Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development
|
Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development |
|
Council Minutes |
|
Oregon Council for Knowledge & Economic Development
The meeting was convened at 9:10 AM. Prior to taking roll, Chair Allen Alley introduced new technical advisors; Ed Ray, President of Oregon State University; Jake Oken-Berg, designee from the Oregon Business Council; and Jack Isselman of OECDD and the designated staff for the agency to OCKED. He also recognized departing OUS Vice Chancellor Diane Vines for her energy, leadership, and creativity in staffing and assisting in OCKED’s creation. He noted that she would continue to be a part of the Council as an interested party and technical advisor. Roll was called, and a quorum confirmed. Chair Alley then took a moment from the agenda to
relay a newspaper article he read while in San Jose about a Santa
Clara career fair that would feature eat least 45 Taiwanese technology
companies, expecting to draw over 1,000 job seekers. He also noted
that more Ph.D. degrees were granted to foreign residents now than
U.S. citizens. He noted that with this context, it was important for
the Council to note that the scope of their mission was not just about
competition with the rest of the Northwest region or the rest of the
United States, but with the world.
He then asked the Council to turn their attention briefly to
the issues they would be discussing, imploring members to ask
themselves if they were doing all they could to speak as one voice to
policy makers and elected officials. Chair Alley then asked for approval of the
minutes. Carl Talton moved to approve, Keith Larson seconded, and the
motion passed anonymously. Chair Alley then asked Representative Tom Butler
and Senator Ryan Deckert for an update on the conclusion of the
Legislative session. Representative Butler began by thanking Senator
Deckert for all his work getting bills passed out of the state Senate.
He noted that quite a few of the Council’s concepts had gotten out
of committee, although many of them had not been voted out of Ways and
Means before the session adjourned. In particular, he felt the
investment incentive package for out-of-state researchers and venture
capitalists was especially critical given the need to attract
investment to Oregon, but it had not gotten out of the Revenue
committee due to the prevailing attitude in Salem about any kind of
initiatives attached to state revenue. He then turned to Senator
Deckert to give an overview of the portions of OCKED recommendations
that did get through in new forms. Senator Deckert thanked his Representative Butler
for his support, and noted the diverse constituencies they both served
as testament to the broad effect the Council’s work could have.
Moving from there, he began by singling out the Council’s biggest
success in the session—the passage of Senate Bill 360, which
appropriated funds for a signature research center. It passed thanks
to the Governor’s support, and was the only significant funding ($20
million) for any new initiative in the current biennium.
This would not have happened without OCKED as a driving force
behind it. He added that a lot of significant language from other
bills had made its way into other legislation, and in one instance, an
agency had identified funding in its own budget to offset the cost of
one initiative. However, the signature research center was where
“OCKED made its footprint” on the session. He emphasized it was
necessary to continue to push in this area, and noted that the
Governor was hoping to do an official signing ceremony with OCKED
members present in the near future. Chair Alley thanked the representatives and
senators who worked with group, noting that the coalition was
extraordinary in light of the contentious issues being discussed at
this session. Although the end point had not been reached, much
progress had been made. He then asked about the fate of the bills
regarding agency mission statements and revision of the contract
requirements for universities. Representative Butler noted that the
State Board of Higher Education had made changes to the
commercialization contracting process in their larger legislative
package. Vice Chancellor Vines added that the mission statement bill
had died before it could get to the floor. Scott Gibson added that
OHSU had a proposal to revise its mission moving through its
institutional approval process. Don Krahmer asked if Board of Higher
Education had approved the changes. Vice Chancellor Vines noted that
they had, but it was not approved in statute.
