.B. as the CAA for Clark County, assuming that the E.O.B. wants to be so designated. Mr. Cottrell requested a motion or resolution from EOB members regarding this.
He further advised the County will then submit a Statement of Intention to the Regional 0E0, and will notify other political subdivisions of this intention. A public hearing must then be established, and each City will have 30 days to respond to the intention. A formal application will then be submitted to the Regional Office. Mr. Cottrell also requested authorization for staff to work with the County in preparing various notices, distributing materials to city governments, etc. which the County has indicated they would wish the EOB to do.
-8-
Father Sha I low moved that the EOB advise the County Commission that they would like to be designated as the Community Action Agency for Clark County. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion carried.
Mr. Dawson moved that EOB administrative staff be authorized to work with the County in preparing all necessary documents. Seconded by Councilman Waite, motion carried.
Requirement for Program Evaluation: Mr. Cottrell advised that 0E0 is requiring evaluation of anti-poverty programs to be done by a central staff. The state of Arizona, without the knowledge of Nevada CAAs, submitted an application for an evaluation center to include serving Nevada. Mr. Cottrell advised that Nevada CAA’s feel they would prefer to make their own arrangements and have enough money to staff a Nevada evaluation team. He noted there are deadlines to be met regarding this and indication must be made to Regional CEO.
Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson moved that EOB staff proceed to indicate to Regional 0E0 their desire to have an evaluation center to serve Nevada CAAs. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
Work Program Changes for Manpower Program: Mr. Cottrell advised that the 20$ nonfederal share needed for the Manpower Program has not yet been submitted to Regional 0E0. The Manpower Director is proposing a training program which would require a work program change and which would provide non-Federal share towards the necessary 20$ local requirement. He requested that the Board give authorization to submit this work program change subject to the Regional Office, subject to prior approval by the Operation Independence Board.
Father Shallow moved that the EOB be authorized to submit this work program change to Regional 0E0 subject to approval by the Operation Independence Board. Seconded by Councilman Waite, motion carried.
REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION BY NEVADA FUTURES, INC.: Mr. Fred French stated that on behalf of Nevada Futures he was requesting the Board to take positive action to either accept or reject seating of a representative of the organ!zation.
Fol lowing discussion on communications between Nevada Futures and the EOB, Mrs. Fahey moved to seat a representative from the Nevada Futures organization if proper credentials are presented. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried. The Chairman requested that Nevada Futures resubmit their letter for seating a representative.
Respectfully submitted,
Executive Director
WFC:dm
COPY
COPY
COPY
NOTICE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Law 90-222 the Board of County Commissioners, Clark County, Nevada, has determined to hold a hearing on the question of designation of Community Action Agency as provided in the Economic Opportunity Act, and
WHEREAS, said Board of County Commissioners has declared its intention to designate the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board as such agency
THEREFORE, NOTICE is given that a Public hearing thereon shall be held at 3:00 p.m. on April 5, 1968 in the Commission Chambers, Clark County Courthouse, Las Vegas, Nevada
LORETTA BOWMAN, COUNTY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
DATED: March 12, 1968
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nev
March <3, 1968
TO: MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
You are hereby notified that the next regular meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1968
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 W. OWENS)
THE AGENDA
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20.
2.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT ON MARCH 4th AND 5th NACD MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO.
3.
CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CEP) -- Discussion of accepting such a program for selected target areas of Clark County, probably confined to "Westside”, areas of North Las Vegas, and perhaps the Four Mile - East Las Vegas strip and Henderson. New funds in an amount of $2,087,000 can be made available to the E.O.B. as prime sponsor with most if not all of the actual program operation delegated to ongoing Manpower Agencies.
4.
LEASE FOR WESTSIDE SCHOOL AND COST OF INSURANCE REQUIRED BY THE CITY.
5.
REQUIRED REVISIONS TO E.O.B. BY-LAWS.
6.
STATUS OF REDESIGNATION OF THE E.O.B. AS THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FOR CLARK COUNTY.
7.
STATUS OF REFUNDING OF ONGOING PROJECTS.
8.
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT REVISIONS TO MIGRANT PROJECT, TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET CHANGES, AND TO EXTEND LIFE OF PROJECT WITH UNEMCUMBERED FUNDS.
9.
STATUS OF LEGAL AID PROJECT.
10.
OTHER ITEMS.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
March 18, 1968 EOB Offices (932 W. Owens Ave.)
3:30 P.M* Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Daisy Miller, Nancy Williams Dorothy King
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
Upon obtaining a quorum, the Chairman called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions it was moved by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mrs. Miller that the minutes be accepted as recorded. On the vote, motion carried.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT ON MARCH 4th AND 5th N.A.C.D. MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO: Chairman White advised that he and the Executive Director had attended a conference sponsored by the National Association for Community Development (N.A.C.D.) in San Francisco. He noted he had found the conference to be very informative. The Green Amendment was discussed, and Chairman White said that quite a few CAP Directors were concerned that governmental agencies were being given more control of community action programs.
Three of the major items discussed concerning the Green Amendment were:
(1)
power of designation of CAAs to be given to a political entity;
(2)
a structure that 0E0 would not approve formerly; (3) regulation that public officials have 1/3 of the seats on community action boards. The Chairman discussed the ’’opting out" choice which would be given to political entities allowing them a choice of whether or not to recognize the designated community action agency; however, it was pointed out that if they did "opt out" they could not receive the benefits of the designated agency. If the population of the entity was over 250,000, that entity could request its own community action program.
Chairman White further exolained that if the agency carrying the obligation to designate a CAA does not wish to do so, the responsibility for designation would probably go to the State, and if the State does not wish to do so, the designation may be made by the Director of 0E0. He reviewed the timetable set by 0E0 for the designation of community action agencies.
The Chairman advised that Summer Crash Programs were also discussed at the Conference with the No. 1 priority being jobs; No. 2 being Education; and No. 3 being Recreation. 0E0 will have $35,000,000 of which $27,000,000 will go to the fifty largest cities, leaving $6,000,000 to be divided among all the smaller cities.
A third subject of discussion at the conference was planning grants, and Chairman White reviewed the background of Nevada’s proposed grant; that planning for the grant had been approved by the Board; the EOB was then told to forget it; and now 0E0 is again asking that applications for such grants be submitted.
The Chairman also noted that it was stated at the Conference that Head Start funds will be cut again next year.
CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CEP): Mr. Cottrell advised there is the possibility that $2,087,000 will be available to Clark County for Manpower type programs to be in addition to existing programs. EOB is the presumed prime contractor for this program, and Employment Service and other ongoing manpower agencies would be delegate agencies for purposes of the program.
Regional officials have advised the program is 100^ federally funded; no local share is required. Approximately 2/3 will be 0E0 funds and 1/3 Labor Dept, funds. The prime contractor would subcontract various training programs, etc. to agencies equipped to provide the necessary services. He added that one of the prime requirements of the program would be strong intake and follow-through of recipients.
Mr. Cottrell further advised the program is scheduled to be funded and in operation by June 30, and should be in the Regional Office before May 1st. A preliminary planning grant is to be made available for purposes of drawing up the CEP Program.
Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive Committee make a recommendation to the Board that EOB staff be authorized to proceed with the necessary details involved in obtaining a grant for CEP in Clark County. Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
Mr. Wilson raised a question regarding delegation of the Manpower portion of the program. Mr. Cottrell explained that requirements are not yet known regarding delegation and subcontracting, except that subcontracts would be with the agencies who have had experience with the particular portion of program being dealt with.
A question was posed by Mrs. Miller regarding whether New- Careers would be included in the proposed CEP. Mr. Cottrell advised that funds for a New Careers program would be included in the CEP allocation.
Mrs. Williams asked who would do the planning. Mr. Cottrell advised that it is understood there are consulting firms specifically in business for consulting in CEP; however, the planning would also have to involve the agencies on a local level as the design would need to be specifically for the community. Mr. Cottrell stated that nationally there is an agreement between DEO and the Labor Dept, that the Community Action Agency normally will be the prime sponsor unless there is some qood reason why it should not be.
LEASE FOR WESTSIDE SCHOOL AND COST OF INSURANCE REQUIRED BY THE CITY: The Executive Di rector advised that action the Board took at the last meeting was a motion to refer the matter of the lease to the Executive Committee who would then report back to the Executive Committee on their findings, which motion was then amended to require that legal advice be obtained and if everything was in order the EOB staff should proceed with the lease.
-2-
Mr. Cottrell advised that Attorney Walker did review the lease, the cost of insurance was determined to be between $500 and $600 per year, and on that basis he had checked with the Chairman and then entered into the lease with the City. He advised that EOB is now waiting for Operation Independence to say what space they can justifiably use and a sub-lease will be entered into with Operation Independence. Mr. Cottrell also noted the Westside School might be a possible location for the main center of the CEP program.
REQUIRED REVISIONS TO E.O.B. BY-LAWS: Mr. Cottrell explained that the Green Amendment interpretations have very little effect on the EOB setup, but there is some specific language that will require extensive remodeling of verbiage of the present By-Laws. The procedure for amendment'of By-Laws of the EOB is they must be submitted to Board Members 30 days prior to action. Mr. Cottrell advised a set of proposed revisions would be sent out to Board Members with the March mailing so that action could be taken in April and the required information submitted to OEO by fAuy 1. He reviewed the several major changes being proposed: (1) The Nominating Committee would no longer nominate members to be seated on the Board because each agency has the right to name its own representative; (2) the term of board membership should be changed since new legislation sets limits on terms of service;
(3)
thr number of members should be changed to fit the new Federal requi rements.
It is also proposed that appointment by the Governor be discontinued, since the new legislation permits each public agency or interest group in the community to name its own representative directly, and further the present administration is not happy with the present requirements since the Governor has no choice of who he can appoint.
STATUS OF REDESIGNATION OF EOB AS COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FOR CLARK COUNTY: Mr. Cottrell advised that County Commissioners have met and declared the County’s intention to redesignate the EOB as the community action agency for Clark County. In compliance with provisions of the Green Amendment, a public hearing has been scheduled for April 5 at 3:00 P.M. The County is also required to notify the four cities of their intent and give them 30 days to file comments, following which the official designation is sent to the Regional OEO with whatever comments have been voiced by the cities.
Mr. Cottrell further reported that in accordance with Green Amendment provisions, each Neighborhood Council and delegate agency has been provided with a copy of the notice of public hearing.
STATUS OF REFUNDING OF ONGOING PROJECTS: The Executive Director reported that 1968 refunding grants for the Conduct and Administration and Neighborhood Council projects had been received today. He advised there are three special conditions relating to the Neighborhood Council Projects. They were read to members. Mr. Cottrell said there would seem to be nothing objectionable about these special conditions from the point of view of the Councils or EOB and they are essentially policies that are currently being carried out.
-3-
He noted if authorization to accept the grants could be given by the Executive Committee, the acceptance could be returned to OEO and a Letter of Credit would be made available. Mrs. Williams stated she felt these special conditions should be discussed with the Councils before members cast a vote.
Mr. Cottrell further advised that one position, that of Field Supervisor had been eliminated from the Neighborhood Council Project.
There was discussion of finances available to continue operation if the authorization to sign the grant was held up until the Board Meeting to allow Council representatives time to discuss the special conditions with their respective councils. A check was made with the Finance Officer, and it was determined there would be enough cash on hand to continue operation of programs. Chairman White then recommended that because no problems would be encountered in continuing operation, the item of authorization to accept the grants be held over until the Board Meeting to be held March 27.
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT REVISIONS TO MIGRANT PROJECT, TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET CHANGES, AND TO EXTEND LIFE OF PROJECT WITH UNENCUMBERED FUNDS: Mr.
Cottrell advised that funding for the Migrant Project was for 18 months, terminating June 30. The Migrant Division of OEO in Washington has suggested that the cash balance be anticipated and the project extended to as many months beyond June 30 as possible.
Mrs. Williams moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that when figures are obtained from the School District to project how far the project can be extended on unexpended funds, authorization be granted to the staff to submit a revision to the migrant project. Seconded by Mrs. Dorothy King, motion carried.
STATUS OF LEGAL AID PROJECT: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that the Board had previously authorized a request to Regional OEO to waive the $15,000 salary limitation and to authorize the Legal Aid Society to pay the staff attorney a salary not to exceed $18,000. He advised approval has been granted by the Regional Office and the Legal Aid Society is now readvertising for a staff attorney at this new figure.
Mr. Cottrell stated that a recent memo has been received from Regional Office stating that the fiscal 1968 guidelines for Clark County is only $19,000. He noted he has written OEO regarding this because the previous guideline figure had been quoted at $24,000 and also because OEO suggested and approved, the staff attorney salary at $19,000.
Mr. Cottrell said the $19,000 was arrived at by doubling the 1967 amount funded for a 6»-month grant: however, he noted that last year’s grant had included figures for only 5 month’s operation rather than 6.
OTHER ITEMS:
Manpower Situation.: Items of communication regarding the Manpower Situation and the firing of the Director, Mr. George Gant, were read. They included (1) Telegram to Chairman White from the Manpower Director- advising he was appealing to the 01 Board regarding his termination;
(2) Letter from Manpower Director to 01 Executive Director dated March 15 setting forth reasons for appeal and requesting such appeal; (3) Letter from 01 Executive Di rector to EOB Executive Director, dated March 18, advising action taken by the 01 Board including notification of the termination of Mr. Gant and the appointment of a temporary Project Di rector fcr the Manpower Center, Mr. Bob Bailey.
Executive Committee Members discussed the situation and the procedures of appeal. It was pointed out that according to the Operation Independence Personnel Practices, appeal should first be made to the Personnel Dractices Committee of Operation Independence.; and in the event that appeal fails, Mr. Gant can make a further appeal to the EOB Board.
Mr. Cottrell pointed out that EOB has indicated that it’s Board is only concerned with the delegate agency following their own By-Laws, Personnel Practices, and other guidelines set forth in the project.
He further noted the EOB cannot get involved until the necessary channels of appeal have been exhausted; following which, if appeal is made, EOB has responsibility.
Neighborhood Council Questions: Mrs. Miller asked why Neighborhood Service Workers have to clean their own offices. Mr. Cottrell advised that sufficient money was not included in previous budgets; however, funds have been budgeted for janitorial services in the 1968 projects and it is hoped the position can be filled.
Mrs. Williams asked what action had been taken regarding the Jo Mackey Service Worker and the request of the Council that she be permitted to remain as the Council’s Service Worker even though she no longer resided in the area. Chairman White advised this situation had been discussed at the February Board Meeting at which time it was determined no action was necessary due to the Service 'Worker advising that she had moved back into the area serving the Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council.
ADJOURNMENT: There beinq no further business to come before the meetinq, such was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
6J. 7.
W.F. COTTRELL 5
Executive Director
WFCzdm
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
March 21, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1968
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH
DEPT. AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
1.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS (representing Madison Neighborhood Council and Nevada Futures, Inc.)
ACTION ITEMS
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1968.
3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 1968:
A.
OEO funds administered by EOB.
B.
NYC funds administered by EOB.
4.
CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (Mr. Bill Soltau and Mr. Fred Orr, Manpower Administrator’s Representatives, U. S. Department of Labor, will be present to discuss the project and answer questions.)
5.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
A.
That the Board authorize the EOB staff to proceed with application for a planning grant for a Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) to serve designated target areas in Clark County; and to employ necessary planning staff and take necessary actions to prepare an application for a CEP program upon receipt of planning funds.
B.
That the EOB staff prepare and submit required revision to the Title III Migrant Project budget, to extend the project as far as possible beyond the current June 30 termination date with unencumbered funds.
“—CONTINUED
Page 2 of AGENDA
6.
REFUNDING GRANTS FOR 1968 PROJECTS:
A.
Conduct and Administration (no special conditions attached): authorization to accept the refunding grant action.
B.
Neighborhood Council Project: Discussion of special conditions attached to the grant; authorization to accept the refunding action. (See copy of special conditions attached).
7.
COMMUNICATION FROM MR. ARTHUR J. GRANT CONCERNING MATTERS SET FORTH IN flIS LETTER OF MARCH 15.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
8.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT.
A.
Status of redesignation of the EOB as the CAA for Clark County (copy of official notice enclosed).
B.
Suggested revisions to By-Laws required by 1967 Congressional Amendments to the E.O.A. (copy of proposed draft and summary of changes enclosed: no action possible until April Board Meeting.
C.
Status of Legal Aid Project - approval for salary waiver.
D.
Lease for Westside School - insurance costs.
E.
Status of Manpower Project:
1.
Action by delegate agency to remove former director.
2.
Appeal by former-di rector.
3.
Designation of acting director by delegate agency. (See copy of letter from 0.1. Executive Director enclosed).
F.
Possibility of 1968 Summer Programs.
G.
Status of 0E0 Planning and Evaluation Requirements.
9.
OTHER ITEMS.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
March 21, 1968
TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FOR MARCH 27 BOARD MEETING
1.
Redesignation of EOB as the CAA for Clark County.
The following has taken place since the last Board meeting.
A.
The County Commission has adopted a preliminary resolution declaring its intention to redesignate the EOB, and has so notified the Regional Office.
B.
The Commission has set a public hearing for 3:00 p.m. on Friday, April 5, to hear any comments from the public or others who may wish to appear.
C.
Each Neighborhood Council and each delegate agency has been notified of the public hearing (a copy of the official notice is enclosed with the meeting material).
The next step is to notify each political subdivision within the county, which then has 30 days in which to respond. No earlier than 45 days from the date of such notice the County Commission can then take final action and submit its final determination to the Regional Office.
2.
Suggested Revisions of By-Laws.
The 1967 amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act require extensive revision of the EOB By-Laws. However, the net effect is very little of substance — the Board will remain almost exactly as it has been constituted in the past, with the same powers, duties and functions.
The only changes of any significance are as follows:
A.
Al I members of the Board wi 11 be named directly by the group they represent, not by action of the Nominating Committee, followed by formal appointment by the Governor, as in the past.
B.
It will be necessary to change the terms of members from the current system of two-year terms; the suggested revision is for periods of 3 years with initially-staggered terms, one-third expirting each year.
Page 2
Enclosed with other material for the meeting are copies of proposed revisions and a summary of the reason and/or necessity for each change. Action cannot be taken on this matter until the April meeting, but in order to take action at that time the proposed changes must be submitted to the Board now. Action wiI I be required in April, however, since we must submit a certification of compliance with the 1967 Congressional amendments to the Regional Office by May 1.
Please note that these changes are not a I I hard and fast; in some cases the Board may wish to make other provisions (such as terms of one year; for instance) rather than those suggested here. Certain items must be included, as noted on the Summary of Changes which cites the applicable 0E0 regulation or change in the Act.
3.
Status of Legal Aid Project.
We have received approval of the Regional Legal Aid Office for a waiver on the standard salary limitation. The Legal Aid Society is now advertising for applicants at the range approved by the Board at the January meeting — that is, a range of from $15,000 to $18,000.
We have also received information from the Regional Office indicating that our funding guideline has been reduced from approximately $24,000 to $19,000. We have strongly protested any such action, pointing out than annualization was not correctly computed by Region, and that we now must take into consideration the higher salary level.
4.
Lease for Westside School.
As directed by the Board at the last meeting this matter was referred to Mr. Walker, who reviewed the proposed lease and advised that it was in proper form. We were able to obtain an estimate of $540 for the insurance premium in the required amounts.
Based on the above information, the lease was executed. A sub-sub-lease will now be prepared with Operation Independence for that portion of the area which they can beneficially use.
5.
Status of Manpower Director.
As most of you may have heard, action was taken by the delegate agency to remove the former director, and a temporary acting director has been appointed, as outlined in the attached copy of a letter from Operation Independence. In addition Mr. Gant has appealed this action to the Board of Operation Independence.
6.
Summer Programs.
To date only $35,000 has been set aside nationwide for special summer programs, compared with $75,000 last summer. We have been advised to anticipate that there will be some summer funding again this year; however, we do not have any assurance that we will receive more than (or as much as) the amount received last year, which was $40,000. Priority this year is (a) jobs, (b) education, and (c) recreation.
Page 3
It is possible that Congress may vote additional funds. If this happens, then we may have a chance for more summer programs. However, it should be noted that of the $35,000,000 presently allocated, $27,000,000 is already committed to the 50 largest cities in the country, and all other cities must share the remaining $6,000,000 which is available for funding.
7.
Status of Planning and Evaluation Programs.
We were told at the San Francisco conference that (a) planning grants are now ’'on'1 again — we were previously informed that funds for this purpose had been withdrawn; and (b) evaluation provisions must be made by April 1. We were told that criteria would be available for both planning and evaluation by the middle of the month. To date there has been no further communication.
However, as soon as we have additional information we will proceed as previously authorized by the Board. For both planning and evaluation we will attempt to establish statewide staffs, funded by the planning grant which Region is to make available and the evaluation funds which are included in the grant actions for each of the three CAAs in the state. We will keep the Board informed of further developments.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
March 21, 1968
TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: ACTION ITEMS FOR BOARD MEETING - WEcNESDAY, MARCH 27
1.
Concentrated Employment Program.
Clark County has been designated as eligible for consideration for a CEP program. New federal funding of $2,087,000 is avaiIabIe IF we can accomplish the following:
A. Provide a 10% non-federal share for all funding other than MDTA funds. This means we must provide approximately $148,000 in non-federal share which may be in the form of space, eguipment, services, or cash. Although we have had difficulty in meeting the 20% reguirement for other OEO-funded programs, it appears that this amount can probably be raised in connection with funding of several of the components of this program.
0. Design, plan and implement the program before June 30. The deadline for submission of the project application is in May. A planning advance of up to $22,000 can be made available for hiring planning staff and paying necessary planning costs, including provision for employing several key staff members who must be involved in designing the project.
The EOB will be the prime sponsor; major manpower components will be subcontracted to other agencies, including the State Employment Service and others who have expertise and experience in various facets of the manpower process. Funding will be available for supportive services such as legal aid, day care, medical and dental needs, transportation.
The purpose and intent of the project can be summarized by this guotation from the program guidelines:
’'Essenti al ly, the program is designed (a) to combine under one sponsor and in a single contract all of those manpower programs and services that are necessary to help an individual move from unemployability and dependence to self-sufficiency, and (b) to facilitate the delivery of such services by funding through a single source. If successfully administered, CEP can become the most effective system for the delivery of manpower services in the target areas and result in:
—
better service to the individual and the conseguent improvement in individual success rates.
—
better control of federal manpower programs and greater achievement of program goals and objectives.
Page 2
—
elimination of much of the difficulty for local government officials in mounting manpower programs.
—
improve coordination at the local level of all employment and employment related resources.
Thus the CEP delivery system should lead to more effective linkages, coordination and improved services in the target areas."
Due to the very limited time in which to accomplish the required program planning, we will need Board action at the meeting, as is recommended in the report from the Executive Committee.
2.
Migrant Project Extension.
The migiant project was originally budgeted for a 19-month period, from December, 1966, through June 30, 1968. However, the program did not become fully operational until April of 1967. Thus there wi II be funds not used as of the June 30 termination date.
Congressional appropriations under Title III have been reduced for the current fiscal year. For this reason the Migrant Division is suggesting that we extend the current project for as long as is possible with unencumbered funds projected for June 30. An application for refunding under 1969 fiscal year funding can then be submitted later this year.
3.
Refunding Grant Actions.
The Day Care refunding action was previously received and accepted since there were no special conditions. Two other projects have recently been received and should be accepted: the Conduct and Administration grant (which includes funding for evaluation), and the Neighborhood Council project. There are three special conditions attached to this action; these have previously been furnished to each Council Chairman, each EOB Representative, and each Service Worker.
Mr. Dias will be present Wednesday evening at the meeting and can answer any questions about these conditions. As you can see from the enclosed copies there is really nothing new other than additional reporting requirements.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
March 27, 1968 Clark County District Health Department
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (Chairman), Charlotte Hill, Victor Hall, Ferren Bunker, Stella Fleming, Doug Pushard, Emory Lockette, Harvey Dondero, Paul Marshall, Lee Walker. Nancy Williams, Rob McPherson, Thomas Wilson, Charles Jones, Dorothy King, Charles Spann, Pat Fahey, Frederick B. French and Dorothy Collins (Seated at Reginning of Meeting)
EXCUSED: (Submitted prior notification of absence): Donald Clark, Don Dawson, Ted Lawson, Wendell Waite, Woodrow Wilson
ABSENT: (Without prior notification): Webster Butcher, George Keyes, Daisy
Miller, Angel Nieto, Melvin Pekrul, Charles Shallow, Newton Tigner.
GUESTS: Department of Labor Representatives: Mr. Kenneth Robertson, Regional Manpower Administrator; Mr. Bill Soltau, Mr. Fred Orr
Office of Economic Opportunity Representatives: Mr. Carlton Dias, Mr. Otho Green
State Department of Economic Opportunity Mr. Clyde Mathews.
There being a quorum present, the Chairman called the meeting to order. He introduced representatives of Labor Department and Offices of Economic Opportunity as listed above.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: Chairman White advised letters had been received from Nevada Futures, Inc. and the Madison Neighborhood Council requesting seating of their representatives on the Economic Opportunity Board. He stated Mr. Fred B. French had been appointed by Nevada Futures, and Mrs. Dorothy Collins had been elected by the Madison Council (replacing Mr. George Kline) to serve as their representative to the EOB. The Chairman welcomed Mr. French to the Board. (Mrs. Collins was not present until later in the meeting.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING OF FEBRUARY 28, 1968: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes, the Chairman ruled the minutes to stand approved as presented.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 1968: The Executive Director advised that auditors had not yet completed the audit of 0E0 funds administered by EOB, thus only a regular list of expenditures had been submitted to the Board for review. A regular financial statement was provided for NYC expenditures.
