I would like to emphasize that within these regional districts, the It is my belief that this division of responsibility between the Governor's Office and the local elected public officials will result in the most harmonious and effective system for the delivery of manpower services at the state and local level. It is my judgment that this concept of shared responsibility would be the most effective system for achieving the objectives of equity of access to manpower services for those in need; for providing the mechanism for proper evaluation of the operation of manpower programs; and for assigning accountability for manpower delivery performance. It would locate the responsibility for statewide planning, for fiscal responsibility, and performance accountability in the Governor's Office, while leaving the selection of manpower programs to meet local needs in the hands of local public elected officials. The fourth point that I would like to emphasize is that manpower policy is the bridge between economic policy and social policy. Therefore, manpower must be related to our goals and objectives concerning vocational education, higher education, economic development, welfare reform, and health manpower development. The Manpower services provided by other legislation such as that concerning the Employment Service, vocational rehabilitation, and welfare need to be integrated to the fullest extent possible in any Comprehensive Manpower legislation reform. For example, there is obviously the need for a strong linkage between welfare reform and manpower reform. For this reason, the manpower plan developed by the state must be Comprehensive in nature and must be compatible with the state plans developed for the Employment Service, for Vocational Education, for Higher Education, for welfare services, etc. This can only occur if the Governor is given the responsibility for developing the State Manpower Plan as the State Manpower Agent, and if this type of interrelationship is mandated in the Manpower Reform legislation. With this authority, the Governor can then assure the local public officials that they will receive the cooperation and assistance of the various state agencies that conduct these manpower-related activities. In this way, the state and the local units of government can become partners in the delivery of the needed manpower services. The local units of government would then be able to fulfill their manpower service obligations within the framework of an overall state plan. The fifth point that I would like to emphasize is that whatever disputes might arise between Governors and local public officials concerning manpower policy and objectives should be resolved between them and not by a third party not of their choosing. If there exists the need for a due process procedure, this due process procedure should be conducted by individuals selected by the parties to the dispute and the local elected public officials. - that is, selected by the Governors In summary, I would like to reiterate the five major points that I have emphasized in my statement: A. B. C. D. E. We need Comprehensive Manpower Reform legislation now. A continuation of the present manpower program maze with minor modifications and changes is not accept- The role of the Nation's Governors in the delivery of manpower services must be strengthened. This can best be accomplished by designating the Governor as the State Manpower Agent. The responsibility for the delivery of manpower services at the state and local level must be shared responsibility between the Governor and local elected public officials. Since manpower policy is the bridge between economic policy and social policy, manpower policy and manpower planning must be fully integrated with the policy and planning functions. of manpower-related activities such as education, welfare, economic development, and health. The resolution of manpower policy and manpower planning problems between Governors and local public officials must be decided through a due process system developed by the - parties involved that is, by the Governors and the local public officials. Senator NELSON. 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:) |