July 12, 2022 - Minutes of Public Meetings - Apprenticeship and Training Council

Download this document (Word)

Present

*Employee Representative Allen B. Clinedinst III and Employer Representative David Smarte notified Director Chris MacLarion that they were unable to attend before the meeting convened.

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Cavey called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. at Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 1 MD, VA & DC, International Masonry Institute, National Training Center, 17101 Science Drive, Bowie, Maryland.
Chairman Cavey introduced himself then welcomed Councilmembers, staff and guests, and asked all attendees to introduce themselves. Chairman Cavey thanked Scott Garvin, president of BAC Local 1, for hosting the Council meeting and invited Mr. Garvin to speak. Mr. Garvin thanked the attendees for joining the meeting and said he was glad to see robust attendance. Mr. Garvin said the facility was quiet the day of the meeting, but there were some instructors present who were preparing for an international competition to be hosted in Boston in September.

II. Minutes of the May 10, 2022 Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council meeting.

A motion to approve the minutes was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Ms. Anderson and unanimously approved (Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

III. OPENING REMARKS

Chairman Cavey said at the May 2022 Council meeting he told attendees that an apprentice from Heat & Frost Insulators Local 24, where the Chairman was employed, had won a mid-Atlantic competition and was set to participate in an international competition of apprentices from the United States and Canada that was hosted in Hershey, Pa., in June. Chairman Cavey asked the apprentice, Herberth Romero, to stand, and announced Mr. Romero was the champion of the competition to considerable applause. Chairman Cavey said Mr. Romero competed against eight apprentices in a three-day competition that included a written test. Chairman Cavey asked Mr. Romero and Local 24 Apprentice and Training Director Jim Hoos to step forward for a presentation from Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program Director Chris MacLarion.
Mr. MacLarion thanked councilmembers and members of the apprenticeship community for sharing their success stories with Maryland Department of Labor staff. Mr. MacLarion said 2022 was the 60th anniversary of Maryland’s State Apprenticeship Agency, though apprenticeship was formalized in Maryland for much longer through the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Apprenticeship (USDOL/OA). Mr. MacLarion said 60th anniversary challenge coins were produced to recognize special achievements in apprenticeship. Mr. MacLarion award a challenge coin to both Mr. Romero and Mr. Hoos to applause from the audience.
Mr. MacLarion said in jest that Chairman Cavey, in his former role as training director, had never won a competition. Chairman Cavey laughed and said the mid-Atlantic competition had occurred for 18 years, and though he never won, Mr. Hoos had trained apprentices for the competition for two years and was undefeated. Chairman Cavey said this was the first time Local 24 had a champion at the international level.
Chairman Cavey invited Mr. MacLarion to present the Director’s Report.

IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

A. Mr. MacLarion said Maryland Department of Labor Secretary Tiffany Robinson was unable to attend because of a scheduling conflict, but she sent greetings and best wishes for a productive meeting. Mr. MacLarion said Assistant Secretary James Rzepkowski was unable to attend because of a death in the family. Mr. MacLarion said Deputy Assistant Secretary Erin Roth was unable to attend because her new son was born June 29, was healthy and strong and Ms. Roth was on maternity leave.

B. Mr. MacLarion said Local 1, the host, had been an apprenticeship sponsor since 1941, formerly registered under USDOL and registered in Maryland since 1966. Mr. MacLarion presented a challenge coin to Mr. Garvin and thanked him for hosting the Council meeting to audience applause. Mr. MacLarion said the Maryland apprenticeship community was a “small world.” Mr. MacLarion said when he became director in 2016, he toured apprenticeship programs across the state. Mr. MacLarion said he previously worked with Mr. Garvin in 1991 and 1992 for a small masonry company in Harford County.

C. Apprenticeship Training Fund update:

• Total Fund Balance as of June 30, 2022: $1,187,391.69
• May contributions: $11,636.33
• June contributions: $7,234.26