There being no questions, Mr. Spann moved that the financial statements be approved as presented. Seconded by Mr. French, motion carried.
CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM: Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Bill Soltau of the U.S. Department of Labor was present to give a brief description of the Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) and to answer questions Board Members might have.
Mr. Soltau stated that CEP was started about a year ago at which time the Administration took a look at the impact of present Manpower Training Programs on the unemployed. The findings.were that though the programs in effect were moving many people from unemployment to full-time employment, a considerable number of people were still unemployed in spite of the amount of money put into training programs.
It was also determined that problems of unemoloyment were more of a personal nature than an economic nature. The Department of Labor Dept, of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office of Economic Opportunity were asked to develop a program designed to fit the individual — to focus on the individual's needs as to what his barriers are to obtaining or holding employment. Thus the CEP Program was developed and there are now 22 programs in operation.
Policy decisions were made that the Program would be operated through the local community action agency and the local State Employment Service would be the prime deliverer of manpower services. Mr. Soltau further explained the goals of the CEP program as being to bring into the community public and private resources to focus on the hardcore unemployable to design a plan for the individual, to select a small geographic area within the city which presumably contained the highest rate of employment. He said within this area there would only be a limited number of people that could be served.
The program would take an individual and apply all those services necessary to move this individual to be productive in the economy. Generally the program works with the community action agency as the administrative head and then through a subcontract arranqment with the existing agencies of the community to take advantage of their expertise and organizational capability. Fnrollees of the orogram will be exposed to orientation, to the world of work, the world of work discipline, training, remedial education, etc., and then eventually into a Job.
Mr. Soltau concluded that the program will focus on a limited number of people with a high concentration of services that will cause this individual to change sufficiently to move from being unemployed to being productive in economy.
Mr. French moved that the staff be empowered to take whatever action necessary to proceed with this program. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
In discussion, Mr. Lockette requested an explanation of services.
Mr. Soltau advised that the type of services that will be applied to the individual will have to be designed to meet the needs of those people who are going to be served. He said the problem is not exactly known; however, it is known that living in a certain geographical area there are a larger number of people who are unemployed.
-2
Mr. Soltau stated that when the problems are specifically determined, the type of services to be included in the program will be determined. He further advised that the Depar rment of Labor has made a sum of money available to those cities interested in establishing CEP to do preliminary planning, designing of services to be applied and designation of who is going to provide these services. From this planning period will come a description of the nature and size of the problems, what services are necessary, and who will provide the services necessary.
Mr. Soltau explained that in the initial planning stages of CEP, the community action agency will bring together a citizen’s advisory group consisting of business, industry, labor, and government to assist in designing the CEP Program. Mr. Soltau stressed this is not a public works program. It is a program designed to take an individual and cause the individual to change so that he can remain competitive in the labor market, so that he can remain employed, and not be terminated as in a public works program.
Mr. McPherson asked if existing programs will continue or if they will be phased into CEP. Mr. Soltau advised that CEP is not intended to duplicate, but is intended to have a linkage and to complement existing p rog rams.
Mr. Spann noted that in the matter of matching funds, CEP will require $148,000 in community local share, and he asked the Executive Di rector what chance there was of obtaining those matching funds. Mr. Cottrell noted this was a matter of some concern, but he felt a good portion of the sum couid be accounted for through donation of space as CEP will require one central facility in which the services will be located. Portions can also be in tho form of supervision of trainees (where agencies are involved), and by donation of use of equipment.
Mr. Cottrell said until the program is drawn up there is no way to know how much non-federal share can be obtained through in-kind contribution but noted he did not think acquiring the non-federal share of the budget would be an insuimountabIe problem.
Mrs. Eimoro (Manpower Development Center Aide) asked if, when people are trained, they would be able to join the unions. Mr. Soltau said he did not know the answer to this; however, CEP planning involves bringing representatives of local unions into involvement in the program.
On the vote on the motion made by Mr. French that the staff be empowered to take whatever action necessary to proceed with the program, motion carried with one na/e vote cast by Mr. Lockette,
REPORT BY FIELD REPRESENTATIVE.. MR. CARLTON DIAS: Mr. Dias advised Board Members that new forms will be instituted for applications for grants. He further stated in the future there will be a pre-program review and the Field Representative will actually work with agencies in building programs that will be submitted to 0E0 for funding. He noted this would eliminate the present situation where the Regional Office looks at the program for the first time only after it is submitted, then having to make changes, special conditions, etc. Under the new procedure there would only be the necessity of checking to see that which had been agreed upon previously was in the package.
-3-
He advised the 1968 Summer Head Start program was in the final processing stage, and thus far only minor changes have been made. Regarding 1968 Summer Crash Programs, Mr. Dias advised he could not be definite about the sum of money available: only that there will be a Summer Crash Program but the funds would be reduced from last year.
Mr. Dias stated that he considered the last training session held at Doolittle Center for Neighborhood Councils a real success. He noted this session was just a beginning and the training staff from WCCED would be holding training sessions at least once a month for the next 3 or 4 months or until it is determined the people have gained the kind of knowledge they should have. Mr. Dias offered congratulations on the outstanding attendance at the session.
Regarding the Manpower situation and the 01 Board’s termination of the Project Director, Mr. Dias advised that Regional Office is concerned and awaiting completion of the processes by which an appeal is made. He noted before there is any official action Regional would want to make sure that the proper processes and steos are taken by the agencies i nvolved.
In answer to a guestion regarding training, Mr. Dias advised that though the primary training need is for Neighborhood Council people, there will be another session for Board Members in 60 to 90 days.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Mr. White stated the first recommendation of the Executive Committee: "That* the Board authorize the EOB staff to proceed with application for a planning grant for a Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) to serve designated target areas in Clark County; and to employ necessary planning staff and take necessary actions to prepare an application for a CEP program upon receipt of planning funds." The Chairman stated this item had been taken care of by the motion already made and passed regarding the Concentrated Employment Program.
Mr. White advised the second recommendation of the Executive Committee to be: "That the EOB staff prepare and submit required revision to the Title III Migrant Project budget, to extend the project as far as possible beyond the June 30 termination date with unencumbered funds."
Mr. Cottrell explained that there have been discussions with staff of Title I, ESEA, about joint funding of the Migrant Program in the future. He said the OEO Migrant Division cannot fund educational portions of the migrant programs; however, educational funds under ESEA have been increased and consequently educational portions of these programs will be funded under ESEA. He said the project extension approval which was now being requested of the Board, will involve this joint funding. He noted at a later date the Board would be asked for approval to submit a complete new funding request for this program.
Mr. French moved that the Board authorize EOB staff to prepare and submit required revisions for the Migrant Project. Seconded by Mr. Jones, motion carried.
-4-
FURTHER CEP DISCUSSION: Referring back to an item of previous discussion, the CEP program, Mr. Lockette noted the Board should know what the Director’s thinking is relative to employing necessary planning staff and taking necessary action in drawing up the planning grant application.
Mr. Cottrell advised a meeting had been scheduled for the next day to discuss the planning grant; that based on the amount of funds anticipated from the U.S. Dept, of Labor, planning money of up to $22,000 has been authorized to be spent between now and the time the program goes into operation.
Mr. Cottrell noted he did not think this total amount would be used, but that based on Mr. Soltau’s description of the Phoenix CEP which is only slightly larger than that proposed for Las Vegas, the planning grant will probably employ a maximum of 4 or 5 people. He said he did not know specifically what the positions would be. He noted there w4I I be a short period of time in which to get the program into operation, and it is hoped that planning funds will be granted within a week to 10 days. Funds will also be available to employ consultants who have had experience in preparing CEP Programs.
Mr. Spann asked who would be responsible for employing the staff. The Chairman pointed out th't according to the motion this would be the responsibility of the EOB staff. Mr. Spann asked if permanent staff reguired the ratification of the Board. Mr. Cottrell remarked that although the Executive Director can make 30 day emergency appointments, all regular appointments of professional staff are subject to ratification by Board action.
Mr. Otho Green, 0E0 Manpower Representative, explained that those persons employed for the planning phase of the program should be persons whose employment would be continued in CEP. He said the program will be dependent upon ability to tie in the business community and to get talented people to run the program. Mr. Green said if the Board has strenuous procedures in hiring these people he would advise they not be taken. He stated the 60-day planning period should be used to best advantage to help the community so that it can deal with the manpower program. He noted that the people employed in the planning phase will have obtained training necessary to implement CEP.
REFUNDING GRANTS FOR 1968 PROJECTS: Regarding the Conduct and Administration grant to which there were no special conditions attached, Mr. French moved to accept the refunding grant action. Seconded by Mr. Jones, motion carried.
Regarding the refunding grant of the Neighborhood Council Project, Mr. Cottrell advised that copies of the Special Conditions attached had been sent out to Board Members and also sent to each Neighborhood Council Chairman, Service Worker, and EOB Representative.
He noted there were several budgetary changes, the only essential one being the deletion of the Field Supervisor and supportive costs for this position. Mr. Cottrell said a joint meeting of the Neighborhood Councils had been held at which special conditions were discussed.
Mr. French moved that the Neighborhood Council Project refunding be accepted ano that congratulations be extended to the gentleman who authored the special conditions as they are exactly what the Neighborhood Council Project needed. Motion was seconded by Mr. McPherson.
Mrs. Williams stated that Board Members had not yet seen a copy of the Neighborhood Council Project as it had been rewritten. The Chairman and Executive Director advised that the Program had not been rewritten. Mrs. King said she had understood the Councils had asked changes to be made, one being in the area of applicants being screened by the Project Di rector before being submitted to the Councils.
The Chairman asked Mr. Dias to clarify the action taken by Regional OEO in the grant refunding. Mr. Dias noted that at a previous meeting, there were changes submitted to this Board by the Joint Advisory Committee which were then forwarded to Regional OEO as per instructions of the Board. He said at that time Regional sent a letter to the EOB questioning whether or not this committee had been recognized by the Board, and it was determined that it had not been. He said though the Committee has subsequently been recognized, the grant refunding is based upon the original submission approved by the Board. He advised the only changes that could be made now would have to be made for Fiscal Year ’69; that the program which now must be worked with Is that approved for 1968.
Mr. Cottrell advised that if the Board wishes to do so, they can request a work program change and submit this change to Regional for approval.
Mr. Dias stated if the Board decided to change a program, there is nothing in Regional OEO to prevent a Board from doing so. He said Regional Office would process a change and if it is in line with what can be done, OEO will collaborate. He said Regional must see that principals and procedures of OEO are followed in the program but this does not preclude making Board-approved changes. Mr. Dias further stated that if Neighborhood Councils wish to recommend changes, they may request the Board to act upon their recommendations.
Mr. Lockette noted there have been efforts made to get assistance from Regional Office along these lines and there was no assistance given. He said this was about the third special condition that has been imposed on various projects about which the Board or even the Project Director had no prior knowledge. He questioned what necessitated Regional Office to impose these conditions upon programs.
Mr. Dias advised these special conditions impose what Regional Office considers to be necessary for the proposed program. He noted he has vowed to attend Board Meetings so that he may be fully acquainted with actions and feelings of the Board to bring about the best possible programs for the area.
Mr. Lockette stated that project personnel should be aware of special conditions prior to their being imposed to make better working relations between project personnel and the Board and between the Board and Regional Office. Mr. Dias advised that in the future there will be a pre-program review and the Field Representative would be working with the community in advance to preclude any special conditions.
-6-
The question was called for on the motion to accept the refunding grant action of the Neighborhood Council Project. A division was called for. Chairman White called for a standing vote. Motion carried with 14 yes votes and 2 naye votes and one member abstaining.
Mr. French stated that in order to avoid complications which the Neighborhood Council Project has created in the past, he would make a motion that the staff be instructed not to mail any parojects to San Francisco before they are approved by the Board. Chairman White advised that this is already Board policy, and staff cannot mail projects to Regional Office without prior approval of the Board.
Mr. Cottrell also remarked that this is a basic 0E0 policy, and that the EOB staff had never forwarded any project to the Regional Office until the EOB Board had approved it as a matter of policy.
Mr. Lockette suggested that when motions are made it would be in the best interests of a I I concerned to vote along the line of necessary agenda items and to extend congratulations, condolences, etc. at the end of the meeting.
COMMUNICATION FROM MR. ARTHUR J. GRANT CONCERNING MATTERS SET FORTH IN HIS LETTER OF MARCH 15: The letter from Mr. Grant was read. Mr. Cottrell advised that he was not in attendance at the Westside Neighborhood Council meeting abou+ which Mr. Grant speaks. He noted, however, that the letter does contain assertions to which he did want to respond.
He said several statements were taken out of context of a work program for the Conduct and Administration grant. He said the general question regarding what grass roots organization is all about is addressed by the work program itself and by the various CEO policy statements and regulations and snecial conditions attached to refunding.
Mr. Cottrell stated that the letter asserts that the Exec utive Director said that "stimulation had been weak." Mr. Cottrell advised that this statement had been incorporated in the Conduct and Administration work program but was referring to stimulation of other local agencies to get involved in local anti-poverty programs, and not to stimulation of grass roots people as asserted by Mr. Gant.
Mr. Cottrell said that Mr. Grant has also attributed to him a quote which has never been made and which would never be made regarding 'being 100$ behind whatever the Di rector of the Neighborhood Councils does/1 Mr. Cottrell said he would back up any staff member provided that he is right, is doing his job, and is following the guidelines. He again noted the more important point of the letter is the question regarding what grass roots people can do and noted this is spelled out in the work programs.
Mr. French moved that a committee of three be appointed to investigate facts of Mr.Grant’s letter and make recommendations to the Board. Seconded by Mr. Jones. A division was called for, and the Chairman asked those in favor to stand; and then those against the motion to stand. The result was 7 in favor and 11 against the motion; motion lost.
-7-
Mr. Thomas Wilson, Board Member representing the Westside Neighborhood Council, stated he was present at the meeting referred to in Mr. Grant’s letter. He noted the Westside Council had voted to table issues pertaining to the Joint Advisory Committee which was the cause of the hassle with Mr. Grant. He said the Acting Chairman of the Council had simply told Mr. Grant the Council had so voted and there was nothing else to be considered. He said the Service Worker then asked Mr. Grant to leave a copy of the By-Laws of the Joint Advisory Committee and Mr. Grant understood her to ask that he leave the meeting.
Mr. Spann suggested that before the Board is brought any letter of complaint which puts the Executive Director in the position of having to defend himself before the noard, the items should first be taken up by the Executive Committee.
Mrs. Fahey noted that perhaps there is one idea that was lost in the shuffle: that it is not so much the instance of a single meeting. She said the question is whether the Board should have a special committee to determine participation for the community. There have been institutes for Board Members to delineate their role and there have been institutes for Neighborhood Council members and Service Workers. Mrs. Fahey suggested this committee of the Board could determine future advancement along the line of community participation and to study areas which have not been touched by War on Poverty programs. This committee could determine who is being involved and who could be involved. She stated the incidents of the letter are superfluous, but the idea of a committee with the designated responsibility of action in the total community is something for this Board to consider.
Mrs. Elmore, a member of the Westside Neighborhood Council, addressed the Chair. She said Mr. Grant had said she had no vote in her own Council because she was employed by the Manpower Development Center. Mrs. Elmore said she was a Council worker before she was employed as a Manoower Aide. She further explained that when the Agenda is made up for the Council meeting, anyone requesting time is placed on the Agenda, and Mr. Grant had not previously made such a request.
Mr. Grant stated that the statement he had quoted Mr. Cottrell as making was on tape. In referring to Mrs. Elmore’s statements he said the Joint Neighborhood Committee is one that is intended to influence the policy of the EOB and that as employee of an EOB program she could not sit on a policymaking Board. Mr. Grant said the important thing is his request for a positive statement as to what the Board intends for individual community participation to be. He said we know what is in the work program but he is asking what community involvement the Board wants.
Mrs. Fahey moved that a standing committee be appointed to examine the role of the total community and to reflect the procedures of the total community within the ’’ar on Poverty. Motion seconded by Mr. French. On a division vote, there were 7 yes votes, 10 naye votes. Motion lost.
Mr. Lockette suggested that Mr. Grant’s letter be forwarded to the appropriate Neighborhood Council for discussion, and in the event that Council is not able to make recommendations they should refer the letter back to the Executive Committee.
-8-
Hr. French raised a point of order, stating the letter was addressed to the EOB rather than to the Neighborhood Council. Discussion followed regarding this, following which the Chairman asked Hr. Lee Walker to act as Pariiamentarian and make a determination on this question.
Hr. Walker advised the EOB could refer the letter back to the Council.
Mr. Lockette moved that the EOB forward the letter to the apnropriate Neighborhood Council for clarification and in the event this matter cannot be cleared, the Council then forward its findings to the Executive Committee who would in turn make recommendation to the Board. Motion seconded by Mr. Bunker. On the vote, motion carried with two naye votes. Mrs. Fahey abstained from voting.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
Status of Redesignation of the EOB as the CAA for Clark County.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the County Commission had adopted a preliminary resolution declaring its intention to designate the EOB as the continuing community action agency for Clark County. At 3:00 P.‘‘. Apri I 5, there will be a public hearing on the question of designation, and meanwhile all Neighborhood Councils and delegate agencies have been notified of the public hearing. Each political subdivision must be notified of the County’s intention after which they have 45 days to respond. The County can then take final action.
Mrs. Fahey asked whether there were other groups interested in becoming the Community Action Agency. Mr. Cottrell advised he did not know of any at this time. Mrs. Fahey noted the interest of a group represented by Rev. Prentiss Walker.
Mr. Cottrell reviewed the guestion previously raised by Rev. Walker regarding designation being made by the City but he advised the District Attorney had resolved the question by reference to the 0E0 regulation which stipulates that a City must have a population of 250,000 in order to make the designation: in all other cases the County performs this function.
Suggested Revisions to By-Laws required by 1967 Congressional Amendments to the E.O.A.: Mr. Cottrell reported that Board Members have been furnished with copies of suggested revisions and a summary of why changes are being proposed. He said Board Members must have these revisions 30 days before voting on them, and they will be on the agenda for consideration at the April Board Meeting. He indicated the EOB is required to notify Regional 0E0 by ’’ay 1 that it is in compliance with new requirements.
In discussion of one of the changes which called for the term of service of a Board Member to he changed from two to three years, Mrs. Fahey suggested the term be set at one year in order to alleviate the problems in continuity, communication, background, etc. Mrs. Fahey also suggested the By-Laws provide for establishment and election of a person to the office of Parliamentarian.
Mr. Lockette suggested the meeting be set an hour earlier to allow time for discussion of the proposed changes.
Status of Legal Aid Project- Mr. Cottrell reviewed that the Board had authorized, at the January meeting, submission of a request for waiver of the slary limitation for the staff attorney. He advised verbal authorization has been received to pay a salary ranging from $15,000 to $18,000, and the Legal Aid Society is now advertising this position for the third time.
He said in the meantime Regional OEO has reduced Clark County’s funding guideline for legal aid to $19,000. Mr. Cottrell advised Board Members he has written regional office requesting clarification, as it would not be possible to operate a program with a guideline of only $19,000 annually when a staff attorney will be employed at a salary range of from $15,000 to $18,000.
Lease for Wests i de Schoo I: Mr. Cottrell advised that leqal advice had been obtained from Mr. Walker regarding the lease, and he had indicated it was a standard lease. The cost of the insurance has been determined to be between $500 and $600 annually. Mr. Cottrell stated that based on this information the lease had been entered into with the City. Operation Independence has indicated the space they wish to use, and a sublease will now be drawn up to cover the portion of the space to be used by 01.
Status of Manpower Project- Mr. Cottrell advised that the delegate agency, Operation Independence, took action to terminate the director, Mr. George Gant, and has also notified EOB that the Board has named Mr. "Bob1' Bailey as temporary Director. Mr. Gant, the former Director, has advised EOB that he is appealing to the Personnel Practices Committee of Operation Independence.
The Executive Director said EOB was originally informed there would be a hearing within 10 days but was later informed the hearing would take place within 30 days, based on Ol’s interpretation of their By-Laws.
1968 Summer Programs: Mr. Cottrell advised that the Deputy Director, Mr. Hoggard, would be attending a one-day conference in San Francisco regarding summer programs and will obtain information at that time.
Status of OEO Planning and Evaluation Requirements: Mr. Cottrell stated there had been no further development. Planning funds are now said to be available again, and further information has been requested from Regional Office.
Other Items: Mrs. Fahey asked if at the next meeting the Board could make recommendation on Open House Legislation to be submitted to the State Legislature as other groups are doing. The Chairman advised this could be considered by the Executive Committee and a recommendation brought back to the Board.
Chairman White advised members that Mrs. Lubertha Johnson's father had passed away. Mrs. Fahey moved that the Board send condolences to Mrs. Johnson. Seconded by Mr. Pushard, motion carried.
Mr. Lockette noted he would like it to be noted that Mr. French the newest member of the Board, established a record for participation and did show the spirit of the Board.
Respectfully submitted,
lJ- ? /
V. F. COTTRELL /
Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNT
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1968
TO: Board Members
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE CHAIRMAN
RE: PUBLIC HEARING
This is to remind you that a Public Hearing will be held by the Board of County Commissioners on the question of designation of a Community Action Agency.
As you know, the Commissioners have declared their intention to designate the Economic Opportunity Board; however, legislation requires that a Public Hearing be held prior to final designation.
This Hearing has been set at 3:00 P.M., Friday, Apri I 5, 1968, in the Commission Chambers, Clark County Courthouse, Las Vegas, Nevada.
I would like to urge every Board Member who can possibly attend to do so to lend support for continuation of anti-poverty programs under the existing Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
April 10, 1968
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, APRIL 15, 1968 3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
THE AGENDA
1.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1968.
2.
STATUS OF CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CEP) APPLICATION.
3.
1967 AUDIT (If available by time of meeting).
4.
1968 SPECIAL SUMMER PROJECTS.
5.
AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS (Please bring with you the copy of Proposed By-Laws and Summary of Changes which were mailed you last month.)
6.
STATUS OF REDESIGNATION - COUNTY COMMISSION HEARING.
7.
STATUS OF MANPOWER PROJECT.
8.
REQUESTS OF JO MACKEY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RELATING TO O) AN ALTERNATE EOB REPRESENTATIVE AND (2) EVALUATION PROCEDURES USED BY EOB.
9.
OTHER ITEMS.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
April 15, 1968 EOB Offices (932 West Owens)
3:30 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Emory Lockette (1ST VICE CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Ted Lawson, Harvey Dondero, Daisy Miller, Dorothy King, Isaac White (arrived late)
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MARCH 18: There being no correction^, additions, or deletions, Mr. Wilson moved the minutes be approved as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
STATUS OF CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION: The Executive Director reported that following authorization by the Board to get the program in operation, a planning application was prepared and submitted several weeks ago. As of this date approval has not been received. He advised the staff has continued to meet with the various agencies involved — Employment Service, Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Basic Education, Vocational Education, Welfare, and others, and preliminary material has been requested from these agencies on what +heir role will be in CEP.
Mr. Cottrell noted that Mr. Gant nas been working with the staff because Of his expertice in the field of manpower programs. He said the planning grant application provides for six funded positions during the planning stages, three of which would be Employment Service positions involved with job development and the remaining three on the EOB staff for planning. Two persons — the Director and Deputy Director of EOB are included at no cost to the project.
Mr. Cottrell advised that it is necessary for the Executive Committee to establish a salary for the CEP Project Director so that advertising for the position can begin. He asked if the Executive Committee wished to make a recommendation to the Board regarding the salary scale for the CEP Project Director.
In answer to a question from fir. Lockette as to whether there have been any considerations given to job descriptions, Mr. Cottrell advised that while there is no written descriptions there are some general ideas. He noted that the highest paid Project Director at this time is in EOB salary schedule Range 35, beginning at $11,295 with a maximum of $13,743. He noted the Legal Aid Staff Attorney would be above the present salary schedule of the EOB.
Mrs. King asked about the length of the program. Mr. Cottrell advised CEP will initially be funded for a one-year period with total amount of funds including subcontracts to be about $2,000,000. He pointed out that like other projects, CEP will be funded for one year at a time.
Mr. Lockette asked if the Director of CEP would be equal to the Manpower Director position. Mr. Cottrell advised the responsibility will be considerably more, as the Director would be administering
much more sophisticated program, involving many agencies, and more funds than the present Manpower Program. (Mr. Cottrell indicated that the present Manpower project will probably be incorporated as the outreach portion of CEP).
Mr. Lockette suggested that at this time the salary range be the same as that of the Manpower Di rector with job description to be reviewed at a later time for establishment of a permanent salary.
In answer to a question by Mr. Dondero as to the type of qualifications the position would require, Mr. Cottrell noted the person would need to have a general working knowledge of the various programs which will be involved in CEP and of course have administrative and supervisory abilities. He further advised the person recommended for the position will have to be approved by the Regional Manpower Administrator.
Mr. Lockette noted that funding has not been finalized and cited the possibility that a person would be employed as CEP Director and then funding would not be received as expected. Mr. Cottrell advised the Labor Department had strongly urged that a Director be employed as sooh aS possible.
Mr. Dondero noted the Executive’s decision would require ratiticatlon by the Board.
Mr. Wilson asked who would write the job descriptions. Mr. Cottrell advised EOB will write the descriptions for the central administrative staff of CEP.
