|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
EdAction May 3, 2001 Voting Records on Workforce Central Planning
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The following representatives cast
a good vote to SUPPORT the above language:
Abeler, Abrams, B. Anderson, Bishop, Boudreau, Bradley, Buesgens, Cassell, J. Clark, Daggett, Davids, Dehler, Dempsey, Eastlund, Erhardt, Erickson, Finseth, Fuller, Gerlach, Goodno, Gunther, Haas, Hackbarth, Harder, Holberg, Holsten, Howes, Jacobson, J. Johnson, Kielkucki, Knoblach, Krinkie, Kuisle, Leppik, Lindner, Lipman, McElroy, Molnau, Mulder, Ness, Nornes, Olson, Osskopp, Ozment, Paulsen, Pawlenty, Penas, Rhodes, Rifenberg, Ruth, Seagren, Seifert, Smith, Stanek, Stang, Swenson, Sykora, Tingelstad, Tuma, Vandeveer, Walz, Westerberg, Westrom, Wilkin, Workman, Sviggum. |
| The following representatives cast
a bad vote to OPPOSE the above language:
I. Anderson, Bakk, Bernardy, Biernat, Carlson, K. Clark, Davnie, Dawkins, Dibble, Dorman, Dorn, Entenza, Evans, Folliard, Gleason, Goodwin, Gray, Greiling, Hausman, Hilstrom, Hilty, Huntly, Jaros, Jennings, R. Johnson, S. Johnson, Juhnke, Kahn, Kalis, Koskinen, Kubly, Larson, Leighton, Lenczewski, Lieder, Luther, Mahoney, Mares, Mariani, Marko, McGuire, Milbert, Mullery, Murphy, Opatz, Osthoff, Otermba, Paymar, Pelowski, Peterson, Pugh, Rukavina, Schumacher, Sertich, Skoe, Skoglund, Swapinski, Thompson, Wagenius, Walker, Wasiluk, Wenzel, Winter, Wolf. |
| Absent:
Solberg |
2. Another amendment was offered by Rep. Mark Olson to add the following language:
"The legislature shall establish guidelines prior to the transfer of a program under the [federal] Workforce Investment Act (United States Code 29), title I and title III, to local workforce boards."
This language would have maintained legislative oversight of the workforce system, rather the federal money being transferred directly to local workforce boards under federal guidelines and directives only. The amendment was offered in response to the criticism that the new workforce system is simply a federal mandate on the states, with the legislature being nothing more than a rubber stamp machine.
Representative McElroy strengthened the amendment to read:
"The legislature MUST APPROVE the transfer of a program under the [federal] Workforce Investment Act (United States Code 29), title I and title III, to local workforce boards."
The amendment failed, 49, to 80. This amendment would have been a very positive addition to the bill. We are disappointed that so many failed to recognize the value of this language.
| The following representatives cast
a good vote to SUPPORT the above language:
Abrams, B. Anderson, Bishop, Bradley, Cassell, J. Clark, Davids, Dehler, Eastlund, Erhardt, Erickson, Fuller, Gerlach, Gunther, Haas, Hackbarth, Harder, Holberg, Howes, Jacobson, J. Johnson, Kielkucki, Knoblach, Krinkie, Kuisle, Lindner, Lipman, McElroy, Molnau, Mulder, Nornes, Olson, Osskopp, Ozment, Paulsen, Pawlenty, Rifenberg, Ruth, Seifert, Smith, Stanek, Sykora, Tingelstad, Tuma, Vandeveer, Walz, Westrom, Wilkin, Sviggum. |
| The following representatives cast
a bad vote to OPPOSE the above language:
Abeler, I. Anderson, Bakk, Bernardy, Biernat, Boudreau, Buesgens, Carlson, K. Clark, Daggett, Davnie, Dawkins, Dempsey, Dibble, Dorman, Dorn, Entenza, Evans, Finseth, Folliard, Goodno, Goodwin, Gray, Greiling, Hausman, Hilstrom, Hilty, Holsten, Huntly, Jaros, Jennings, R. Johnson, S. Johnson, Juhnke, Kahn, Kalis, Koskinen, Kubly, Larson, Leighton, Lenczewski, Leppik, Lieder, Luther, Mahoney, Mares, Mariani, Marko, McGuire, Milbert, Mullery, Murphy, Ness, Opatz, Osthoff, Otremba, Paymar, Pelowski, Penas, Peterson, Pugh, Rhodes, Rukavina, Schumacher, Seagren, Sertich, Skoe, Skoglund, Stang, Swapinski, Swenson, Thompson, Wagenius, Walker, Wasiluk, Wenzel, Westerberg, Winter, Wolf, Workman. |
| Absent:
Solberg |
3. The following amendment had already been added to HF 2486 in committee before getting to the House floor. While the amendment was undoubtedly added in good faith in response to many of your concerns, it does not actually address those concerns. Removing language referencing Goals 2000 and STW does not dismantle the Goals 2000/STW system already in place or remove it as a foundation of the new workforce system. "Not authorizing" career tracking does not prohibit career tracking, which is an intrinsic element of the system.
LANGUAGE ADDED IN COMMITTEE:
44.28 (l) The transition team shall propose revisions to the
44.29 state unified plan submitted to the United States Department of
44.30 Labor under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to remove all
44.31 references to Goals 2000, federally mandated school-to-work
44.32 programs, and linkages between K-12 education and workforce
44.33 development, and to reflect consideration of the concerns of the
44.34 parties with whom the transition team is required by law to
44.35 consult. Career tracking of individuals, or contractual
44.36 agreements to undertake the same, are not authorized. The
45.1 proposed plan revisions shall be submitted to the legislature by
45.2 December 15, 2001.
SF 2360, Omnibus state department appropriations bill
Article 12 of SF 2360 puts the entire infrastructure of the new workforce central planning system into place in Minnesota. Senator Bachmann moved to delete Article 12. The amendment to delete failed, 23 to 37.
| The following Senators cast a good
vote to DELETE Article 12:
Bachmann, Belanger, Berg, Day, Dille, Fischbach, Debbie Johnson, Kierlin, Kiscaden, Kleis, Knutson, Lesewski, Limmer, Neuville, Oliver, Olson, Pariseau, Reiter, Robling, Scheevel, Schwab, Stevens, Terwilliger. |
| The following Senators cast a bad
vote to KEEP Article 12:
Anderson, Berglin, Betzold, Chaudhary, Cohen, Foley, Fowler, Higgins, Hottinger, Dave Johnson, Dean Johnson, Doug Johnson, S.F. Kelley, R. C. Kelly, Kinkel, Krentz, Langseth, Lessard, Lourey, Marty, Metzen, R.D. Moe, Orfield, Pappas, Pogemiller, Price, Ranum, Rest, Ring, Sabo, Sams, Scheid, Stumpf, Tomassoni, Vickerman, Wiener, Wiger. |
| Those not listed abstained. |
A big thank you to those Senators who voted to delete Article 12. They did not prevail because there are simply not enough of them in the Senate willing to defend our free system. These Senators need and deserve your support and encouragement. Every one of them will be up for re-election next year in districts with new boundaries.
We urge you to recruit, support and encourage good, credible Senate candidates to run against incumbent Senators who voted NO! Replacing just a few of them will dramatically transform the dynamics of the Minnesota Senate. All the district boundaries will be changed for the 2002 elections, so incumbent Senators will be uniquely vulnerable.
EdAction - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931 - edaction@lakes.com
- (c) EdAction - All rights reserved.