LAKEPORT, Calif. – As the supervisors got a Tuesday on about the county's effort to form a new workforce investment area with Napa County, they made clear that they had no intention of reforming a relationship with a multi-county consortium they left nearly two years ago.
Supervisor Denise Rushing updated the board about the developments at the California Workforce Investment Board Issues and Policy Special Committee that she and Social Services Director Carol Huchingson attended Feb. 24.
The Board of Supervisors in 2009 decided to leave the North Central Counties Consortium (NCCC) – whose other member counties were Glenn, Colusa, Sutter and Yuba. The county now is attempting to join Napa County in its workforce investment area in an effort to improve oversight and governance of services provided locally to job seekers and employers, as Lake County News has reported.
At the Feb. 24 meeting the committee agreed to forward the proposal to the full California Workforce Investment Board, although a staff report – an earlier version of which had supported the move – urged against it.
The Lake One-Stop, which is the service provider for employment training and placement services with NCCC, has opposed the move. Lake One-Stop Executive Director Seth DeSimone asked the board that morning to remove the item from the agenda, but the board indicated it was going to move forward with the discussion.
“There have been misconceptions about what we are trying to do at this moment,” said Rushing.
As she did before the committee in Sacramento, Rushing emphasized that the Lake One-Stop was not at issue, but governance, oversight, strategy and missed opportunities were.
“We believe Napa has a better strategy and a better fit for Lake County,” she said.
Napa's intent is to leave the One-Stop as it is, but the One-Stop generated dozens of letters to the state in opposition to the move as part of two letter writing campaigns.
“I indicated that the letters were based on some misinformation,” Rushing said, adding that she believed the One-Stop truly believed the information but had, itself, been misinformed.
The One-Stop wouldn't be moved from Lakeport, Rushing said, and a county analysis found that local services would not lose funds because of the move.
Ultimately, “The committee acknowledged that they cannot compel the Board of Supervisors to enter into an unwanted joint powers agreement, and that's key to the process,” said Rushing, noting the state hasn't had a case like this one, where a county is trying to move from a workforce investment area and is facing opposition.
The state also recognized that the Board of Supervisors is the point of accountability, she said. “The money follows the powers.”
“We really have a need to make a change,” she said.
Huchingson added that a state representative stated repeatedly at the meeting that the funding for Lake County's workforce investment services is not likely to change much as a result of the move.
Rushing said it was important to get out the information that the move isn't about closing, opening or taking funding from the Lake One-Stop. The best thing the One-Stop can do is perform its job, she added.
She praised Napa for its presentation at the committee, noting similar industries between Lake and Sonoma and the fact that Lake would like to emulate their offerings.
Rushing also called County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox's letter to the committee – which testified to a long history of ineffectiveness by the NCCC and his belief that the move to Napa was in Lake's best interest, since it had never fit well with NCCC to begin with – “a masterpiece.”
Supervisor Rob Brown said the board has had lengthy discussions in the past about the issues with NCCC. He's attended NCCC meetings and witnessed firsthand the disrespect shown to Lake.
“We want to get as far away from them as we possibly can,” he said.
Brown said the board wanted to see the One-Stop continue to perform and improve. But Lake County's relationship with NCCC had gone past the point of repair. He compared Lake staying with NCCC to a person staying in an abusive marriage because of the children. “It's pointless. It's stupid to do.”
He added, “We either go with Napa or we don't have anything, because we don't have anything now in terms of the relationship with NCCC.”
Huchingson asked for the board's direction in preparing for the California Workforce Investment Board meeting on May 17. “Denise's presence as a spokesperson for the board was just worth volumes,” she said, suggesting the entire board convene there at the meeting that day.
She also wanted to see public forums scheduled locally in preparation for that meeting, and asked the board to formally ask the One-Stop to cease its opposition, which she called pointless.
“We're not going back with NCCC,” Huchingson said. “That train has left the station.”
One-Stop raises its concerns
DeSimone, accompanied by several of his board members, said the organization, which is the current operator of Workforce Investment Act programs through 2012, is not worried about its existence, with its focus on providing the best possible services.
DeSimone said they are concerned about loss of funding if the move is made. He said 35 percent, or $420,000 of the One-Stop's total funding comes from special grants specific to their belonging to NCCC. He said the One-Stop believes they would be less competitive for grants, which often are based on unemployment and poverty rates, if Lake County joined with Napa.
He referenced Napa County's application, which suggested moving the primary One-Stop office from Lakeport to the south of the county, which was a reason they were opposing it.
Huchingson pointed out that DeSimone was referring to an outdated plan which was no longer on the table. She said that, based on public comment, Napa removed that proposal and resubmitted the plan.
Brown told the One-Stop representatives that every single person he contacted who had written a letter on their behalf, once they were informed about the issues with NCCC, were willing to rescind the letters and were “appalled.”