The Board, Board of Education, and Community Colleges Dept.
were all supportive of the changes, and she hoped that it could be
reincarnated during the next session. Chair Alley asked the legislators if they had any
additional comments. Representative
Betsy Johnson noted that there was some general confusion at the end
of the session about who was proposing what. Not all legislators
followed the blending of various organizations and acronyms as closely
as others, and because of that it was difficult to get individual
proposals moving through the process. As a result, officials would see
one technology bill and assume if they supported it, any other related
bills could be a lesser priority. She suggested clarity and a new
approach to packaging and clear, concise marketing for their intended
audience. Chair Alley agreed, noting that he was often confused at
times as well, both within the many acronyms of organizations
Representative Johnson had mentioned and among various state agencies
and offices. He noted that he wanted to see streamlining and
simplification in the system, and hoped that OCKED could be an example
of that. Mr. Gibson added that HB 3613 had become an OCKED-supported
bill that Council members had lobbied for with the sponsors and the
Treasurer’s Office. This bill mandated $100 million of PERS money
that would go into venture capital that would prospect in Oregon and
invest when prudent. This
would assist in the efforts to get top-level venture capitalists to
commute to Oregon, which with the failure of the incentive package was
a hopeful compromise. Chair Alley commended the Treasurer’s Office
for their work in negotiating this proposal, and noted that it was a
fine example of the results of such good collaboration.
Senator Deckert noted that without the help of OCKED members,
this bill would not have passed in the Legislature, and that it would
be of great help to start-ups in Oregon. Chair Alley responded that success comes in being able to
build a credibility base, which was inclusive and focused on policy
issues, not individual agendas. The MMD Center was a good example of
this; there was no controversy or predominant dissenting opinion, just
a common consensus that MMD was the most viable field for a signature
research center. That
single unified voice enhanced the Council’s credibility in other
areas, which laid the groundwork for more smooth relationships in the
future. Jim Johnson commended Senator Deckert’s staff
and Chair Alley’s assistant Chris Bright for their hard work and
assistance in guiding Council members through the legislative process. The infrastructure they provided was invaluable. He also
reinforced the Chair’s comments about solidarity, comparing
OCKED’s successful passage of signature research to the ETIC
proposals that floundered due to a lack of cohesion at crucial
moments. He also encouraged the Council to involve AOI more in the
future, as their mission has been focused more on the needs of
technology, and singled out Harvey Matthews as an excellent resource.
Chair Alley commented that he had found the Governor’s Office far
more receptive than it had been in previous years. He emphasized the
genuine desire for an exchange of ideas, with thoughtful feedback from
staff that helped everyone understand where the Governor stood on
issues and proposals. Keith Larson asked if there was anything the
Council could glean from the 3613 experience and how it went through
the legislative process successfully.
Chair Alley responded that because it was PERS money it was
emotional, and had a “three-second recognition” feature where
people instantly recognized the positive economic benefits with no
negative impacts. He compared that to some other proposals that
generated more confusion than clarity, and that like marketing a
product, it was important to create concise “hooks”.
Representative Johnson interjected that the difference with this was
that in marketing you sell a product to a homogeneous field.
The Legislature was more like a series of “armed camps”.
She recalled the 3613 process was not as smooth as the Chair
portrayed, and noted that “selling” the idea had to occur in
different venues as no message would universally appeal to all parties
needed for passage. The “hook” and context for each caucus and
sub-group within each needs to be tailored to.
Political backdrop and collaterall was very important, and
acknowledging these factors was critical to an idea’s success and
passage. Don Krahmer noted the importance of a strong coalition of
business people, academia, and government.
The responsibility could not all be on OCKED’s legislative
colleagues. Ann Bunnenberg noted one concern that surfaced in
other contexts of the session; a concern about the acceptance of
federal grants increasing the aggregate size of state government.
Since so many of OCKED’s strategies were hinged on leveraging
federal dollars, she wondered how this sentiment would carry over into
future sessions and how OCKED might approach it. Representative
Johnson offered that this was a personality-driven issue by
legislative leadership. Representative Butler noted that this was
focused more on human services as opposed to agencies and areas that
hadn’t already received a large amount of federal money.
Senator Deckert commented on the credibility institutions of
higher education had with key members of legislative leadership. This
became clear towards the end of the session, when $40 million was lost
for OUS, including scholarship funds for both public and private
institutions. He hoped OCKED would be a guiding force to look deeper
into the credibility issue, and would make recommendations to the
Governor’s office to make certain this did not continue.