Mr. Dondero suggested, as an opening figure for discussion, that the salary for the CEP Director begin at $12,000. Mr. Lockette noted he would be very hesitant about proposing a salary above that of the present Manpower Director until the job description is known.
Mr. Lawson stated that according to the verbal description, this will be quite a job and should not begin any lower than $12,000.
Mr. Lockette said that Range 35 would take the maximum salary of $13,743 and would give flexibility to deal with individuals by starting an individual at any step within that range.
Mr. Lawson moved that it be recommended to the Board that Range 35 be established for the position of CEP Director, beginning at $11,295 and going to $13,743, with the determination made by the hiring authority as to which step the person would fit into for the starting salary. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
1967
AUDIT: Executive Committee Members were provided with copies of the audit made by the CPA firm of Saigo and Rollins. Mr. Cottrell noted that very few questions have been raised. The summary of auditor’s observations and recommendations were reviewed. The auditors had advised that all auditing queries were acceptably explained except two questions relating to the Day Care Program operated by Operation Independence: (D that no application for tax exemption had been made and (2) there was still unresolved the two extra days paid to day care center employees when the semi-monthly pay system was converted to a bi-weekly system.
-2-
Mr. Cottrell noted that under the new system, the auditors report goes directly to the Regional Auditor.
Following discussion, Mr. Dondero moved that Operation Independence be requested to make immediate restitution of overpayment of these salaries. Motion seconded by Thomas Wilson. Mr. Dondero noted the EOB wiI I later make recommendations as to how the overpayment will be reimbursed.
In discussion, Mr. White said he felt the Executive Committee should make recommendations at this time, and further felt notification should be given that the overpayment would be deducted from the employees in question.
Mr. White then moved to amend the motion to include that funds be repaid over the next four pay periods from those individuals that had received the overpayment. Amendment was accepted by Mr. Dondero and Mr. Wilson. On the vote on the motion as amended it was carried.
Regarding the application for tax exemption, the Director was instructed to see that EOB staff do the proper paperwork for Operation Independence to apply for exempt status and have it signed by Operation Independence so application can be made.
SPECIAL SUMMER PROJECTS FOR 1968: Mr. Hoggard reported that he had attended a conference at which priority had been established for summer projects, those priorities set being (1) employment, (2) education, and (3) recreation. Flexibility, however, was still left up to local applicants. He said that Clark County would be allocated $38,000; however, a call has since been received advising the allocation has been decreased to $33,000 due to applications being submitted by Washoe County and Rural Counties CAP.
Mr. Hoggard noted a decision had not been made yet as to whether programs would be submitted according to 0E0 priorities because the camping program was the most popular last year. He said one of the benefits derived from last year’s camping program is that there are now approximately 300 Girl Scouts from the target area as compared to two troops last year.
Mr. Lockette asked if other communities had expressed their priorities according to successes from last year’s summer programs. Mr. Hoggard advised the most successful in 1967 from other communities seemed to be the programs which had jobs to offer. There was discussion of the kinds of jobs offered through summer programs and the problems presented because most were menial jobs such as clean-up.
Mr. Lockette noted that supervisory people should attempt to project the need for the particular job performed and attempt to point out its importance with recognition of Job participants at termination of the project. Mr. Hoggard stated that EOB is required to involve young people in the planning of the summer programs, and that planning sessions will be set up for this purpose.
-3-
There was further discussion of the summer programs and of theVISTA Associates Program which will provide approximately 20 young people to supervise playgrounds during the summer months in conjunction with the programs of area Recreation Departments.
Mr. Hoggard noted that VISTA Associates will be under the direction of the Recreation Departments of the Cities and County and will work in facilities in the target areas or adjacent thereto. There is no age limit or educational requirement for persons applying for.VISTA Associates.
AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS: Mr. Cottrell advised the By-Laws have been rewritten in accordance with provisions of the Green Amendment and previously distributed to all Board members. Following brief discussion, the Chairman advised the amendments would be voted on at the Board Meeting.
STATUS OF DESIGNATION OF A COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: Mr. White reported he had attended the public hearing and opposition to the EOB had been voiced by several persons. He noted that the County Commissioners do not know what the EOB is doing though they do have a representative on the Board. He further advised the Commissioners have postponed making a final decision on the agency they will designate as the community action agency.
Mr. Cottrell noted that since this hearing some material has been put together which attempts to answer questions raised. He said this information will be sent to Board Members with the month’s mailing and he hoped some of these facts would counteract the accusations. He further advised he has met with the County Administrator, Mr. Henry, who indicated the Commissioners would be very interested in this information. He said the question of designation would be on the agenda at 2:00 P.M. at the next Commission meeting, to be held Monday, April 22. Mrs. King noted that the very persons who made accusations at the public hearing do not bother about finding out anything about EOB programs. Mr. White said he thought It necessary that Board Members attend the Commission meeting if at all possible.
Mr. Lockette said, though he realize the EOB does not have a public relations position funded, there is a need for the office to get material in the newspapers to inform the public about anti-poverty p roj ects.
Mr. White noted the County Commission has a representative on the EOB whose job it is to keep the County advised of EOB programs.
STATUS OF MANPOWER PROJECT: Mr. Lockette reviewed that as it now stands, Mr. Bob Bwiley Is the temporary Di rector of the Manpower Development Center, and Operation Independence has not yet set a hearing date for the appeal by the former Director.
Mr. Cottrell advised that at the last Operation Independence Board Meeting, the Regional Field Representative had advised members that Regional Office expected that 01 would take immediate action regarding the appeal of Mr. Gant. There was discussion on employment of a new Director; however, Mr. White noted he could not visualize anyone accepting the position for such a short period of time.
-3-
There was also discussion on how the present Manpower project was expected to become the outreach portion of CEP with Operation Independence as the delegate agency.
Mr. Lockette asked why the Manpower Program could not have become the CEP Program. Mr. Cottrell advised this was because of national agreement that Employment Service would be the prime deliverer of manpower services.
There was further discussion of the requested appeal, channels to be followed, and interim appointment of the Manpower Director.
REQUEST OF JO MACKEY NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL RELATING TO AN ALTERNATE EOB REPRESEMTA TIVE: A letter was read from the Chairman of the Jo Mackey Neighborhood
Council requesting that Mr. Art Grant be recognized by the Board as the alternate representative from the Jo Mackey Council. Mr. Dondero noted there was no provision in the EOB By-Laws for seating of alternate representatives, only for appointment of representatives for pub Iic officials.
There was discussion regarding alternate representation. Mr. White pointed out if one Council was permitted to appoint an alternate, each agency on the Board would also be able to do so. He also pointed out that By-Laws make provision for prior notification of absence.
Mr. Lockette asked if members would have any objection to making provision in the By-Laws for an alternate representative to attend if a letter were sent ahead of time naming the representative. Following this discussion Chairman Lockette noted it seems to be the concensus of the members that providing for an alternate representative would create many problems. The Executive Director was instructed to respond to the request indicating By-Laws do not permit alternate representation.
LETTER FROM JO MACKEY COUNCIL RELATING TO EVALUATION PROCEDURES OF THE EOB: The letter from the Chairman of Jo Mackey Council was read to the members. Mr. Cottrell commented that he did not know the intent of the letter and that he was aware of the evaluation procedure set forth in the Personnel Policies and Practices of the EOB.
Members discussed evaluation of the Service Workers, particularly the question of who should evaluate the Service Workers — the Project Director or the Council. Mr. Cottrell pointed out that evaluation of the Service Workers is done by the Project Director but the Council itself could do their own evaluation if they so wished.
Mrs. Miller noted she did not see how a Council could evaluate its worker when there is no way for them to know what the worker is doing during the 8-hour work day.
Mr. White said though Councils may do their own evaluation, it should be remembered that the prime evaluation as provided for in the EOB Personnel Policies would be done by the Project Director.
-4-
The Executive Director was directed to contact the Jo Mackey Council to determine what question is being posed regarding evaluation procedures.
OTHER:
Seating of New Board Members: Mr. Cottrell advised that several agencies have requested appointment of their representatives to the EOB. He asked the Executive Committee how they wished to handle this situation considering the fact that if the By-Laws were amended as being proposed, requests would no longer be required to go through the Executive Committee but would be accepted directly by the Board.
The Executive Committee directed that the matter of amendment of the By-Laws be considered first on the agenda and if they are amended as proposed, the representatives appointed by the agencies concerned could be seated.
Planni ng Grants: Mr. Cottrell advised that another memo had been received from Regional CEO asking for submission of 3n application for a joint planning grant. He further advised the Board had previously authorized this submission.
ADJOURNMENT: Mr. White apologized for being late and thanked the First Vice Chairman, Mr. Lockette, for chairing the meeting. The meeting was then adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
(£>.4.
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
April 18, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
Executive Di rector
RE: INFORMATION RELATING TO ACTION ITEMS ON AGENDA FOR APRIL MEETING
1.
Amendment of By-Laws. Copies were distributed last month, and an additional set is included with material for this month’s meeting.
Action is required at this meeting in order to meet the May 1 deadline for certifying compliance with the new Congressional legislation. As noted in discussion last month, most of the changes are simply changes in language or expansions on previous policies which are required by the "Green Amendment" legislation. Other changes are necessary to update the By-Laws to meet new conditions. Still others are only suggestions. The Board may wish to modify some of the suggestions in this last category — on the others we do not have much leeway.
2.
Seating of New Board Members. Several positions on the Board have been vacant for some time, and no action has been taken pending implementation of the changes required by the Green Amendment. Under the new By-Laws, representatives of various groups can be seated upon presentation of a letter certifying they are representatives of their respective groups or agencies.
We have already received such a letter from the State Welfare Division, appointing Mrs. Iris Meinhover to the Board. We anticipate letters from the Operation Independence Day Care Parents’ Advisory Committee and the County Probation Department prior to the meeting on Wednesday. If these are received, new representatives can be seated Wednesday night.
3.
Recommendation Regarding Salary for CEP Project Di rector. This matter was discussed by the Executive Committee at its last meeting. It is necessary to establish this salary level in order that we can advertise the position immediately.
The Committee is recommending that the staff be authorized to advertise the starting salary as being within Range 35, which provides for a minimum of $11,295 with other steps leading to a maximum of $13,743.
I believe it was the Committee’s intention that this method be used to accomplish the immediate need and that the question of the proper permanent range be determined after the job is more clearly defined and a definite job description is prepared.
-—continued
Page 2 of Memo (Continued)
1+ was the original desire of the Labor Department that the Project Director be selected at the outset. This was impossible, and we indicated that we could not make a selection without advertising, screening, and seeking the confirmation of the Board. It is essential that the salary be set at this meeting, in order that we advertise, interview applicants, check out backgrounds and experience, etc. in order to be in a position to make the final selection and seek confirmation no later than the May meeting.
4.
Development of Summer Projects. Yesterday, Wednesday, April 17, we received a Regional Memo which includes guidelines, criteria, etc. for summer programs. One of the guidelines is that project proposals must be filed with the Regional Office by April 30.
The matter was discussed at the Executive Committee meeting on Monday, prior to receipt of this deadline information. The Committee had earlier recommended that the staff be authorized to proceed with development of summer projects’similar to those authorized last year. However, we are now faced with submitting proposals within 9 working days, and it is questionable whether we can have final proposals in the hands of Board Members even by the time of the Board Meeting on the 24th.
We will need authorization at the meeting on Wednesday to apply for summer funds (the amount is now set at $32,500, compared with $40,000 last summer) and to submit project proposals for Jobs for Youth and Summer Camp i ng.
5.
Resolution Concerning School District Bond Issue.
The Board is being requested to give consideration to endorsement of the Bond Issue election to be held next month to provide funds for construction of new schools.
6• Authorization for Budget Changes — VersatiIe Funds and Day Care Project.
Our guideline for versatile funds is $160,000. Total funding for versatile projects (C. & A., program evaluation, and Neighborhood Councils) is about $4,800 less than this amount.
At the same time you wiI I recalI that we were required to reduce the year-round Head Start Project budget request by some $80,000. One-half of the EOB Head Start Coordinator’s salary is presently charged against the Year-Round budget, and this amounts to almost $4,800. Thus if we can get permission to fund this position from the remaining (and to date uncommitted) versatile funds, the Year-Round program will benefit by a like amount($4,800) which will permit funding of two of the Teacher Aide positions which were eliminated from the budget.s
Our request is that we be authorized to (1) request the $4,800 remaining in versatile funds to pay for the Head Start Coordinator position, and (2) request that the full amount of the Year-Round budget be made available for operation of that program.
W. F. COTTRELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY bOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
April 19, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24th
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS'
MJ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 27, (2?, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 0E0-FUNDED PROJECT FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31,
1968.
PROJECTS AND NYC OUT-OF-SCHOOL 1968.
AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF NEW LEGISLATION.
4. SEATING OF BOARD MEMBERS (provided letters of certification are received):
^A. State Welfare Division
lK. Operation Independence Parents’ Advisory Committee.
t/C. County Probation Department.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
That the salary level for the CEP Project Director be established at Range 35, with minimum step $11,295 and maximum step $13,743, and that the appointing authority make the decision regarding which step the person hired would fit into within Range 35.
jjX That staff be authorized to proceed with development of summer projects similar to those authorized last year within limits of funds available ($33,000).
6.) ENDORSEMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE.
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE FOR VERSATILE FUNDS AND DAY CARE PROJECT.
AGENDA
(Conti nued)
INFORMATION ITEMS
8.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Status of application for CEP planning fund
D-
taken to date.
Receipt of annual audit from Saigo & Rollins, CPAs.
Status of redesignation of EOB as the CAA for Clark County.
Status of 0E0 requirement for planning.
O Status of Manpower Project and appeal from former director.
> Negotiations between Operation Independence and Clark County Boy’s Club for use of Jefferson Center.
O Status of Summer Head Start Program. & J J a
■-------------------------V-------'J
9. OTHER ITEMS.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
April 19, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: INFORMATION ITEMS - BOARD MEETING TO BE HELD APRIL 24, 1968
1• Status of appIication for CEP Funds - actions to date.
The application was submitted on Wednesday, April 3. While we had been led to believe that approval would be almost automatic, and could be accomplished in San Francisco, this did not prove to be the case. Ater review the application was sent to Washington. As of the time of this writing we have not received notice of approval.
In the meantime we have been unable to employ any of the proposed planning staff. We have held a number of preliminary discussion meetings with interested agencies, and have been visited by representatives of the U. S. Employment Service who have worked with other CEP programs.
On Friday a meeting was held with representatives of various sectors of the business community and labor organizations. The purpose of this meeting was to acquaint them with the program and to seek their advice, assistance and guidance in planning the program.
We have only six weeks to develop the necessary plan, to reach agreements with various agencies to provide services under the CEP program and to submit the final definitive agreement to the Regional Manpower Administrator for his consideration. It will be a busy six weeks.
2. Annua I Audit.
The annual audit (for the 1967 program year ending December 31, 1967) has been received from Saigo and Rollins, CPA’s. The audit covers all 0E0- funded projects administered through the EOB as grantee. Copies are available in the EOB office for inspection by any interested parties.
3• Status of Redesignation.
The County Commission has set this matter for further discussion on Monday, April 22, at approximately 2:00 P.M. (This will be a continuation of the public hearing originally held on April 5.) We have submitted t© members of the Commission the material sent to al I Board Members earlier this week.
At the conclusion of the Commission’s consideration, each of the political subdivisions and the State of Nevada must be notified of the Commission’s intent. They have 45 days in which to respond. After that time the final action can be taken, and the formal application for recognition of the CAA by the 0E0 Regional Office can be made.
Page 2 of Memo
4.
0E0 P lann i ng Mon i pc.
We have again been notified that planning grants are available.
The State of Nevada is eligible for a maximum of $35,000 for all three CAAs.
The Board has previously authorized us to proceed with the Washoe County and Rural CAAs to jointly develop a plan for implementation of planning capability for all three agencies.
5.
Status of Former Manpower Di rector’s AppeaI.
As of this date we have received no notification that Mr. Gant has been granted a hearing on his appeal from dismissal by Operation Independence from the position of Manpower Development Center Director.
6.
Negotiations between Operation Independence and Boys Clubs.
The Boys’ Clubs of Clark County have approached Operation Independence to discuss the possibi lity of their taking over use of the Jefferson Center as the site for full-scale operation — replacing the storeroom now in use in a shopping center. We have indicated to 0.1. that they may have the use of the remaining space in the Westside School Complex to replace the space they might lose in Jefferson Center, should they decide to release the space they now occupy.
The remaining part of Westside has already been sub-leased to Operation Independence.
1
• Status of Summer Head Start Pro.ject.
Although the refunding package has not yet been received, we have discussed' the application with the Regional Office, and final approval should be granted shortly. There was little change in the Federal funding portion of the project (substituting funding for two Social Workers to provide for the other half of the cost of the Head Start Coordinator), However, we may anticipate disallowance of a part of the proposed non-federal share. This will require us to seek other local share to replace that di sal lowed.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
April 24, 1968
8:00 P.M.
Clark Co. Dist. Health Dept. Auditorium Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), Douglass Pushard, Charlotte Hill, Harvey Dondero, Victor Hall, Stella Fleming, Wendell Waite, Lee Walker, Bob McPherson, Emory Lockette, Charles Spann, Thomas Wilson, Ferren Bunker, Fred French, Charles Jones, Pat Fahey, Dorothy Collins, Don Dawson, Dorothy King, George keyes, Woodrow Wilson, Webster Butcher, Donald Clark, Ferren Bunker, Daisy Miller, Peggy Smith, Iris Meinhover
EXCUSED: (Submitted Prior Notification of Absence) Ted Lawson, Paul Marshall, Fr. Charles Shallow, Newton Tigner.
ABSENT: Angel Nieto, Nancy Williams
GUESTS: Evelyn Coleman, Jim Gantt, Bill Carlos, Harold Ortega, Clyde Newman, Madge L. Rugg, Rosie Smith, Clarence Smith, Sarah Ray, Lee Adler, James G. Ryan, Addie Blake, Letha Mobley, Mel Engelstad, Ethel Pearson Pat Perratt, Harold Hyman, Geraldine Davis, Hazel Geran, Kathryn James, Marion Bennett, E.E. Davis, Mike Banovitz, Rev. P.S. Walker, Albert Dunn W.J. Wynn, (State GEO), Carlton Dias, (Regional 0E0)
STAFF: W.F. Cottrell, J. David Hoggard, L.Lamar McDaniel, Evelyn Mauldin, Sylvia Staples
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 27, 1968: There being no corrections, additions, or deletions, it was moved by Mr. French and seconded by Mr. Jones that the minutes stand approved as nresented. On the vote motion carried.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR OEO-FUNDED PROJECTS AND NYC OUT OF SCHOOL PROJECT FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 1968: The financial statements were briefly reviewed by the Executive Director. Mr. French moved they be accepted as presented. Seconded by Mr. Jones, motion carried.
AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF NEW LEGISLATION: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that Board Members had been provided with the proposed revision to the By-Laws and a summary of each change citing the legislation calling for the particular changes. He noted there are no major changes; there is revision of "boiler plate" material and two or three substantive changes involving designation of Board Members to be made by letter of appointment by the agency; further, length of time on the Board is now limited to a total of six years with no more than 3 consecutive years.
Mr. Cottrell advised the CAA must be in compliance by May 1 in regard to By-Laws as they pertain to changes required because of the Green Amendment.
Mr. French moved that the amendments to the By-Laws be accepted as presented. Seconded by Mr. Pushard. In discussion, Mr. Keyes questioned the Board’s right to say that a member would forfeit his seat on the Board when he had missed three consecutive meetings without prior noti ficat ion.
There was discussion of th$s provision. Chairman White explained the Board’s concern was that when a member does not attend he is not representing the group that appointed or elected him. He noted By-Laws also provide that the group or agency concerned will be notified so that they may continue their representation.
Mr. French stated a point of.order; that the subject under discussion was not a portion of the By-Laws but acceptance of the amendments now being presented. He called for the question. On the vote on the motion that the amendments to the By-Laws be accepted as presented, motion carried.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: Letters were read from the following: Operation Independence Parent’s Advisory Committee asking that Mrs. Pegqy Smith be appointed as their representative; from Clark County Juvenile Probation Dept, requesting that William Clark Power be seated as their rep resentat i ve.
It was moved by Mr. French and seconded by Mrs. King that these persons be seated as members of the Board. On the vote, motion carried.
The Chairman welcomed the two persons present — Mrs. Smith and
Mrs. Meinhover. Mrs. Fahey noted she had received a call from the Probation Department advising their representative would not be present because they were not aware of procedure to be fol lowed.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
Salary for CEP Project Director: Chairman White advised the Executive Committee has recommended that the minimum salary for the CEP
Project Director be established as the same provided in Range 35, with minimum step $11,195 and maximum step $13,743, and that the appointing authority make the decision regarding which step the person hired would fit into within Range 35.
In answer to a question, Mr. Cottrell advised members that appointments are made by the Executive Director subject to confirmation by the Board. He said the Executive Committee was of the opinion a permanent salary should not be established until the job description was more fully known, and the salary now being recommended was only to permit employment of a Di rector before the project goes into effect.
Mr. French moved that the recommendation of the Executive Committee on both items set forth in the agenda be accepted by the Board. Seconded by Mr. Jones. On a division vote, motion carried with 18 yes and 20 no votes cast.
The second recommendation of the Executive Committee, included in previous motion for approval, was that staff be authorized to proceed with development of summer projects similar to those authorized last year within limits of funds available.
Mr. Cottrell indicated that guidelines for summer programs were not received until last week which is the reason programs could not be developed in time to submit to the Board prior to submission to San Francisco next week.
-2-
Mr. Hoggard explained that Clark County’s allocation for 1968 Summer pro- ’ grams is $33,000. He said a committee of young people has been formed and staff has been meeting with this committee and with representatives of the camping agencies. He noted that a member of the Board, Mrs. Charlotte Hill, has volunteered her time to help develop training to be incorporated in the programs. Mr. Hoggard stated that last year 155 young people attended Camp and 40 young people were given jobs through funding of the summer programs, and this year it is expected that the summer programs will provide for 250 to 300 campers and 15 to 20 camp aide jobs.
ENDORSEMENT OF SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE: Chairman White asked if the Board felt it advisable that they, as citizens, consider endorsing the Bond Issue that the School District be permitted to issue $59,000,000 in bonds for school building construction.
Councilman Waite stated that though endorsing the bond issue is not specifically excluded in the By-Laws and though he is personally in favor of it, he would think it would be outside of the Board’s provisions to do so.
Assemblytnan Wilson noted he would not like to see this Board involve itself in such an endorsement.
Following this discussion, Mr. French moved that inasmuch as the School District Bond Issue seems to have become a political football, this Board take no action on an endorsement. Seconded by Councilman Waite, motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE FOR VERSATILE FUNDS FOR DAY CARE PROJECT: Mr. Cottrell advised that last December the grantee was required to slash the Head Start year-round budget by $77,000 because of federal guideline not permitting budgetary increases over 1967 funding, and that subsequently the number of children served was reduced.
He said the cost of a Head Start Coordinator position had been incorporated in this budget; however, in the guideline for versatile funding there is now $4800 available. Mr. Cottrell requested Board authorization to ask for funding for one-half of the Head Start Coordinator salary from versatile funds in order to free these funds to permit Operation Independence to employ two additional day care aides under Head Start funding. He noted the other half of the Head Start Coordinator salary is funded from Summer Head Start funds.
Mr. Thomas Wilson moved that EOB staff be authorized to request that half of the Head Start Coordinator’s salary be funded from versatile funds. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion carried.
-3-
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:
Status of Application for CEP planning funds; action taken to date;
Mr. Cottrell advised that the signed planning grant approval for CEP had been received today from the Labor Department in Washington, and . has been accepted by EOB. He said EOB is now in a position to begin actual planning for CEP.
Mr. Cottrell further reported that a meeting was held last Friday called by the Mayors of Las Vegas and North Las Vegas at which the program was explained to representatives of Labor, business and other segments of the community. He said an Advisory Committee would be selected from among these people to be involved directly in planning for CEP.
Mr. Cottrell advised that EOB is funded for a total of 3 positions during the planning period, and Employment Service is also funded for 3 positions as it is the Labor Department’s feeling that job development should get started before the program goes into effect. He noted the first phases of CEP are to go into effect as of June 30.
Receipt of Annual Audit from Saigo & Ro I Iins, CPAs: Mr. Cottrell advised the annual audit has been received covering all eight OEO-funded projects and has been reviewed by the Executive Committee. He noted the audits are on file and available for anyone to review.
Status of OEO requirement for planning: Mr. Cottrell stated that EOB has again been advised that planning grants are available for the state of Nevada. He said the Board had previously authorized staff to proceed with application, and he would be attending a meeting for purposes of discussion of a Nevada planning grant for which there is a $35,000 allocation for the entire state.
Status of Manpower Project and appeal from former director: Mr. Cottrell advised that no notification has been received from Operation Independence indicating whether or not a hearing would be granted to the former Director. A letter from Mr. Gant was read which requested intervention from the EOB.
Mr. Carlton Dias, Regional OEO Field Representative, advised that Regional Office is very much aware of the manpower situation and problems which have developed. He said a letter has been sent to EOB asking the Board to give full and thorough investigation of proceedings of the George Gant appeal.
Councilman Waite asked if the By-Laws did not provide that a hearing be granted within 30 days. Following discussion regarding this, Councilman Waite moved that EOB make an order that a hearing be held by Operation Independence within ten days. Seconded by Mrs. Collins and Mrs. King, motion carried with 3 naye votes cast.