D. Mr. MacLarion said that Chairman Cavey announced at the May 2022 Council that Nick Burdick from the USDOL/OA office was the new multistate navigator who covered Maryland. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Burdick was unable to attend the May 2022 Council meeting, but he joined this Council meeting. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Burdick was already working closely with Maryland staff, and the person he replaced, Ron Leonard, had officially retired, and he would be missed by the apprenticeship community.
E. Mr. MacLarion said staff had updated RAPIDS accounts for the past several weeks and requested that sponsors not enter any new apprentices into RAPIDS but to continue to update apprentices who were already in RAPIDS, the lone exception being apprentices who were supported by grants.
F. Mr. MacLarion said National Apprenticeship Week was coming November 14 to November 20, 2022. He encouraged anyone who was hosting events or interested in in hosting events to contact Maryland Department of Labor staff to collaborate.
G. Mr. MacLarion said the Eligible Trainer Providers List (ETPL) continued to grow and it was a useful tool for sponsors to support apprentices, to recruit new apprentices, and to supports costs of related instruction. Approved Registered Apprenticeship sponsors were eligible to be listed through a simplified application process. Mr. MacLarion said 64 registered apprenticeship (RA) programs were included on the ETPL and that was an increase of three since the May 2022 meeting.
H. Mr. MacLarion said 21 out of 24 Maryland school systems were participating in the Apprenticeship Maryland Program (AMP or Youth Apprenticeship). Mr. MacLarion said the 2021/2022 school year recently completed with 186 youth apprentices in the program. Mr. MacLarion said the 2022/2023 was beginning with a record high of 77 students already signed up with another 30 from St. Mary’s County being processed. This meant there was to be more than 100 youth apprentices for 2022/2023 with summer just beginning. Mr. MacLarion said the Council meeting agenda contained many employers seeking approval to participate in Youth Apprenticeship.
I. Mr. MacLarion offered an update on programs under intense monitoring and technical assistance. Mr. MacLarion said Laborers JATC updated its standards of apprenticeship and the update was to appear on the September 2022 Council agenda. Mr. MacLarion said staff would continue to work with Laborers JATC. Mr. MacLarion said the Council’s packet contained updates on Monocacy Electric. Mr. MacLarion said Monocacy Electric was scheduled for a hearing by the Office of Administrative Hearings on May 11, 2022, but prior to that meeting, Monocacy Electric voluntarily withdrew its request for a hearing and voluntarily submitted to cancel its RA. Mr. MacLarion said this cancellation request was included on this Council meeting’s agenda.
J. Mr. MacLarion said the National Association of State and Territorial Apprenticeship Directors (NASTAD), along with the State Apprenticeship Council Chairs and USDOL/OA were to meet in the second week of September in Virginia. Mr. MacLarion said the conference wasn’t open to the public at large, but included most SAA states and territories, as well as partners.
K. Mr. MacLarion said he was happy to answer any questions the Chairman or Council might have.
Mr. Shmelzer said the NASTAD meeting conflicted with the scheduled Sept. 13, 2022 Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council meeting. Mr. Shmelzer asked if it was possible to change the date of the Council meeting. Mr. MacLarion answered it would be up to the Council to decide. Mr. Shmelzer asked if there were any concerns related to the Open Meetings Act and if there was enough time. Maryland Assistant Attorney General Leza Griffith said there would be enough time to notify the public about the change of date.
Mr. Shmelzer made a motion to change the September 13, 2022 Council meeting date to September 20, 2022. Ms. Butt seconded this motion. Chairman Cavey asked if there were any questions on the motion.
John Taylor, apprenticeship program staff, asked if the host would be amenable to this change. Mr. MacLarion said the space would be available for the proposed date change.
The Council voted unanimously to change the date (Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).
A motion to accept the Director’s Report was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Mr. Sackett and unanimously approved (Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. NEW PROGRAMS:

1. Harford Community College (Kelton Addison) – Occupation of Childcare Professional. Related instruction to be provided by Harford Community College. Request for registration of an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices. (item 1)

This item was tabled at the May 10, 2022 Council meeting due to concerns about the proposed apprentice selection procedures for this program.

Mr. Addison said he was joined by Matt Baylis, apprenticeship coordinator, and Laura Hutton, staff with the prospective sponsor. Mr. Addison said the Council’s concerns about selection procedures in the Standards of Apprenticeship from the previous meeting were addressed, the recommended changes were made, and now the item was submitted for the Council’s approval.
Mr. Shmelzer said he noticed some classes were asynchronous, particularly First Aid and CPR. Mr. Shmelzer said the provider’s location was not convenient to the whole state though this was a statewide program, and considering gas prices, this could be inconvenient. Mr. Addison said the sponsor would accept First Aid/CPR certifications from approved providers throughout the state. Mr. Shmelzer asked if there was only one class that would have to be attended onsite. Mr. Addison said yes, but it was a one-day, one-time class.
Mr. Shmelzer asked how asynchronous education worked. Ms. Hutton said the college provided asynchronous instruction for actual classes, including lectures and self checks. Ms. Hutton said this included many assignments, and an apprentice would not be able to move onto one portion until the prior portion was completed. Mr. Shmelzer asked if this would prevent a student from being able to “click through.” Ms. Hutton said Mr. Shmelzer was correct that there were safeguards to assure students put honest effort into completing the coursework. Ms. Hutton said there were numerous activities that enabled the educational provider’s staff to assess progress.

A motion to approve this new program and the associated AAP was made by Ms. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey welcomed the new sponsor to the apprenticeship world.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. NEW PROGRAMS:

1. Asian American Center of Frederick (Jennifer D. Runkles) – Occupation of Community Health Worker. Related instruction to be provided by the sponsor and Frederick Community College. Request for registration of an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices. (item 2)

