Agenda - 01-23-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1 She said it would be good to see where Orange County stands with this issue, as well as 2 the private sector. 3 Chair Jacobs noted the blue sheets provided from a meeting in 2010 when the 4 commission for women was disbanded. He noted that this was done over the objections of 5 members of the Commission for Women, as well as some of the Commissioners. He said it is 6 good that this issue has come back. 7 Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to hear from the Economic Development 8 Director to see how this would fit in. 9 Chair Jacobs said this was discussed and the decision was not to put the economic 10 development director on the spot. He said the interim manager would speak to this. 11 Commissioner Rich asked how often this committee would meet and if there would be 12 enough work to facilitate creation of a separate committee. 13 Michael Talbert said he talked to Steve Brantley about this. He said Steve Brantley said 14 economic development's primary goal is the recruitment and retention of industry. He gave the 15 example of Hi-chew. He said this partnership has tremendous potential for this community, and 16 he would not like to take away from that effort. 17 Michael Talbert noted that much of the existing industry in Orange County is government, 18 University and non-profit. He said the County does not yet have the private sector presence 19 that it hopes to have in the future. 20 He said the initial resolution seems more like a policy statement than a work plan. He 21 does not believe that this proposed commission belongs in the Economic Development 22 Department. He feels the best fit at this time is in the housing and human relations area. 23 He said if the board wants to go forward with this and provide funding, it should be 24 considered for next year's budget process. He said the Board would need to determine who will 25 be on the commission and what the charge will be. He said once these things are determined, 26 staff can figure out how to make it work and how to proceed. 27 Commissioner Rich said that she does not know how effective this board will be, but she 28 has not thought it through yet. 29 Michael Talbert said he does not know yet either. He said the Board needs to define the 30 expected outcomes. 31 Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks the proposed charge is too narrow. He said a 32 commission on women ought to deal with all critical issues of gender discrimination. He said 33 this seems like a time limited charge, and it needs to be broader. 34 Commissioner Price said she was trying to be more realistic because she realizes the 35 limited time that staff has to give. She said this could go beyond income and could look at what 36 happens in the workplace. She felt that it would be more realistic to start narrower and then get 37 broader. 38 She asked Commissioner Rich for clarification on her concern with the charge. 39 Commissioner Rich said she didn't understand where it goes, as it looks more like a 40 study. 41 Commissioner Price said this would start out more like a study. 42 She noted that when the Board went on a tour of one of the schools, there were no girls 43 in the technology class. She noted the implications of this in the future workplace. 44 Commissioner Gordon said there is a need for a women's commission and one reason to 45 start with the business side is because women are not represented well, and there is not equal 46 pay for equal work. 47 She said other things would be important, but equal pay is the key. She suggested that 48 the Board could endorse this concept, but then she would like to see the concept fleshed out. 49 Commissioner Gordon said that staff needs to work on the charge, the budget, and 50 which department this best fits.