« PreviousContinue »
Senator Nelsox. Our next witness is Mr. Dennis V. Fargas, manpower policy project, National Governors' Conference, appearing for the Honorable Calvin L. Rampton, Governor of the State of Utah.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS V. FARGAS, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
HON. CALVIN L. RAMPTON, GOVERNOR, STATE OF UTAH Mr. Fargas. Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit Governor Rampton's statement for the record, in the interest of time. I will merely refer to two paragraphs of that statement.
He does send you his greetings and regrets the fact that he could not be here before you personally, and recalls the fact that he has, indeed, expressed his interest in this area of public policy by previous appearances before you. I will now read just two paragraphs, sir:
It seems to me that we have talked about manpower reform for a long time, but have done very little to correct the institutional deficiencies in delivery of manpower services. I speak, of course, of the fragmentation, duplication, and general disorganization that has become a trademark, if not an operating assumption, of manpower programs in this country. In my State, as you know, we have been attempting to develop a model delivery system, and believe we have been able to overcome, or at least begin to overcome, some of these problems. Both the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare have supported us in this effort. But, as you are also aware, we have time and time again run into the fact that current legislation tends to foster the problems we seek to deal with by categorizing programs too strictly; by separating too arbitrarily the roles of different levels of local government; and by restricting to the Secretary of Labor too many decisions that could be better exercised by local elected officials.
I believe, for example, that too long have we belabored the issue of prime sponsorship without being particularly clear on just what that means. We have tended to argue about whether the States, or the cities, should have exclusive jurisdiction over particular programs when, in fact, we should have been defining what roles are appropriate to each, and how they might support each other.
With that, I will close, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time.
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Fargas. The Governor's statement will be printed in full.
(The prepared statement of Governor Rampton follows:)
STATEMENT OF CALVIN L. RAMPTON
SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT,
MANPOWER AND POVERTY
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE
March 28, 1972
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as Governor of the State
of Utah, I would first of all like to express my regrets at not being able to be
here myself to testify regarding manpower reform, and request that you not con
sider my absence a lack of interest. As you know, I have supported manpower
reform for quite some time and have spoken before you in years past. I would
now like to proceed with my statement and wish to thank Mr. Fargas of the
National Governors' Conference Manpower Project for presenting it for me.
It seems to me that we have talked about manpower reform for a long time,
but have done very little to correct the institutional deficiencies in delivery of
manpower services. I speak, of course, of the fragmentation, duplication, and general disorganization that has become a trademark, if not an operating assumption of manpower programs in this country. In my state, as you know, we have
been attempting to dev
op a model delivery system and believe we have been able
to overcome, or at least begin to overcome, some of these problems. Both the
Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare have supported us in
iiis effort. But, as you are also aware, we have time and time again run into
Statement of Governor Rampton
the fact that current legislation tends to foster the problems we seek to deal with
by categorizing programs too strictly, by separating too arbitrarily the roles of different levels of local government, and by restricting to the Secretary of Labor too many decisions that could better be exercised by local elected officials,
I believe, for example, that too long we have bela bored the issue of prime
sponsorship without being particularly clear on just what that means. We have tended to argue about whether the states or the cities should have exclusive juris
diction over particular programs, when in fact we should have been defining what roles are appropriate to each and how they might support each other.
It is a fact that delivery service areas tend to be totally inconsistent. In Utah, the boundaries between SMSA's, labor markets, and CAMPS areas are not
consistent. None of those boundaries coincide with our multi-county planning
districts as those are recognized by the Office of Management and Budget. The Secretary's designation of certain eligible counties under PEP took none of the aforementioned definitions into account, but went strictly by individual county lines. The result, of course, is increased confusion in the intergovernmental
relations between the state, its counties, and its cities and towns.
Finally, the addition to this confusion of the Public Employment Program as a separate and distinct program has intensified our problem.
We believe that the PEP has provided great good to our state. And we
think that it has greatly increased the cooperation in manpower planning between the state and local areas. But only because the state set up a structure that allowed such mutual support to develop. And while I would strongly support continuance of
Statement of Governor Rampton
a public employment program, even an expansion of it, I would want to see that
program made a part of an overall comprehensive manpower bill that allows for
flexibility between training support and employment support that can be adjusted as the situation in the nation and in individual states changes. Nor do I see any
clear reason for separating a Public Service Careers program from an overall
public employment program, where one program provides employment subsidy while another program with different eligibility criteria provides funds for
training of public employment.
Utah is not, of course, the only state that has been concerned with these
issues and during the past year a number of Governors' representatives from a
great many states--I believe more than twenty governors were directly represented
in this effort--got together and drafted a bill which I believe deals with most of the
issues I have raised. As you know, that bill, S. 3346 and its companion bill in the
House, H. R. 13461, received the endorsement of the National Governors' Con
ference Committee on Human Resources chaired by Governor Rockefeller at our
winter meeting in Washington last February. Governor Love presented an
excellent statement to the House Committee on that bill and I have since also
encouraged my fellow governors to support that same bill since I believe many
of the issues relate also to the committee of the National Governors' Conference
which I chair, the Committee of Executive Management and Fiscal Affairs.
I support Senate Bill 3346 because I believe it does provide the kind of
change that is required and dcals with the problems we experience on a day-to-day
Statement of Governor Rampton
basis. It vests far greater control in the local elected officials at the state, city
and county levels. It designates roles that each level can play and provides a
vehicle for intergovernmental cooperation and support. It ties public employment
in to a total manpower effort and gives states and cities the flexibility to balance
the level of support to each as the economy in that particular state requires.
Again, I am sorry not to have been here myself to talk with you at greater
length on these issues. I appreciate the privilege of presenting this statement to
you in absentia and request that you make it a part of the record of these hearings.
I welcome your interest in manpower reform and pledge my support to that effort.