Mr. Johnson commented that OCKED’s focus on technology was
important, but with the state looking at a steady disinvestment of
higher education when much of OCKED technology focus was going into
university-housed signature research areas, it was clear that OCKED
needed to address higher education in a much broader context. Following this, Chair Alley, moved on to project
updates. He asked OSU School of Engineering Dean Ron Adams and Adrian
Roberts give an update on the progress of the Multiscale Materials and
Devices Center. Mr. Adams thanked the Council for their work in
getting the Center funded, and began his overview with his pleasure at
how well the participating campuses were collaborating. He noted that
on Friday the director of engineering for the National Science
Foundation would be in Corvallis, and be joined over the weekend by
the director of the National Academy of Engineering. They would be
around for the grand opening of the tsunami wave center, but they were
also including an introduction to the MMD Center.
Ron also thanked all of the people who had made the progress
possible, as well as Hewlett-Packard for the donation of space to
begin the lab collaboration. Mr.
Adams then moved onto a quick update on funding proposals that were
being submitted to various foundations, including intermetallic
microreactors for hydrogen production to the Department of Energy,
fabrication equipment for nanoparticles and microstructures to the
Keck Foundation, planning and administration for the Center to the
Murdock Foundation, and three proposals on the application of
nanoparticles in biosensing by the participating campuses. A
discussion was underway on a Center for Green Nanotechnology which
would be submitted to the NSF by OUS and PNNL.
Laboratory space was being provided by Hewlett-Packard in
Corvallis, the Riverfront Research Park in Eugene, and the Portland
State University campus in Portland. At this point, Mr. Adams moved on to discussion of a federal strategy for funding. He reminded the group that the three institutions had signed a Memorandum of Understanding to make the Center a reality. An event would be taking place at Timberline Lodge in the coming week to bring faculty members and key industry representatives to do collaborative planning for the Center. He expected that the federal agenda process would be completed in the next few months, and noted that Senator Wyden and Senator Smith had already expressed their support. The goal was to see real money behind the various proposals and demonstrate the ability to import dollars into the state. They hoped to be moved in to the temporary space at HP by the start of 2004. Development would continue with the business plan, and it would be released soon to distribute to various industrial affiliates. He noted that one thing the Council could assist with was a governing board for the MMD center, and hoped that OCKED could form a committee to determine the shape of the center in its beginning years. Mr. Adams had already contacted OCKED member Dwight Sangrey who had agreed to chair this committee, and would include members from institutions, the legal community, OECDD, ETIC, the OR Dept. of Justice, and the venture capital community. He hoped he could get a tentative commitment from the group on this, and thanked them once more for their time and guidance. Chair Alley thanked Mr. Adams and responded that
he believed the success of this center was critical to the group and
Oregon, and that it was important to work with elected officials and
develop metrics for accomplishment to effectively communicate that
success. Mr. Johnson asked what Mr. Adams would estimate they would
take in for funding within the next 15 months.
Mr. Adams responded that there would be between $5-10 million
distributed among the various campuses. Chair Alley commented that
there could be a fervor to create future new signature research
centers in the next biennium, and that a process needed to be in place
to facilitate that success. Representative Johnson noted that there
needed to be care to avoid the perception of redundancy and excessive
competitiveness among the institutions. She wanted to see a creation
of “spires of excellence” not “slicing those spires so thin it
makes for mediocrity” and that to help higher education build
credibility, it was important to recognize that not everyone had to
participate in every single thing. Ms. Bunnenberg asked about matching
fund provisions were being considered, along with the possible
exemption of being able to use the Center funds as a designated
matching issue. Ron Adams responded that this was an issue with any
federally funded research, and that in some cases the rate of a
business’s growth was limited by the amount of money available, and
it was something they were careful to consider.