Councilmember Shaunta Chapple arrived during the hearing of this item.
Ms. Runkles said she was joined by Vanda Yamkovenko and Maryam Kiashemshaki, representing the prospective sponsor.
Mr. Shmelzer said the abilities needed to perform the job in the qualifications of the Standards or Apprenticeship were very open ended and he asked for more details. Ms. Runkles read the qualifications, Section 6 of the Standards, aloud and said apprentices would not be exposed to many hazards compared to other apprenticeship occupations. Mr. Shmelzer asked for more details about the duties of the job. Ms. Runkles asked Ms. Yamkovenko to speak about the job duties.
Ms. Yamkovenko said she served as the primary trainer for the occupation. Ms. Yamkovenko said the occupation offered many different services in the community while working with clients, including working at testing sites, vaccinations clinics, providing outreach services on behalf of clients in numerous counties, including service to vulnerable and underserved populations.
Chairman Cavey clarified Mr. Shmelzer’s question. Chairman Cavey asked what the physical requirements were since this was stated in the qualifications of the Standards of Apprenticeship. Ms. Yamkovenko said the physical requirements of the job were similar to those of doctors and nurses – standing and sitting for long periods of time, being able to drive to clients’ homes and take them to health care centers, etc. Ms. Yamkovenko said there was some physical activity such as administering blood tests and measuring blood pressure.
Chairman Cavey asked how apprentices would be able to show they were physically able to perform the job. Ms. Yamkovenko said all potential apprentices would be asked to pass a physical exam performed by a doctor and would have to show proof of various vaccinations. Ms. Runkles said she would add that apprentices would have to pass a medical exam to the qualifications.
Mr. Shmelzer asked about requirements related to English proficiency. Ms. Runkles said apprentices might be bilingual, but English proficiency wasn’t a requirement of the program. Mr. Shmelzer asked if certain related instruction offerings were classroom based and Ms. Runkles said the related instruction was classroom based. Mr. Shmelzer said the standards referred to classroom and online practicum and asked what portion was online. Ms. Runkles said there was a capability to offer an online classroom to accommodate folks who couldn’t attend in-person classes. Mr. Shmelzer asked if the online offerings were asynchronous. Ms. Runkles said the online educational offerings were interactive, and attendance would be taken.
Mr. Sackett said in Section 19 of the standards, public schools were mentioned. Mr. Sackett asked if the intent of the program was to use related instruction from public schools. Ms. Runkles said the related instruction would be provided by Asian American Center of Frederick and Frederick Community College. Ms. Runkles said education would not be provided by high schools and said apprentices must be 18 to qualify for apprenticeship.
Mr. Sackett asked if any certification was available for the occupation. Ms. Runkles said apprentices would have to pass an exam to receive a State certification.
Mr. Klusmann said in the future he would like to see more details related to the word “abilities” when it appears in the qualifications section for new programs.
Chairman Cavey said he spoke to Mr. MacLarion while this item was being heard and there was an advisory committee for the occupation. Mr. MacLarion said the members of the Maryland Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Labor were included on the board for Community Health Workers. Mr. MacLarion said the minimum requirements to be a Community Health Worker were “far less” than to be a registered apprentice in the occupation. Mr. MacLarion said the minimum requirements for the non-apprentice pathway was 40 hours of practicum and 100 hours of instruction. He said the two RA sponsors of this occupation, and hopefully the third sponsor (seeking approval in this item) were offering 1,960 more hours of training.

A motion to approve this new program and associated AAP was made by Mr. Wilford and seconded by Ms. Butt.

Ms. Anderson asked if the motion included approval of changes that were requested by Council. Ms. Runkles answered that a medical exam would be added to the qualifications.

The Council unanimously approved the motion including a change to the qualifications to include a medical exam to be presented to Council in the September meeting (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey welcomed and thanked the new sponsor’s representatives.

2. Association of International Certified Professional Accountants (AICPA) (Faith Ramsburg) – Occupation of Finance Business Partner. Related instruction to be provided by AICPA and Excelsior College. (item 3)
Ms. Ramsburg said she was joined by Joanne Fiore, AICPA vice president and the sponsor’s representative.
Mr. Shmelzer said the individual companies were not members of the organization but individuals were members. Ms. Ramsburg said this was correct. Mr. Shmelzer asked how this would impact the makeup of the prospective sponsor’s apprenticeship committee. Mr. MacLarion said the employer could still sit on the apprenticeship committee without being members. Mr. MacLarion said there were many programs where this was the case. Mr. MacLarion said an employer can participate in a group apprenticeship program without being a member of an affiliated organization. Mr. Klusmann asked if this would enable an employer to circumnavigate the application and qualification process. Mr. MacLarion said absolutely not; employer acceptance agreements bind employers to the standards of apprenticeship.
Mr. Sackett said the journeyworker rate was set at $75 but the entry-level progressive wage rate was much lower. Mr. Sackett asked for clarification. Ms. Ramsburg said the draft of the standards that was provided in the Council’s packet listed the wage in error and an updated version of that particular page was provided to Councilmembers the day of this meeting.
Mr. MacLarion said, for clarification, that in the past packets for new group non-joint sponsors that were brought before Council did not include employer acceptance agreements. Mr. MacLarion said that history showed that group non-joint sponsors would create new programs with the best of intentions but were unable to gain employer participation. Mr. MacLarion said, as a result, staff began to include an introductory number of employer acceptance agreements when bringing new group non-joint programs before Council. Mr. MacLarion said that in group non-joint programs, individual employers set their own pay rates and the progressive wage calculation is measured against those pay rates individually.
Mr. Wilford said apprentices would also earn an associate degree and asked if there was an opportunity to pursue further education to earn a CPA. Ms. Ramsburg said this opportunity to progress would be available.
A motion to approve this new program was made by Mr. Wilford, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey thanked the new sponsor and offered good luck.

3. Beitzel Corporation & Pillar Innovations, LLC (Jennifer D. Runkles) – Occupation of Electrician. Related instruction to be provided by Garrett College using the Mike Holt curriculum. (item 4)

