Page images
PDF
EPUB

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
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF UTAH

before the

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT,

MANPOWER AND POVERTY

of the

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

[ocr errors]

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.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »