Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development
|
Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development |
|
Council Minutes |
|
Oregon
Council for Knowledge and Economic Development Meeting Minutes Not
Present: Jim
Johnson Technical
Advisors: Don
Krahmer Ex-Officio: Jim
Berchtold Ron
Fox The
meeting convened at 9:00 AM. Vice Chancellor Vines called roll. All
members were present. Introductions
were given for ex-officios and technical advisors at the table Diane
asked for approval of revised by-laws. Chair Allen Alley asked for
comments. None were entertained. Tom Imeson moved to approve, Jill
Kirk seconded. The motion
for approval was unanimous. Next,
Chair Alley asked for comments and subsequent approval of the updated
list of technical advisors. Scott Gibson moved and Representative Tom
Butler seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
Chair
Alley called upon the chairs of each committee to present their
findings to the group since their formation.
He asked for 20 minutes of presentation each, with any
clarification and discussion following.
Workforce Development Committee
Jill
Kirk, co-chair of the Workforce Development Committee began with her
committee presentation. She
explained the sense of urgency felt by many in terms of the
development of a technologically literate workforce was belied by a
lack of recognition of how long it takes to address the problem.
Although much has been done, there needs to be a systems-oriented
approach, with individuals, employers, and education working in
concert. The group defined a technologically literate workforce as
“competent, and prepared for jobs, requiring technical knowledge
(but not only high technology jobs) in the areas of technical
proficiency, literacy, and analytic and creative problem-solving
skills.” Long-term
goals would involve approaching each segment of citizenry differently
but systematically by breaking them down into three groups.
Those currently in the K-16 education system, the emerging
workforce need to be prepared for employment upon graduation.
Transitional workers are those between jobs due to change across
industries, and need to get technological training to re-enter. The
incumbent workforce comprises the largest group, defined as those
currently employed but in need of training and educational
opportunities move to the next level of performance or retain the
level they are currently. The committee’s goal is to ensure Oregon’s
workforce is competent and well prepared to contribute to the
state’s economic development. Ms.
Kirk then moved on to discuss why a technologically literate workforce
was so important to Oregon. Jobs key to “desirable growth” are
driven by knowledge-based industries, and were not only related to
high technology industry clusters required across all industries
statewide. Education
drives this, and needs to be adequately funded, with solid
infrastructure and well-trained faculty. Currently there are critical
shortages in these areas. She
noted the graphic illustrating the multidimensional nature of
technological literacy, one factor being basic core competencies,
(oral, basic math, writing) the other being specialized skills and
knowledge advancing to deeper technological focus, both constantly
shifting with time. “If we continue to do this at the current pace,
we will be losing ground. All this points to the need to move
education systems in the area of technological literacy faster and
deeper.” Tom
Imeson, co-chair, continued with the strategic opportunities the
committee had identified as drivers for Oregon’s knowledge-based
workers and their economic impact. They included raising awareness of
the importance of technological literacy, enhancing the ability to
teach and promote technological literacy, coordination of existing
resources between education and the private sector to increase
accessibility, and enhancing graduate education opportunities. There
were challenges and barriers to these goals however. Skills learned
and degrees granted do not match the critical needs of knowledge-based
jobs, significant resource and capacity restraints exist in the
educational system, (such as teacher training), and there is a general
lack of understanding the importance of technological literacy.
He then went on to outline the committee’s biggest goal, the
development of a statewide “certificate” for technological
literacy focusing on the fundamentals, to be used consistently in K-12
and higher education, working with current certification program (CIM
and CAM), consisting of a core interdisciplinary curriculum, and
providing continuing education for transitional and incumbent workers.
He likened this to a higher education degree that is enhanced
by a foreign language requirement. He also noted that it would need to
be updated on a regular basis. He then briefly touched on the
committee’s proposed workplan for the upcoming months, consisting of
roundtable sessions followed by a development of recommendations over
the summer. Chair Alley
thanked the committee and asked the full Council if there were any
questions. Senator
Tom Hartung asked if the committee had addressed the needs of natural
resource industries, such as forestry and agriculture.