Ms. Runkles said she was joined by Melissa Johnson and Keith Harman, the prospective sponsor’s representatives.
Mr. Klusmann said details on the selection process were lacking. Ms. Runkles said this was an under-five program so selection procedures and an Affirmative Action Plan weren’t needed. Mr. Klusmann said he would still like to know their selection procedures. Ms. Runkles said the sponsor did not intend to hire at the very moment but the plan was to bring an Affirmative Action Plan before Council in September 2022.
Mr. Shmelzer said labs were identified in the curriculum outline, but where the labs were being held was not well defined. Ms. Runkles said she was able to view those details by working with the prospective sponsor’s representatives and the prospective sponsor was preparing to begin the program in October 2022. Mr. Shmelzer asked if the instruction and labs were all in person and that there wasn’t an online component. Ms. Runkles said all instructional offerings were in person.
Ms. Anderson said she didn’t see a resume for an instructor. Ms. Runkles said since the instruction was offered by a college there was not an obligation to present a resume to Council. Ms. Anderson asked if the related instruction would be offered to students who were not apprentices. Ms. Runkles said the related instruction was exclusive to apprentices and there was only one employer set to participate, but the plan was to bring more employers into the program.
Mr. Shmelzer said he was concerned, based on precedent, that the number of apprentices that would register in the program would be low. Mr. Shmelzer asked if there was a plan in place to address and sustain potentially low registration numbers. Ms. Runkles said the long-term plan was to include roughly 10 employers in Garrett County in the program and that each employer would register one or two apprentices in continual cohorts. Ms. Runkles said the college was aware of potentially low registrations, but it was making efforts to meet the needs of the community.
Mr. Shmelzer said, for the sake of his fellow Councilmembers, that in the past 18 months is an introduction of statewide licensure in regulations. Mr. Shmelzer said one of the pathways to obtain a journeyworker license was to complete an apprenticeship program. Mr. Shmelzer said this made for “a different ballgame in the electrical industry.”
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the college had committed to funding the program even if it were to face a potential loss. Ms. Runkles said she discussed this with college representatives as well as Mr. MacLarion. Ms. Runkles said the college is committed to meeting the needs of the business community and doing its best to meet those needs. Ms. Runkles said a related letter was included in the Council’s packet. Ms. Runkles said the local workforce needed training and hoped this would encourage future generations to work in the electrical field.
Ms. Anderson asked if the program wouldn’t begin until October and the plan was to bring the related Affirmative Action Plan to the Council in September, why was this program approval being brought to Council at this meeting. Ms. Runkles said the hope was that the HR team from the prospective sponsor would have had the Affirmative Action Plan in place, but it experienced issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms. Runkles said the prospective sponsor’s representatives asked to move forward despite this.
Mr. Wilford said the business applied to be the sponsor and the college made a commitment to continue working with other businesses, and asked if it would be better for the college to be the sponsor. Ms. Runkles said the college chose not to be the sponsor at the time.
Mr. Sackett asked if this was a sort of informal pilot that would serve as a model for future employers. Ms. Runkles said yes.
Mr. MacLarion said Garrett County was one of Maryland’s most rural counties. Mr. MacLarion said the first class was likely to be small and college representatives were aware of this. Mr. MacLarion said college representatives were aware that the cohorts might diminish between year one and year four, with the first year usually experiencing the most cancellations. Mr. MacLarion said for the program to grow, the college would have to participate in outreach.
Mr. MacLarion said it was important to register the program at this meeting so would be apprentices could begin to log on-the-job-training experience, especially considering the change in electrical licensing regulations mentioned earlier by Mr. Shmelzer. Mr. MacLarion said there was also an opportunity for the prospective sponsor to reconsider whether it might present an Affirmative Action Plan or remain a small program.
Mr. Shmelzer said the way the curriculum is designed, the last half of the fourth year was preparation for the journeyworker exam. Mr. Shmelzer said the industry was continuing to evolve and there was plenty of content, such as electric car charging stations, that could be subjects for related instruction. Mr. Shmelzer said he strongly encouraged the prospective sponsor and the college to work in other content to address trends in the industry. Ms. Runkles said she spoke to Mike Holt’s team the day before this meeting and this subject was addressed as part of the conversation. Ms. Runkles said if the sponsor were to branch out into working in new technologies, the Mike Holt team would support that move, even though it wasn’t required in the standards, to prepare electricians as they grew in their education.
Ms. Anderson asked, in lieu of an Affirmative Action Plan, if general guidelines for qualifications were typically presented to Council. Mr. MacLarion said qualifications were included in the standards of apprenticeship for both large and small programs, though a prospective sponsor of a group program did not have to announce the entirety of its plans to Council.

A motion to approve this new plan was made by Dr. Chapple, seconded by Mr. Wilford and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey thanked the new sponsor and wished the representatives good luck.

4. Chesapeake Energy Solutions, LLC d/b/a Chesapeake Electric (Jane Sinclair) – Occupation of Electrician. Related instruction will be the Mike Holt curriculum delivered by company instructors at the Annapolis location and on-line. Request for an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices. (item 5)

Ms. Sinclair said she was joined by Ryan Deshaies and Brianna Ferran, the prospective sponsor’s representatives.
Mr. Wilford asked if the prospective sponsor originally participated in the IECC group program and was breaking off. Ms. Sinclair said this was correct. Mr. Wilford asked if the prospective sponsor planned to use IECC’s related instruction to supplement its offerings. Ms. Sinclair said one fourth-year apprentice would continue to use IECC’s fourth-year instruction since this apprentice was close to completion, but once this apprentice completed, the prospective sponsor would no longer use IECC’s instruction. Mr. Wilford asked if the prospective sponsor had enough apprentices to warrant forming its own program. Ms. Sinclair said the sponsor had 15 apprentices at the time of this meeting.
Mr. Deshaies said he anticipated introducing a cohort of five to 10 new apprentices every year. Mr. Deshaies said it was not the prospective sponsor’s expectation that IECC would accommodate this change, though it was the hope of the prospective sponsor. Mr. Deshaies said IECC indeed accommodated this changed and thanked IECC.
Mr. Shmelzer asked how related instruction would be offered. Mr. Deshaies said it would be a blend of online and in-person instruction.
Ms. Anderson asked how much of the instruction would be offered online versus in-house. Mr. Deshaies said roughly 50 percent of the instruction would occur online. Ms. Anderson asked if the labs would be offered in-person. Mr. Deshaies said labs would be offered in-person at the prospective sponsor’s facility.
Mr. Klusmann asked if the apprentices would bear any costs. Mr. Deshaies said there were no costs for the apprentices.

A motion to approve this new program and related AAP was made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Ms. Butt. Ms. Anderson asked if AAP approval was included in the motion. Chairman Cavey answered yes. Mr. Shmelzer abstained and all other Councilmembers voted to approve (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey welcomed the new sponsor.