Chair Alley then asked Adrian Roberts to make a final comment
as a representative from PNNL. He spoke on behalf of Lab Director Len Peters and absent
OCKED member Dwight Sangrey. He first spoke of the Lab’s support,
and affirmed that the Center was central to his own vision for the
federal lab. It was of a
such a high priority that associate lab director Rod Quinn was
assigned to be a full time staff person to the Center. They were also
working to write multiscale technology into a number of Department of
Energy-funded initiatives. Much of the proposed technology was
well-aligned with the Department, in terms of Homeland Security and
development of hydrogen-powered engines. He then noted that Dwight
Sangrey and his federal relations committee were looking into
additional opportunities with other funding sources.
Some areas included defense, energy, sustainability, and
agriculture. Mr. Sangrey was also looking into linking Oregon into
related initiatives with the New York university system collaborating
on research and political connections. Chair Alley thanked both presenters for their
comments and then asked Jack Isselman for an update on the research
core competencies project. Jack began by thanking Ron Fox, former
staff for OCKED for bringing him up to date on the Council’s focus
and activities. Before updating the Council on the project, Mr. Isselman
distributed a notice for a SWIFT four conference OECDD was
co-sponsoring, and encouraged attendance on September 24. He then
began with the research competency assessment, noting that his
department had funded the project with $70,000 to begin construction
of a statewide “roadmap” for research competencies. The consulting
firm Alta Biomedical had begun work on the study two weeks ago. The
department’s deadline for the report was February 2004.
There were three primary phases to the study:
identification of core research competencies in the state;
determination of high value commercial application work; and finally a
selection of five core research competencies and recommendations for
further action. He noted
that this was only to be a primary assessment, and that more study and
funding would likely be needed to flesh out a technology roadmap. Vice
Chancellor Vines added that the Council owed PNNL thanks for offering
the use of their Starlite database system to help guide research and
saving money. The
Starlite technology recognized all patent, grant and licensing data to
create a “map” of where concentrations in specific research areas
were located geographically. Chair Alley thanked Mr. Isselman for the update,
and then asked OCKED facilitator Pat Scruggs to give an update on the
workforce technology assessment project also underway. Ms. Scruggs
began by thanking the Department of Community Colleges & Workforce
Development for funding the second phase of the project. She also
introduced Kelly McCray, who would was the chief architect of the
study. The study covered the broad base of technology workers, from
engineers to technical support workers. Results found 70,000 IT
workers in Oregon, and 85% of those workers were working outside of
high technology sector. This quantified and validated the earlier
claims of OCKED’s committees that technology workers were needed in
a variety of professional and vocational fields. 20,000 of those jobs
were outside of the Portland metro area, and most employers predicted
that there would be 5,000-6,000 new hires every year for next three
years. The data was divided into three fields of industries:
application industries, such as health care, finance and service, that
were dependent on IT workers to provide their services, technology
deployment industries, such as internet service providers and
telecommunications companies; and technology development industries,
which included the more traditional high technology firms. The data
showed that most of workforce is in the application industries and
were located throughout the state. She also noted that while four year
and higher degrees were most important in the development industries,
in application industries there was a great demand for two-year
degrees, underscoring the need for seamless collaboration between
k-12, community colleges, and higher education.
She also noted the need for incumbent training, especially in
the application industries. This pointed to ways to find focused and
distinct roles for degree programs and regional places. Ms. Scruggs then turned to an analysis of trend
development. Overseas outsourcing had a huge impact on the workforce.
These were jobs that were not coming back, emphasizing the need to
create positions and training programs that will keep jobs here. The
preference to standardize technologies and a return on investment
focus makes entrepreneurial business skills very important, and
pointed to the importance of business schools playing a greater role
in the training of technology workers. Also, traditional training
efforts were being augmented by web and self-training efforts.
Employers are notably willing to train but training versus
stock incentives is number one retention issue for technology workers,
the major implication of which asks how to craft a workforce
development plan where employers expect workers to train on their own.
She went on to identify training gaps. As a small state Oregon has a
difficult time recruiting high end workers and training for such jobs.
Demand is not aggregated well across industries and there is little
development in methodology for training high tech workers.