Mr. Imeson responded they had, noting the importance of
technology across sectors was a key component to the success of any
final recommendations. Don
Krahmer then mentioned a discussion he had with a reporter at a
biotechnology conference in San Francisco who noted the importance of
science and technology in creating knowledge industries. “It’s
more than providing jobs for Intel, but providing a new generation of
intellectual students who can enter Oregon’s universities.”
He then pointed to the important role of the business
community, articulated through programs like the Business Education
Compact. The committee had looked primarily at long-term solutions,
but he wondered if programs like Saturday Academy could be expanded in
the interim. Ms. Kirk
responded that this line of discussion touched on the wide array of
good programs around the state that were disarticulated and also
raises the questions of good K-12 math and science teachers.
Chair
Alley said the emphasis on developing a creative and analytical
workforce resonated with him as a CEO.
He noted that one of the things he looked for in hiring staff
was a propensity to independently solve problems, not simply identify
them. The science fair idea connected with this quality.
Scott Gibson added that if there was any way in committees to
use the resources and programs already in Oregon to use as a
competitive advantage it would be wise to use it.
Chair Alley shared a story of a visit to St. Paul’s cathedral
noting how the current pace of technology can completely undermine
one’s preparation for a job. Technology changed very little from generation to generation
as early as 20 years ago. Current
core competencies won’t have a lot of applicability in ten years as
technology breakthroughs occur, but the education system has not kept
pace. Graduates will only
have the knowledge to interface with technology for the next five
years. Clearly, he stated, it was necessary to train adaptation
skills. Representative
Al King noticed that the presentation seemed to address strategies for
basic education, yet the Council’s composition seemed very tilted
toward higher education and business. He wondered if better
representation would be needed from the Board of Education, like a
curriculum integrator. Vice Chancellor Vines noted that staff would
look into having qualified individual more involved with the group, in
addition to Ms. Kirk. Scott Gibson noted that Saturday Academy, OMSI,
and other resources should be developed as sources for continuing
education. Chair Alley ventured the idea of required continuing
education, highlighting the need for structural incentives. “What if
after 10-15 years you had to go back to school? And your employer
would pay for it.” Frost
Lee asked if the committee looked at actual data about kids coming out
of community colleges, wondering how many were actually prepared now
for high tech jobs? She
reiterated the importance of encouraging innovation early on, but then
pointed out the reality. Young students are innovators and are
interested in learning. But,
in high school, their innovation is at a lower level, having been
through a system that discourages it. “I’m concerned about a
disconnect in what we’re telling people, and when we get them to the
end point and re-educate them to be innovative then the opportunities
and access to those opportunities are not available.”
Ms. Kirk responded that this was a critical point and the
committee was in the process of looking at those numbers. She pointed
out that the declining performance in students as age level increased
was moving many current reform efforts in education. Mr. Imeson added
that there was information on what happens to graduates and employer
assessments. That
information would become more critical as the committee fleshed out
their strategy recommendations and roundtable discussions. Jim
Berchtold of the Oregon Independent College Foundation recalled a
recent Oregonian article on financial fitness for life. That model
might have relevance and provide useful benchmarks for the committee. Mr.
Gibson added that in his work on the Oregon Community Foundation
education committee, they had studied the gap in scholarship
availability. Most are dedicated and directed on a decade-long time
frame, not allowing a lot of flexibility. There was nothing for
nursing or engineering, both of which were current shortages.
The research also included a review of high school guidance
counselors. He recalled being shocked at the fact that their jobs
consisted of mostly getting kids into a good college, with no focus on
how to plan for a career. On a separate note, he added that OGI had
looked at making Saturday Academy a charter school to provide
supplemental science instruction to local school districts,
demonstrating that resources for expansion may already be in place.
Dwight Sangrey commented on the Chair’s mandatory education
requirement, noting that many professional and trade organizations
currently have continuing education components.
“They’re moving the same direction we are, and we need to
be aligned with them.” Gordon
Hoffman shared his perceptions of a recent science fair held at
Portland State. Most entrants were from rural and private schools,
with almost none from Portland public schools. He wondered why the
biggest school district of the state was not participating.
He also noted that until recently, the Portland Public Schools
had a program with Saturday Academy called LEAP that was discontinued
because of budget cuts. “Kids
need to be around science and get excited about it.” He also noted
that excitement about science and technology would get filtered to
parents this way as well. Don Krahmer added that science fairs like
that should be brought down to grade school.