Negotiations between Operation Independence and Clark County Boy’s Club for use of Jefferson Center: Mr. Cottrell advised that Operation Independence and the Boy’s Clubs of Clark County have had discussions relevant to the Boy’s Clubs assuming occupancy of Jefferson Center which 01 now leases from the City of Las Vegas. He noted that EOB would then be asked to lease the remainder of the Westside School to 01 for housing of the day care center and the Boys Club would pay costs incurred in making Westside School suitable for day care.
Assemblyman Wilson asked what the status of Jefferson Center would be if 01 moved the day care centers to Westside School and the School District at a later time decided to terminate lease on Westside School. Mr. Cottrell noted the School District’s lease to the City , and the City’s lease to the EOB calls for a five-year term, and that this should be covered in the lease with the Boys Club.
Status of Summer Head Start Program; Mr. CottrelI advised that the grant funding for Summer Head Start has been received. He said Regional has disallowed approximately $9,000 in non-federal share which means total EOB funding will be $9,000 short in non-federal share. He said that it can probably be anticipated that there will be excess non-federal share in summer crash programs. Several other changes in the grant were discussed.
Mr. Dondero moved that the 1968 Summer Head Start grant be accepted. Seconded by Mr. French, motion carried.
Status of,Redesignation of EOB as the Community Action Agency for Clark County: Chairman White advised the County Commission has taken action to designate themselves as the CAA. He noted Commissioner James Ryan was present and welcomed him to the meeting.
Mr. Carlton Dias, after reviewing some of the programs which would soon be ongoing in Clark County, discussed the subject of CAA designation. He noted that the EOB and the entire CAP staff is without a doubt the very best CAA in the state of Nevada. He said it is the best run, the best operated, and the most competent and efficient in the state of Nevada, and further is one of the best in the western region.
Mr. Dias said Board Members have done their j’ob well and have brought the CAP from its infancy to a point where members have an organization to be proud of and to which they have an obligation to retain what they have nutured. He noted he had expected the EOB to be redesignated as the CAA simply because it has done a j'ob well. He said it is a tribute to the entire Board that the CAA staff is one of the finest to be found anywhere, which is due to the Board’s interest and dedication to its programs.
Mr. Dias stated this is the time for the Board to come forth and do everthing in its power to retain what has been built. He noted though there are areas to be improved upon in programming, Regional Office is pleased with the kinds of things the EOB in Las Vegas is doing.
Mr. Dias related that several months ago he had been called to a meeting at the Regional level to determine his opinion regarding a Concentrated Employment Program in Las Vegas. Ouestions were: are they capable? Can they handle it? The various aspects were considered and Regional personnel came away from the meeting with the strong feeling that the EOB could certainly handle the program. He noted that as a tribute to demonstrated ability, EOB will now have a CEP which will be dealing with in excess of $2,000,000. Mr. Dias said this is not only a testimony to the kind of work the EOB is doing but also what they have done in the past. He asked that the Board do everything in their power to keep this program as viable as it is now.
-5-
Chairman White noted that Rev. prentiss Walker was present and welcomed h i m to the EOB meet i ng.
Councilman Wendell Waite stated he wished to make an observation and wished to indicate it was his own personal opinion. He said that in this group tonight are some of the original people who started to work at the outset of this program on the group which the County originally designated as the CAA in September, 1964. He noted Commissioner Bill Briare had represented the County on that group until November, 1965 at which time he dropped out, and from that date until tonight EOB has never had a visit from a County Commissioner. Councilman Waite noted this is 2| years ago.
He said the County had no representative at all for at least six months which indicates a complete lack of regard for the program. He noted Commissioner Lamb had been appointed to represent the County on the EOB but never attended a meeting. Dr. Guild Gray was then appointed and served for 2 or 3 months; Karl Harris then served for 6 or 8 months and last summer Mr. Don Dawson was appointed by the County Commission.
Councilman Waite stated the County Commissioners have now stated their intention to become the community action agency themselves after going through a sham public hearing. He noted his concern now is why the sudden interest when $2,000,000 will be available, following the lack of interest for 2? years. He said he would question who it is the Commissioners really want to serve. Mr. French noted his opinion that the Board would be foolish to make a Judgment until the County Commission has implemented this action.
Mr. James Ryan, County Commissioner, was recognized by the Chair. He stated he resented the remarks of the speaker from the City of North Las Vegas and that it is no secret that public officials are notorious for not attending meetings. He said it is not the intention of the County Commission to have wholesale termination of the people involved, but it is the intention to utilize people who are trying to help insofar as job situations are concerned. Commissioner Ryan said there have been dissatisfied people by the hundreds, and asked that before people start throwing rocks they let the County get in the ballgame and see how they play.
He said the County does want to utilize what has been done, see where it can be more effective and possibly modify some of the programs. He advised there was no other group that was eager to take over the responsibility. He said there may be some cases when the Commission would disagree with the Board. Commissioner Ryan noted he has done some homework and looked at projects.
Rev. Clark said the Board is just as much at fault for losing this program as anybody; that if this Board would have been sensitive to needs of the community it would still have the program. Rev. Clark stated there are some people in the community who are dissatisfied with the Board, and noted he also was not satisfied with the way this Board has operated.
Chairman White stated that certainly there are some who are dissatisfied; that in anything you try to do you will find some who are dissatisfied. He noted the goal with the Board is to meet the needs of the majority of the people and he did not feel the community would disagree that this has been done.
Mr. Thomas Wilson asked what fault the Commission found with this Board in operating the programs,, and noted there was one-third representation of public officials and they could have beefed program up through this representation.
Commissioner Ryan said the Commissioners want to select an Advisory Board to work with the Commission. He noted that although he is not finding fault with what has been done in the past, there is room for improvement. He stated some employers can help solve problems without the strife and turmoil that has taken place in other communities.
Councilman Waite noted that in the statements he had made he did not intend to speak for the Board but was only presenting his own personal feelings in the matter.
Mr. Lockette noted he did not see any accomplishment in what is being discussed and moved that the meeting adjourn. Seconded by Mr. French, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
'V.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
WFC:dm
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 1, 1968 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices (932 West Owens) Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (CHAIRMAN), Harvey Dondero, Dorothy King, Charles Spann, Thomas Wilson, Daisy Miller, Dorothy King
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
DISCUSSION REGARDING DESIGNATION OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY: Chairman White advised this special meeting had been called primarily for purposes of discussing the action taken by the County Board of Commissioners to designate themselves as +he community action agency for Clark County. He requested the Executive Committee’s thoughts regarding submitting a letter to the County Commission asking that they reconsider their decision on designation, or secondly, that they grant another public hearing. He noted when the first public hearing had been held, the County had stated their intent to name the Economic Opportunity Board.
Chairman White also suggested that another alternative would be to inform the Neighborhood Councils of the action, so that the Councils could let the Commissioners know they are dissatisfied with the decision.
Mr. Spann asked the Executive Director how he visualized the program would function under the Commissioners. Mr. Cottrell noted he could not say what the County Commissioners would do, but discussed the structure of community action agencies under the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments, noting that if the County designates itself, it would be the basic policy-making body unless it delegated some or all of the basic powers back to the EOB Board of Trustees.
Mr. Cottrell advised members the County had sent a telegram to Regional 0E0, Migrant Division in Washington, and Mr. Wellington Kohle in Washington, asking these agencies to correspond with the County in future matters relating to the Community Action Agency. Mr. Cottrell stated that until such time as 0E0 recognizes another CAA this Board has the power to keep on operating as it has in the past 3| years.
Chairman White noted he had recieved a letter Saturday from the County Administrator stating that these 3 telegrams had been sent. He said Regional DEO would probably advise the County the EOB is still the community action agency.
Mr. Dondero said he thought it would be advisable to include Neighborhood Council correspondence to the Commissioners with any other initial correspondence from the Board. Mr. Wilson concurred, nothing that neither the Board nor the poor themselves have been part of any of the Commission meetings. Mr. Spann suggested objections of the Neighborhood Councils be in the form of petitions, directed to the EOB.
After discussion, Mr. Spann moved that the Neighborhood Councils be contacted to determine their attitude to the switch of control and if they are of the opinion that the currently-functioning EOB should retain control of the anti-poverty program they should so inform the EOB. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
In further discussion, Mr. Dondero asked if EOB had had formal notice of the public hearing. Mr. Cottrell advised there had been formal notice; however, this notice stated the intent to designate the existing community action agency.
ACTION IN REGARD TO APPOINTMENT OF A HEAD START COORDINATOR: Mr. Cottrell advised that appointment must be ratified by the Board; however, a decision could not wait until the next Board Meeting as training for Summer Head Start would be held within the next few weeks. He noted the position of Head Start Coordinator had been advertised and there had been 10 to 12 applicants of which, following screening, five were interviewed. Two of these were determined to be most qualified in light of past experience. Mr. Cottrell reviewed the qualifications of both and distributed the applications and results of contacting references to Executive Committee members for their perusal.
Following study of these materials and recommendation by the Executive Director that the person who had 2| years of previous experience as a Head Start Coordinator be employed in this position, Mr. Wilson moved that the Executive Committee recommend to the Board that the appointment of Mrs. Opal Legardy be ratified as Head Start Coordinator.
Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
CONCENTRATED EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM (CEP) PLANNING GRANT: Mr. Cottrell reported a meeting had been held with the Governor in Carson City last week for discussion of the CEP Program, and to inform State Department Heads about the program. He also informed the Committee Mr. George Gant had been appointed to the planning staff of CEP for the period April 24 to June 1. He said Mr. Hoggard, Mr. Gant, and Mr. Bailey would be going to San Francisco to observe the CEP there. Advertising would begin in the near future for a CEP Director.
Mr. Cottrell advised that various agencies have been requested to designate representatives to serve on an Advisory Committee to CEP and names are being received as to who these persons will be. He said the Labor Department advisors feel very strongly that recruitment for a CEP Di rector will have to be at the upper end of the salary range which has been set by the Board.
Mr. Cottrell stressed that one of the most important segments of CEP is the involvement of the business community from the point of view of job development and input on kinds of training they feel should be involved in developing people that business can employ. Members discussed structure of the Advisory Committee, and were informed there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 members, including neighborhood counci I representatives.
-2-
ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH BOARD COMPOSITION: Mr. Cottrell advised that the community action agency must assure Regional OEO they are in compliance with provisions set forth in the Economic Opportunity Act amendments pertaining to Board composition. He reviewed the list of agencies. Mr. Cottrell proposed adding a representative from the Employment Service particularly since that agency will be the prime deliverer of services under CEP. He further noted there were no businessmen on the Board and suggested the Greater Las Slegas Chamber of Commerce be added under the category of organizations and groups and major segments of the community. He also suggested adding the Clark County Legal Aid Society and the Southern Nevada Personnel Association. He requested authority from the Executive Committee to submit the list of Board Members as just reviewed to OEO.
The Chairman ruled, subject to objection by any member, that this list be submitted to OEO and that the EOB be requested to ratify this action at its next meeting.
Respectfully submitted
Executive Director
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 15, 1968
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOT ICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
The regular monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
MONDAY, MAY 20 4:00 P.M.
EOB OFFICE (932 West Owens)
AGENDA
(1)
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1968.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 1, 1968.
(2)
STATUS OF DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION AS THE CAA FOR CLARK COUNTY.
(3)
STATUS OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE HEARING FOR FORMER MANPOWER DIRECTOR.
A.
Copy of letter from 0.1. denying hearing as directed by EOB (enclosed).
B.
Information from Regional Office regarding denial.
(4)
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS (enclosed).
A.
To establish size of the Board at 39 Trustees.
B.
To establish size of the Executive Committee at 11 members.
C.
To designate public agencies to be represented.
D.
To designate private agencies and groups to be represented.
E.
To designate groups of poor other than Neighborhood Councils.
(5)
STATUS OF CEP PLANNING.
A.
Deadlines for submitting preliminary and final applications.
B.
Preliminary outline of components to be included in CEP Plan.
C.
Outline of preliminary plans for staffing central administrative component and for filling staff positions (Job Description enclosed for Manpower Services Administrator attached.)
D.
Status of Advisory Committee (See copy of functions, etc. enclosed)
E.
Necessity for adjustments in salary schedule.
(6)
STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR SUMMER PROGRAMS (See work programs enclosed).
(7)
OTHER.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 20, 1968 932 West Owens (EOB Office)
4;00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac White (Chairman), Thomas Wilson, Daisy Miller, Charles Spann, Emory Lockette.
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1968: Mr. Spann moved the minutes of the meeting of April 15 be approved. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 1, 1968: It was moved by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Spann, that the minutes of the May 1 meeting be approved. On the vote, motion carried.
STATUS OF DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION AS THE CAA FOR CLARK COUNTY: Mr. Cottrell advised there were no new developments in terms of any specific action; he noted, however, that Mr* Julius Campbell, Special Advisor to the County Commission, has met with a number of people in the anti-poverty programs. Mr. Cottrell said he has provided Mr. Campbell with a list of persons in the CEP Projects he might wish to contact. He advised he has received no requests for information from the county though the County has been advised of material which the EOB has avaiI able.
In answer to a question from Mr. Lockette as to when the County would begin to head the program, Mr. Cottrell reviewed the target dates stipulated by OEO. He advised that 45 days before they can apply to 0E0 to become the CAA, the County must notify each of the cities and the state. The Cities and State then have 30 days (included In the 45) in which to respond. After 45 days have elapsed the County can submit application to OEO ( which must be orior to July 1). It is anticipated the procedure of transition will take until February, 1969.
Mr. Spann asked if the Neighborhood Councils had submitted any petitions regarding the County’s designation of itself as the CAA. Mr. Cottrell advised the Councils had not taken any action.
STATUS OF OPERATION INDEPENDENCE HEARING FOR FORMER MANPOWER DIRECTOR:
Mr. Cottrell advised that a letter has been received from 01 (copies of which had been distributed previously to Executive Committee Members) stating there is no provision in 01 By-Laws that requires granting a hearing to probationary employees. Mr. Cottrell advised Regional Office has been notified of 01’s refusal to conduct a hearing.
Mr. Lockette asked if this situation couldn’t be solved without all the formalities, and suggested a committee be appointed to meet with the 01 Executive Committee in an attempt to come to some agreement on the situation.
Mr. Wilson noted that since Region is the Head Office, Operation Independence is not simply telling this Board but they are telling Region, therefore, Region should handle it. Chairman White said it is very important that EOB attempt to get some type of rapport in the community, and forcing a hearing will not solve the problem.
Mr. Lockette said there is going to have to be a compromise on both sides.
Mr. Wilson asked if a hearing were to be held by 01 and they did not rule in favor of Mr. Gant, would Mr. Gant have the right of further appeal to the EOB? Mr. Cottrell noted he would think any further appeal would be through the courts.
The Chairman said that assuming a Court would find in Mr. Gant’s favor and the Manpower Program had terminated, how would back pay be provided to Mr. Gant? Mr. Cottrell advised that requests could be made to OEO to meet this obligation.
Members discussed the advisability of appointing a Committee to meet with 01. Mr. Lockette then moved that a Committee be appointed by the Chairman to enter into discussions with Operation Independence in an effort to arrive at a solution on the 01 situation with regard to Mr. Gant. Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
Chairman White appointed a sub-committee of the Executive Committee present: Mr. Emory Lockette as Chairman, Mr. Charles Spann, Mr. Thomas Wilson, Mrs. Daisy Miller.
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS: Chairman White advised that members have been sent copies of the proposed resolutions which are: (A) to establish size of the Board at 39 Trustees;
(B)
To establish size of the Executive Committee at 11 members;
(C)
to designate public agencies to be represented; (D) to designate private agencies and groups to be represented; (E) to designate groups of poor other than Neighborhood Councils.
Following brief discussion, Mr. Spann moved that it be recommended to the Board that the resolutions be approved. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell advised that in the groups to be represented on the Board, Nevada State Employment Service was being added under Public Agencies; a Senior Citizens Group and a representative from the 4-mile Pittman area was being added under groups representing the poor; and under other segments of the community, the Greater Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Nevada Personnel Association, and the YMCA.
He noted that all of these except Senior Citizens and Four-Mi Ie-Pittman would be involved directly or indirectly in the CEP program.
STATUS OF CEP PLANNING: Mr. Cottrell introduced Mr. Roy Stephens from UTEP Industries, Inc., advising that EOB had entered into an agreement with UTEP for consultant services to be provided in putting together the CEP Proposal. He further advised an Advisory Committee to CEP has been formed and has met twice. This Committee has elected Mr. W.H. "Bob" Bailey as Chairman and Mr. George Stobie as Vice-Chairman. The Committee will be involved in future planning and will make recommendations to the Board regarding CEP.
-2-
Mr. Cottrell stated the Planning Grant is currently funded to June 1 though will probably be extended to July 1. It is hoped that the preliminary plan will be submitted by May 27, and the final definitive application with backup budgets for supportive services by June 7. Mr. Cottrell noted he was bringing this to the Executive Committee so that the preliminary proposal can be submitted next week prior to the Board Meeting.
Members concluded that no action was necessary on the part of the Executive Committee as the Board had previously authorized the staff to do whatever was necessary to get the program funded.
Mr. Cottrell explained further details of the program, noting CEP will involve approximately $135,000 in administrative costs and about 34 subcontracts. EOB will not receive funds until invoices are received from the subcontractors and sent to the Department of Labor. Mr. CottrelI said as soon as job descriptions are worked up he would like to take them to the Personnel Committee to determine where the positions should be placed in the salary schedule. Chairman stated this could be done.
STATUS OF APPLICATION FOR SUMMER PROGRAMS: Mr. Cottrell advised that approval had been received at the last Board Meeting to submit application for summer programs; however, notification was later received prohibiting job programs which would compete with NYC. Therefore CAA’s cannot fund summer ’’Jobs for Youth” programs, such as the local project operated last summer. He stated several jobs have been incorporated indirectly into the Camping program for Camp Aides.
Mr. Cottrell advised the second component of the summer program is a cultural enrichment program. He noted that 500 youngsters will attend camp under funding of the Summer Program and these slots have already been committed by the camping agencies. He said information was recieved today advising that summer programs have been through the reviewing process in 0E0 and funding can be expected shortly. Miss Faye Mullen has been employed as Coordinator on the Camping Program and will work on a part-time basis until the Manpower Program terminates and will then be employed fulI-time.
OTHER: Chairman White advised he would be resigning from the Board effective
June 30. He noted his reasons as being that he is preparing to take medical entrance examinations and will not have the time to give to this program which it deserves. He commented that he has enjoyed working with the Board and hopes the members will continue to do the good work they have done in the past in the poverty programs. Members expressed their regret of Mr. White’s resignation.
Mr. Cottrell advised the NYC Project Director, Mr. Doyle Longhurst, was resigning as of May 23. He said Mr. Leo Johnson will be appointed as Acting Director, and Mr. George Lawson promoted to Acting Senior Coordinator. No new staff members will be added.
Regarding lease of the Westside School, Mr. Cottrell stated that under the CEP program, EOB will be contracting with Operation Independence
-3-
to provide 100 slots for day care which will require the rest of the space in the Westside School. He said this means that the entire Westside School will be utilized by Ol with the exception of two rooms for the Neighborhood Service Centers.
Mr. Cottrell said that Mrs. Johnson has discussed with the City Manager the possibility of the City leasing the School directly to Operation Independence. He further noted that the reason the lease had been entered into with EOB was so that if there was more space available than 01 plan to utilize, EOB could subcontract with other anti-poverty programs who might profitably utilize the remaining space. He said that because 01 will not utilize almost 100$ of the space, the City has changed their thinking in leasing directly to Ol.
Mr. Lockette moved to recommend to the Board that the Executive Director be instructed to inform the City there would be no objection to leasing Westside School directly to Operation Independence providing that two rooms for Neighborhood Councils would be subleased to EOB. Sedonded by Mr. Spann, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell advised members that the Neighborhood Council project provides for in-kind contribution in the form of officers’ time spent at meetings and for space where the meetings are held. He said he has been informed by the Project Director that two of the Councils have stated they would not do anything to support EOB. In discussion, Mr. Lockette noted before any action is taken it should be officially explained to the Councils what is needed. Chairman White further suggested that if after this is done a stalemate is reached the problem can be brought back to the Executive Committee for recommendation.
Mr. Hoggard advised that Mrs. King had telephoned and requested that her apologies be expressed for not being in attendance due to personal business.
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Execut i ve Di rector
WFC:dm
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 23, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE, CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be he Id:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 29th
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS
1.
SEATING OF ANY NEW MEMBERS.
2.
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD APRIL 24, 1968 (ENCLOSED).
3.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: EOB AND NYC FOR APRIL (ENCLOSED
4.
) RESOLUTIONS REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS (ENCLOSED).
' ' (Recommended for adoption by action of the Executive Committee).
A.
To establish size of Board at 39 members.
B.
To establish size of Executive Committee at 11 members.
C.
To designate public agencies to be represented.
D.
To designate private agencies and groups to be represented.
E.
To designate groups of poor other than Neighborhood Councils.
5.
ELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
(Two vacancies - one each from Public Agencies, Private Agencies, , - and Represontattves of tho Pop-r).
ELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES ON NOMINATING COMMITTEE:
(Three vacancies - one each from Public Agencies, Private Agencies, and Representatives of the Poor).
RESIGNATIONS OF BOARD MEMBERS:
A.
Statement by the Chairman cP- £ A
B.
Letter from representative of the Ministerial Association
8. ’’ CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MRS. OPAL LEGARDY AS HEAD START COORDINATOR, v—(Recommended by action of the Executive Committee).
AGENDA continued
9J RECOMMEDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
A That the Executive Director inform the City of Las Vegas that the EOB Board has no objection to a direct lease between the City and Operation Independence for the Westside School, provided that 0.1. would provide two rooms for use by the EOB.
10.
STATUS OF APPEAL FROM FORMER MANPOWER DIRECTOR TO OPERATION INDEPENDENCE:
A.
Letter from Operation Independence refusing to take action directed by EOB at meeting of April 24 (Copy enclosed).
B.
Information from Regional Office regarding appeal (if available by time of meeting).
11.
OTHER ACTION ITEMS RECEIVED TOO LATE FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA.
• INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
12.
STATUS OF CEP APPLICATIONS:
Ai Preliminary proposal for use of resources (SEE Exhibits A,B, and C attached).
B.
Status of Advisory Committee
C.
Narrative description of aspects of the project. (Enclosed if completed, or will be available for distribution at the meeting).
13.
STATUS OF DESIGNATION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION AS THE CAA FOR CLARK COUNTY.
14.
STATUS OF SUMMER PROGRAM APPLICATIONS (WORK PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS ENCLOSED).
15.
RESIGNATION OF NYC PROJECT DIRECTOR, AND DESIGNATION OF ACTING DIRECTOR, ACTING SENIOR COUNSELOR-COORDINATOR.
16.
POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL HEAD START APPROPRIATIONS TO PRECLUDE REDUCTION OF DAY CARE PROJECT BY ADDITIONAL $19,505.
17.
POSSIBILITY OF AVAILABILITY OF EARMARKED FUNDS FOR NEW PROJECTS:
A.
Foster Grandparent Project (proposed by Mental Retardation group).
B.
Family Planning Programs.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY May 24, 1953
TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL Executive Director
SUBJECT; Information Items for Board Meeting - May 29, 1953
1.
Status of CEP Application:
A great deal has taken place since the last Board meeting. We are now hoping to have the final plan ready for submission to San Francisco on June 12. In the meantime we will ask for an extension of the planning period, presently funded only until June 1.
A tentative allocation of resources, and a plan to make use of all available resources of other projects, has been made. We have worked with consultants and the Manpower Representative, Mr. Orr, as well as representatives of the various agencies which will be involved in the program. An Advisory Committee (including representatives of business and industry, casino associations, labor groups, public agencies, and the Neighborhood Councils) has been formed and has met twice. It will meet again on June 10 to review the plan in its final stages.
We are presently advertising for some of the key staff members -- the CEP Director (called Manpower Services Administrator), and Accountant, and a contract specialist. Due to the fact that there are four sources of funding, and each source may involve from 3 to 12 contractors it is anticipated that the entire program will require some 30 to 40 sub-contracts.
We are enclosing some material which outlines the project as it has been developed so far:
EXHIBIT A - shows the services, contractor, preliminary estimate of cost, number to be served, and other projects outside of CEP which can provide the same service, as well as the total number of persons to be placed from CEP and non-CEP sources.
EXHIBIT B - shows the basis for the cost estimates contained in Exhibit A.
EXHIBIT C - is a resume of the segments or components to be administered by various agencies, and the cost, as well as the estimated number of contracts involved.
Also enclosed is a copy of the description of the functions of the Advisory Committee, and a copy of the Manpower Services Administrator job description.
-2-
Copies of the narrative description of the CEE plan will be distributed at the meeting Wednesday night.
2.
Status of Designation of the County as the CAA
We have had no further official contacts with the County, although Mr. Julius Campbell, the Special Consultant for Community Action Programs, has held a number of discussions and interviews with staff members, including the Executive Director, project directors, and others.
It is our understanding that notices have been sent to the Cities, as required by the CEP regulations, and that the County will be in a position to make formal application to be recognised as the caa after each City has had 30 days in which to make its reply or response. This means that the County could make application some time around the first of July, which is the time established as the deadline for applying if the County wishes to assume all the responsibilities of the CAA by February 1, 1959.
3.
Status of Summer Programs,
Enclosed are Work Program Descriptions for the two summer components. These have been reviewed and approved by regional office, and funding should be available very soon.