5. Constellation Home (Faith Ramsburg) – Occupation of HVACR Technician. Related instruction will be both in-house and through Interplay Learning. Request for registration of an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices. (item 6)

Ms. Ramsburg said she was joined by Gary McLaughlin, the sponsor’s representative.
Ms. Ramsburg said a document previously provided to Council as part of the packet contained incorrect information and there was no residency requirement in the qualifications in the Standards of Apprenticeship. This error was corrected in a document provided to the Council the day of this meeting.
Ms. Ramsburg said that apprentices would be provided with a company vehicle after participating in the program for a month. Mr. Shmelzer asked if an apprentice would be required to go to school before receiving the company vehicle. Ms. Ramsburg said an apprentice would have to find reliable transportation to both the related instruction facility and work sites until a company vehicle was received.
Chairman Cavey asked, since the apprentices would be provided with a company vehicle, if the apprentices would be by themselves at worksites. Chairman Cavey asked how apprentices would work with a journeyworker. Ms. Ramsburg said journeyworkers also had company vehicles and journeyworkers would meet apprentices at the worksites.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the prospective sponsor participated in a group apprenticeship program. Ms. Ramsburg said the prospective sponsor participated in a group program but was creating its own program to grow its apprenticeship and staff by utilizing its own training department.
Ms. Anderson asked if the prospective sponsor was able to offer instruction to its three different cohorts. Ms. Ramsburg answered yes. Ms. Anderson asked how the labs were offered. Ms. Ramsburg asked Mr. McLaughlin to answer. Mr. McLaughlin said that the prospective sponsor had an onsite training facility that had been in use for 12-plus years. Mr. McLaughlin said the business was experiencing a period of rapid and expansion and thought it was time to create its own apprenticeship program. Mr. McLaughlin said the facility had numerous classrooms and was able to offer instruction for multiple cohorts separately.
Mr. Klusmann asked about the prospective sponsor’s scope of work. Mr. McLaughlin said the work was mainly residential, but apprentices would be trained in installation, commercial and light commercial service as well.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the apprentices would be paid while they were receiving instruction at the prospective sponsor’s facility. Both Ms. Ramsburg and Mr. McLaughlin answered yes.

A motion to approve the new program and related AAP was made by Mr. Sackett and seconded by Mr. Klusmann. Ms. Anderson abstained and all other Councilmembers voted yea (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey thanked the new sponsor.

6. Vanguard Enterprise, LLC (Jane Sinclair) – Occupation of Operations Manager. Related Instruction to be provided in-house using Coursera. Request for registration of an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices. (item 7)

Ms. Sinclair provided two updated documents to Council, an updated 2000 with corrected hours for the occupation and a Charles County Government Economic Development Office letter of support.
Ms. Sinclair said she was joined by Gregory Strickling, the prospective sponsor’s apprenticeship coordinator who traveled from Arizona.
Mr. Klusmann said there were 4,318 hours listed for the occupation and asked how an apprentice could reasonably be expected to work 4,318 hours in two years. Ms. Sinclair said the program was slightly longer than two years. Chairman Cavey said if it’s a 4,318-hour program, then it would take as long as it takes to complete. Ms. Sinclair clarified that the “two-year” reference was a general talking point but wasn’t included in the Standards of Apprenticeship presented to Council.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if Coursera contained related instruction tracking abilities. Ms. Sinclair said she was excited about Coursera and asked Mr. Strickling to address Mr. Shmelzer’s question. Mr. Strickling said Coursera allowed for tracking engagement and progress so the prospective sponsor could offer additional supports if needed. Mr. Strickling said the platform also enabled apprentices to seek numerous types of support from instructors and specialists, as well as access to other materials.

A motion to approve this new program and related AAP was made by Ms. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey thanked the new sponsor’s representative and called for a 10-minute comfort break.

B. PROGRAM REVISIONS:

1. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Baltimore Metropolitan Chapter (Charles Marquette) – Request to reactivate the occupation of Roofer and to add Anne Arundel Community College as a location for related instruction classes. (item 8)

Mr. Marquette said he was joined by Chris Hadfield, vice president of Workforce Development for the sponsor.

A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Bromley, Ms. Butt abstained, and all other Councilmembers voted yea. (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Mr. Hadfield thanked the Council. Chairman Cavey thanked Mr. Hadfield and Mr. Marquette.

2. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Baltimore Metropolitan Chapter (Charles Marquette) – Request to add Howard Community College as a location for related instruction classes. (item 9)

Mr. Marquette said he was joined by Chris Hadfield, vice president of Workforce Development for the sponsor.
Mr. Shmelzer asked for clarification if this instructional location would be approved for multiple occupations. Mr. MacLarion said that while the sponsor specified that the intent was to use the new location for plumbing, the sponsor would be able to use the instructional location for other occupations as well.

A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Wilford, Ms. Butt abstained, and all other Councilmembers approved the motion (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

3. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Chesapeake Shores Chapter (Jane Sinclair) – Request to reactivate the occupation of Roofer. (item 10)

Ms. Sinclair said a sponsor’s representative was unable to attend but asked that the Council move forward.