Ms. Lee noted it was much the same for mathematics
competitions. Diane
Vines noted that the committee should look at recommendations from
governor-appointed Internet Commission. She recalled the best
predictor of whether a student will go on to math and science careers
is their performance in eighth grade algebra. Paradoxically, the worst
teachers are assigned to this course, as no one wants to teach it. The
Commission proposed a program that would train algebra teachers and
show them how to excite and encourage students.
Another predictor was the counselor to student ratio in a given
institution. They also proposed a training program for counselors.
Finally, she mentioned the recent robotics competition
sponsored by OCATE, which was a great success and would hopefully
continue. Adrian Roberts cited the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory was working with Washington schools to establish hands-on
lab science classes. He wondered if some businesses in Oregon could do
something similar. Scott Gibson responded that OCF was supporting
Aspire, a program that puts business people into schools as
supplemental counselors. They have metrics showing improvement in
students going on to community college and universities. Chair Alley
noted a pet peeve of his: his kids were being discouraged from using
spreadsheets, which is how most companies communicate formulas and
mathematic equations, along with PowerPoint programs. He felt this was
because teachers were uncomfortable using this technology.
Sen.
Hartung then noted the state budget shortfall, and while he agreed
with the Council’s suggestions on things to improve the system, they
needed to realize that the state didn’t have unlimited resources and
that the group needed to develop a program to fund schools adequately
and sustainably. Randall Edwards agreed with this, noting that the
state was actually disinvesting in public education.
Partnerships with industry and private sources were a way to
fix that, but he cautioned that at the core funding is not currently
meeting the needs of the state. He believed the committee would be a
good overlay in providing to other groups the groundwork needed to
build a successful knowledge economy. Joe Johnson, President of Clackamas Community College, noted
he had worked in higher education in California during the high tech
boom there. He believed the key was stability in funding in all the
education system, for individuals and their families as it both
trained workers and attracted families with the promise of a good
education. Despite a
poorly funded system, Oregon still had a quality of life element that
was attractive, and he believed that with some work, the state would
prosper. At this point
Chair Alley brought the remarks on the Workforce Development Committee
to a close and asked the Technology Transfer/R&D Committee to
present their findings. Technology Transfer/Research and Development Committee
Anne
Bunnenberg made the initial presentation, standing in for absent
committee chair Jim Johnson. The group’s long-term goal was to
dramatically increase high quality research and development, in a way
that will create new jobs, new services, and business, leading to
sustained economic development statewide across multiple industries.
The Committee’s objectives consisted of increasing the capacity for
high quality research and development, facilitating the translation of
research into commercial applications and increasing the value and
economic benefit of research, allowing the revenue to stay within the
state for potential reinvestment. To do this, the committee looked at
it in terms of a life cycle process, starting with basic research,
creating inventions, leading to proof of concept and knowledge
transfer, and moving into spinout businesses.
Critical issues throughout this process included: intellectual
capital, facilities and infrastructure, management capacity and market
access, conducive policies and culture and collaboration and
interaction. “In other words, there is a need to identify and
cultivate critical mass in industries.”
There
were also multiple barriers to success identified. She began with the potential erosion of the Bayh-Dole Act.
This law gives state universities the benefit of intellectual property
generated by federally sponsored research.
Currently in Congress, there was discussion of undercutting the
power of the law, with some of the impetus coming from Oregon’s
congressional delegation. This
would have a significant impact on technology transfer in both the
state of Oregon and the rest of the country.
The other element she emphasized was a lack of recognition
among universities that commercial research and economic development
is a legitimate part of their mission to educate. Another barrier is a
lack of capital, not just on the business start-up side but also at
critical early stages. Many ideas in the universities are not ready to
be commercialized, and require additional work to make them attractive
to small companies. Oregon underfunds the ability of tech transfer
people to package ideas at the “pre-venture” stage. Ms.
Bunnenberg then moved on to context. Key issues included a bias
towards considering how to achieve critical mass in existing areas of
expertise of higher education and industry.