Due to a regulation that Summer funds cannot be used for NYC-type projects we could not set up a summer jobs program similar to the one operated last year. However, we have provided for the maximum number of jobs possible in the Summer Camping project. In addition, based on suggestions of youth involved in the planning, a Dramatic Arts Workshop will be funded to provide exposure to the stage, stage crafts, etc., and to permit young people to take an active role in writing, producing, and carrying out all aspects of a production-type show. The project will be carried out using Doolittle Recreation Center facilities.
4.
Resignation of NYC Project Director
Mr. Doyle Longhurst, who has been with the EOB and the NYC project since they began, has resigned effective May 22. He intends to enroll in college in California to continue his education.
Mr. Leo Johnson, who has been Senior Coordinator, has been named Acting Project Director, and Mr. George Lawson, Counselor- Coordinator, has been named Acting Senior Coordinator, pending a determination of the funding level of the NYC project after expiration of the current project on July 5. It appears that this project may be reduced in funding, since NYC funds are being used to provide funding for CEP projects throughout the nation. A final determination has not yet been made.
-3-
5.
Supplemental HEAD START Appropriation - MAYBE
You will recall that the Day Care budget request was reduced some $77,000 last December, leaving only the previous Federal fund level ($150,000). Just recently we received notice that all Full-Year HEAD START projects in the Region would be further reduced by 12.37.— which would*mean another cut of $19,505 locally and would require us to reduce services by at least another 20 children.
However, we have received word that Congress is considering a request for supplemental funds for HEAD START, and we are not (yet, at least) being required to make the $19,505 cut. Also, we may be aole to acquire the remaining $4,300 in versatile funds discussed at last meeting, through supplemental funds available at the end of the fiscal year, and if so these will be made available to the Day Care project.
5.
Possibility of Funds - Earmarked Projects
We have learned of possible sources of funds for "earmarked” projects -- Family Planning and Foster Grandparents. The former is apparently fully committed for the remainder of the fiscal year, but additional funds will be available after July 1.
The Mental Retardation Association has approached us concerning an application for a Foster Grandparent project. This is now jointly administered by the Administration on Aging, HEW, and by OEO. We are to receive information shortly on the possibility of runding in the near future. We will plan to work with the Association in preparing the application if funding appears feasible, with the Association to administer the program as delegate agency.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 24, 1968
TO: Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
RE: ACTION ITEMS FOR BOARD MEETING — WEDNESDAY, MAY 29
1.
Resolutions Required by Amendments to the By-Laws.
The By-Laws provide that a number of matters be stated as policy by Resolution. There are five resolutions to be considered which will accomplish the following:
A.
Set Board Membership at a total of 39 members (it is now 33).
B.
Establish the public agencies to be represented on the Board (adding the State Employment Service as a new member, since it will administer a large part of the CEP project).
C.
Establish the groups of the poor to be represented, adding a Senior Citizen’s Group and a representative from areas not now served by Neighborhood Counci Is.
D.
Establish the private groups and agencies to be represented, adding the Chamber of Commerce, Southern Nevada Personnel Association and Young Men's Christian Association.
E.
Set the size of the Executive Committee at 11 (no change).
2.
Election of two members to fill vacancies on the Executive Committee.
There are two vacancies on the Committee. The nine members now on the Committee are as follows:
Private Agencies Public Agencies Groups of the Poor
Chairman White Vice Chm. Lockette Mrs. King
Mr. Lawson Mr. Spann Mrs. Miller
Mr. Dondero Mrs. Williams
Mr. Thomas WiI son
One member should be selected from representatives of private groups and agencies, and one from public agencies to create the required tripartite membership, since the third category already represents more than one-third of the Committee membership.
3.
Election to fill vacancies on the Nominating Committee
There are three vacancies on the Nominating Committee. The six present members are as follows:
-2-
Private Agencies
Pub Ii c Agencies
Groups of the Poor
Father Sha I low *
Mr. Lawson*
* Terms expire June
V i ce-Cha irman Lockette** Mr. Woodrow WiIson**
Mrs. Daisy Mi Iler** Mr. Thomas Wilson**
30, 1968 ** Terms expire June 30, 1969
Since the Committee is presently equally balanced, it is necessary to elect one new member each from each of the categories of membership.
Enclosed is a current list of Board members. You may wish to look over the names of members before the meeting in regard to election of members to the Executive and Nominating Committees.
4.
Confirmation of Appointment of HEAD START Coordinator
The Executive Committee has recommended that the Board confirm the appointment of Mrs. Opal Legardy,c1801 ■ No.-"J" Street, Las.Vegas, as: HEAD'START COORDINATOR, effective May 13, 1968. Mrs. Legardy, who has been working as Employment Counselor in the Manpower Development Center, was selected as the best qualified among the fifteen applicants for this position. She has had two years of experience in a similar position in a HEAD START program in another state and comes highly recommended.
5.
Recommendation Regarding Westside School Lease.
The EOB has entered into a lease with the City for use of the old Westside School, and has subleased approximately half of it to Operation Independence. However, 0.1. will have use for the remaining half, due to (1) a plan whereby the Boys Clubs will take over the former Jefferson Center to house their activities, and (2) a need for an additional 100 or more Day Care positions under the Concentrated Employment Program.
In view of the fact that 0.1. will therefore be using the entire school (excluding two rooms which are needed as a Neighborhood Council office and a CEP Outreach Station), Operation Independence has approached the City in regard to a direct lease between the City and 0.1., with the stipulation that 0.1. sublease the two rooms to the EOB.
After reviewing the entire situation the Executive Committee has recommended that the Executive Director be directed to inform the City that EOB is agreeable to such an arrangement.
6.
Status of Appeal from Former Manpower Director to Operation Independence.
At the last Board Meeting a motion was made and passed to instruct 0.1. to grant a hearing to Mr. Gant within 10 days. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from O.I., dated May 1, 1968, declining to comply.
It is anticipated that further direction in this regard will be received from the Regional Office, prior to the Board Meeting.
M4MUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
May 29, 1968 Clark Co. Dist. Health Dept. Audit.
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), William Clark Power, Newton Tigner, Ferren Bunker, Clyde Newman, Pat Fahey, Charlotte Hill, Lee Walker, Fr. Charles Shallow, Iris Meinhover, Emory Lockette, Wendell Waite, Thomas Wilson, Daisy Miller, Charles Jones, Dorothy King, Dorothy Collins, Harvey Dondero, Peggy Smith
EXCUSED: Webster Butcher, Don Dawson, Stella Fleming, Ted Lawson, Paul Marshall, J. R. McPherson, Charles Spann, Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson, Fred French,
UNEXCUSED: Rev. Donald Clark, Victor Hall, George Keyes, Angel Nieto, Nancy Williams
Guests: Geraldine Schwartz, Addie Reid Blake, Anne Terry, Kathryn James, Robert James, George Gant, Julius Campbell, Mike Banovetz, Pat Perrott, Nan Butler, Sarah Ray, Madge Rugg, Evelyn Coleman, H.L. Ortega, Claudia Moorehouse, Henry T. Ornelas, Bob Stanovik, Rev. P. Walker, Tony McCormick, June Hartman
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, David Hoggard, Lamar McDaniel, Evelfn Mauldin, Sylvia Staples
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A quorum not being present the meeting convened for the purpose of discussing Informational items.
STATUS OF CEP APPLICATION: Mr. Cottrell advised that the preliminary draft of the CEP Application has just been distributed to Board Members. This application must be submitted to San Francisco, U.S. Dept, of Labor, by June 12. He said the three exhibits which were mailed to Board Members show the preliminary distribution of resources by (1) supportive services, (2) education, work experience, training services, and (3) administrative services. Mr. Cottrell emphasized the narrative description which had just been passed out is only a preliminary draft.
Mrs. Fahey asked who made the decision regarding agencies which are shown as the presumed contractors. Mr. Cottrell advised the EOB did; that under the National Agreement the community action agency is the presumed sponsor and the Employment Service is the presumed prime deliverer of manpower services. He said beyond these two agencies, the subcontractors involved vary from community to community.
Mrs. Fahey asked who makes the final decision on the subcontractors.
Mr. Cottrell advised that it is a mutual decision between the EOB Board and the Contractor and then must be approved by the Labor Department. Mrs. Fahey asked how one would go about making a request to be a subcontractor, and whether proposals from agencies had been requested. Mr. Cottrell explained proposals were not advertised for, but that many services were from the obvious sources that provide them. He also noted that presumed contractors are only preliminary at this point, and that if there is another agency that wishes to be considered they should make their request known to EOB.
In answer to a question from Mrs. Fahey as to who the members of the CEP Advisory Committee are, Mr. Cottrell named those agencies represented and noted this is also outlined in the narrative description.
Mrs. Fahey asked who designated the CEP target area. Mr. Cottrell pointed out that USDL guidelines for CEP will not permit inclusion of an entire community, but provide for only a small, concentrated area to be designated as the CEP target area. He said EOB had suggested that the Labor Department include other areas in Clark County but had been told it was pointless to ask; that the target area must be contiguous.
He advised the CEP target area includes Westside, the North Las Vegas Model City Area, and Kelso-Turner public housing. He said as to who made the determination, there were several groups involved in the discussions.
Mr. Lockette pointed out that it appears the Department of Labor took the regular target area and modified it to meet the guidelines of CEP. He questioned the establishment of priorities and asked why there is a differentiation made between unemployed male heads of household and unemployed female heads of household.
Mr. Cottrell explained the CAMPS (Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System) Committee had developed these priorities, after much discussion, as required by national directives. The reason fob the separation was the fact that many programs in the past have provided training for female heads of households but not for males, and thus there has been much difficulty providing meaningful training for male heads of household. Secondly, as far as CEP is concerned the concentration is to be on adult male heads of household because of the proportionately high rate of unemployment among male heads of households, as well as the high cost of supportive services for female heads of household. Mr. Cottrell noted this does not mean that all categories will not be served but the emphasis will be according to priority.
Father Shallow stated he would like the record to show that he feels Catholic Welfare has deliberately excluded as a contractor; that nobody had contacted the agency and he would like to know why. He added that this is discrimination.
Mrs. Fahey asked if the CEP application had been presented to the Neighborhood Councils. Mr. Cottrell advised the narrative material has been sent to each Neighborhood Council Chairman, CEP Advisory Committee representative, and Neighborhood Council Service Worker.
STATUS OF DESIGNATION OF COUNTY COMMISSION AS THE CAA: Mr. Cottrell stated that subsequent to the last Board Meeting, Mr. Julius Campbell has asked various persons to meet with him to discuss matters concerning EOB, its programs, etc. He advised that EOB has had no formal communication from the County Commission, but that the status of the situation at this time is that the four cities and the state have been notified and now have 30 days in which to respond to the proposal from the county. He said that formal application to the Regional Office to become the community action agency must be submitted by July 1 if the County is to become the CAA by February 1 of next year, which is the "target date."
-2-
STATUS OF SUMMER PROGRAM APPLICATIONS: Mr. Cottrell advised that at the last meeting the Hoard had authorized the submission of the summer programs for what was thought would be the same kind of programs which had been funded in the summer of 1967. Since then notification has been received that job programs competing with NYC would not be acceptable. For this reason a ’’Summer Jobs for Youth" program cannot be operated this year.
Mr. CottrelI added that the programs which have been submitted for 1968 are Camping with approximately ten camp aide jobs built in, and Cultural Enrichment, a component that has been suggested by the young people who were involved in the program planning. He noted that Camping will provide approximately 500 slots. Mr. Cottrell noted that Board member Mrs. Charlotte Hill has been working on the camping program on a volunteer basis and has greatly assisted in program development through liaison with all of the camping agencies.
RESIGNATION OF NYC PROJECT DIRECTOR AND DESIGNATION OF ACTING DIRECTOR, ACTING SENIOR COUNSELOR-COORDINATOR: Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Doyle Longhurst had resigned as NYC Project Director. He explained the current program is scheduled to end July 6 but notice has been received from the B.W.T.P. District Office to extend this program to September 30 at no additional federal cost. He noted that the preliminary course of action seems to Indicate the project will have to be cut from the original 85 slots back to 25 or 30 youth. Mr. Cottrell advised that the office would check further on the possibility of having the matter reviewed.
POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLEMENTAL HEAD START APPROPRIATIONS: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that last December the Day Care budget had to be reduced by approximately $75,000 in order to maintain funding at the same level as the previous year. On May 27 a further deobligation of $19,505 was received from 0E0. However, this was followed up with a phone call from Regional stating there was a possibility of supplemental funds for Head Start, and for this reason the $19,505 deobligation should be held in abeyance pending further information.
QUORUM DECLARED PRESENT: A Count was made of members present at this time, and a quorum declared present.
POSSIBILITY OF AVAILABILITY OF EARMARKED FUNDS FOR NEW PROJECTS:
Mr. Cottrell advised there had been a possibility of obtaining funding for a Foster Grandparents Program; however, the office has since been informed there are no funds available for Foster Grandparents during the remainder of the current fiscal year. He further advised the same situation exists on family planning funds, and that at the moment there are no funds available for either program.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: Chairman White advised there were two members To be seated: Mr. Clyde Newman to represent the Clark County District Health Department; and Mr. William Clark Power to represent the Clark County Juvenile Probation Department.
MINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 24: Mr. Waite advised a correction should be made on page 2 of the minutes for the Board Meeting of April 24, 1968. third paragraph under recommendations of the Executive Committee: On a division vote, motion carried with 18 yes and 2 no votes (rather than 20 no votes). With this correction noted, the Chair ruled that the minutes stand approved.
-3-
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PERIOD ENDING APRIL, 1968: Mr. Cottrell advised a financial statement could not be prepared for the NYC project because all costs were not closed out for the program ending April 14. He said the EOB financial statement is complete. Mr. Waite moved to approve the financial statement for EOB as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion carri ed.
RESOLUTIONS REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS: Mr. Cottrell advised the Executive Committee is recommending that the Board adopt five resolutions which have been mailed to each member and which will accomplish the following: (1) establish size of Board at 39 members; (2) establish size of Executive Committee at 11 members; (3) designate public agencies to be represented; (4) designate private agencies and groups to be represented; (5) designate groups ol poor other than Neighborhood Councils. Mr. Cottrell advised which new agencies were being suggested in the proposed resolutions. There was Board Member discussion on the resolutions. Mr. Waite asked which group Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson represents. Mr. Cottrell advised he was actually chosen by the Board because of being a member of the Legislature; however, the Governor has also indicated that he considers Assemblyman Wilson his personal representative on the Board.
Mr. Power asked who designated the agencies to be represented. Mr. Cottrell advised that several of the agencies being proposed are being recommended because they will be involved in CEP. Mr. Power further questioned if the Board could initiate action for an agency to be represented. Mr. Cottrell advised they could; keeping in mind the three-part structure required for CAA Boards.
Mr. Waite moved that the Board adopt the five resolutions and that the Chairman and the Executive Director be authorized to sign them. Seconded by Rev. Tigner.
Rev. Prentiss Walker was recognized by the Chair. Reverend Walker told Board Members they were being premature in taking any action at this time due to the fact that EOB will not exist after July 1. He said whatever the Board does now will be "torn up" by somebody else after July 1, and he would suggest this item be held in abeyance until after July 1 when the County assumes responsibility as the governing agency of the anti-poverty programs.
Chairman White thanked Rev. Walker for his remarks, adding that he would hope that through the transition period there will not be distrust and that those things that are worthwhile for the benefit of the people in the target area will be continued.
Returning to discussion on the motion to adopt the five resolutions, Mrs. Fahey asked Mr. Waite if he would accept an amendment to his motion to establish the size of the Board at 51 members rather than the 39 suggested in the resolution. Mr. Waite said he would accept the amendment but he would vote against it.
Mr. Cottrell explained that the By-Laws provide the maximum size of the Board to be 51 members, the maximum number that any Board may have under the 1967 Congressional amendments. However, the resolution would set the present membership at 39. He noted that if the Board wishes to designate other groups to be represented this figure can be changed by resolution.
-4-
On the vote on the motion made by Mr. Waite to adopt the five resolutions and authorize the Chairman and the Executive Director to sign them, the motion carried with two naye votes cast.
Mr. Lockette suggested, in view of the long agenda, that recognizing visitors be restricted to information items on the agenda unless it is some type of emergency. Mr. Lockette subsequently put his suggestion in the form of a motion. Motion seconded by Rev. Tigner and carried with two naye votes.
ELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Chairman White advised that two vacancies presently existed on the Executive Committee. Mrs. Fahey moved to table this item on the agenda until such time as full vacancies on the Board have been filled and all representatives have been seated. Seconded by Father Shallow, motion carried.
ELECTION TO FILL VACANCIES ON NOMINATING COMMITTEE: Mrs. Fahey moved this item might also be tabled until the full vacancies on the Board have been filled.
Mr. Cottrell pointed out that it would be desirable to have a full Nominating Committee membership as this Committee will be required to bring in a Slate of Officers for election at the June annual meeting.
Following brief discussion, the Chairman ruled the motion had been lost for lack of a second.
It was pointed out that three vacancies existed, and to comply with the three-part structure of all committees of the Board, it would be necessary to elect one person from the public agencies segment, one from the private agencies segment, and one from the representatives of the poor segment.
Nominations were opened for the representative from public agencies.
Mr. Lockette nominated Dr. Paul Marshall; Mrs. Fahey nominated
Mrs. Iris Meinhover; Mr. Newman nominated Councilman Wendell Waite;
Mrs. Miller nominated Mr. Harvey Dondero.
Mr. Bunker moved that nominations be closed. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
The vote was taken by secret ballot. After tabulation the Chairman declared Councilman Wendell Waite was elected as a member of the Norn i nat i ng Comm i ttee.
Nominations were open for a representative from private agencies.
Mr. Waite nominated Mr. Ferren Bunker; Mrs. Miller nominated Mrs. Hill;
Mr. Bunker nominated Rev. Tigner.
Mr. Lockette moved that nominations close following three nominations. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
On a secret ballot vote, Rev. Tigner was chosen as a member of the Nominating Committee.
Nominations were open for a member from the segment of representatives of the poor. Mr. Lockette nominated Mr. Victor Hall; Mrs. King nominated Mr. Charles Jones; Mr. Jones nominated Mrs. Dorothy King. Mr. Wilson moved that nominations be closed. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
-5-
On a secret ballot vote, the vote was tied between two members. The Chairman cast a vote to break the tie. Mr. Jones was declared as a member of the Nominating Committee.
RESIGNATIONS OF BOARD MEMBERS: Chairman White advised the membership that he is resigning from the Board effective June 30. He said some of his reasons are personal though the primary reason is that he Is preparing to take examinations for entrance into medical school and thus will be auditing courses at the University. Chairman White said he did not feel he would have the time that this Board and the people in the programs deserve. He said he has enjoyed serving on the Board and as Chairman and he would hope the Board will continue to "hash out" ideas and do the things they felt to be right for the community.
The Chairman advised that Rev. Melvin Pekrul had submitted a letter of resignation from the Board stating he would not be able to continue serving because of a conflict with another meeting date.
Mr. Dondero moved that the resignations of Chairman White and Rev. Pekrul be accepted. Seconded by Father Shallow, motion carried.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MRS. OPAL LEGARDY AS HEAD START COORDINATOR: The Chairman advised that the Executive Committee has made recommendation to the Board that the appointment of Mrs. Opal Leqardy as Head Start Coordinator on the EOB staff be confirmed. It was moved by Mrs. Fahey and seconded by Father Shallow that Mrs. Legardy’s appointment be ratified by the Board. On the vote, motion carried.
Mrs. Legardy was present and was introduced to the Board. She thanked members for the confirmation of her appointment and said she would work to the best of her ability to represent EOB and Head Start.
WESTSIDE SCHOOL LEASE BETWEEN 01 AND CITY OF LAS VEGAS: The Chairman advised that the Executive Committee is recommending that the Executive Director be authorized to inform the City of Las Vegas that the EOB has no objection to a direct lease between the City and Operation Independence for the Westside School, provided that 0.1. would reserve two rooms for use by the EOB.
Mr. Dondero moved that the recommendation of the Executive Committee be accepted regarding the Westside School lease. Motion seconded by Mr. Wilson.
Mrs. Fahey asked the reason for the direct lease. Chairman White explained that EOB had previously been asked by the City to serve as the umbrella agency in the lease so that other agencies could utilize space not needed by 0.1. However, since that time it has been determined that 0.1. will utilize all of the space in the building with the exception of two offices to be used by the Neighborhood Councils.
Mrs. Fahey asked who petitioned whom for a direct lease. Mr. Cottrell reviewed the background further, advising that if the Boy’s Club takes
-6-
Jefferson Center then 01 Day Care Center will move into half of Westside School, and the other half will be utilized for the day care program under CEP. Mr. Cottrell advised the purpose of EOB being the lessee was to make space available to other organizations; however, since 01 will now utilize all of the building with the exception of the two rooms, Operation Independence went to the City and requested a direct lease.
On the vote on the motion regarding the Executive Committee’s recommendation, motion carried with two naye votes.
STATUS OF APPEAL FROM FORMER MANPOWER DIRECTOR TO OPERATION INDEPENDENCE: Chairman White advised that Board Members have been mailed a copy of the letter from Operation Independence refusing to take action directed by EOB.
A second letter from Regional Office directing that a hearing be held for Mr. Gant, was passed out to Board Members.
The Chairman requested the pleasure of the Board on this matter.
Mr. Walker asked what Regional Office meant by the statement that "The position taken by the grantee in the case of Mr. Gant is less than acceptable." Mr. Cottrell advised this probably refers to the amount of time which has lapsed since a hearing was requested by Mr. Gant.
Chairman White advised that at the last Executive Committee meeting a committee of four had been appointed to contact the Operation Independence Board Chairman to set up a meeting in an effort to reach an agreement in the situation. He said this meeting had been called for Tuesday evening, and he would suggest the Board postpone any action until it is determined what can be worked out by the Committee.
Mr. Jones asked if the EOB wasn’t responsible for actions of delegate agencies. The Chairman noted that EOB is responsible.
Mrs. Fahey moved that the EOB comply with Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the letter as follows:
(1)
There will be a hearing; you should conduct the hearing or have it conducted by the agency involved. This hearing shall include but not be limited to:
a.
Mr. Gant’s claim of unfair -treatment in his dismissal.
b.
Status of Mr. Gant’s employment after eight months on the job.
c.
Reliability of the minutes taken at the meeting when Mr. Gant was dismissed by the Operation Independence Board.
d.
The reliability of all other minutes taken involving Mr. Gant’s dismissal.
(2)
Compensate (pay) Mr. Gant’s salary from the time of his dismissal to the date of his employment with the concentrated employment program.
(3)
Revise your personnel practices and policies and those of the delegate agencies whereas its provisions will assure that the language of CAP Memo 23A is adhered to the letter.
-7-
(4)
Regional Office will be notified of the date and time of the hearing whereas to allow for Regional representation."
Motion seconded by Mr. Jones.
Mr. Walker suggested further investigation of Item No. 2 which states that salary will be compensated. He questioned whether Regional was directing that salary be compensated irrespective of the findings of a hearing.
Mr. Cottrell noted that Regional felt there should have been a hearing and pending the outcome of a hearing, the person should be on a paid status. Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Gant had been previously paid by Operation Independence for all except six days prior to the time he was employed by the CEP planning program.
Mr. Lockette suggested the motion may be out of order inasmuch as Item No. 2 could not be carried out until there was a hearing and final determination made. Chairman White asked Mr. Walker for a ruling on the motion. Mr. Walker said he did not think the motion was out of order but he did think the hearing should be held before taking action on Item 2.
There was discussion on whether Mr. Gant had ever been granted a hearing. Mr. Power referred to Operation Independence’s letter stating that the reason a hearing was not granted was that Mr. Gant was a probationary employee. He asked if Mr. Gant’s probationary period had been extended.
Policies of various other organizations on probationary periods was discussed. Mr. Jones pointed out that the federal government has a policy that when the probationary period has been exceeded without dismissal, the employee is automatically considered to be permanent.
Mr. Wilson noted that if EOB is going to do what Region has directed there is no alternative but to conduct the hearing or to see that Operation Independence conducts it.
The question was called for. On the motion made by Mrs. Fahey that the EOB comply with Items 1, 2, 3, and 4, motion carried unanimously.
There was discussion regarding the Committee which had been appointed to work with Operation Independence on the grievance of Mr. Gant.
Mrs. Fahey pointed out that the Committee could be used to work with delegate agencies to assure that contracts are lived up to; to direct the delegate agency to have the hearing or end its contract and give up delegate agency status in the manpower project. Mr. Lockette said he no longer saw any need for the committee which had been appointed for the purpose of informally approaching Ol’s Board in an effort to arrive at a compromise to be reported back to the Executive Committee.
Following this discussion, Chairman White ruled the Committee to be dissolved.
-8-
Mrs. Miller noted Mrs. Fahey had made a statement that if Operation Independence does not comply, their delegate agency status should be taken away. She said she remembers when there was another delegate agency that did not comply, and she questioned why there should be one set of rules for one agency and a different set of rules for another organi zation.
Mrs. Fahey pointed out she only wanted to emphasize that a contract does exist; that when the EOB specifically directs a delegate agency to do something and the agency refuses, this is a breach of contract.
Mr. Waite moved that the Executive Di rector work out a date at the earliest convenience of all Board Members for this hearing to be held by the EOB and that all participants be notified to be present with pertinent information. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried, with two naye votes.
