Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the Snohomish County, the Workforce Development Council Snohomish County and the WorkSource Snohomish County Workforce Development System.
The master Memorandum of Understanding is available for public comment from July 9-August 7, 2008. The Memorandum of Understanding governs the processes used by WorkSource system partners in efforts regarding collaboration, coordination and integration of WorkSource Snohomish County services.
Available Documents:
- July 25 2008 - Update
- Draft Memorandum of Understanding
- Current Memorandum of Understanding
- System Partners
- Master Memorandum of Understanding August 2008 signature pages
- Master Memorandum of Understanding August 2008
- Master Memorandum of Understanding August 2008 2.0.
- Final Master Memorandum of Understanding August 2008
Please send all comments to Amy.Persell@wdcsc.org
Timeline
| July 3, 2008 | Draft MOU sent to system partners |
| July 9, 2008 | Meeting with system partners to review draft MOU and answer questions |
| July 9, 2008 | Draft MOU posted to website for review |
| July 25, 2008 | Comments summarized and changes made; second draft posted to website and sent to system partners for comment |
| July 28-August 8, 2008 | Additional draft(s) may be posted to website should |
| August 12, 2008 | Summary of all comments and final version posted to website and sent to system partners |
| August 13-20, 2008 | Final review by system partners |
| August 21-29, 2008 | Signature gathering |
| September 2, 2008 | PDF of final document posted to website |
Comments
>
| Comment | Revision | Associated page |
| Lynnwood is included throughout the document and I wondered if Lynnwood would be a center moving forward. | None. Lynnwood is currently a WorkSource One Stop location. The site operator for this location will be coordinating the recertification application for this location. | n/a |
| You addressed the Malcolm Baldridge question at the meeting on July 9, which I also had. I want it to be known that Arbor staff would need training on the those CQI standards if there is something that line staff will need to do to support it. | None. The Simply Better process has been written into the site operator outcomes for Program Year 2008. This process is based on Malcolm Baldridge criteria. Further, Employment Security and WDC staff who are knowledge of this process are willing to provide technical assistance. | n/a |
| Are site operator and one-stop operator synonymous? The terms seem to be used interchangeably throughout the document. | References to one-stop operator have been changed to site operator to ensure consistency with contracts. | 5,7,13 |
| Does the role for site operator at Lynnwood change because there is not one on-site? | None. Center for Career Alternatives was appointed site operator for WorkSource Lynnwood with the Program Year 07 WIA site operator procurement process. This contract was renewed at the May Executive Committee meeting. | n/a |
| Under performance accountability, the first line should read "...innovative economy..." instead of "...innovation economy...". Also related to this section, Arbor staff still need Common Measures training. Also related to this section, what is "EMILE"? Number 1 at the bottom of the page. | Change made to innovative economy. Common measures training will be set up for all WIA contractors. EMILE is the Department of Labor reporting system. | 12 |
| Should the County’s responsibilities be in this document? I would argue they should not since they are articulated vis a vis the WDC in a separate agreement and the County does not have a role in the operation of the system which is the subject of this document. This language is a holdover from the original MOU which predated the separate agreement with the County. | County responsibilities removed. | 5 |
| Should the WDC approve additional partners? This has been a source of contention between the WDC and the lease holders in the past. | Language changed that WDCSC is simply notified of additions or deletions to system partners. Additional expectation added to site operator role, “The Site Operator will notify the WDC SC of addition or deletions of any partner to a WorkSource Snohomish County site.” | 6,8 |
| Since there has been some confusion between the role of the lease holder and the site operator, do we want to provide additional clarification? | This was discussed at the adult site RSA meeting on 7/14. Amy Persell asked that this be clarified. It was not added to the MOU as the role of the lease holder could vary from site to site. This would be more appropriate in the RSA agreements. | n/a |
| Does the site operator ensure the provision of quality services to participants in WIA only or overall? | Currently, the site operator is directly responsible for reporting customer satisfaction on WIA provided services as part of the state customer service tracking system. However, the site operator would also be expected to respond to customer service complaints in the site, regardless if customer is affiliated with the WIA program. Additional language added to #10. | 8 |
| I haven’t suggested any language but I’m wondering if we want to have a section specifically for additional responsibilities of the Wagner-Peyser partner that makes clear its unique role. | None. Since Wagner-Peyser is a site-specific partner this role would be more appropriate clarified in the MOU. | n/a |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (a. General responsibilities #3, page 3) – states “each partner shall participate and support the implementation of an integrated and seamless WorkSource Snohomish County workforce development system consistent with WIA.” I would add another sentence that reads “This does not preclude or limit individual partners from conducting business in a manner that is consistent with their won agency mission and strategic directives.” | Suggested change made | 4 |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (a. General responsibilities, page 3) – Since Front end services is a core service and touches all partners, I recommend that language around front end be added to this section: I would add “Front end services provided at WorkSource at a minimum will include greeting, triage, engagement of job seekers to offer access to the full array of services available through the WorkSource System. Ensure job seekers are afforded assessment of work readiness/employability and information