The committee’s general sense was that the state did not want
to provide focus for a just few key sectors, even in a resource poor
situation. The committee believed that sequential equality, rather
than concurrent, was needed for success. Other contextual objectives
included: increased collaboration between the private sector and
academic research, an increase in the ability to conduct large joint
research projects, examination of system capacity on state level,
identification of ways to increase and leverage investments, ensuring
research does not unduly disadvantage small and medium-sized
businesses, ensuring the reciprocal “two-way street” between
institutions and the private sector. She then moved on to the
strategic opportunities identified by the committee. Keeping in mind
the budget shortfall, they divided their priorities into two
categories, cost-driven and policy-driven.
The biggest idea on the cost-driven side was the development of
signature research that is both linked to an indigenous industry base
and capable of attracting world-class researchers. Another idea was to
increase commercialization capital to help network management
resources. Policy-driven priorities were two-fold; to streamline and
remove barriers from joint research efforts between and among
universities and the private sector, and to promote technology
transfer as an economic development asset across the state, at a
practical level and a perceptual level. She concluded by summarizing
the workplan and opened the floor for questions.
Mr.
Krahmer commended the committee, and brought up two points. As a
lawyer with experience representing companies working with university
technology, he worried about the state’s ability to effectively
process legal transactions between the university and companies.
He recommended Hardy Meyers, Mardi Saathoff, and Carmen
Calzacorta as people who might be able to assist in addressing this
issue. He also noted that he wanted to see business lawyers across the
state become more familiar with the process and issues.
His second point dealt with communication and making AUTM data
more available as well as inventory of private sector R&D in the
state. “Once you get that information out, you help tell the
story.” Ms. Bunnenberg
responded that one thing the committee discussed was looking at the
incentive structure in higher education, and how faculty are often
discouraged from participating in the technology transfer process due
to structural issues. They
also discussed partnering with Dept. of Justice to reform the
timelines of the transaction process. Mr. Krahmer pointed out that
there were currently only two attorneys in the Dept. of Justice who
had expertise in the area; because of the salary structure they have
many inexperienced staff. He
added that the legislature needed to look at the cost effectiveness of
training and retaining experienced attorneys. Dwight
Sangrey asked about the Oregon representative advocating the amending
of Bayh-Dole. Ms. Bunnenberg noted it was Senator Wyden, who was
concerned that the federal government supports research for which it
does not receive full benefits, impacting health care and medication
costs. She encouraged the Council and interested parties to acquaint
themselves with the Bayh-Dole Act and encourage the Senator to not
alter the law, thus preserving a potential source of revenue. Senator
Hartung recalled when Jim Johnson testified on behalf of the
technology transfer bills in front of his committee during the last
legislative session. What struck him the most was his comment that
even though high tech was stagnant, it would recover and expand,
locating to new places. Oregon could have be one of those places, and
high quality education was very important to attract those companies,
with emphasis on higher education and life long learning. He cautioned
that if technology business left the state, economic recovery would be
even more difficult, because of the state’s heavy dependency on
income tax. Representative Butler noted the possible connections
between the committees. He noted the Workforce committee was proposing
getting people into education and promoting industry partnerships to
inspire young people. This meant finding incentives for companies to
participate in education, developing the “two way street.” Chair
Alley noted this was an important point, finding a way to incent
industry people to be teachers, counselors, or students in the higher
education system. He recalled an idea that the person heading the
technology transfer office at the University of Michigan had the
community status of a senior venture capitalist, because they control
access to the good deals coming out of the university. That was not
the case in Oregon, perhaps because university technology transfer
staffs have limited resources and control over technology. If their
status and flexibility were increased, it would likely draw more
venture capital. Mr. Gibson noted that in researching the success of
Seattle’s biotech ventures, he was told that recruiting world class,
Nobel Laureate researchers was the key.
Venture capitalists and other resources found them. Ms.
Bunnenberg agreed, noting that critical mass of good researchers
because it was the fastest way to get maximum leverage and funding. Mr.
Krahmer asked if the committee had looked how Oregon was doing in
terms of bringing in federal dollars.
Ms. Bunnenberg responded that they had assembled some data on
grants, and SBIR funding along with looking at how well the state
generates technology transfer dollars.