Mr. Wilson stated that this Board should not be obligated to do Ol's dirty work, and that this Board should demand that Operation Independence conduct its own hearing.
Mr. Lockette noted that the Board has Just voted to conduct the hearing itself, yet this Board does not have records or facts and said "you can’t call individuals without having facts."
Chairman White pointed out it was now important to decide on an acceptable date for the hearing to be held. Mr. Walker suggested Wednesday, June 19, at 8:00 P.M. This time and date was concurred in by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
7
W.F. COTTRELL Execut i ve Di rector
WFC:dm
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPOfcTUtfrrY BOARD OF"CLARTCOUNIT
June IO, <968 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices (932 West Owens) Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Harvey Dondero, Charles Spann, Daisy Miller, Thomas WlIson, Emory Lockette
Staff: W. F. COTTRELL, Sylvia Staples
DISCUSSION OF FORMAT, CONTENT, ETC. OF HEARING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19: Discussion opened on whether the hearing should be open or closed. Mr. Spann noted he believed it was customary that all hearings must be open to the public except in regard to personnel matters.
Chairman White said although personnel matters could be conducted in a closed session, due to the interest of the community in this matter he would suggest that the hearing initially be open and if problems
■» arise it could be changed to a closed meeting.
Mr. Dondero said it was sometimes the prerogative of the individual concerned as to whether the hearing should be open or closed.
Mr. Gant’s preference was checked and he stated he would prefer an open hearing if at all possible. Mr. Dondero noted that in a open hearing there would have to be limitation as to who is heard, otherwise the Board would not reach its objective.
It was determined that it was the concensus of the Committee that the hearing should begin as an open session.
Chairman White advised that a letter has also been received from Mrs. Katharine James, who has requested that due to similarities of termination, she also be permitted a hearing by the EOB at the same time as Mr. Gant’s hearing.
Mr. Cottrell pointed out that the attitude of Operation Independence may be different at this time, since Regional Office has now ruled that when there has been a claim of unfair treatment from any employee the agency must grant a hearing whether the employee is permanent or probationary.
Chairman White read the letter from Mrs. James.to.the EOB and requested the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Mr. Wilson said he would be in favor of giving this back to 01, noting it is their responsibility primarily and they should carry through. He then moved that the Executive Committee refer the letter of Mrs. James to the Operation Independence Board with the instructions that Operation Independence grant her a hearing. Seconded by Mr. Spann, motion carried.
Returning to discussion of the format for the hearing to be held for Mr. Gant, Mr. Dondero •said this should remain a hearing and not turn into a trial, and thus It might be well to work out the format with the attorney on the Board.
-I-
Mr. Spann asked whether it was up to Operation Independence to show cause why Mr. Gant was dismissed, or whether it was Mr. Gant’s burden to show that he had been unjustly dismissed. He said this may be a matter of law, and suggested that it be checked with Mr. Lee Walker. The letter from OEO was reviewed with members taking particular note of what EOB was being directed to do. It was the concensus of members that it was now EOB's responsibility to determine the facts in the case and not ju^t to determine whether or not Mr. Gant should be granted a hearing by 01.
Mr. Cottrell requested direction for the staff as to who should be requested to appear, and what the Committee expected from the staff in preparing for the hearing.
Mr. Spann asked if funding would be available to employ an attorney for the,purpose of structuring the format of the hearing and advising the Chairman as to It’s conduct. Mr. Cottrell said he would be in Regional Offic- the following day and would request a ruling as to whether this would be an allowable cost.
Mr. Spann moved that the Executive Director, during his time in San Francisco, make an inquiry as to whether or not funds could be made available to retain an attorney to assist this board in properly conducting a hearing. Seconded by Mr. Dondero.
In answer to a question from Mr. Dondero as to whether It would be possible for Regional Office to sond ar. attorney, Mr. Cottrell said he did not think Regional had sufficient staff time to do this.
Mrs. Miller stated that if there is an attorney for EOB, Operation Independence should also be represented. Committee members discussed this, and it was the concensus of members that the attorney would not be representing EOB and would not have a vote but would only be employed in the capacity of advising as to the conduct of the hearing and making rulings as to what is pertinent in the hearing.
On the vote on the motion made ^y Mr. Spann, motion carried, with one naye vote cast. Mr. Cottrell asked who should select the attorney in the event that Regional Office approved the expenditure. Mr. Lockette asked where the Board would be in the event the EOB found in favor of Mr. Gant and Operation Independence did not concur. He asked if Regional Office has gone this far, would it not have been simpler for Region to make the final determination? Ho questioned under what authority Regional Office took money designated to a program and directed that the individual concerned be compensated.
Regarding selection of an attorney, Mr. Dondero noted that in the event Regional authorizes this it would seem that Lee Walker would be the logical attorney. The problems of employing a Board Member were discussed. Mr. Cottrell advised I hat guidelines appear to permit payment of a maximum of $200 to a Board member with any twelve-month period for services or goods. He said that he would seek confirmation of this from the Regional Office.
There was discussion on postponing action so that the matter could be taken to the full Board; however, Mr. Cottrell advised that Region’s feeling is that this matter has dragged on too long already. Mr. Wilson asked if Executive Committee could make a decision to have an attorney employed. Mr. Cottrell advised the Executive Committee can take emergency action, but such action requires ratification later by the Board.
The concensus regarding employing an attorney was that Attorney Lee Walker should first be contacted +o determine if he would be interested; and if he is not, a request should be made that Mr. Walker recommend another attorney whom the EOB can contact.
Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Director check with Regional 0E0 to secure answers to questions raised at this meeting and if favorable response is received to allow employing an attorney, the Executive Director then proceed to contact Mr. Walker. Further if Mr. Walker is not willing to accept this duty, that he be requested to suggest another attorney. Motion seconded by Mr. Wilson.
In discussion, Mr. Dondero said he hoped it is clear that the attorney is simply a legal advisor to tell the Board if the bounds of a hearing are being overstepped. Mr. Lockette and Mr. Wilson accepted Mr. Dondero’s suggestion as an amendment to the motion.
On the vote on the motion as amended, motion carried.
The directions of the Committee to the staff were to invite the entire Operation Independence Board to the hearing, and the Board itself could determine who would be present. Mr. Cottrell asked what should be requested in the way of records. Mr. Spann noted that if Operation Independence wished to defend their case, they would bring their justification.
Mr. Dondero said the only records he thought would be needed were the minutes of meetings at which Mr. Gant’s status was discussed or? actions taken*.
There was discussion on whether EOB should notify 01 Board Members of the hearing or whether notification should come through the 01 office staff. Chairman White ruled that if 01 wished to furnish the names and addresses of current 01 members, notification could be sent out through EOB.
Mrs. Miller asked if Operation Independence would be informed that an attorney would be present to render advice to the Board. Chairman White advised they would be informed in the notice of meeting to be sent out.
CONSIDERATION OF REVISED CEP PLAN: Mr. Cottrell advised it was necessary that he go to San Francisco tonight with the CEP application and it therefore would not be possible to present it to the entire Board beforehand. Committee members were furnished copies of revised Exhibits, A, B, and C, and Mr. Cottrell pointed out the revisions therein.
He said he was asking the Executive Committee to authorize him to submit the CEP application to San Francisco. He advised the proposal
-3-
is in accordance with guidelines, advice from consultants has been obtained, and the Advisory Committee has met three times and has reviewed i nformation.
Mr. Cottrell stated there is nothing that cannot be changed if the Board wants to change it later on. He said all material will later be reviewed by the Board and that specific contracts with contracting agencies will be submitted to the Board for their approval. He also advised the Executive Committee has been provided with copies of the central administrative staffing pattern which also has yet to be approved by the Board.
Mr. Cottrell said the salary figures incorporated in the CEP budgets are based on comparable salaries paid similar positions in other agencies and within the federal guidelines of the project. He noted, however, the act?on6S ac+ua,,y +o b® Pa,d b® those approved by the Board in subsequent
Mr. Lockette asked which program Nevada Catholic Welfare was being proposed as subcontractor for and asked what the amount of funding is. Mr. Cottrell advised a request had been received from Nevada Catholic Welfare to be considered to do the family counseling which has a.' budget of approximately $18,000.
Mr. Lockette expressed the opinion that when an agency is being considered to carry out a program or part of a program, that agency’s activities should be looked into to determine if it is capable of carrying out the proposal.
Mr. Cottrell said he would hope that subcontractors will be concerned with the people they are going to serve and not just being funded to carry out a function or service. He said there is no contract with any agency or organization yet; that the reason Catholic Welfare is designated in the application is that it is the only agency which has expressed an interest in providing family counseling services.
Committee members discussed approval of submission of the CEP application to San Francisco. Mr. Lockette asked what would prevent this material being submitted to the Labor Department without approval, due to the fact he would question approval from the Executive Committee insofar as the project effects the whole community.
Mr. Cottrell advised the Executive Committee is not being asked to approve any contract or final budget; that the full Board would be asked to approve specific contracts with specific agencies as they are worked up.
Mr. Dondero moved that the CEP application, including preliminary estimates of costs, be submitted. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY STAFFING PATTERN FOR CEP AND ADJUSTMENTS IN SALARY'LEVELS: Mr. Cottrell advised CEP positions have been incorporated into the salary schedule on a preliminary basis, based on relationship to ongoing projects and responsibilities of positions. He pointed out that the salary proposed for the Manpower Services Administrator is two ranges above the present salary for the Executive Director.
-4-
1+ was also pointed out that the preliminary CEP budget proposes that 25$ of the salaries for the Executive Director and the EOB Finance Officer be paid from CEP funds, inasmuch as a portion of their time will be devoted to the CEP. Mr. Cottrell noted that higher salary ranges are proposed for these two positions, because of the greatly increased responsibilities which will result from funding of the $2,087,000 CEP.
In further explanation of this request, it was noted that the position of Finance Officer is presently allocated to Salary Range 25, and has responsibility for approximately $900,000 in funding. Under CEP three additional persons will be added to the Finance Staff. Mr. Cottrell noted that he is proposing that the Finance Officer’s position be raised from Range 25 to Range 32, with 25$ of the new salary to paid from CEP funds and 75$ from 0E0 funds. He noted that the salary comparability provided to the Committee indicated that Range 32 was comparable to salaries paid to positions in the community with similar responsibilities and duties.
It was similarly noted that the salary comparability provided for the position of Executive Director indicated that Range 42 was comparable to the salaries paid to other Federal project directors in the state and the county. Mr. Cottrell noted that it was being recommended that 25$ of the new salary level be paid from CEP funds, and 75$ from 0E0 Conduct and Administration funds.
Mr. Dondero moved that the preliminary staffing pattern for CEP be referred to the Personnel Committee for consideration. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried. Mr. Cottrell noted that if positions are to be filled in July, as is required by the CEP time-table, job descriptions and salary determinations should be approved prior to that time.
(MR. SPANN WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING AT THIS POINT.)
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANTS FOR MANPOWER SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR (CEP DIRECTOR) Mr. Cottrell reviewed the situation regarding applicants, noting that the position was advertised for seven days each in the SUN and the REVIEW JOURNAL, twice in the VALLEY TIMES and the HENDERSON HOME NEWS, as we I I as in THE VOICE. He said the position has also been placed with the State Employment Service and the Manpower Center.
Twenty-five applications were received. However, only six persons met the basic qualifications and were interviewed. Of these, one had had experience as a counselor but had no adminic+rative exoerience. Another -had- had no administrative experience, and hgs been engaged in promotional work and managing bowling alleys. Neigher had any knowledge of manpower development programs.
For this reason only four applications were given further consideration. Mr. Cottrell distributed summaries of these four applications to the Committee members, as follows:
No. I - 39 years old.
MINIMUM SALARY
ACCEPTABLE: $12,000
Former Executive Director of a CAA in another area. Hrs coordinated a Carpenter's Apprenticeship program. Has considerable experience as a technical writer.
-5-
Helped with planning of Vocational-Technical Center. Has taught Vocational Carpentry and industrial Arts^ Five years experience as Adult Education Instructor.
Has 143 semester-hours of college work; industrial psychology major.
No. 2-38 years old.
Most professional experience in probation work. Previous work in securityy,as deputy sheriff, guard.
MINIMUM SALARY
ACCEPTABLE: $13,700
High school diploma, supplemented by college and university work in alcoholism, juvenile probation, narcotics control.
Has administered medium-sized staffs and probation and youth services programs.
N. 3-47 years old.
26 years service in U. S. Air Force; most service in management, administration, liaison, and personnel.
MINIMUM SALARY
ACCEPTABLE: $13,000
12 years in administration, including development and implementation of organizational structures and personnel programs; management and planning studies; planning, fiscal, personnel management programs.
Considerable experience in formulation and monitoring of budgets, evaluation of work flow, equipment, forms, methods and procedures.
Experience in organizing and administering training programs. Has served as Vice Commander, Tactical Fighter Weapons Center; Base Commander; faculty member, Armed Forces Staff College; U. N. Armistice Commission in Korea;
Public Relations Officer; Congressional Liaison Officer.
Two years of college, supplemented by U. S. Air Force Schools, Armed Forces Staff College, Command and Staff Col lege.
No. 4 - 51 years old.
20 years service in U. S. Army. Served as B'ataIlion Commander, national guard instructor, advisor to the
MINIMUM SALARY
ACCEPTABLE: $12,000
Army of the Republic of Korea, Professor of military science and tactics.
6 years experience in Employment Service, serving as counselor, special service officer, Assistant Manager, and Opportunity Center Manager.
4 years experience in Community Action Work. Including service on Executive Committee and as an officer of the Board.
B. A. Degree in social science, supplemented by graduate work (total of 154 hours of credit), and by attendance at various advanced military colleges.
Important aspects of the qualifications of the person to be employed were discussed. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Labor Department must give final approval on the person selected as Manpower Services Administrator.
-6-
It was noted for the record that the background summaries of Tn* did not reveal the name of the persons. Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Committee cast votes on the four applicants. Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
The five Executive Committee members present each cast their vote for Applicant No. 4. The Executive Di rector advised this applicant was Mr. Charles Spann who is presently the manager of the Opportunity Center.
One Committee Member withdrew the vote for Mr. Spann. Chairman White advised recommendation would be made to the Board that Mr. Charles Spann be ratified for the position of Manpower Services Administrator.
Respectfully submitted,
(J.
W. F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
WFC:sj
-7-
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY 932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nev.
MEMORANDUM
June 4, 1968
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN ■
RE: NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
A special meeting of the Executive Committee has been called.
This meeting will be held:
MONDAY, JUNE 10
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens) - ■' f
AGENDA
'• Discussion of Format, content, etc. of hearing to be held on Wednesday, June 19.
2.
Consideration of revised CEP plans (application must be submitted to Regional Manpower Director on Wednesday, June 12).
3.
Consideration of preliminary staffing pattern for CEP and adjustments in salary levels for positions affected by CEP responsibilities. ij
4.
Consideration of applicants for CEP Director (Manpower Services Administrator). J
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNl'TY BOARD OF" CLAT^T COUNIT
June IO, 1968 3:30 P.M.
EOB Offices (932 West Owens) Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (CHAIRMAN), Harvey Dondero, Charles Spann, Daisy Miller, Thomas Wilson, Emory Lockette
Staff: W. F. COTTRELL, Sylvia Staples
DISCUSSION OF FORMAT, CONTENT, ETC. OF HEARING TO BE HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19: Discussion opened on whether the hearing should be open or closed. Mr. Spann noted he believed it was customary that all hearings must be open to the public except in regard to personnel matters.
Chairman White said although personnel matters could be conducted in a closed session, due to the interest of the community in this matter he would suggest that the hearing initially be open and if problems » arise it could be changed to a closed meeting.
Mr. Dondero said it was sometimes the prerogative of the individual concerned as to whether the hearing should be open or closed.
Mr. Gant's preference was checked and he stated he would prefer an open hearing if at all possible. Mr. Dondero noted that in a open hearing there would have to be limitation as to who is heard, otherwise the Board would not reach its objective.
It was determined that it was the concensus of the Committee that the hearing should begin as an open session.
Chairman White advised that a letter has also been received from Mrs. Katharine James, who has requested that due to similarities of termination, she also be permitted a hearing by the EOB at the same time as Mr. Gant’s hearing.
Mr. Cottrell pointed out that the attitude of Operation Independence may be different at this time, since Regional Office has now ruled that when there has been a claim of unfair treatment from any employee the agency must grant a hearing whether the employee is permanent or probationary.
Chairman White read the letter from Mrs. James.to.the EOB and- requested the recommendation of the Executive Committee. Mr. Wilson said he would be in favor of giving this back to 01, noting it is their responsibility primari ly and they should carry through. He then moved that the Executive Committee refer the letter of Mrs. James to the Operation Independence Board with the instructions that Operation Independence grant her a hearing. Seconded by Mr. Spann, motion carried.
Returning to discussion of the format for the hearing to be held for Mr. Gant, Mr. Dondero .said this should remain a hearing and not turn into a trial, and thus It might be well to work out the format with the attorney on the Board.
-I-
Mr. Spann asked whether it was up to Operatioh independence to show cause why Mr. Gant was dismissed, or whether it was Mr. Gant’s burden to show that he had been unjlistly dismissed. He said this may be a matter of law, and suggested that it be checked with Mr. Lee Walker. The letter from OEO was reviewed with members taking particular note of what EOB was being directed to do. It was the concensus of members that it was now EOB's responsibility to determine the facts in the case and not just to determine whether or not Mr. Gant should be granted a hearing by 01.
Mr. Cottrell requested direction for the staff as to who should be requested to appear, and what the Committee expected from the staff in preparing for the hearing.
Mr. Spann asked if funding would be available to employ an attorney for the purpose of structuring the format of the hearing and advising the Chairman as to it’s conduct. Mr. Cottrell said he would be in Regional Offic - the following day and would request a ruling as to whether this would be an allowable cost.
Mr. Spann moved that the Executive Director, during his time in San Francisco, make an inquiry as to whether or not funds could be made available to retain an attorney to assist this board in properly conducting a hearing. Seconded by Mr. Dondero.
In answer to a question from Mr. Dondero as to whether it would be possible for Regional Office to send an attorney, Mr. Cottrell said he did not think Regional had sufficient staff time to do this.
Mrs. Miller stated that if there is an attorney for EOB, Operation Independence should also be represented. Committee members discussed this, and it was the concensus of members that the attorney would not be representing EOB and would not have a vote but would only be employed in the capacity of advising as to the conduct of the hearing and making rulings as to what is pertinent in the hearing.
On the vote on the motion made py Mr. Spann, motion carried, with one naye vote cast. Mr. Cottrell asked who should select the attorney in the event that Regional Office approved the expenditure. Mr. Lockette asked where the Board would be in the event the EOB found in favor of Mr. Gant and Operation Independence did not concur. He asked if Regional Office has gone this far, would it not have been simpler for Region to make the final determination? He questioned under what authority Regional Office took money designated to a program and directed that the individual concerned be compensated.
Regarding selection of an attorney, Mr. Dondero noted that in the event Regional authorizes this it would seem that Lee Walker would be the logical attorney. The problems of employing a Board Member were discussed. Mr. Cottrell advised that guidelines appear to permit payment of a maximum of $200 to a Board member with any twelve-month period for services or goods. He said that he would seek confirmation of this from the Regional Office.
There was discussion on postponing action so that the matter could be taken to the full Board; however, Mr. Cottrell advised that Region’s feeling is that this matter has dragged on too long already. Mr. Wilson asked if Executive Committee could make a decision to have an attorney employed. Mr. Cottrell advised the Executive Committee can take emergency action, but such action requires ratification later by the Board.
The concensus regarding employing an attorney was that Attorney Lee Walker should first be contacted +o determine if he would be interested; and if he is not, a request should be made that Mr. Walker recommend another attorney whom the EOB can contact.
Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Director check with Regional 0E0 to secure answers to questions raised at this meeting and if favorable response is received to allow employing an attorney, the Executive Director then proceed to contact Mr. Walker. Further if Mr. Walker is not willing to accept this duty, that he be requested to suggest another attorney. Motion seconded by Mr. Wilson.
In discussion, Mr. Dondero said he hoped it is clear that the attorney is simply a legal advisor to tell the Board if the bounds of a hearing are being overstepped. Mr. Lockette and Mr. Wilson accepted Mr. Dondero’s suggestion as an amendment to the motion.
On the vote on the motion as amended, motion carried.
The directions of the Committee to the staff were to invite the entire Operation Independence Board to the hearing, and the Board itself could determine who would be present. Mr. Cottrell asked what should be requested in the way of records. Mr. Spann noted that if Operation Independence wished to defend their case, they would bring their justification.
Mr. Dondero said the only records he thought would be needed were the minutes of meetings at which Mr. Gant’s status was discussed or? actions taken'.
There was discussion on whether EOB should notify 01 Board Members of the hearing or whether notification should come through the 01 office staff. Chairman White ruled that if 01 wished to furnish the names and addresses of current 01 members, notification could be sent out through EOB.
Mrs. Miller asked if Operation Independence would be informed that an attorney would be present to render advice to the Board. Chairman White advised they would be informed in the notice of meeting to be sent out.
CONSIDERATION OF REVISED CEP PLAN: Mr. Cottrell advised it was necessary that he go to San Francisco tonight with the CEP application and it therefore would not be possible to present it to the entire Board beforehand. Committee members were furnished copies of revised Exhibits, A, B, and C, and Mr. Cottrell pointed out the revisions therein.
He said he was asking the Executive Committee to authorize him to submit the CEP application to San Francisco. He advised the proposal
-3-
is in accordance with guidelines, advice from consultants has been obtained, and the Advisory Committee has met three times and has reviewed information.
Mr. Cottrell stated there is nothing that cannot be changed if the Board wants to change it later on. He said all material will later be reviewed by the Board arid that specific contracts with contracting agencies will be submitted to the Board for their approval. He also advised the Executive Committee has been provided with copies of the central administrative staffing pattern which also has yet to be approved by the Board.
Mr. Cottrell said the salary figures incorporated in the CEP budgets are based on comparable salaries paid similar positions in other agencies and within the federal guidelines of the project. He noted, however, the actFon65 ac+ua,ly +o bQ Pa,d b® these approved by the Board in subsequent
Mr. Lockette asked which program Nevada Catholic Welfare was being proposed as subcontractor for and asked what the amount of funding is. Mr. Cottrell advised a request had been received from Nevada Catholic Welfare to be considered to do the family counseling which has a.’ budget of approximately $18,000.
Mr. Lockette expressed the opinion that when an agency is being considered to carry out a program or part of a program, that agency’s activities should be looked into to determine if it is capable of carrying out the proposal.
Mr. Cottrell said he would hope that subcontractors will be concerned with the people they are going to serve and not just being funded to carry out a function or service. He said there is no contract with any agency or organization yet; that the reason Catholic Welfare is designated in the application is that it is the only agency which has expressed an interest in providing family counseling services.
Committee members discussed approval of submission of the CEP application to San Francisco. Mr. Lockette asked what would prevent this material being submitted to the Labor Department without approval, due to the fact he would question approval from the Executive Committee insofar as the project effects the whole community.
Mr. Cottrell advised the Executive Committee is not being asked to approve any contract or final budget; that the full Board would be asked to approve specific contracts with specific agencies as they are worked up.
Mr. Dondero moved that the CEP application, including preliminary estimates of costs, be submitted. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY STAFFING PATTERN FOR CEP AND ADJUSTMENTS IN SALARY'LEVELS: Mr. Cottrell advised CEP positions have been incorporated into the salary schedule on a preliminary basis, based on relationship to ongoing projects and responsibilities of positions. He pointed out that the salary proposed for the Manpower Services Administrator is two ranges above the present salary for the Executive Director.
-4-
• It was also pointed out that the preliminary CEP budget proposes that
25? of the salaries for the Executive Director and the EOB Finance Officer be paid from CEP funds, inasmuch as a portion of their time will be devoted to the CEP. Mr. Cottrell noted that higher salary ranges are proposed for these two positions, because of the greatly increased responsibilities which will result from funding of the $2,087,000 CEP.
In further explanation of this request, It was noted that the position of Finance Officer is presently allocated to-Salary Range 25, and has responsibility for approximately $900,000 in funding. Under CEP three additional persons will be added to the Finance Staff. Mr. Cottrell noted that he is proposing that the Finance Officer’s position be raised from Range 25 to Range 32, with 25? of the new salary to paid from CEP funds and 75? from OEO funds. He noted that the salary comparability provided to the Committee indicated that Range 32 was comparable to salaries paid to positions in the community with similar responsibilities and duties.
It was similarly noted that the salary comparability provided for the position of Executive Director indicated that Range 42 was comparable to the salaries paid to other Federal project directors in the state and the county. Mr. Cottrell noted that it was being recommended that 25? of the new salary level be paid from CEP funds, and 75? from OEO Conduct and Administration funds.
Mr. Dondero moved that the preliminary staffing pattern for CEP be referred to the Personnel Committee for consideration. Seconded by Mr. Lockette, motion carried. Mr. Cottrell noted that if positions are to be filled in July, as is required by the CEP time-table, job descriptions and salary determinations should be approved prior to that time.
(MR. SPANN WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING AT THIS POINT.)
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICANTS FOR MANPOWER SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR (CEP DIRECTOR) Mr. Cot+re 11 reviewed the situation regarding applicants, noting that the position was advertised for seven days each in the SUN and the REVIEW JOURNAL, twice in the VALLEY TIMES and the HENDERSON HOME NEWS, as well as in THE VOICE. He said the position has also been placed with the State Employment Service and the Manpower Center.
