|
COG
|
EOsubnat Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Unsubscribe
Please unsubscribe me from this email list. My email
address is "zavtra@att.net"
Thank you, Tim Post (Boston- 781/ 551-5509)
---------------------- Forwarded Message: ---------------------
From: "Thomas Brandt" <TBrandt@dbedt.hawaii.gov>
To: EOsubnat@cog.kent.edu
Subject: Re: state EO programs
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:41:17 -1000
Ms. Lawrence:
I think Ohio and Vermont probably provide the best examples of what may be
possible and desirable on the sub-national level (along with what's
happening in Maine, Canada, and Sweden). Even when it was still active,
Hawaii's program never got beyond the following:
- Sponsoring small-scale--but inadequately promoted--conferences about
every other year;
- Building a small library of EOP lit and offering limited technical
assistance upon request;
- Producing an annual "progress" report and Governor's Proclamations
observing EOP Week in Hawaii (the latter received very little publicity and
was also not heavily promoted); and
- One attempt to identify and notify business owners approaching
retirement.
The annual report became our main promotional piece because there wasn't
much progress to report, and because it was difficult to measure "progress"
with precision (which was primarily defined as any increase in the number
of ESOPs in Hawaii because that was thought to be the most quantifiable
criterion).
Our enabling legislation also mandated an advisory committee, which met
with some regularity for almost ten years (from 1986 to 1995) until the EOP
statute expired and wasn't renewed. Our legislature approved renewal, but
our Governor said we could do the same things without enabling legislation.
So he vetoed it, and the Legislature didn't want to challenge the veto of a
relatively insignificant bill. (In fact, Hawaii's legislature has
overridden a veto only once since statehood in 1959!) Not surprisingly,
nothing has happened since because it is now left up to the discretion of
the Governor's Economic Development director. He is a mainstream
economist who thinks ownership doesn't matter. The enabling statute was
amended in the late 80s to add the importance of worker participation, but
that didn't matter either in the sense that the program never had any
dedicated funding or staff. I did most of the staff work on a volunteer
basis.
As a result, I think if a subnational program in the U.S. could do only one
thing, it should be to accurately--and annually--identify and notify
business owners approaching retirement. If done in every state, I think
this could do more than anything else on the subnational level to broaden
ownership in the U.S. at present. Our one attempt at this in Hawaii about
ten years ago was relatively ineffective, in part because the direct mail
firm we hired to develop a mailing list said it was difficult to identify
owners by age. I thought perhaps Ohio had perfected this, but John Logue
has told me they, too, have this problem. Nevertheless, it is my
impression that OEOC still has done this much more effectively than anyone
else so far.
So, in summary, I agree with your criteria below as the minimum a
meaningful program should be measured by--with regular and successful
identification of retiring owners being the key. You may want to ask John
for a short summary of how they identify retiring owners, or at least list
him as a "how-to" reference along with your benchmarks if appropriate. I
also think Jim Houck mentioned the importance of enabling legislation, and
I agree. Even though it cannot guarantee the survival of a program, it
can help. But I think it should be relatively specific in terms of what
the program can do so it is not left up to the discretion of each new
gubernatorial appointee. I seem to recall someone was working on model
state legislation (was it Maine?), which also might be a good "how-to"
reference.
Sara Lawrence
<sara@cfed.org> To: "'EOsubnat@cog.kent.edu'"
Sent by: <EOsubnat@cog.kent.edu>
owner-eosubnat@co cc:
g.kent.edu Subject: state EO programs
10/23/01 04:27 AM
Please respond to
EOsubnat
Hello,
I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the following:
We are working on a project at the Corporation for Enterprise Development
(CFED) benchmarking outcomes and policies at the state level that are
promoting asset building and asset protection for state residents. Within
this "Assets Report Card" we are including state policies that promote
business capital as one set of asset building strategies. Within business
capital, one of our measures evaluates employee ownership programs at the
state level.
In this measure, we want to make sure that the program meets a certain
threshold, so that we aren't praising a state that has an EO program that
isn't good, or effective.
>From reading John Logue's recent article, I picked these out as
requirements
for a quality EO state program:
-disseminates info
-provides assistance with succession planning
-encourages employee participation
Do you think this is a decent standard, or do you have any suggestions on
what we should or should not consider in determining a threshold for a
quality EO program? The difficulty here is that we want to define a
standard for a quality program, yet we don't want to overwhelm
state policymakers with requirements that seem impossible for state
officials to consider.
The end result of our project will be a set of criteria, where we can
"check" or give credit to a state for having these elements in their EO
program.
Suggestions on what you consider essential for an effective EO program at
the state level would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sara Lawrence
Sara Lawrence
Corporation for Enterprise Development
123 West Main Street, 3rd Floor
Durham NC 27701
919.688.6444
http://www.cfed.org
|