She noted that Oregon had done modestly well, ranking in the
mid-section of states in terms of dollars received.
The problem, she concluded, is that the mid-section isn’t
nearly good enough for driving industry development.
Chair Alley agreed, noting the success of Ann Arbor. Building a
world-class university in Michigan to attracted the best and brightest
from out of state. Mr.
Berchtold commented on his experience with fellowships noting their
potential to impact students and provide better linkages. Citing Intel
staff currently using a sabbatical to teach classes at the University
of Portland, he wondered how many sabbaticals in the technology
community are actually are used to partner with universities and
participate in the education process. Mr. Roberts noted this came back
to the concept of partnership. Other states’ success is based on
moving technology rapidly and creating business through
government-industry-university (GUI) partnerships. All three must work
collectively. The best models stake invested dollars as the glue to
create centers of excellence. All
regions’ universities have diverse and disparate core competencies,
but bringing a center of excellence is with industry is key. Oregon
has much potential but it hasn’t been developed in partnership, and
hasn’t been successful. Chair
Alley responded that industry was willing to do this, but often felt
unguided in purpose and specific strategy. He noted a successful
example of scholarships from Intel. The administrative infrastructure
was consistent and easy for small companies to participate in. Had it
not been for that program, a CEO wouldn’t know where to start
looking to pursue an internship/scholarship program independently.
If the university system can take the lead in putting together
structures, it will enhance success. Mr. Krahmer recalled his
conversation with the reporter in San Francisco, stressing the
importance of promoting resources to the national and global market.
He noted the Portland Ambassadors as a potential group step up
recruitment of businesses. Business and Capital Formation Committee
Chair
Alley then asked Scott Gibson, chair of the Business and Capital
Formation Committee. Mr.
Gibson began by noting that the group quickly narrowed down from
multiple industries down to bioscience and technology as the industry
of Oregon’s future. He
noted that bioscience included bioscience included biomedical devices,
agriculture bioscience, bioinformatics, biotechnology, and clinical
products and services. In
technology, it was not excluded to Oregon’s current clusters, like
semiconductors or display technology, but rather software and Internet
technology, outreaching to all the state including companies that
propagate technology usage in traditional industries in Oregon. Mr.
Gibson continued with a discussion of the definition of many types of
capital. First was pre-seed, the area after a discovery that has been
financed by federal research dollars. At that point there is no
management or seeding or business plan.
Pre-seed will pay for the business plan, initial recruitment,
and additional development if risk exists in calling it a success.
“Many things in the petri dish fail in the mice and human tests”.
It is known as a high risk, low return kind of capital.
Development capital is the next step, and is unique to bioscience.
For instance, in England a number of top universities had
formed a development corporation to ameliorate risks and pool
resources. Angel capitol
was where successful business people in the field contribute their
expertise. Institutional seed venture capital consisted of actual
funds distributed by with limited partners in business to create a
solid return, and included local institutions like Smart Forest. They
will also tap government money to help increase the size of the fund
and the return. Corporate venture capital is where a large company
makes the investment. He noted that Intel was one of the largest
corporate venture capital sources in the world, and so Oregon enjoyed
a slight advantage in this area. Institutional venture capital was
similar to seed institutional corporate similar to seed just in later
stage, with management team assembled and some of the risk eliminated
due to additional research. Mezzanine
investment happens once all technical risk is out, and is instead
concerned with expansion risk, such as distribution channels and
marketing. Lastly, growth
for expansion of physical space is called anchor tenant capital. Mr.
Gibson moved on to discuss some of the key issues of capital
formation, focusing specifically on policies that affect its success.
This included tax policy, state investment, philanthropic policy,
university/industry linkages, recruitment of capital, management and
technical assistance, and growth space.