Twenty-five applications were received. However, only six persons met the basic qualifications and were interviewed. Of these, one had had experience as a counselor but had no ariminic+rative exoerience. Another . .had- had no administrative experience, and h§s been engaged in promotional work and managing bowling alleys. Neigher had any knowledge of manpower development programs.
For this reason only four applications were given further consideration. Mr. Cottrell distributed summaries of these four applications to the Committee members, as follows:
No. I - 39 years old. Former Executive Director of a CAA in another area. ‘ -Hrs coordinated a Carpenter’s Apprenticeship program. MINIMUM SALARY Has considerable experience as a technical writer.
ACCEPTABLE: $12,000
-5-
No. 2-38 years old.
MINIMUM SALARY
ACCEPTABLE: $13,700
N. 3-47 years old.
MINIMUM SALARY ACCEPTABLE: $13,000
No. 4-51 years old.
MINIMUM SALARY
ACCEPTABLE: $12,000
Helped with planning of VocationaI-TechnicaI Center.
Has taught Vocational Carpentry and industrial Arts^ Five years experience as Adult Education Instructor.
Has 143 semester-hours of college work; industrial psychology major.
Most professional experience in probation work. Previous work in securityy,as deputy sheriff, guard.
High school diploma, supplemented by college and university work in alcoholism, juvenile probation, narcotics control.
Has administered medium-sized staffs and probation and youth services programs.
26 years service in U. S. Air Force; most service in management, administration, liaison, and personnel.
12 years in administration, including development and implementation of organizational structures and personnel programs; management and planning studies; planning, fiscal, personnel management programs.
Considerable experience in formulation and monitoring of budgets, evaluation of work flow, equipment, forms, methods and procedures.
Experience in organizing and administering training programs.
Has served as Vice Commander, Tactical Fighter Weapons Center; Base Commander; faculty member, Armed Forces Staff College; U. N. Armistice Commission in Korea; Public Relations Officer; Congressional Liaison Officer.
Two years of college, supplemented by U. S. Air Force Schools, Armed Forces Staff College, Command and Staff Col lege.
20 years service in U. S. Army. Served asB'atallion Commander, national guard instructor, advisor to the Army of the Republic of Korea, Professor of military science and tactics.
6 years experience in Employment Service, serving as counselor, special service officer, Assistant Manager, and Opportunity Center Manager.
4 years experience in Community Action Work. Including service on Executive Committee and as an officer of the Board.
fe. A. Degree in social sciencd, supplemented by graduate work (total of 154 hours of credit), and by attendance at various advanced military colleges.
Important aspects of the qualifications of the person to be employed were discussed. Mr. Cottrell advised that the Labor Department must give final approval on the person selected as Manpower Services Administrator.
-6-
1+ was noted for the record that the background summaries of n.* did not reveal the name of the persons. Mr. Lockette moved that the Executive Committee cast votes on the four applicants. Seconded by Mrs. Miller, motion carried.
The five Executive Committee members present each cast their vote for Applicant No. 4. The Executive Director advised this applicant was Mr. Charles Spann who is presently the manager of the Opportunity Center.
One Committee Member withdrew the vote for Mr. Spann. Chairman White advised recommendation would be made to the Board that Mr. Charles Spann be ratified for the position of Manpower Services Administrator.
Respectfully submitted,
CJ.
W. F. COTTRELL Executive Director
WFC:sj
-7-
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
June 12, 1968
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1968
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
AGENDA
1.
Minutes of the meeting of May 20, 1968.
2.
Status of County Designation as CAA (information to be obtained on trip to San Francisco on June 13).
3.
Status of CEP Application to Labor Department (to be reviewed in San Francisco on June 13).
4.
Status of Preparation for Hearing on June 19 (information to be obtained on June 13).
5.
Discussion of failure of some Councils to provide non-Federal share documentation.
6.
Confirmation of appointments:
A.
Senior Accountant - Mr. Laudino B. Buen
B.
Special Summer Programs (short-term):
1.
Summer Program Coordinator - Miss Faye Mullen
2.
Theater Production Director - Mr. Edward Harris
3.
Theater Production Director - Mrs. Mary N. Bowen
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nevada
TO:
FROM:
RE:
June 13, 1968
Members of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County and of Operation Independence Board
ISAAC R. WHITE
CHAIRMAN
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
You are hereby notified and requested to attend a Special Meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County for the purpose of conducting a hearing regarding the following:
(1)
Mr. Gant’s claim of unfair treatment in his dismissal.
(2)
Status of Mr. Gant’s employment after eight months on the job.
(3)
Reliability of the minutes taken at the meeting when Mr. Gant was dismissed by the Operation Independence Board.
(4)
The reliability of all other minutes taken involving Mr. Gant’s dismissal.
The Special Meeting will be held:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT "BALLROOM" (Between Wings 3 and 4)
OEO has authorized the expenditure of funds to provide legal advice to the Board regarding procedures and questions which may arise in the conduct of a hearing. The Legal Advisor will not represent any party in the hearing but will be available only for the purpose of advising the Chairman and the Board in the conduct of the hearing.
MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
June 17, 1968 3:30 P. M.
EOB Offlees(932 W. Owens) Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Isaac R. White (Chairman), Ted Lawson, Harvey Dondero
Thomas Wilson, Charles Spann, Dorothy King GUEST: Lee Walker
STAFF: W. F. Cottrell, Sylvia Staples
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 20: There being no corrections, additions, or omissions, the Chair ruled the minutes to stand approved as presented.
STATUS OF COUNTY DESIGNATION OF CAA: Mr. Cottrell advised that the County District Attorney has ruled that under State Law the County does not have the authority to do all those things necessary to be a community action agency. Mr. Cottrell said he has reviewed with the District Attorney how the Clark County Commission first sponsored the E. 0. B. to be the community action agency. He also explained that the E. 0. B. does not derive its authority from the County but rather on the basis of the fact that it is incorporated under State Law and further from the fact that the Federal Government has recognized and funded E. 0. B. for the past 31 years. Mr. Cottrell told members that staff are continuing to do those things required for compliance under the Green Amendment, and if it turns out the County has no authority to become the CAA, as far as 0E0 is concerned the E. 0. B. will continue to function.
He said there has also been discussion that the County Commission may create another nonprofit corporation. Mr. Cottre I I noted that a newly - formed corporation must have all powers and authorities that a group must have to be recognized by 0E0. He said that to his knowledge, at the present time, there is no other-agency in Clark County that has all necessary powers and authorities and a Board constituted as it must be. Mr. Cottrell concluded that the EOB office hasn’t received anything official from the County or from 0E0.
STATUS OF CEP APPLICATION TO LABOR DEPARTMENT: Mr. Cottrell advised that three trips have been made to San Francisco. A review of the CEP application was held last Thursday. He noted that two of the six applicant cities in the Western Region had to be denied, which resulted in a contest of sorts between Fresno and Las Vegas. In the end result Las Vegas’ CEP was selected for funding, and a telegram has just been received that the Manpower Administrator has signed the contract. He said the total funded is $1,787,000 plus $300,000 which goes directly to Nevada Unemployment.
STATUS OF PREPARATION OF HEARING ON JUNE 19: Mr. Cottrell advised that he had had discussions with Regional 0E0, as instructed by the Executive Committee, to determine if an attorney could be employed
to advise the Board regarding conduct of the hearing for Mr. George Gant. He reported it has been determined that legal counsel could be hired, and hiring Mr. Walker who is a Board Member would not be in conflict providing that payment to him would be below $200.00. Mr. Cottrell Said Mr. Walker has been contacted and has agreed to act as legal advisor to the Board.
Mr. Walker outlined that the hearing should be as informal as possible. He stated that hearsay should not be permitted unless the Board feels it is reliable. He said Chairman White should probably direct questions and then allow Board Members to follow up with their questions. Committee Members discussed possible outcomes and the effects they might have. There was also discussion of the question of whether Mr. Gant’s employment was permanent or probationary.
Mr. Cottrell advised that 0E0 regulations require that any employee claiming unfair treatment must be given a hearing.
Mr. Walker said he would set out a format for the Chairman to follow.
DISCUSSION OF FAILURE OF SOME COUNCILS TO PROVIDE NON-FEDERAL SHARE DOCUMENTATION
Mr. Cottrell said last month, the Committee had directed that staff make sure that Councils are formally made aware of the necessity of documentation of nonfederal share for the Neighborhood Council Project. He advised that letters have been sent to Council Chairmen along with copies of budget explanations providing for nonfederal share. Mr. Cottrell explained that under the new reporting system it must be shown each month that nonfederal share is being taken in, and it must be reported the same as expenditures of federal funds. He advised the last report received is that two of the Councils have failed to provide their portion of nonfederal share.
Chairman White stated the EOB should insist that Councils take action in this matter; however, the Councils should also be given time to see if they will comply with the request of EOB.
CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS: Mr. Cottrell advised that Mr. Laudino Buen had been employed as Senior Accountant under CEP Planning. He said Mr. Buen is a Certified Public Accountant, and is originally from the Phillipines, though is now a permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Cottrell noted that Mr. Buen was by far most qualified of the applicants for this position. He said the appointment is subject to Board ratification.
Mr. Spann moved that the appointment of Mr. Buen be recommended to the Board for ratification. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
Mr. Cottrell advised three appointments had been made for the positions in the special summer programs. He said they are Miss Faye Mullen as Summer Project Coordinator, Mrs. Mary Bowen and Mr. Edgar Harris, on the staff of the Dramatic Arts Workshop. Mr. Wilson moved that the appointments of Miss Mullen, Mrs. Bowen and Mr. Harris be recommended to the Board for ratification in these positions. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
-(2)-
e*
Committee Members discussed the Summer programs. Mr. Dondero questioned how young people were being recruited. Mr. Hoggard said this has been done through newspapers, radio & TV, announcements in area churches, and through Neighborhood Councils. He explained the cultural program, noting that though there is no pay involved for participants it is of benefit to those young people participati ng.
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR DAY CARE PROJECT: Mr. Cottrell reviewed that in December the 1968 funding request for Operation Independence Day Care Centers had been cut by $70,000. There was then discussion of a further reduction because of the fact there was not enough Head Start money in Western Region. He said EOB had been notified of a $19,000 cut but at the same time had been notified there was the possibility of a supplemental appropriation. Regional Office has now advised there will not be a supplemental appropriation and the cut must be accepted.
Mr. Cottrell stated that a request for supplemental funding can be made from 1967 left-over funds. He said this request would permit 0.1. to employ the five teacher aides who were cut last December and to pay the salaries that were included in the original budget request but which personnel voluntarily did not accept. Also included would be small miscellaneous amounts for supplies, etc. Mr. Cottrell advised that the request must be submitted to Regional Office as soon as possible.
Mr. Wilson moved that EOB be authorized to submit a supplemental request for day care funding. Seconded by Mr. Spann, motion carried.
LOAN TO RURAL COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM (RUCAP): Mr. Cottrell advised that the 15 Rural Counties CAP has been without an Executi ve Di rector; paperwork has been behind and the Agency is thus in the position of having $3,000 in the bank and $16,000 in obligations. He said a new Director has now been employed and requests for refunding are in, but funds will not be received until the middle of July.
RUCAP has requested a $50,000 loan from EOB. Mr. Cottrell explained that EOB would be in a position to make such a loan, and the Regional Field Representative has advised this is entirely proper if the Board wishes to do it.
Mr. Spann asked what assurance there is that RUCAP’s funding request will be granted.
Mr. Cottrell advised that Regional Office will assure this and a letter stating this had been expected today.
Mr. Lawson moved that if it is received in writing that Regional 0E0 will guarantee RUCAP’s refunding for this amount of the loan, that EOB grant the requested loan. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
-(3)-
PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN CEP: Job descriptions and salary comparabilities for the positions of Executive Director and Finance Officer were distributed to members.
Mr. Cottrell advised that a consultant was here from the Department of Labor working on job descriptions for the CEP positions. He said as soon as these were compiled they would be submitted to the Personnel Committee for placement in specific ranges of EOB's salary schedule.
Mr. Cottrell advised the EOB’s Executive Director and Finance Officer were being incorporated into the CEP budget, and CEP was being requested to pay 25# of these two salaries. He explained the added responsibilities on these two positions because of CEP, and reviewed the salary comparabilities for them. Mr. Cottrell said the reason this was being brought to the Executive Committee at this time was because he had had another job offer and will have to make a decision before the Personnel Committee meets on other CEP positions.
There was discussion on whether the Executive Committee could make recommendations on these two positions without first going to the Personnel Committee.
Mr. Spann moved that the salary schedules for these positions be approved and submitted to the Personnel Committee for further consideration by the Board. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
CJ. 1. (LttiU.L W. F. COTTRELL Executive Director
-(4)-
June 21, 1963
TO: Members of the Clark County E.O.B.
FROM: W. F. COTTRELL, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Informational Items for Monthly Meeting - June 26, 1968
1.
Status of the County's Application to Become the C.A.A.
We understand that the District Attorney has given an opinion to the effect that the County has neither the authority to become the C.A.A., nor to designate any other agency as the C.A.A. However, we have received no communication from the County Commissioners of any kind, on this or any matter related to their efforts to take over the program.
In addition, we now understand that the County Commissioners are in the process of constituting themselves as a separate, non-profit corporation, which they intend to designate as the C.A.A. We have not seen the proposal in writing, and obviously cannot comment on this action in a meaningful manner. However, there is a great deal of question as to whether such action will be acceptable to the OEO Regional Office.
Everyone involved in the entire process should keep in mind that whatever is done must be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the 1967 Congressional legislation, as well as CAP Memos Mo. 30 and 31, which spell out in considerable detail the criteria, procedures, and steps which must be taken to become a C.A.A.
2.
Status of CEP Application - Review, Approval, and Funding
The application was reviewed by a team of regional officials from the Bureau of Employment Service and the Bureau of Work Training Programs, U. S. Department of Labor; Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and from OEO. This took place in San Francisco on Thursday, June 13.
On Monday, June 17th, we received a telegram from Mr. Kenneth Robertson, Regional Manpower Administrator, reading as follows:
"I have today signed the contract between the U. S. Department of Labor and 'Operation Opportunities— Clark County, Nevada' to conduct a Concentrated Employment Program in the City of Las Vegas, Nevada. You are hereby authorized to prepare and submit your initial invoice (for funding)."
- 2 -
Today (June 21) we received a telegram from Mark Battle, Bureau of Work Training Programs, stating that funding has been approved as follows:
M.D.T.A. Funds $ 300,000
New Careers ...................... 340,000
Operation Mainstream ......... 125,000
CEP Versatile ............... 1,022,000
Total (Within Contract) $1,787,000
M.D.T.A. (Outside Contract) 300,000
TOTAL CEP FUNDS .............. $2,087,000
The application as submitted contains only generalized amounts of funding for various components and services. We must now work out definitive budgets and contracts with each agency. As yet, the Labor Department has not been able to furnish us with the format or forms for the contracts. Two of these . . . with the Employment Service and with Operation Independence, Inc. (for outreach, coaching, and follow-up). . should be approved by July 1, since certain services should be in operation by that date, such as job development. Each of these contracts must be approved by the Regional Manpower Administrator.
3.
Loan to Rural Counties Community Action Agency
A request was made to the Executive Committee from the 15-county rural C.A.A. to borrow $50,000 temporarily from the EOB pending receipt of Federal funds under their recently-approved refunding. This action was endorsed by the Regional Office, and was approved by the Executive Committee at its meeting on Monday, June 17.
Under terms of the loan the Rural Counties C.A.A. agrees to repay the amount upon receipt of Federal funds, anticipated by July 15. The loan is interest free, and is made possible by the fact that several letters of credit were recently liquidated by the Treasury Department and we received funds in the amounts due on each letter.
4.
Further Deobligation of Funds - Full-Year HEAD START - $19,505
Each year-round HEAD START program in this Region has been cut by 12.3% of its original funding. In our case we were funded $153,578, and a 12.3% reduction means we will lose $19,505.
At the same time the Regional Office recognizes that this is cutting deeply into our program, and they recognize the urgent need for this
- 3 -
program in the community. We have, therefore, submitted a supplemental request (as approved by the Executive Committee on Monday) in an amount of $26,014. It is hoped that unused versatile funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year on June 30 can be used to supplement the HEAD START funds.
IF this supplemental funding is approved, Operation Independence will, therefore, have $6,409 more than originally funded, counting the $19,505 cut in HEAD START funds.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
June 21, 1968
TO: Members of the Clark County Economic Opportunity Board
FROM: W.F. COTTRELL, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Action Items for Agenda - Monthly and Annual Meeting, June 26, 1968
1.
Letters of Designation. We have written letters to hewly-designated agencies asking them to name their representatives. Several of these should be received by the time of the meeting. Those representatives who are present can be seated at the meeting, upon acceptance of the letters of designation.
2.
Report of the r'~minatinq Committee. The report is attached to the agenda
3.
Election of Two Trustees to the Executive Committee. This matter was tabled at the last meeting pending the naming of representatives to the Board from newly-designated agencies. This item is again on the agenda for the Board’s consideration, assuming that most, if not all, of the agencies will have representatives at the meeting.
The nine members currently serving on the committee are as follows:
Private Agencies Pub Iic Agencies Groups of the Poor
Chairman Isaac White Vice-Chairman Emory Lockette Mrs. Dorothy King
Mr. Ted Lawson Mr. Charles Spann Mrs. Daisy Miller
Mr. Harvey Dondero Mrs. Nancy Williams
Mr. Thomas Wilson
The two vacancies should be filled from among representatives of public agencies and private agencies and other segments of the community, in order to meet the reguirement of "three-part" representation, inasmuch as the third category already represents more than one-third of the Committee membership.
4.
Election of Three Trustees to the Nominating Committee
The terms of three members (Father Charles Sha I low, Mr. Ted Lawson and Vice Chairman Emory Lockette) expire on June 30. There are five "hold-over" members: Mrs. Daisy Miller, Mr. Woodrow Wilson, Mr. Thomas Wilson, Mr. Charles Jones and Rev. Newton Tigner. Thus 3 of these members are representative of the poor, 1 is representative of public agencies and 1 from other segments of the community.
In filling these three vacancies the Board is guided by Article V, Section 2 (8), which reads as follows:
"Each standing committee shall include approximately one-third representation from public agencies, not less than one-third representation from the poor, and the remainder shall be representatives of other groups and interests represented on the full Board."
-2-
5.
Drawing for Staggered Board Member Terms
You will recall that the Congressional amendments last year limit service of Board members (other than those from the "public agency" sector) to not more than three consecutive years. For this reason the Board approved a change in the By-Laws to make terms for three years, rather than two years.
At the same time approval was given to a plan for "staggered" terms; that is, the initial terms of members other than public officials will be one-third each for 1 year terms, one-third each of 2 year terms, and one-third each for three year terms. As those terms expire' they will be replaced by full three-year terms. At the end of the transition period (three years from now) all members will be serving three-year terms, one-third of which will expire each year.
Article III, Section 4.C(4) provides that "All selections for such staggered terms of office shall be made by lot at the Annual Meeting of the Board to be held in June, 1968." We will make provisions for those present to "draw s+raws" at the meeting, and provisions must also be made to make selections for those trustees not present.
6.
Recommendation of the Executive Committee fob Appointment of Manpower Services Administrator (CEP Director).
At the special meeting of the Executive Committee held on June 10, 1968 the Committee reviewed the applications of those candidates for the Manpower Services Administrator position who met the basic requirements. Four application summaries were reviewed, at the conclusion of which the Committee voted to recommend to the Board for ratification the name of Mr. Charles W. Spann.
7.
Recommendations of the Executive Committee for Ratification of the Executive Di rector’s Appointments
At the regular meeting of the Executive Committee held on June 17 the Executive Committee voted to recommend ratification of the following appointments. These appointments have been made in accordance with the provisions of the By-Laws and the Personnel Policies and Practices.
A.
Senior Accountant (CEP) - Mr. Laudino B. Buen
B.
Special Summer Programs (short-term; 10 to 12 weeks):
1.
Summer Program Coordinator - Miss Faye Mullen
2.
Cultural Arts Workshop Production Director - Mr. Edward Harris
3.
Cultural Arts Workshop Associate - Mrs. Mary N. Bowen
8.
Recommendations of the Personnel Committee
The Committee met on Thursday, June 20 and has indicated it will make a report at the meeting next Wednesday. However, we have no written material to send to Trustees at this time.
-3-
9.
Appointment of Two Persons to Legal Aid Society Soard
A special condition attached +o the original funding for the Legal Aid Project provides as follows:
'The composition of the Governing Board of the delegate agency (Legal Aid Society) shall be amended to provide that the 8 members of the Board designated as representatives of the poor shall be selected through a democratic process by local neighborhood Councils.
The governing board shall be amended to show that the four representatives from the general community will be chosen in the following manner: 2 will be selected by the Legal Aid Society and 2 wiI I be selected by the Community Action Agency.”
The Board should be prepared to select two individuals from the community at large. The Legal Aid Society is hoping to reconstitute its Board next week and to select an attorney to fill the staff attorney position for the project. They hope to be in operation (provided that the Regional office approves the refunding) in early July.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
JUNE 21, 1968
TO: Members of the Board
FROM: ISAAC R. WHITE, CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF MEETING
The regular monthly meeting of the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County will be held:
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26th
8:00 P.M.
CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AUDITORIUM
AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS
1.
LETTERS OF DESIGNATION FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
2.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS
3.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 29
4.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EOB AND NYC FOR MAY
5.
) REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE:
A.
Nomination of Officers for the Year July 1, 1968 - June 30, 1969
B.
Nominations of Trustees for Committee Memberships:
1.
F i na nee Comm11tee
2.
Special Committees
(eTy^LECTION OF TWO TRUSTEES TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (to fill existing vacancies). 4, £
ELECTION OF THREE TRUSTEES TO FILL EXPIRING TERMS ON THE NOMINATING
COMMITTEE (Fr. Charles^Sh^l low,^;. Ted Lawson, and Mr. Emory Lockette’s terms expire June 302
DRAWING FOR STAGGERED BOARD MEMBER TERMS
RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR APPOINTMENT OF A MANPOWER SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR (CEP Director)
AGENDA
PAGE -2-
RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS:
A.
Senior Accountant (CEP) - Mr. Laudino B. Buen*^
B.
Special Summer Programs (short-term)
1.
Summer Program Coordinator - Miss Faye Mullen*"
2.
Theater Production Director (Cultural Arts Workshop) - Mr. Edward
Harris/^
3.
Cultural Arts Workshop - Mrs. Mary N. Bowen
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENT OF TWO PERSONS TO SERVE ON LEGAL AID SOCIETY BOARD
13.
OTHER ACTION ITEMS
INFORMATION ITEMS
14.
STATUS OF COUNTY’S APPLICATION TO BECOME THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
15J STATUS OF CEP APPLICATION, REVIEW, APPROVAL, FUNDING, ETC.
16.
LOAN APPROVED TO RURAL COUNTIES COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY, AS AUTHORIZED BY REGIONAL OFFICE
17.
FURTHER DEOBLIGATION ($19,505) FROM YEAR-ROUND HEAD START PROGRAM AS DIRECTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE, AND APPLICATION FOR $26,014 IN SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT.
18.
OTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
June 26, 1968 Clark County District Health Dept.
8:00 P.M. Las Vegas, Nevada
PRESENT: Issac White (CHAIRMAN), Thomas Wilson, Ferren Bunker, Harvey Dondero, Lee Walker, J.R. McPherson, Victor Hall, Daisy Miller, Stella Fleming, Charlotte Hill, Don Dawson, Dorothy King, Iris Me inhover, Charles Shallow, Charles Jones, Donald Clark, Peggy Smith, Dorothy Collins, Ted Lawson, Pat Fahey, Clyde Newman, Woodrow WiIson
Staff: W.F. Cottrell, J.David Hoggard, Sylvia Staples, Evelyn Mauldin
Guests: Hazel Geran, Faye Mullen, Louise Clark, M. Bennett, George Gant, Harold Ortega, Evelyn Coleman, Ralph Wilson, Brenda Mason, Bill Staples, Jack Hammer, Babe Hammes, Louis Miller, Jr. Mrs. Louis Miller, Jr. Rosie Smith, Opal Legardy, Letha Mobley, Gloria Rome, Rev. W.J. Wynn, Ed Harris, M.N. Bowen, Carlton Dias, John Wawerna, Lee Adler, Frank Harrison, Ruby Harrison, Annie Lanier, Walter Lanier, Cleveland Woods, Harry Shallowas, Sarah Ray, Mel Johnson, Mike Banovetz, Claudia Moorehouse, Francis Edwards, Robert Trimble, William Carlos, Velia Gonzales, Elaynne Travis, Pat Tupper, Estella Turmon, Gwendolyn Hayes, M. Thompson, Troy Mason, Alice Williams, Mark Ortiz, Robert Stanovik, J. Hampbell, Art Grant, Leslie Jones, Esthed Langston, Edmond Shelton, Jimmie Gantt Butch Edwards, Scott Butler, Marshall Branch, Jr., Phillip Edden, Tony McCormick, Tyrone Levi, William Wynn, Etta Hodges, Kathryn James, Dave Siman, Allen Sanders, Harvey Jones, Rev. J. Simmons, Jennie Crawford, Cranford L. Crawford, Jr., Leroy Hawkins, L. McDaniel, Lowey Waren Addie Reid Blake, Madge Rugg, Rev. C.C. Smith, Albert Dunn, James Anderson, Joe Nai
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman White called the meeting to order, declaring a quorum present. Rev. Clark was recognized by the Chair. He stated that due to the importance of the agenda item on the status of CEP, he would move that Item No. 15 (Status of CEP) be placed as the first item on the agenda to be considered for action. Seconded by Fr. Shallow, motion carried.