Website use was underused by employers. There was a lack of
specific IT training for project management and other general
development of skills. Despite the potential competitive advantage
Oregon might have because of its relatively small size, and the
development of “disruptive” technologies, it was not well known as
to how well these technologies could be deployed. Small businesses
responded regarding aggregated demand for training outside the
Portland area. Internships were another sticking point, as nearly all
respondents wanted people with experience, but only 30% of companies
utilized and trained interns. She then went on to the recommendations for phase
II in the form of strategic directions.
Preliminary conclusions included more of a cross-industry
understanding and skills panel to understand more completely what is
going on from the industry side. Business skills needed to be better
integrated into engineering and other technology programs, especially
with the use of business schools. More specialized technologies needed
to be aggregated with those professional organizations and working
with other groups to get better workforce training. The impact of
disruptive technologies needed to be better understood.
The perception of disruptions in the education system needed to
be corrected; for instance, community colleges have both a transfer
and a terminal degree program for networking that run completely
independently, to the confusion of many businesses.
Certification and degree programs needed to work together
better. Career counselors needed to be convinced that technology
workers are not “nerds in a corner” and need business and
communication skills like any other profession.
Finally, IT applications needed to be standardized within
institutions, so web-based training is easier and students don’t
have to spend half their time learning new software applications for
technologies and can be more cost-effective for the university system.
She concluded that the next steps would include an augmentation of the
workforce committee so its focus could be directed to the
recommendations of this study, get more private sector representation,
and fully integrate ETIC and other programs for their input. Chair Alley asked about the difficulty of
crystallization of action items in the workforce committee, and that
this made him realize why it had been difficult to achieve the same
kind of focus as with the other committees. The scope of workforce
development was very broad and encompassed a diverse set of people and
locations. While most focused on technology development, that didn’t
address the needs of most knowledge workers who were working
industries that weren’t on the “cutting edge” of technology. It
was important to focus on incumbent worker training and encouraging
ways to inspire people to pursue this education. Finally, there was
the issue of entrepreneurship, and the conscious decision to not
address development of business skills in technology education. The
workforce committee needs to split into more focused groups to get
more direct recommendations from.
Ms. Scruggs responded that she agreed with this and added one
important other thing to focus on was the variety of technology
workers in other industries. Chair Alley then opened up the floor for
additional comment. Adrian Roberts note that there were transferable
lessons learned other workers, and noted that the MMD center and
nanotechnology sector would require a new core of trained workers in
this field for the industry to get off the ground. He wondered how
much of the study at this point was transferable to understanding
those needs. Ms. Scruggs
responded that comments about Oregon’s size making it competitive
was transferable for workforce issues as well as getting the MMD
industry off the ground. Standardization
across systems would assist with helping coordination, and she hoped
the coordination shown by the MMD principals could be transferred to
this issue. Ms.
Bunnenberg added that vertical integration was important for committee
workplans, so that they could communicate to the Legislature next
session that they were anticipating needs for both research, industry
and jobs. Ms. Scruggs responded that there were a variety of methods
to cut across the analysis, and that certain types of training could
be done at each level. Bill Newman commended the report, and asked if
it was possible to apply the material presented to other industry
areas where Oregon has significant employment, such as highly
specialized manufacturing with metals or aerospace.
Chair Alley noted that as MMD began to scale, there would be
worker requirements that this training could be applied to, as workers
in the field would require a special skills set. “If we don’t
develop this before things are ready to be produced, the industry will
simply go somewhere else.” Mr.
Roberts noted that this was something other states had struggled with,
and Oregon could have an advantage if they addressed the issue in
concert with research development.
Chair Alley noted that this was an important element to the
primary economic goal of creating wealth, and that it was important to
be developing all of this. Ron Adams added that it was important to
have a good workforce skilled in general skills and adaptability. Mr.
Gibson added that the business schools would be a part of the MMD
effort so that graduates would have exposure to the field and have a
connection to commercialization efforts. Mr. Adams confirmed this,
noting that the MMD Center was going to be partnering with all three
state university business schools.