Senator Hartung asked how higher education could be of
assistance in these various areas of capital formation. Mr. Gibson
noted that pre-seed capital was especially critical for university
participation. Rep. King
noted it was important to communicate to the legislature that
university people would soon be able to participate in equity
participation and would have incentive to be more linked into capital
issues. Mr. Gibson agreed, adding the passage of Ballot Measure 10
would help in this. Continuing, he noted that Randall Edwards had
provided great perspective on state investment policy, pointing out
that the state is a huge investor with retirement funds. If ways can
be found to ensure venture capital investments are part of our
investment allocation to the extent they can be kept in Oregon, (like
OVP holding PERS money) “we can have our cake and eat it too.” On
leverage, he illustrated with a scenario of a seed venture capitalist
from another region, who is approached and asked to invest with the
condition of putting a partner in Oregon. On the philanthropic policy,
he conceded it may sound unorthodox, but reminded the group that
foundations also invest their corpus and that many have grown to the
point have asset allocations that can be invested into venture
capital. The pre-seed
area in particular is a high-risk stage, and foundations can create a
philanthropic track to fund that. It would not have a great return but
will be a great community service to the state. He then noted that
linkages from universities to industry were weak, and much more could
be done. On management he noted a dearth of top people in the
bioscience field and even in other areas of technology.
Mr.
Gibson moved on to the group’s biggest goal: making Oregon a money
center for early stage business formation. Noting the futility of
competing with London or Boston for everything, the committee looked
to focus on early stage specific capital. They would be looking into
metrics at later meetings to determine where the state was at this
point, and where it needed to advance. Finally, Mr. Gibson pointed to
the two matrices integrating policy options and funding stages for
bioscience and technology. The combination made it easy to match up
specific areas of strength that were prime for development.
For example, in bioscience pre-seed capital, they thought it
best to focus on state investment, foundation investment, and
management cultivation. Mr. Gibson noted that as bioscience was fairly
new in Oregon, most of the capital levels were in earlier stages,
whereas the technology focus would be in the later stages to
complement the already existing clusters in the state.
Purple shaded areas indicated where the group would be focusing
on the future workplan. He
concluded and opened the table up for comments.
Don
Krahmer commended the committee and noted that in terms of the
technology aspect, he didn’t feel Oregon had a good understanding of
its own industry clusters. He
noted the discussion going on with federal funding of the SBIC
program, and how important it was to have support from the federal
level. He also noted the Murdock Foundation as a potential resource.
He also noted the issue of urban land use planning and how it related
to industry growth. Mr.
Gibson responded that the committee didn’t add development space on
the technology side of priorities even though they recognized the lack
of space in Washington County. Bill Scott noted that the OECDD had
done studies on urban space, adding that it would take aggressive
public leadership in the future to make more land available for
business development. He added that OCKED, however, should try to
focus on knowledge connections and not attempt to address every issue
of economic development. Mr. Krahmer responded that part of the
problem was that a disconnect occurred with local officials involved
with land use planning and these economic development discussions.
Senator Hartung asked if the committee had looked at alternate
places for growth than Washington Country, citing the Warm Springs
Reservation as a possible alternative. Mr. Gibson noted that the
committee had given it some consideration, but was trying to stay
focused on technologies that would have the greatest impact on
multiple industries in the state, especially for traditional
industries. Representative
King added that places like Springfield and Eugene had industrial
parks he would like to see developed and expanded, but was aware of
the fact that they needed to focus on critical mass in metropolitan
areas. Chair
Alley pointed out he was once an example of a venture capitalist who
got relocated by means of a leveraged investment. Michigan made a deal
for a partner and he was sent. Although his firm never invested in a
Michigan company, he leased space from a Michigan seed fund, was on
their Board and contributed his expertise.
Currently the fund is worth 75 million dollars. He also
recalled comments from the last meeting about Oregon’s current
competition being on a global scale. He noted on his visit to China,
he met with the Vice Premier of China, the equivalent of the vice
president. They visited an industry park of 10 square miles. Engineers
are willing to earn far less than those in the United States, have
been educated in American schools and speak perfect English.
“We’re competing with 1.3 billion people in a Communist
country that can turn on a dime, not just with San Jose or San
Mateo.” Finally, he noted the region’s inability to understand the
decay of the business environment in contrast to the rest of the
world’s growth. China
had figured out that they could not compete with the United States
militarily, so instead their strategy is to economically link itself
to America, to ally with a superpower and boost their economic growth.