Chairman White noted he objected to having other items considered prior to seating of new Board Members which included representation from Neighborhood Councils; however, moved to discussion on the status of CEP.
Mr. Cottrell advised that the CEP application was reviewed in San Francisco by a Regional Office Review Team on June 13. Several days later the EOB was informed that its contract had been signed, and on June 21 was further informed that the project had been funded in the total amount of $2,087,000. He said the four main definitive budgets were submitted and approved, though no contracts have yet been prepared with any agency. Mr. Cottrell advised that each subcontract must specifically be approved by the Manpower Administrator.
Mr. Art Grant asked what the deadline was for agencies to submit proposals for subcontracts. Mr. Cottrell advised that it had been announced six weeks ago that anybody interested should get applications submitted.
Mr. Grant said it had not been publicized to the community that today was the dead line.
Mr. Cottrell stated that one-third of the CEP Advisory Committee is made up of Neighborhood Councils and the Committee has met three times. He said this announcement had been made at each of those three meetings in addition to being discussed with many agencies. He said there is no fixed deadline but there are two functions which are scheduled to be in operation by July 1.
Rev. Clark stated, directly to Mr. Cottrell, that he (Mr. Cottrell) had been working on CEP for two months and in those two months have only involved the agencies that have now been designated for money. He stated that Mr. Cottrell did not secure any black organization in CEP planning and further stated that CEP Advisory Committee meetings were held during the daytime when grass roots people are working. He charged that 45 to 50^ of CEP money has already been designated; that it is going to the School District, to Welfare Department, to Employment Service — agencies which have already failed black people. Rev. Clark stated that if $2,000,000 is to come into the Westside, the Westside itself should o+ least get more than 10^ of it. He charged that at every meeting the black people have systematically been excluded because of the time at which the meeting was held.
Rev. Clark moved that the Concentrated Employment Program be tabled for three weeks until the people have had a chance to go over it. Motion seconded by Mrs. Fahey.
Chairman White ruled the motion out of order.
Mrs. Fahey stated that last month she had requested a Iist of members of the CEP Advisory Committee; that secondly, she asked for a breakdown in the projects as they were originally planned; that thirdly, she had asked if all items and policy matters had been submitted to the Neighborhood Councils for their approval. She also asked if the CEP Advisory Committee had taken any kind of vote.
Mr. Cottrell answered that trie CEP Advisory Committee is not controlled by the EOB Office but meets a+ the call of its Chairman who is Mr. Bob Bailey. He said that at the first two meetings, the CEP Advisory Committee did not take any vote on all or part of CEP. He said the CEP Advisory Committee is an advisory committee to the EOB, and if the Committee wishes to communicate something to the EOB, he assumed they will do so. He advised Mrs. Fahey that material on CEP was furnished to each Neighborhood Council Chairman and EOB Representative.
Mrs. Fahey said that CEP has progressed thus far to a contract situation in a project involving over $2,000,000, yet no direct action has been taken by anybody including the Board.
Mr. Cottrell advised that everything that has been done has been authorized directly by this Board — that the Board authorized at the March meeting to proceed with whatever action was necessary to get the program in operation.
-2-
Mr. Melvin Johnson said the CEP Advisory Committee has done something; that the program is not bad, but when a directive was sent to Mr. Cottrell to solicit contracts, it was ignored.
Rev. Clark moved for +he previous question.
Chairman White advised he had ruled the motion out of order. Following such disorder and heated discussion, Chairman White said he had been told that people were coming to the meeting tonight to raise Hell. He said at the rate the meeting was moving, nothing was going to be accomplished, and requested that members and guests act as intelligent peopIe.
Mr. Thomas Wilson said the Chairman has the authority to rule any motion out of order that is in conflict with what is being discussed. He noted as citizens of the community he was sure the people present wanted to see CEP successfully Dejin. He said maybe the people had justifiable gripes but there ar? ways of voicing them.
Mr. Jim Anderson asked that the question on the floor be resolved. Mr. Lee Walker ruled that the Chair has the right to rule any motion out of order; however, tiie bcdy can appeal that ruling and the appeal is then voted upon.
Mrs. Fahey moved to appeal the ruling of the Chair. Motion seconded by Rev. Clark. On the vote, motion carried in favor of the appeal.
The motion made by Rev. Clark was then voted on. The motion carried. Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson asked how many persons present were members of the CEP Advisory Committee, noting a report should come from someone from the CEP Advisory Committee. It was noted that Mr. Bob McPherson and Mr. Melvin Johnson were members of the CEP Advisory Committee.
LETTERS OF DESIGNATION FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS: Letters from the following organizations were read asking that representatives from their organization be seated on the Board: Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council; Nevada Employment Security Department; Legal Aid Society; Young Men’s Christian Association.
Mr. James Anderson asked if a letter had been received from NAACP requesting that he be seated as the representative of that organization. The Chairman advised none had been received.
SEATING OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS: Those members to be seated from the agencies named above were asked to come forward. Mr. Richard Bryan was seated as the representative from the Legal Aid Society. Mr. John Wawerna was seated as the representative from the YMCA. Hr. Melvin Johnson was the representative named to represent the Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council. He initially declined to serve due to his belief that the action taken earlier regarding CEP had destroyed the program. Mr. Johnson later consented to serve on the EOB and was seated as a member of the Board.
Mr. Cleveland Woods >f the I enderson Neighborhood Council asked why Henderson was not include in the CEP budget. Chairman White ruled the question out of order due to tabling of CEP.
-3-
MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 29, 1968: Mrs. Fahey asked that the Minutes show an addition on Page 2, second paragraph, after the word contiguous1; stating that she had requested a Iist of CEP Advisory Committee members. She said the minutes should also show she was assured it would be made available to herself and other Board Members.
Mrs. Fahey asked that Page 5, third oaragraph, also state that the motion also included that this be tabled until there was full membership of the Board as designated by the previous resolution that there be 39 members. She explained that this would involve all agencies interested in belonging to this Board and allow them to have a full opportunity for participating in elections to such important committees as the Executive Committee.
Mrs. Fahey also asked that paragraph 6 of Page 2 be corrected to state that "Catholic Welfare has deliberately been excluded as a contractor: that nobody had contacted the agency and he would like to know why that agency had been excluded from all phases of the project.'
There being no further corrections, additions, or deletions, Fr. Shallow moved the minutes be approved with the added corrections as stated. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion earned.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR EOB AND NYC FOR MAY: The financial statements were briefly reviewed by the Executive Director. Rev. Clark asked why the Acting Project Di rector for NYC, Mr. Leo Johnson, is not being paid the same salary as the former Project Director, Mr. Doyle Longhurst. The Chair stated this question was not pertaining to the financial statements and ruled Rev. Clark’s question out of order. Mr. Wilson moved that the financial statements for EOB and NYC for May be approved as presented. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion carried.
REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE:: The following report was submitted as Nominations for a Slate of Officers for the year 1 <968-69 and for Standing and Special Committees of the Board for the year 1968-69. Mr. Lawson moved that the report be accepted. Seconded by Mrs. Smith, motion carried.
FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (One person to be elected)
Mr. Emory Lockette
Mr. Lee Walker
Mr. Thomas 'Wilson
FOR FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN (One person to be elected)
Mr. Ferren Bunker
Mrs. Daisy Miller
FOR SECOND VICE CHAIRMAN (One person to be elected)
Mr. Victor Hal I Mr. J.R. McPherson Mrs. peggy Smith
-4-
FOR TREASURER
(One person to be elected) Mrs. Dorothy King
SLATE FOR STANDING AMD SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
Mrs. Dorothy King (Chairman) Mr. Harvey Dondero Mr. George Keyes Rev. Newton Tigner Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson
EDUCATION COMMITTEE: Mr. Harvey Dondero Mrs. Charlotte Hill Mrs. Peggy Smith
YOUTH COMMITTEE
Mrs. Pat Fahey Mr. J.R. McPherson Mrs. Nancy Will Jams
MANPOWER COMMITTEE Mr. Charles Jones Mr. Ted Lawson Mr. Emory Lockette
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE:
Mr. Ferren Bunker Mr. Victor Hal I Rev. Newton Tigner Mr. Charles Jones Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE Rev. Donald Clark Mrs. Dorothy Collins Mrs. Stella Fleming
SENIOR CITIZENS COMMITTEE Mr. Fred French Mr. George Keyes Councilman Wendell Waite
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: Mrs. Pat Fahey Mr. George Keyes Mr. J.R. McPherson Mr. Thomas Wilson
Nominations were opened for the office of Chairman. Mr. Charles Jones nominated Mr. Fred French. Mrs. King moved that nominations be closed. Motion seconded by Mrs. Hill. On the vote to close nominations, motion carried with one naye vote and one abstaining.
Chairman White advised Board Members that one of the nominees for the office of Chairman may not serve without special permission of Regional Office. Mr. Cottrell read the excerpt from CAP Memo 41-A setting forth this provision as regards federal employees.
Regional Field Representative, Carlton Dias, further commented on this memo, noting it is very specific in saying that federal employees cannot serve as Chairmen of CAAs; however, Mr. Dias went on to say that if the Board would find that this particular person is the one the Board feels can best do the Job, a letter so stipulating can be directed to Regional Office for review and determination.
Mr. Thomas Wilson commented that the Nominating Committee has been aware of this stipulation; however, Mr. Lockette did not believe the stipulation applied to him thus the Committee did enter his name on the slate.
- 5-
Mrs. Smith moved that the election for the office of Chairman be proceeded with as presented; and should Mr. Lockette be elected that the necessary request be made to Regional Office for the special dispensation. Seconded by Mrs. King, motion carried.
Chairman White pointed out that there are 25 Board Members present and a majority is necessary to elect an officer, making 13 votes necessary. He advised that if a candidate does not receive 13 votes those candidates having the least votes would be eliminated and these wouId be a revote.
There was discussion on the legality of closing nominations. It was pointed out that the only way nominations can be closed is by the Chair calling for nominations three times.
Nominations for the office of Chairman remained open.
Mr. McPherson nominated Rev. Clark. The Chair called three times for further nominations. There being none, nominations were closed.
Chairman White appointed three tellers to tally votes: Mrs. Hill, Rev. Tigner, Mr. Bunker.
Mr. Lee Walker was elected Chairman on the first ballot.
For the office of First Vice Chairman, Mrs. Fahey nominated Mr. Thomas Wilson. The Chair called three times for nominations. There being no further names submitted, nominations were closed for the office of First Vice Chairman. Tellers on ballot counting were Mrs. Hill, Mr. Lawson, and Rev. Tigner.
Mr. Thomas Wilson was elected on the second ballot.
Nominations were opened for the office of Second Vice Chairman.
Mr. Charles Jones nominated Mr. George Keyes. The Chairman called three times for further nominations. There being none, nominations were closed for the office of Second Vice Chairman.
Mr. J. R. McPherson was elected to the office of Second Vice Chairman on the fi rst ba I lot.
The Chairman called for nominations for the office of Treasurer.
There being none, Mr. Dawson moved that a unanimous ballot be cast for Mrs. Dorothy King for the office of Treasurer. Seconded by Mrs. Fahey, motion carried.
Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson moved that the Slate of Special and Standing Committees submitted by the Nominating Committee be accepted and a unanimous ballot be cast for this Slate. Seconded by Rev. Tigner and Mr. Jones, motion carried.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that Mrs. Williams was nominated to serve on the Youth Committee; however, she is no longer a member of the Board.
Mrs. King moved that Mr. Johnson be named to replace Mrs. Williams on the Youth Committee. Seconded by Rev. Tigner, motion carried.
-6-
ELECTION OF TWO TRUSTEES iO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Mrs. Fahey advised that at the previous month’s Board Meeting a motion had been passed to table the election of additional Executive Committee members until such time as the Board had its full complement of 39 members. She asked if membership of 39 had been reached. It was advised that this has not been reached.
The Chair ruled that this item would stand tabled.
ELECTION OF THREE TRUSTEES TO FILL EXPIRING TERMS ON THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE: Chairman White advised that the terms held by Fr. Charles Shallow, Ted Lawson, and Emory Lockette will expire on June 30. He said this would necessitate election of three new members — one to come from public agencies. There being no further nominations, Mr. Wilson moved that nominations be closed for the representative from this group.
Mrs. Me inhover would be the member of the Nominating Committee to serve as a representative from the group representing public agencies.
For the two representatives representing other groups and interests in the community, Mrs. Smith nominated Rev. Donald Clark; Mrs. Fahey nominated Mr. Richard Bryan; Mr. Wilson nominated Mrs. Charlotte Hill.; Mr. Jones nominated Mr. Fred French.
There being no further names submitted, Mrs. Miller moved that nominations be closed. Seconded by Mr. Wilson, motion carried.
On a secret ballot vote, Mrs. Charlotte Hill was nominated on the first ballot; Rev. Donald Clark was nominated on the second ballot.
Mrs. Charlotte Hill and Rev. Donald Clark would serve on the Nominating Committee as representatives from the section representing other groups and interests of the community.
DRAWING FOR STAGGERED BOARD MEMBER TERMS: The Chairman advised that due to provisions in the Green Amendment it was necessary to provide for terms for Board Members of three years each. He read the amendment to the By-Laws setting forth terms of office of trustees. This provision follows:
"Trustees other than public officials or their representatives shall be elected for terms of three (3) years each, except that the terms of all Trustees selected under this amendment at the Annual Meeting of the Board in June, 1968, shall be as fol lows:
"1. Approximately one-third of the Trustees representing (a) poor, and (b) other groups and interests in the community, shall be selected for terms of one (1) year each, commending on July 1, 1968, and ending on June 30, 1969.
”2. Approximately one-third of such Trustees shall be selected for terms of two (2) years each, commending on July 1, 1968, and ending on June 30, 1970.
-7-
”3. Approximately one-third of such Trustees shall be selected for terms of three (3) years each, commending on July 1, 1968, and ending on June 30, 1971.
"4. All selections for such staggered terms of office shall be made by lot at the Annual Meeting of the Board to be held in June, 1968."
Chairman White explained that since all members were not present, in such cases another member would have to draw for the agency who did not have a representative present.
Mr. Bunker subsequently moved, seconded by Mr. McPherson, that another member of the Board be designated to draw for the persons not present. Motion carried.
The following terms were drawn by the specified agencies.
PRIVATE AGENCIES
NAACP - 3 years
Clark Co. Ministerial Assn. - 1 year
Nevada Catholic Welfare - 3 years
Operation Independence - 2 years
Greater Las Vegas Chamber of
Commerce - 3 years
Clark Co. Central Labor Council - 2 years
United Fund of Clark County - 2 years
Clark Co. Legal Aid Society - 1 year
Nevada Futures, Inc. - 1 year
So.
Nevada Personnel Assn. - 1 year
PAL Organization - 2 years
Young Men’s Christian Association - 3 years
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE POOR
Henderson Neighborhood Council - 3 years
North Las Vegas Neighborhood Counci I - 2 years
Jo Mackey Neighborhood Council - 3 years
Highland Neighborhood Council - 3 years
Kit Carson Neighborhood Council - 3 years
Madison Neighborhood Council - 2 years
Matt Kelly Neighborhood Council - 2 years
Westside Neighborhood Council - 2 years
4-MiIe Pittman-East Las Vegas Area - 3 years
Moapa Vai ley Migrants - 1 year
Las Vegas Prosperity Club - 1 year
Operation Independence Day Care Parents Assn. - 1 year
Senior Citizens Group - 1 year
RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR A MANPOWER SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR: Mrs. Smith requested that the communication be read from Mr. Julius Campbell, Special Advisor to the County Commissioners. The letter was read. It was requested by Mr. Campbell that the County's Special Advisor be involved in selection of any new personnel so as to insure that such personnel would remain after the County became the CAA.
Chairman White asked Mr. Dias, OEO Field Representative, whether it was yet known if the County would be recognized as the community action agency.
Mr. Dias advised that there was no recognition up to this point but he could not say beyond that.
Rev. Clark, due to the fact that CEP was tabled, moved to table recommendation for a CEP Director. Seconded by Mrs. Fahey, motion carried.
Chairman White pointed out that this was the first time the Board had tabled a recommendation of the Executive Committee. He said he did not feel the Board was showing any confidence in the Executive Committee. Chairman White stated that certainly the County Commissioners have not taken the program over yet and he would not have them dictate what the Board does at this time. He said when the Board takes action such as it just has it is showing no respect for the judgement of its Executive Comm i ttee.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF PERSONNEL COMMITTEE: Following discussion of whether or not the report of the Personnel Committee should be read, it was moved by Mr. Bryan, seconded by Mrs. Smith, and carried that it be read.
The Committee’s report follows:
"At the direction of the Executive Committee, the Personnel Committee met Thursday, June 20, 1968.
The agenda for that meeting consisted of a salary-scale adjustment" for the Finance Officer, and the Executive Director.
Members present included Chairman, Robert McPherson, George Keyes, Tom Wilson, Pat Fahey, and Sarah Ray. Member Issac White was absent.
The full Committee agreed:
1.
That a request for salary adjustment at this time was ill- conceived and inappropriate.
2.
That any action on the above matter should be delayed until the Board has an opportunity to vote on the following recommendations:
Recommendat i ons;
1.
That the Economic Opportunity Board of Trustees establish a system of evaluating the performance of the Executive Director, and/or other personnel who are directly responsible to that Boa rd.
-9-
2.
That a ci iteria be established for judging the performance.
3.
That a system of auditing applicants for positions directly responsible to the Executive Director, or the Board be estab Ii shed.
4.
That the feasibility of appointing, or hiring a Personnel Officer, or establishing a Department of Personnel be studied and a recommendation be brought to the Board.
Chairman Robert McPherson
George Keyes Tom WiIson Sarah Ray Pat Fahey
Chairman White directed the Personnel Committee to draw up criteria to expedite the recommendations made.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS:
Mr. Laudino Buen was introduced to the Board. Executive Committee was recommending ratification of his appointment as Senior Accountant for the Concentrated Employment Program.
The Executive Committee was further recommending the appointments of Miss Faye Mullen as Summer Program Coordinator and Mr. Edgar Harris and Mrs. Mary Bowen in the Summer Cultural Arts Workshop.
Mr. Johnson stated that since CEP has been tabled the Senior Accountant position will not be open until after the program is in operation.
Chairman White pointed out that this position was under the Planning Grant for CEP.
Assemblyman Wilson moved that the Board confirm the action of the Executive Committee on these appointments. Seconded by Rev. Tigner.
Progress of summer programs was discussed.
Mrs. King asked if the Sr. Accountant position was part of the CEP planning.
Mr. Cottrell advised that it is a funded position under CEP planning. He said he did not know what would happen now that CEP has been tabled as people will not be able to be employed as expected.
Rev. Clark asked if there wasn’t surplus money from programs phasing out to pick up these people.
Mr. Dias was requested to answer this. He advised that he would have nothing to say on Labor Department funds; however, 0E0 funds could not be used for CEP.
Chairman White pointed out the Board had authorized persons to be employed under the CEP planning grant; however, now that the Board has voted to table CEP, these people cannot be employed.
-10-
Assemblyman Woodrow Wilson moved for the previous question. On the vote on the motion to confirm the appointments of the Executive Committee, motion carried.
Mr. Carlos asked whether or not the gentleman hired for CEP Planning will be employed past Sunday, June 30.
Mr. Cottrell said he could not answer this; that if there is no CEP operational money, the planning stage may be extended.
APPOINTMENT OF TWO PERSONS TO SEPVE ON LEGAL AID SOCIETY BOARD: Richard Bryan, President of the Clark County Legal Aid Society, advised members that the 0E0 grant for the legal aid program has been approved and in conforming to certain special conditions, it is required that each Neighborhood Council has a representative on the Legal Aid Society's Board. He noted it is his understanding these representatives have been elected. Mr. Bryan further advised that the EOB now has the province to elect two members from the community at large to serve on the Board. He said the Legal Aid Board consists of 13 lawyers and 12 non-lawyers — eight of which are Neighborhood Council representatives; two are to be selected at large by the EOB and two are selected by the Legal Aid Board itself. Mr. Bryan advised that tomorrow night the Legal Aid Society would be screening applications for a staff attorney and it would be beneficial to have the people selected tonight by the EOB so they could participate in tomorrow night’s meeting. He said the meeting would be held at the EOB offices, 932 West Owens.
Subject to objection from any Board Member, Chairman White appointed Lee Walker and Daisy Miller to serve on the Legal Aid Society’s Board.
RATIFICATION OF ACTION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO HIRE LEE WALKER AS AN ADVISOR IN THE HEARING FOR GEORGE GANT: Mr. Cottrell advised members that the Executive Committee had taken action to hire Mr. Walker to advise the Board in the conduct of the hearing for Mr. George Gant. He said there were no conflicting guidelines in so doing according to 0E0 policy; however, the action required ratification by the Board.
Mr. Dondero moved to ratify the action of the Executive Committee and authorize payment to Lee Walker. Seconded by Mrs. Hill, motion carried with one naye vote.
EMPLOYEE"S REQUEST THAT EOB RECOGNIZE FRIDAY, JULY 5, AS A HOLIDAY: With very brief discussion, it was moved by Mrs. Fahey, seconded by Mr. McPherson, and carried that EOB employees be granted a holiday on July 5.
RATIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION TO LEND $50,000 to RUCAP: Chairman White apprized the Board that a letter had been received from Regional Office guaranteeing a loan of $50,000 if the EOB so approved the loan request of RUCAP.
It was moved by Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. Fahey and carried that the action of the Executive Committee to make a $50,000 loan to RUCAP, contingent upon guarantee by Regional Office, be ratified by the Board.
-11-
REQUEST FOR lOAN OF $20,000 by WASHOE COUNTY CAP: Mr. Dias, Regional Field
REQUEST FOR LOAN OF $20,000 by WASHOE COUNTY CAP: Mr. Dias, Regional Field Representative, advised the same thing would apply if the Board approves such a loan to Washoe County. He explained the money is needed because of a delay in grant funding.
Assemblyman Wilson asked how the Board can be sure of the return of the funds. Mr. Dias said Regional OEO is responsible and has guaranteed the return of the funds.
Mr. Jones moved that the loan be granted to the Washoe County CAP. Seconded by Assemblyman Wilson, motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ACCEPT LEGAL AID GRANT: Mr. Cottrell advised that grant approval had just been received for the Legal Aid Project. Mr. Bryan moved that Executive Director be authorized to accept the grant. Seconded by Mr. Dondero, motion carried.
RATIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S AUTHORIZATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF $19,000 DEOBLIGATION IN YEAR-ROUND HEAD START FUNDING: Mr. Cottrell reviewed the cuts which have been made in year-round Head Start funding, and advised that further cut was necessary to bring Head Start to last year’s funding level. This has resulted in a 12.3$ cut nationwide in Head Start projects and totals of $19,505 in Operation Independence’s Head Start Project. He said in the meantime a supplemental request has also been made in the amount of $26,000.
Mr. Dias then advised Board Members that the supplemental grant has been virtually approved.
It was moved by Mrs. Hill, seconded by Mrs. King, that the action of the Executive Committee in ratifying the acceptance of the deobligation be accepted and that the Executive Director be further authorized to accept the $26,000 supplemental grant upon its receipt. Motion was carried.
RESIGNATION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: The Secretary read a letter of resignation from the Executive Director, W.F. Cottrell. It was moved by Mr. Walker seconded by Mrs. King, that the resignation of the Executive Director be accepted and that a vote of thanks and appreciation be extended to him for his service. Motion carried.
Chairman White extended his thanks to Mr. Cottrell for the service rendered to the Board. He said he has enjoyed working with him as Executive Director and feels that he along with a very competent staff, and did a commendable job.
INFORMAL INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS: Chairman White asked the new officers to stand and formally welcome them as officers of the Board. The new Chairman, Mr. Lee Walker, on behalf of the Board presented Chairman White with an inscribed placque and gavel and extended the thanks of the Board.
Chairman White thanked the Board for the memento, noting that he had enjoyed serving with the members of the Board.
-12-
DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE D.RECTOR’S RESIGNATION: Mr. Walker asked if action was needed to provide for the period until a replacement is found for the Executive Director.
Following discussion of the termination date of Mr. Cottrell, and this date not yet being definite, Mrs. Smith moved that the Deputy Director be made Acting Executive Director beginning at such time as the Executive Director leaves, and until such time as a permanent replacement is named. Motion seconded by Mrs. Hill.
Upon suggestion by another Board Member, Mrs. Smith amended her motion to include that the Acting Executive Director be paid a salary commensurate with this position. Amendment accepted by Mrs. Hill. On the vote, motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
W.F. COTTRELL
Executive Director
By SYLVIA M. STAPLES
Administrative Assistant
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY BOARD OF CLARK COUNTY
932 West Owens Las Vegas, Nev.
June 28, 1968
TO: Members of the Executive Committee
FROM: LEE E. WALKER
CHAIRMAN
RE: NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
This is your notification that a Special Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Economic Opportunity Board is being cal led for:
TUESDAY, JULY 2
3:30 P.M.
EOB OFFICES (932 West Owens)
AGENDA
I.
Discussion of the Status of the Planning Phase of CEP and Related Matters.
2.
Procedure for Replacement of the Executive Director.
3.
Designating Signatories and Signing New Bank Signature Cards.
4.
Matters of Concern for Consideration by the
Executive Committee (Comments of the Executive Director).