Vice Chancellor Vines added that the University of Oregon was
partnering with PNNL to pair law and business students to work with
researchers to compose a business plan around a discovery. Upon
graduation, they could continue to work together. Portland State was
also doing with the Lewis & Clark College Law School, and Oregon
State could possibly do this with Willamette. Chair Alley then asked the Council to turn its attention to the workplan. Ms. Scruggs provided an overview of past activities. She went through the committees’ recommendations from the first report, and noted that progress of each priority, beginning with the Technology Transfer Committee. The Signature Research Center was funded, the technology roadmap was underway, the database of assets was being developed, involvement of technology issues at a federal level was underway and increasing. Chair Alley asked about the status of the Bayh-Dole Act. Mr. Roberts noted that this was no longer an issue. The bill for mission statements was voted out of committee but died on the table, no vote was taken on funding the HETT Fund. The extension of OCKED and funding were attached to other bills. Two remaining actions that had not been taken up were a streamlining of state level review of research and technology transfer agreements, and the creation and encouragement of entrepreneurial leaves-of-absence in businesses and universities. Mr. Johnson asked Representative Butler why it was that the non-monetary things were passed through the Legislature and why it didn’t get done? Representative Butler responded that political
paralysis had overtaken the caucuses and made it difficult to get even
the most non-controversial proposals passed. Senator Deckert added
that OCKED’s greatest strength was its policy-driven non-partisan
approach to initiatives. This
made it easier to effectively campaign for proposals, but some of the
smaller ones fell victim to individuals unwilling to take action. As a
result, many parts of original proposals were added to other
legislation, as a means of getting around those individuals. He noted
that it was important to hold those individuals accountable, including
people in key leadership positions who refused to meet with members of
OCKED. President Ray,
noted that sometimes smart kids don’t know how to strategize on
exams because everything seems so easy. Perhaps it was the issue of
staging the agenda to make sure the easy initiatives were passed
through, and not letting the more difficult things get in the way.
Representative Butler spoke to the volatile nature of each new
session, which comes in with different leadership, and how difficult
it is to anticipate their reactions to various proposals. Ms. Scruggs
asked the group to move on to Capital and Business Formation
Committee. The biggest accomplishment was the amending of House Bill
3613, although it was not an original priority of OCKED, it became so.
The capital gains proposal never picked up momentum, and died
in committee. The incentive package managed to pass out of committee
due to Senator Deckert’s good work. It was gutted and stuffed on the
last day and never got to a floor vote.
OECDD was moving to treat venture capital as an industry
cluster and work coordinate and enhance programs to attract and train
qualified CEO’s. Other
outstanding items included the development of quality business school
programs and encouraging their collaboration with other programs. Ms.
Scruggs finally moved on to workforce development. The first priority
was funding for phase II of the IT occupations roadmap. ETIC received
$20 million in the higher education budget but no capital dollars. The
International Science & Engineering Fair received a grant from the
Murdock Trust to fund science fairs and encourage industry
participation. The bill for 359 to focus workforce development on
knowledge-based workers died on the floor, but much of the language
was incorporated in the community college budget bill. Outstanding items included focus on business schools for
workforce development, the commitment for the Joint Board of Education
to be more involved, and a continued look at issues of articulation
and coordination. Another was additional training for teachers; many
organizations sponsored similar programs, and how could OCKED support
them better? The Council’s sunset extension was not completed. The
Legislature appropriated $100,000 for the biennium for staff support
to OCKED, which would provide a minimum of staffing and research.
Currently this money was in the higher education budget. She concluded
by asking the Council for consent to continue work on incomplete
priority items and new additions such as participation in federal
research efforts as well as ISEF support. Chair Alley asked for any comments regarding
this. He noted that this was OCKED’s business model, and noted that
one of the things to keep in mind for the future, was the expectation
that the next session would be focused on tax reform. OCKED had
avoided weighing in on this issue at this point, and he was not
recommending that they do so now, but that it would be a focus of
attention for others. He offered the proposal of continuing the
committee structure, since it was a successful model. He then asked
Ms. Scruggs about the timeline for the next round of proposals. Ms.