The only way the US can remain competitive is to take advantage of
those efforts. Bill
Newman noted that for this committee concepts of international
linkages were very important. “We need to be integrated, because we
will never have enough on our own, especially in the bioscience
fields. No matter what resources we put behind this it won’t be
enough.” Mr. Gibson noted the committee had this discussion,
extending it to the idea of swallowing our pride and linking with
Seattle to create a Northwest Bioscience Corridor which might be
easier than trying to cultivate it independently. Chair Alley added
that his company was dependent on San Jose for chip industry, and that
there were a lot of resources in the greater region that could be
drawn on. Sen. Hartung noted that at the end of April, Senator Mae Yih
would be leading a delegation of legislators and business people to
China promote Oregon businesses opportunities, emphasizing the need to
market to a greater audience. At
this Chair Alley closed the floor for comments and moved on to the
review of the Council’s workplan. He noted that at this point the
committees had gone from the 100,000 foot level to the 50,000 foot
level. There had been good discussion and exchange of ideas. The next
point was to get to the 10,000 foot level by June. Pat Scruggs,
facilitator for the Council, added that between now and the next
meeting the group would come together to create more technical
recommendations for presentation.
Following the June meeting, the committees would refine those
recommendations for final presentation in September. A draft report
would be created to review in early November.
Chair Alley commended each group for thinking big. Considering
his international experiences, he noted that big ideas were what was
needed to be successful. He encouraged the group to be as creative and
aggressive as possible when creating goals and recommending strategies
to meet them. Oregon Business Plan Update
Chair
Alley then invited Duncan Wyse, newly appointed technical advisor, to
provide an update on the OR Business Plan initiative, supported by the
Oregon Business Council. Mr. Wyse began with the hope that his
organization and OCKED could coordinate their efforts. He gave an
update on the activities of the OBC, highlighting the Oregon Business
Plan. Late last year the Business Council began working on a business
statement for what opportunities would exist for the future Oregon
economy. It would look at all the various pillars of policy, from
education to transportation. The
impetus for this was economic, political, and historic. As Oregon
recovers from a recession, public focus was on the economy, sparking
new interest and dialogue. Secondly, there would soon be a new
governor for the first time in eight years, signaling a time to
rethink policies and alter direction. Lastly, he noted that the state
was in the midst of a great transition from a resource economy to a
knowledge economy. 20 years has seen massive diversification and huge
changes unique to Oregon. The Plan would springboard off the work
already done by Oregon Shines studies and other benchmarks being
researched, and would offer the industry perspective to the new
governor and legislature as they drafted a budget and new economic
strategy. To this date, a steering committee had been organized,
broadly representing a diverse mix of business people from across the
state as well as representatives from OECDD and the Oregon Progress
Forum. The project included three major elements. First, it would
provide an environmental benchmarking exercise to show how OR
performed in recent years. They would use this to suggest strategy for
the major issues. A grant had been received, with assistance from
other agencies and consulting groups to assist in this.
From this, they would conduct a series of regional forums
asking industry leadership to give their perspective on what was
needed to make Oregon and their own industry successful. Legislators
and other community leaders would be invited to participate as well.
They also would be doing breakthrough analysis on several
policy areas such as education and transportation, to suggest that
bold changes could be made in terms of structure and delivery. The
plan was moving ahead, with the regional meetings being organized for
the fall 2002, and completion of the report was targeted for November,
followed by a statewide meeting to be held after November with the new
political leadership to talk about issues that lie ahead. He then
proposed sharing information between the OBC and OCKED so there was an
alignment in message. Chair
Alley asked if there were any specific things to create linkages
between OCKED and OBC. Mr.
Wyse noted that some alignment existed already with overlapping
membership. He noted that during the regional meetings, the data
collected by OCKED on each region and industry to add insight.