DeSimone went on to read excerpts from an Oct. 26 Napa County Board of Supervisors meeting in which it was stated that Napa's was the smallest workforce investment area and that Lake's move would double the resources, increase administrative funding and make Napa the grant recipient, with Napa County having the control.
“How is that any different than what we have now?” Brown asked.
DeSimone said Lake had a vote in the five-county NCCC consortium.
“I think there might be some disagreement about that,” replied Board Chair Jim Comstock.
Huchingson explained that Napa County will take its cues from the local workforce investment board, which will have both Napa and Lake representatives.
“The role of the WIB will be key in this,” she said. “None of these are negatives. These are exactly the things we've discussed with Napa.”
When the board sent its own representative to the NCCC board – Huchingson – Brown said, “They were disrespectful. They dumped on her.”
He added, “They got to the point where they were acting illegally, in violation of public meeting laws.”
Brown said there was no turning back. “There is no way in hell that I will ever sit and allow NCCC to be involved in anything we do.”
One-Stop Board Chair Nick Summerfield told the board that the EDD didn't support the application and made it clear at the meeting.
Rushing disagreed. “What they said was, they helped develop the application,” and didn't feel it was appropriate that they make a recommendation. Members of the committee, she added, were very clear that the Board of Supervisors was the point of accountability.
Summerfield said he didn't agree with that. He said that it was also the One-Stop's job to solicit public input on the plan, which it did in the form of the letters.
“But that's not what happened, Nick,” Brown countered.
Brown said the One-Stop members took it upon themselves to oppose the county in doing what it believed was right. “In doing that they became the lapdog of the NCCC in my opinion,” Brown said, adding that the One-Stop should remain neutral and work with the board to benefit the community.
Summerfield disagreed that the One-Stop had become NCCC's lapdog. “I wouldn't expect you to agree with that, but that's my opinion,” Brown said.
“We are the experts in WIA,” said Summerfield, who faulted Napa's plan, saying it wasn't well written.
Comstock wanted to look at four dates to agendize a public forum. “It appears that we're going to have to agree to disagree on some of the things here today,” he said.
Rushing said the county's joint powers, used in forming a workforce investment area, needed to go somewhere, and they weren't going back to NCCC. “Now our energies need to go into making that agreement with Napa as bulletproof and as good as we can for residents.”
She said the One-Stop could mount another letter writing campaign but urged against doing so in a one-sided fashion. “We need to make sure we at least deal in facts and in truth.”
Huchingson asked for several dates to offer to Napa County officials so they could plan to be there. Comstock offered times on the agendas for March 22, April 5, April 12 and April 19.
“As far as I’m concerned, the sooner the better,” Comstock said.
Discussion called 'antagonistic'
The supervisors heard from other One-Stop Board members, including Mary Becker, who said she was disappointed in how antagonistic the discussion had been.
Becker, who said she worked as a headhunter in San Francisco for 25 years, didn't believe pairing with Napa was a good fit, suggesting Lake needed to pair with a county that has successfully reduced its unemployment.
She added that the Lake One-Stop has a high retention rate and good performance, and that the work product is good.
Rushing replied, “Again, this isn't about the one stop,” but about governance.
Becker said she didn't want them to do anything to hamper the good work of the One-Stop. Comstock said that wasn't the intention.
She said she didn't understand what Napa could teach Lake County. Comstock said at this point it's not what Napa can do for Lake County, it's what NCCC already has done.
Another One-Stop Board member, Mickey Burke, said the One-Stop is doing a better job. “Our concern is losing funding,” which he added is “our only fight in this.”
The letter writing campaign came off the “disheartening” initial proposal submitted by Napa, Burke said. “We're doing this because we care about this county, as much as this board does.”
Brown asked the One-Stop members directly, “Is your board prepared to take a position of neutrality?”
Summerfield said they could entertain it, but a meeting would have to be held to discuss it.
Brown said if these issues had been brought up years ago, things may have worked out. But he said funding “was being siphoned out of Lake County faster than $4 a gallon gas.”
Summerfield said the One-Stop wanted to work with the county and be part of the process.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington agreed that it was unfortunate the situation had become antagonistic, telling the One-Stop representatives, “We're asking you to support our collective wisdom.”
He said it would serve them better to focus on the One-Stop's services, not a political fight.
Farrington said he was “somewhat floored” when constituents contacted him to question if jobs were going to leave Lake County as a result. Seeing jobs leave the county isn't something he would support.
He said that the unemployment rates of the surrounding counties in the consortium seem to fluctuate at about the same level as Lake's. “Right now we're ready to grow,” said Farrington, adding he couldn't think of a better county with which to partner than Napa.
He said it was time to stop fighting and work together. “That's the vision that I have and I'm asking you to share that vision.”
The board will announce the date for the public forum on the workforce investment area changes at a future time.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