Scruggs noted that it was important to work in concert with the Oregon
Business Council’s summit in early December.
This allowed committees to meet between meetings to come up
with a short list as they had before and start the new workplan for
the next year. The November meeting would consist of a framework for a
2004 plan. Chair Alley
recommended that rather than tear apart the current committee
structure, they keep the three basic organizers and make minimal
structural changes in order to focus on substantive recommendations.
He suggested that the committee chairs keep their positions for
the first meeting, and decide on leadership from there. He also wanted to get ETIC more involved, including inviting
Wally Rhines to co-chair the workforce committee. He noted this would
help address the broad focus of various workforce issues as well as
help to create an MBA program that is synchronous with the goals of
ETIC. Chair Alley then went back to the proposal of creating a separate committee within the technology transfer committee specifically to advise and govern the MMD Center. He recommended that it be done as a part of technology transfer. He did not want to create a series of splinter groups, but rather make the message reporting back more concise. In Capital formation, he saw no necessary revisions. He noted that the group came up with outstanding ideas that got people thinking. It was an environment that helped get people thinking about this. He encouraged committees to come up with big ideas, in order to encourage discussion and debate with people. Representative Johnson asked if there was going to be a committee focused on government affairs outreach to cultivate and educate state agencies and legislative staff, talking to candidates and legislators as soon as possible. Vice Chancellor responded that there were two formal committees that had been formed for state legislative outreach as well as a committee for federal outreach. Ms. Scruggs asked if it was possible combine the two. Representative Butler noted that OCKED should not be seen as a lobbying organization, but working with people who did understand the system and could communicate messages on OCKED’s behalf was important. Representative Johnson added that much of what was successful in Salem was the result of relationship building, and that every effort should be made to maintain those relationships so that every session wasn’t starting back at square one. Don Krahmer added that other factors positioned OCKED in a different place than where it began, including a new PNNL lab director, new Governor and new agency staff, who needed to be involved in the process. He noted that Arizona had copied the OCKED concept, and their governor had a seat on the committee, which was also a state that passed a sales tax increase specifically for education. The Governor was now more focused on business recruitment and business retention, prompting more involvement with other organizations. He proposed that a group of people work together with the Chair to work with the university heads to make sure good leadership is shown. Jack Isselman added that the Governor was supportive of these activities, but when things get busy it gets difficult to discern where things are coming from. OCKED and ETIC often came with similar proposals but don’t work together as they should. OECDD can only effectively work on economic development by working with OCKED, but it went beyond communicating with the Legislature; it was about making all of government more responsive. Duncan Wyse added that it was time to step back as to how OCKED fit in with a broader set of initiatives in the state. Specific connections included the move of the department toward industry clusters, and how the state was organized focusing on traded sector industries and using the community to support them. He hoped he could see this architecture at the December summit, and how OCKED could fit into it. The other aspect was connecting with higher education. Progress had been made on streamlining higher education, and was directly related to OCKED recommendations on easing the process of technology transfer. He then offered to convene a group that would include OCKED membership and would begin to draft that structure for cluster development. Chair Alley noted that he had been conversing
with many people about how to demystify the organizational hierarchy
of trade and professional groups. He didn’t want the Council to slow
their work, but it was a priority was to understand and include the
Governor’s point of view. Mr. Roberts noted that one important thing
OCKED could do was take ownership of the technology roadmap. The
product was more than linking technology “dots” but also working
on the business and legal and regulatory side. A good map would have a
ten-year time frame so all organizations would know where they fit.
Chair Alley encouraged this idea, but said he would look to the
representatives and Governor to agree with this.
If it was something they wanted to see, then it would be
supported. Mr. Isselman responded that it was important to focus on
the “wins” and drive
committees to further the initiatives they already accomplished and
communicate effectively to a longer-range outlook. Mr. Alley added
that it was important to focus on things that would benefit the other
areas of economic development. Mr. Johnson noted that the Chair had challenged
each committee to really aim for the development of big ideas. He
wanted to emphasize to the Council that it was important to focus on
the bigger initiatives. A bigger package and greater efforts to reform
was important. The success with signature research was good, but it
wasn’t enough to sustain the economic well-being on the state.
