|
COG
|
EOsubnat Discussion |
|||||||||
| |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: state EO programs
Please delete me from this list I Methven > -----Original Message----- > From: Tuckman, Alan [SMTP:alan.tuckman@ntu.ac.uk] > Sent: 29 October 2001 12:48 > To: 'EOsubnat@cog.kent.edu' > Subject: RE: state EO programs > > Please delete me from this list > > -----Original Message----- > From: JAMES HOUCK [mailto:HOUCKJ@state.mi.us] > Sent: 29 October 2001 12:38 > To: EOsubnat@cog.kent.edu > Subject: Re: state EO programs > > > Sara- > I think the criteria you note plus those John Logue added would be > excellent guidelines for a 'quality' state program. I might add that the > identification of at least one individual who has expertise in this area > in state government would be a good idea. There are various pieces of > state legislation around which have never materialized because no one has > ever been given the specific authority and support to implement a specific > employee ownership program. > > Michigan has met all of those criteria since its program inception > in 1979. > > Regards, Jim Houck > > > >>> sara@cfed.org 10/23/01 10:27AM >>> > 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> > > > > ********************************************************************* DISCLAIMER: This correspondence contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this correspondence, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or reply on this correspondence. The contents, comments and views contained or expressed within this correspondence do not necessarily reflect those of The AEEU, its subsidiaries, affiliates, associates or sister companies and are not intended to create legal relations with the recipient. If you want to know more about The AEEU, visit us on the web at the address below or contact our head office on 0208 462 7755 www.aeeu.org.uk *********************************************************************
|