Mr. Krahmer asked how OBC would be involving legislators and
other elected officials and how to involve with Portland metro area
and all their various groups doing analysis on the subject. Mr. Wyse
responded that OBC respected current efforts and didn’t want to
duplicate anything currently being done. He expressed a hope to
convene all groups region wide to present industry perspective in an
organized fashion. He also hoped that elected officials would be
present at the regional meetings to engage in the process. Mr. Krahmer
noted that it would be ideal for rural elected officials to engage
with urban businesses and for urban legislators to engage the rural
perspective to break down the existing rural/urban divide in the next
session. He also noted that it was important to include representation
of new industries that don’t currently have trade organizations to
represent them. Mr. Wyse agreed, and noted that the metro region was
very complex and they would need to be creative to convey the true
nature of all the region’s industry clusters without being too
confusing, and mentioned the idea of a product fair to familiarize
Oregonians with various industries in a comprehensive format. On
cluster analysis, Mr. Wyse noted that regional economies typically
perform well in specific sectors. This meant Oregon needed to get
specific and ask what the industries needed. Small clusters are a
challenge, because they are difficult to see, such as the software
cluster a decade ago, or the bioscience cluster now.
He commended the OECDD for their help in organizing the
meetings. Vice Chancellor Vines noted that as a technical advisor Mr.
Wyse would have an even better linkage.
Chair Alley clarified that there was no action item out of this
segment, but that all Council members and interested parties should
keep OBC’s efforts in mind when working in committees. Ms. Scruggs
proposed that the committees try to pool their major goals together by
a certain date, to share with OBC’s breakthrough analysis research,
and find potential coordination. She also noted that the environmental
scan would be helpful for the tactical elements of the parade.
OECDD Update
Chair
Alley then called on Bill Scott to give an update for the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Dept.
He began by referring the Council to the passage of House Bill
4026 during the last special session. This bill set up a bioscience
task force and requires the OECDD to propose a plan to the Emergency
Board for short term and long-term actions to stimulate the Oregon
economy. This was due on April 12.
While some had questioned whether another plan was necessary,
the Department framed it in terms of organizing and presenting efforts
that were already being done. The draft plan was available for input
and interested parties should contact Mr. Scott’s office.
He also invited the group to a meeting at their Portland
offices that week to add any input. He then touched on the bioscience
task force, noting that legislators and other interested parties had
specific goals for this body. The
message of the Governor upon the bill’s passage reflected his hope
that the group would coordinate its efforts with those of OCKED. Mr.
Scott pledged he would lobby for a member of OCKED to be represented
on the task force to keep direction in synch.
Mr. Gibson asked how the focus of the task force would be
directed, noting that his impression was that the group was going to
be more focused on manufacturing rather than research. Mr. Scott
acknowledged this, and again said they would try to avoid duplication
of effort. Ms. Bunnenberg noted that they would need to clarify the
mission of that group after the Council meeting. Mr. Krahmer noted
that coordination was essential between all the disparate bioscience
groups in the state, and noted that this should be communicated to the
Legislature. Rep. King
responded that he and Rep. Butler sat on the committee that referred
the bill. Part of the rationale for passing focusing the task force as
they had was to make it more helpful to coordinate and facilitate with
other overlapping organizations. Rep. Butler noted his appreciation for the Governor’s
inclusion of OCKED as part of the task force’s mission.
Originally, the scope was much more broad than manufacturing.
This made their focus more concrete to recruit companies and create
jobs in Oregon. Mr.
Krahmer noted that it was important to look beyond the state to what
other regions were doing, and also to develop other sectors’
presence. Ms. Bunnenberg
added that the state was much stronger in medical technology than in
the classic bioscience area. It was important to look at the resources
already developed in that sector, and to include medical technology.
Chair Alley asked Bill if there was anything that OCKED could
do somehow. Mr. Scott
responded that they would work with the Governor’s office on
appointments and would coordinate with OUS and the OCKED Chair to make
the task force function properly. He also added that the state
legislative concept process was already underway.
The deadline for that was April 15th.
He was working with OUS on a placeholder proposal and budget
proposal for that change. These
could be revised later on. In some cases, both higher education and
economic development would have it on the list. Discussions included
tax credits and budget options for ORTDA and the HETT Fund. He said he
would keep the group abreast of what was going on in the executive
process. Chair
Alley then moved on to discuss the schedule for the next meeting
targeting for early June. Rep. Deckert noted that a special session
would be taking place, making it difficult for people to get away.
Vice Chancellor Vines noted that late June was difficult for
many people’s schedules. Rep.
King suggested meeting in Salem to help with the legislators with the
special session. Chair Alley asked the staff to explore that
possibility. The Meeting adjourned at 10:53 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development |