Fisheries, Seafood and Maritime Initiative

Industry Advisory Council – 2014 Spring Meeting

March 4th 10 am – 12 pm

Purpose

  • To identify any additional steps/changes needed to the draft Workforce Development Plan to gain IAC approval, and process for acceptance
  • Future role of IAC and plan for coordinator
  • Discuss how to gain endorsements for Plan

Summary Outcome of March 4, 2014 Meeting

There was solid support for the draft WFD Plan. Guidance was provided to give another week for additional edits, seek endorsements, and continue funding and support through UA for the coordination role.

I. Opening Chair, Kris Norosz thanked everyone for participating on the call and for providing edits to the draft Workforce Development Plan (WFDP). Self-introductions were made.

II. Review draft Plan, timeline, approval process

Outcome of discussion was to provide one-week additional time to review/edit the draft plan; edits in March 11. Targetdate for the revised draft is March 18.

Input and suggested revisions provided were

  • Omitted targeting/recruiting military personnel – it was suggested this belongs in Strategy 4
  • Expand statement of need, as the cross-cutting skills go beyond the FSM sectors. Example: in the O&G industry, 75% of available jobs are in shipbuilding
  • Career pathways methodology needs be to clearer in the plan: map pathways from occupational lists (Ayers will send example)
  • Page 25 – explore creating loans – beyond scope of WFD plan.
  • Suggestion – Consistent with overall strategy that owner/operators are important to rural businesses
  • Part of the cross cutting role of entrepreneurship and supporting small businesses
  • Link / connect / grow awareness of small businesses about loans
  • WFDP will change over time and should be updated every couple years

Process for final IAC approval

  • Send out redraft (~ 3/18)
  • Ask for approval/vote
  • If don’t get – or there’s not sufficient support, then organize another call for additional discussion/input
  • Group was reminded that during the Oct/Nov 2013 timeframe the Draft was distributed broadly, with little feedback.
  • J. Decker urged group to move forward as the plan development has taken awhile, and has had lots of input, and that the Plan is considered a living document and will be changed.

Name change –

Outcome of discussion is to use the title, Alaska Maritime Workforce Development Plan

  • J. Decker provided background and reviewed the poll results, stating that the vast majority (10) supported a name change, and 3 supported status quo. After a brief discussion the “Alaska Maritime Workforce Development Plan” was agreed upon. Post IAC March 4th meeting, co-chairs talked about and identified that it would be good to continue using the name FSM Initiative, with the Alaska Maritime Workforce Development Plan as a major product resulting from the Initiative.

Five-year timeline –

Outcome of discussion was to draft a timeline through a sub-group with a mix of stakeholders

K. Norosz opened the discussion by suggestion that the timeline is likely a good idea, but that it doesn’t necessarily need to be in the Plan, at least not right now.

  • Creating a 5-year timeline will take some effort, and Norosz proposed that a sub-group should work on it that would include agency, UA service providers and industry perspectives.
  • Support for a timeline from several were expressed
  • Important as a measure of effectiveness
  • Five years may be too long, due to changes
  • Timeline is important for seeking and securing funding

Determine if a logo/identifier is needed –

Outcome of discussion was to create some graphic image, but not spend a lot of time or resources

  • Could be useful to build awareness and create an identity for FSM efforts
  • Use a “bug” rather than logo
  • Several said that it wasn’t that important
  • Direction to contract coordinator was to go ahead and create some options, but not to spend a lot of time/effort on it

III. Strategy 5 of WFD Plan

IAC Coordinator –

Outcome of discussion was to continue to fund and “house”full-time coordinator at UA

  • Currently funded by UA. Norosz expressed that she didn’t see industry funding this position at this time/just yet. Once the Plan is approved and receives greater acceptance and industry sees some successes, then more likely to support with funding.
  • Another option would be for a non-profit to take over coordination role, but there hasn’t been any expressed interest.
  • A coordinator is important as participants need to be kept informed about efforts, and that requires someone to do that.
  • F. Villa with UA identified that an option is for UA to continue to fund, but to what degree and how the effort is implemented will depend a good deal on industry involvement and leadership.
  • S. Cameron with ADF&G expressed the importance/benefit to her agency, but that it can’t help given budget outlook.
  • F. Villa described that the coordinator’s role has been paid from a program called TVEP (Technical Vocational Education Program), which is funded through unemployment taxes. Some of the TVEP funds come to UA.

Role and Structure of IAC going forward –

Outcome of discussion was to continue talking, and continue IAC’srole to advise FSMI efforts and products; and strive to create partnerships with those who can help implement

  • Comments
  • People/participants, outcomes and structures will all need to evolve
  • Need public agencies, educators, industry, and philanthropy
  • Other workforce development plans and efforts were identified as models, recognizing that they may not work for FSMI, but use them as a starting place to learn from
  • Health care – now housed at UAA, coordinator paid mainly through AMHTA
  • APICC for oil and gas industry – funded mainly by industry
  • Construction academy (annual guidance)
  • AWIB interacts with industry, but it’s usually difficult to understand what an “industry” needs
  • Good to know about best practices
  • Challenge to fund long-term
  • Challenge to figure out how to create stable, enduring partnerships with industry and service providers
  • Strive to be responsive to industry needs

VI. Plan Acceptance and Endorsements–

Outcome of discussion was to identify organizations and others who can endorse, and seek out their endorsements, examples:

  • SWAMC – K. Norosz will be at annual conference this week
  • Other examples: Southeast Conference, WACDA, Board of Regents

V. Announcements

  • Seafood focused Refrigeration Class: Full class at Mat Su campus
  • Quality Control training modules funded and being developed
  • Vessel Maintenance & Repair Mobile Lab: Kodiak College requesting TVEP funding
  • FSM Website for career awareness and Introduction to FSM Careers online class: MAP has requested funding and decision is expected at Board of Regents April meeting

FSMI Industry March 4th Participants
Kris Norosz / Icicle Seafoods Inc. (FSMI Industry Co-Chair)
Aggie Blandford / WACDA
Vince O’Shea / Pacific Seafood Processors Association
Stephanie Madsen / At-Sea Processors Association
Doug Ward / Alaska Ship & Drydock
Julie Decker / UFA; Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation
Anthony Lindoff / Haa Aani, LCC
Jim Scholz / Samson Tug
Kate Mitchell / Homer Marine Trade Association
Don Lane / Homer Marine Trade Association
Matt Alward / Homer Marine Trade Association
Agency POC
Sheila Cameron / ADF&G
Wanetta Ayers / DOLWD-AWIB
Helen Mehrkens / EED
Amy Wilson / Alaska Marine Highway System, DOTPF
Matt Catterson / DCCED
Legislative Representatives and POC
Tim Clark (Rep Edgmon’s office) / Alaska State House of Representatives
FSMI Co-Chairs
Paula Cullenberg / Sea Grant/MAP
Fred Villa / UA Workforce Development
FSMI Contract Coordinator
Margaret (Meg) King / FSMI coordinator

1