Arizona had put their Governor on their science and technology
council, which implied greater visibility for the recommendations they
came up with. Chair Alley noted that there needed to be a balance
between recommendations regarding direction. Mr. Johnson emphasized that it was very important to be the
priority voice in the crowd and that the momentum of the business
community behind the Oregon Business Plan was something to emulate and
support. The choice was either between doing small things or getting
behind something really big that could have a clear impact on the
state. Instead of translating acronyms, there needed to be focus on a
persuasive message. Chair Alley agreed and noted that the biggest
thing OCKED recommended was the thing that got funded, noting that
sometimes the bigger things are the ones that are easier to
accomplish. Mr. Isselman noted that it was important to take into
account things no one could control, like a billion dollars removed
from the budget. OCKED managed to sell the Legislature on an idea that
cost money when everyone else was looking at reductions.
Bureaucratically, staff needed to work on communicating through the
block in the pipeline to the citizens and other people. Ms. Scruggs
clarified that there was some work to do in committees, and the
priority was to drive existing projects to make them successful.
Secondly, there needed to be a system that connects the ideas in those
committees to the political process on the state and federal level.
Finally, other groups needed to be brought in, including the Oregon
Business Plan, getting people together and getting subcommittees to
work with specific organizations as well as the groups OCKED needed to
work with as a full Council to help promote all the ideas Chair Alley
responded that there needed to be an actionable item to solve the
communication issue, perhaps merging things together that could be or
doing something as various efforts to join forces and go the
Legislature with better directives.
Mr. Krahmer thought it was more important to reverse engineer
that proposal, and make sure other organizations are up to speed on
what is being done. OCKED needed high level private sector
involvement, along with the blessing of the Governor’s office, and
take a look for where you could go. ETIC was a brilliant idea to
involve private industry with engineering education, but now it was
about developing technology in a broader context.
He hoped that OBC and other groups could work to support
people. Chair Alley asked if there was any specific proposal as a Council. Mr. Wyse noted that the Business Plan was to provide a bigger plan for all businesses, with a new Governor and a new Economic Development mission, while addressing the communications challenge to describe what the Oregon economy could be, and what it will take to get there and who needs to be involved. Mr. Isselman noted that the Council’s plan was one big part of the Business Plan. He proposed that the Council suggest the arrangement of an ad-hoc group to convene and come up with the Council’s plank in the Oregon Business Plan and the department. They could use the department to help facilitate this. Representative Johnson interjected that for legislative purposes, the plan didn’t need to be this complicated; OCKED has to be selling something that the Legislature wants to buy and the sales pitch needs to be clear. Senator Deckert added that OCKED would sell itself short if they believed these initiatives could be undertaken by another body. Mr. Roberts commented that the gap in the Business Plan was that the clusters had not been subject to an internal evaluation to assess the growth of these clusters. At the other end, there was a need to look at the weaknesses and needs in higher education. Left to their own devices, each party would move very slowly, but OCKED could help bridge the gap. Chair Alley asked for the committee chairs to chair one more meeting, and asked Mr. Isselman to help organize a meeting of appropriate parties for a discussion on systemic issues. Finally, he said that he couldn’t let the meeting end without commending the group on the progress that had been made as a result of the people in the room coming together and pushing for success with MMD Center and other initatives in the midst of the worst budget crisis in the history of the state. Discussions were begun that couldn’t have happened otherwise. A structure was given to the group, which needed to be built upon. The structure for success needed to include the clarity others were missing. He noted he was personally willing to put his time into one more round. It was important to recommit and see where the group could end up relative to where they stood after the first year of inception. While not expected, it wasn’t a total loss. He would come back from the November meeting. Vice Chancellor Vines noted that at some point there would need to be a discussion regarding staffing in the future. With that, Chair Alley adjourned the meeting at 12:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development |