A motion to table this item to the next meeting was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

4. Howard Community College (Jeffrey W. Smith) – Revision to add the occupations of Practical Nurse and Surgical Technologist with apprentice selection procedures for these occupations. Related instruction to be provided by Howard Community College. (item 11)

Mr. Smith said he was joined by Justin Swick and Jeffrey Richmond, the sponsor’s representatives.
Dr. Chapple asked why I CNA certification was included in the qualifications for the occupation of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Mr. Smith said this qualification was in line with other Registered Apprenticeship programs for LPN. Mr. Smith said LPN was not an entry-level occupation in health care. Mr. Smith said the best success that was seen in other LPN programs was when apprentices had already received CNA certifications.
Mr. Sackett asked if existing CNAs were the target audience for the LPN apprenticeship opportunity. Mr. Smith said, generally speaking, yes. Mr. Smith said CNAs were the entry point into the LPN pathway.
Ms. Butt said she could vouch for the CNA to LPN pathway because her son took that path.
Mr. Shmelzer asked for clarification on the physical requirements of the occupation as listed in the qualifications for LPN. Mr. Smith said this was the ability to stand for long periods of time, ability to lift 50 pounds and the ability to care for patients. Mr. Shmelzer said he would like to see these details added to the qualifications.
Mr. Shmelzer asked how the apprenticeship committee for this occupation would be handled considering the sponsor offers apprenticeship for more than one occupation. Mr. Smith said this occupation would make for three industry areas with sponsored RA programs. Mr. Smith said there was an apprenticeship committee associated with IT, an apprenticeship committee associated with construction, and if approved, a third committee would be formed for health care. Mr. Shmelzer asked that the status of this committee be detailed in the initial compliance review for the new occupation.
Mr. Klusmann asked if completion of XH-712 was needed to become an apprentice. Mr. Smith said completion of the XH-712 would have to occur before becoming an apprentice or immediately after being accepted as an apprentice. Mr. Smith said equivalent course work might also be deemed as appropriate to fill that requirement. Mr. Smith said there was also an opportunity to pass a test to show the apprentice had the knowledge related to that particular course.
Mr. Sackett asked if there would be a cost to the apprentice for an exam fee. Mr. Smith said there would be no cost for the entrance test.
Mr. Klusmann asked if there was a fee to take the XH-712. Mr. Smith said there was a fee for the XH-712.
Mr. Klusmann said there was a very narrow population who could become apprentices in this proposed LPN program. Mr. Klusmann said it didn’t seem accessible and was very narrow and asked how this was an apprenticeship program. Mr. Smith said, based on labor market statistics, that CNA was one of the largest numeric populations in the health care field. Mr. Smith CNAs were working in hospitals, patient clinics, senior centers and geriatric communities, and other facilities. Mr. Smith said the LPN apprenticeship was an opportunity to move up the ladder from the CNA entry point.
Mr. Klusmann asked why a driver’s license was required. Mr. MacLarion said the qualifications stated a valid driver’s license “and/or” reliable transportation so reliable transportation would be accepted in lieu of a driver’s license. Mr. Klusmann said reliable transportation alone would suffice and that he would like to see the driver’s license requirement removed from the qualifications.

Mr. Wilson asked how classes would be scheduled considering variance in apprentices’ work schedules. Mr. Swick said class schedules would be flexible and would be determined based on the apprentices’ work schedule.
Mr. Wilson said some of his family members were CNAs. Mr. Wilson as an entry-level position, many CNAs could not afford to go to school to upscale their occupations. Mr. Wilson said he believed there should be apprenticeship for doctors and attorneys, and he considered this a mission. Mr. Wilson said he wanted to see apprenticeship opportunities for CNAs to become nurses, and the program proposed in this item was a good start. Mr. Wilson said CNAs were everywhere in the medical field and were employed in the lowest rung and they worked the most hours. Mr. Wilson thanked the sponsor for bringing this item forward. Mr. Smith thanked Mr. Wilson for his comments.

A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Butt and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Chairman Cavey thanked Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith thanked the Council.

5. Minnick’s, Inc. (Sheila Jackson) – Request to revise related instruction to be through Interplay Learning. (item 12)

Ms. Jackson said she was joined by President and CEO Robert Minnick, the sponsor’s representative.
Mr. Wilford asked what related instruction provider was being used by the sponsor at the time of this meeting. Mr. Minnick said a company named HVACR.EDU.NET was being used. Mr. Minnick said Interplay was more interactive and explained that the sponsor liked the some of the potential new provider’s features. Mr. Wilford said the sponsor was already using an internet-based provider and Mr. Minnick confirmed.
Mr. Shmelzer said the related courses were not broken down into years and he would like to see those details added. Mr. Shmelzer said classes were to be held every other Wednesday from 1 to 3:30 p.m. Mr. Shmelzer asked if apprentices would be compensated for that time. Mr. Minnick said apprentices would be compensated for that time.
Mr. Shmelzer said as presented, the total hours of instruction for a year would only be 65 hours per year. Mr. Shmelzer asked how the program would achieve the minimum 144 hours per year. Ms. Jackson said the hours as presented were incorrect and she thought that error had been corrected. Ms. Jackson asked Mr. Minnick if the classes planned to be present the courses every Wednesday. Mr. Minnick said the classes would be held every Wednesday and that the apprentices would get hands-on experience in the classes to verify what they were learning online.
Ms. Anderson asked if the Wednesday classes were only the lab portion of the instruction. Mr. Minnick said yes, the Wednesday classes were the labs and they were thinking about shifting to morning hours since that was more convenient.
Mr. Shmelzer encouraged Mr. Minnick to come up with a true schedule to hold apprentices accountable and that the schedule as presented to Council didn’t hold apprentices accountable. Mr. Shmelzer said setting a better-defined schedule would help synergize labs with the internet-based instruction.
Ms. Anderson said the journeyworker preparation portion of the related instruction could potentially be replaced with other instruction relevant to the occupation.
Mr. MacLarion said journeyworker preparation was important especially for apprentices who were granted credit toward the program. Mr. MacLarion said that paying or instructional hours was a benefit to the apprentice and removed a large barrier to instruction. Mr. MacLarion said program staff had intense discussions with this sponsor, and the 50 lab hours, in his opinion, were an added benefit when compared to 150 hours of only internet-based learning. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Minnick changed his original plan to add 50 hours of labs rather than offering only online courses. Mr. MacLarion said more details of related instruction scheduling could be added to the Standards of Apprenticeship.
Ms. Anderson suggested removing specific language as to the day and hours the labs would occur and that the Standards state something to the effect of 2.5 hours biweekly. Ms. Anderson said this would allow the program to be flexible. Mr. MacLarion said this change could be made and presented to Council at the next meeting, though not as an agenda item.