about service/training options and appropriate community resources, and facilitate handoff to suitable staff.” | The MOU as drafted cites that core services are defined in the operations plan; see #13. Additional detail added to #13. | 5 |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (a. General responsibilities, page 3) – This section should have a statement added on shared risk. I would add: “Facilities planning and commitments to Resource Sharing Agreements are a shared responsibility among partners. At a minimum, the major partners (WDC, ESD, and other state agencies) are committed to joint planning efforts that align service delivery methodology with facilities leases to ensure strong commitments and shared risks are in place throughout the life of the lease.” | Comment added, modified, after discussion with commenter on meaning and goal behind suggestion | 5 |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (b. Specific responsibilities, ii Workforce Development Council Snohomish County, #7, page 5) states – The WDCSC shall provide fiscal, program, and personnel oversight and evaluation.” This is too broad. Should add “of WIA programs” on to the end of the sentence. | Suggested change made | 6 |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (a. General responsibilities #12, page 3,4) – states “each partner shall operate within the local WDCSC WorkSource Snohomish County policies regarding service delivery systems, which are consistent with the WDCSC’s Strategic and Operational Plans.” I would add “This does not preclude or limit individual partners from conducting business in a manner that is consistent with their won agency mission and strategic directives.” | Suggested change made | 5 |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (b. Specific responsibilities, ii Workforce Development Council Snohomish County, #13, page 6) states – “The WDCSC shall approve all RSA’s developed by Site Operators or site leaseholder prior to execution.” Should add “where WIA funded staff are located.” | WDCSC is responsible for RSAs at certified locations per WIA legislation. Comment added with slight modifications. | |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (b. Specific responsibilities, iii Site Operator, page 6) States Site Operator is responsible for coordinating all RSA’s. This is old language from when ESD was the leaseholder and Site Operator and will need to be changed to reflect the RSA being coordinated by the leaseholder. | The language of this section has been updated. In one site the Site Operator and lease holder are the same agency. | 7-8 |
| Section II b. iii Site Operator, General responsibilities, 4th paragraph, last sentence: based on questions that arose during the MOU meeting, this sentence should be restructured to clarify what is being asked or insert the word “WorkSource” between the words develop and performance to reflect that this sentence is to see if WorkSource is meeting the partner needs/goals associated with being located at WorkSource. The same clarifications are needed in IV. Performance accountability, first paragraph, last sentence. | WorkSource has been added for clarification | 7 |
| Section III. Systematic referral for WorkSource customers: I suggest that the numbered comments be taken out and after “will:” write in “receive a written or electronic referral. As appropriate, the referral will include date, time, and place of specific appointment.” | Suggested change made | 11 |
| IV. Performance accountability, second page, last paragraph, last sentence: after “the above measures, add “partner goals,” | Suggested change made | 13 |
| Section II Responsibilities of the parties (b. Specific responsibilities, ii Workforce Development Council Snohomish County, #14, page 6) states – “The WDCSC shall approve the addition of any partner to a WorkSource Snohomish County site prior to addition.” This is too restrictive, especially where there is a limited WIA presence. I would take this paragraph out. | This was updated on the July 25 version | 6 |
| The one section on page 6 number 15 which talks about a specific position I believe should not be a part of the MOU. | Suggested change made | 6 |
| Can the signatories on the MOU be a bigger set than the sub-set of signatories on the RSA? In other words, I should think that the organizations who are part of an RSA would be a subset of the MOU group. | New paragraph added clarifying signatories in introduction; new signature page for non RSA partners added | 2; 18 |
| Question regarding the measures listed under performance accountability section and whether they are still currently valid | Language in section adjusted; reference to GMAP added | 14 |
However, I do have one comment. In section V titled Duration and Modification it states that if a partner wants to modify or terminate the MOU either A) “All partners must agree in writing to it’s termination; or” B) “A motion to approve it’s termination is passed by the WDCSC and ratified by the County Executive.” What happens if a partner must terminate the MOU due to operational or funding issues and all of the partners do not agree with termination or the WDCSC does not approve the termination? feel there should be some type of termination clause in this section stating if a partner must terminate the MOU due to lack of funding or operational infeasibility then they can do so if needed. |
Language added: Any partner can chose to terminate their membership in the MOU at anytime due to funding or operational infeasibility. This can be done with notice given to the WDCSC CEO. It should be noted that any partner in a certified WorkSource Center must be a member of this MOU agreement. Termination of membership is also a termination of a relationship with the WorkSource System. |
16 |
| Washington State Employment Security Department and Workforce Development Council Snohomish County utilize Federal common measures and State core measures of accountability to evaluate program effectiveness and make continuous quality improvements. This should include GMAP measures/indicators that are closer to real time measures. | After discussion with partner making suggestion it was determined that this change is not necessary. GMAP and real time measures are mentioned twice in this section. | 13 |
| 1. The site operator convenes a local oversight committee made up of partner management staff, develops a mutual decision making process, |
Suggested change made. | 7 |