A motion to approve this revision including revised details of the related instruction schedule was made by Ms. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Wilford and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

6. Schuster Concrete Construction (Faith Ramsburg) – Request for reactivation of Apprenticeship Standards for the occupation of Construction Craft Laborer. (item 13)

Ms. Ramsburg said she was joined by Ross Jackson, vice president and safety director, and Oscar Amaya, claims administrator, for the sponsor.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the request to reactivate was a result of issues related to prevailing wage work. One of the sponsor’s representatives said this was not the case, and the sponsor did not perform prevailing wage work.
Mr. Klusmann said hopefully the program would be successful this time.

A motion to approve this reactivation was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

7. United Union of Roofers, Water-Proofers and Allied Workers Local Union No. 34 JATC. (Jennifer D. Runkles) – Request to revise the schedule of on-the-job training work processes and the apprentice wage progression schedule. (item 14)

Chairman Cavey said a sponsor’s representative wasn’t present.

A motion to table this item until the next Council meeting was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

C. PROGRAM REVIEWS [Five (5) or More Apprentices]:

1. Apprentice Training, Inc. (Coral Crawford). (item 15)

Because of time constraints, Chairman Cavey asked staff to limit talking points related to reviews (items 15 to 20) to a brief summary and any staff recommendations.

Ms. Crawford said this was the sponsor’s provisional review and she conducted the review in person.
Ms. Crawford said one deficiency was found, and this deficiency was that though this was a group non-joint program, there was only one active employer where all apprentices were employed despite having four employers participating in the program.
Ms. Crawford said staff recommended the review for approval.
Chairman Cavey said this sponsor was at the previous Council meeting with a training facility change. Chairman Cavey asked Ms. Crawford if she noted where training was taking place. Ms. Crawford said the training facility was at the office in Landover. Chairman Cavey asked if the sponsor was using the Laborers’ site that was approved in the previous Council meeting. Ms. Crawford said sponsor’s representatives said they were using the Laborers’ site, but she toured the Landover site during the review. Chairman Cavey asked if sponsor’s representatives said they were using the Laborers’ site. Ms. Crawford said yes but she couldn’t account for if the sponsor would use the site in the future. Chairman Cavey said the site was just recently approved at the previous meeting.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if staff could contact the sponsor to learn more about the employers that were not participating. Mr. MacLarion said the review was conducted in January 2022. Mr. MacLarion said in the time since the review a second employer began to participate. Mr. MacLarion said one of the employers did not intend to participate. Mr. MacLarion said roughly 33 percent of the apprentices that were registered as of the date of the meeting were registered with the employer that recently started participating. Mr. Shmelzer said this was progress among the employers, but his biggest concern was related to cancelled apprentices. Mr. Shmelzer asked Ms. Crawford, when she conducted the review, that any of the cancelled apprentices attended classes. Ms. Crawford said she didn’t see all the files since the review was “a snapshot,” but she viewed files for both active and cancelled apprentices. Ms. Crawford said she had no concerns regarding related instruction. Mr. Shmelzer asked if related instruction was being offered to every apprentice. Ms. Crawford said, regarding the files she saw, every apprentice received related instruction.

A motion to accept this review was made by Mr. Wilford, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

2. Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Baltimore Metropolitan Chapter (Coral Crawford). (item 16)

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Ms. Anderson, Ms. Butt abstained, and all other Councilmembers voted yea (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

3. Baltimore Cyber Range, LLC (Charles Marquette). (item 17)

Mr. Marquette said this program began in March 2020 and this marked the sponsor’s first full compliance review.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if this program would survive. Mr. Marquette said staff was working with the sponsor to identify new occupations and employers. Mr. Shmelzer asked why the city terminated the program. Mr. MacLarion advised Councilmembers to research this on the internet.

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Mr. Shmelzer and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

4. Capitol Sprinkler Contracting, Inc. (Sheila Jackson). (item 18)

Ms. Jackson said staff would check in with this sponsor on a quarterly basis to monitor and assist as needed to increase the number of female apprentices in support of the sponsor’s Affirmative Action Plan.

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

5. OST Global Solutions (Coral Crawford). (item 19)

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Mr. Sackett and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

6. The Alliance for Media Arts + Culture, Inc. (Sheila Jackson). (item 20)

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Ms. Butt and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

After the motion and vote, Mr. MacLarion said this sponsor was recently approved as a national RA program by USDOL. Mr. MacLarion said the national program had already registered apprentices from across the country. Mr. MacLarion said the day before this meeting, Maryland staff received an unsolicited email from USDOL thanking state staff for its efforts in helping the sponsor to maintain a quality RA program that could be registered at the national level. Mr. MacLarion said while the sponsor intends to maintain a program within the state, it’s good to see growth through apprenticeship at the national level.

D. PROGRAM REVIEWS [Fewer Than Five (5) Apprentices]:

1. The following program reviews were performed and the programs were found to be conducted in a satisfactory manner. [No Council Action Required]:

a. CVS Health – Occupations of Pharmacy Technician (Retail Store) and Manager (Retail Store) (Coral Crawford). (item 21)
b. Dedicated Circuits – Occupation of Electrician (Coral Crawford). (item 22)
c. GSK (Human Genome Science) – Occupations of Instrumentation and Electrical Technician, Validation Technician, Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Associate and Biochemist Associate (Coral Crawford). (item 23)
d. Nestle Dreyer’s Ice Cream Company – Occupations of Industrial Maintenance Mechanic and Electrical Technician (Controls) (Sheila Jackson). (item 24)
e. Maryland Manufacturing Partners – Occupation of CNC Machinist and three (3) others (Coral Crawford). (item 25)
f. Worthington Armstrong Venture (WAVE) – Occupations of Tool and Die Maker, Maintenance Electrician and Maintenance Mechanic (Kelton Addison).
(item 26)

Mr. Shmelzer said he was concerned about Dedicated Circuits and challenges related to using Delaware schools. Mr. Shmelzer asked Mr. MacLarion if staff would address larger issues related to sponsors using Delaware schools. Mr. MacLarion said one of the challenges of apprenticeship on the Eastern Shore was having just two colleges, in Maryland, serving nine counties on the Eastern Shore. Mr. MacLarion said staff and Councilmembers would prefer apprentices be trained and educated in Maryland, but unfortunately, options were limited to seeking instruction in Delaware and challenges related to that, or to receive strictly internet-based instruction which was not a better option. Mr. MacLarion said Dedicated Circuits was a small employer and expecting it to offer in-house or internet-based instruction was unrealistic. Mr. MacLarion said staff would continue to assist sponsors in similar situations.

E. PROVISIONAL REVIEWS:

• Congressional Country Club (Ginamarie Best). (item 27)

A motion to approve this provisional review was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

F. VOLUNTARY REQUESTS FOR CANCELLATION OF STANDARDS OF APPRENTICESHIP:

1. Carroll Tree Service effective April 18, 2022. (item 28)

Chairman Cavey asked Councilmembers to consider combining items 28 to 30 and voting on all the items together.

A motion to combine and approve the voluntary cancellations of items 28 to 30 was made by Ms. Butt, seconded by Mr. Wilford and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

2. Monocacy Valley Electric, Inc. effective May 10, 2022. (item 29)

See item 28.

3. Witske Funeral Home effective May 18, 2022. (item 30)

See item 28.

G. OTHER BUSINESS:

1. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of Triantos Electric Company (MATC No. 1535). (Ginamarie Best). (item 31)

A motion to approve this deregistration was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

2. Request for the approval of Balance Choice Vending to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Ginamarie Best). (item 32)

Chairman Cavey said items 32 to 58 were requests for approval of eligible employers for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth Apprenticeship) and asked Councilmembers if they preferred to address the items separately or as a group.

A motion to group items 32 to 58 together in one vote was made by Mr. Wilford and seconded by Mr. Bromley to group these together. Chairman Cavey asked for questions on the motion.

Mr. Shmelzer said after the motion that the youth apprenticeship policy group was set to meet the day after this Council meeting. Mr. Shmelzer said he thought the coming new policy would help address some of his questions and concerns about youth apprenticeship. Mr. Shmelzer said his hope was that the new policy would enable the Council to clean up issues related to youth apprenticeship. Mr. Shmelzer said he was concerned about the apprenticeability of some of the occupations that were approved for youth apprenticeship.

The council unanimously approved the motion to combine items 32 to 58 (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

Mr. MacLarion recognized Rose Bayat from Toyota of Bowie, whose employer was on this agenda in item 53. Mr. MacLarion said youth employers were not mandated to attend Council meetings to be approved. Mr. MacLarion said he hoped Ms. Bayat found attending the meeting useful, asked her to consider participating in RA someday, and thanked her for attending.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if a journeyworker was on staff at Corey’s Construction (item 42). Mr. MacLarion said Corey’s Construction had a journeyworker on staff.

A motion to approve youth apprenticeship eligible employers in items 32 to 58 as grouped together was made by Mr. Wilford, seconded by Mr. Bromley, Mr. Sackett abstained, and all other Councilmembers voted yea (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

3. Request for the approval of Turf Valley Resort to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Sheila Jackson). (item 33)
See item 32.
4. Request for the approval of the Governor’s Workforce Development Board to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Charles Marquette). (item 34)

See item 32.

5. Request for the approval of Bluestone Communications, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 35)

See item 32.

6. Request for the approval of Clarity Cyber, LLC to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth). (Faith Ramsburg). (item 36)

See item 32.

7. Request for the approval of Delbert Adams Construction Group to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 37)

See item 32.

8. Request for the approval of Hatzel & Buchler, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 38)

See item 32.

9. Request for the approval of North American Millwright Services, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 39)

See item 32.

10. Request for the approval of Saffer Plumbing, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 40)

See item 32.

11. Request for the approval of Brethren Mutual Insurance to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Funkles). (item 41)

See item 32.

12. Request for the approval of Corey’s Construction to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 42)

See item 32.

13. Request for the approval of DatActive Digital to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 43)

See item 32.

14. Request for the approval of Glessner Technologies to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 44)

See item 32.

15. Request for the approval of Gornell Construction to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 45)

See item 32.

16. Request for the approval of Tele-Plus Corporation to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 46)

See item 32.

17. Request for the approval of Total Comfort Heating and Air Conditioning to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 47)

See item 32.

18. Request for the approval of Anne Arundel County Public Schools to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 48)

See item 32.

19. Request for the approval of Bello Machre to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 49)

See item 32.

20. Request for the approval of JF Marine to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 50)

See item 32.

21. Request for the approval of Shady Lane Construction to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 51)

See item 32.

22. Request for the approval of The Front Porch to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 52)

See item 32.

23. Request for the approval of Toyota of Bowie to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 53)

See item 32.

24. Request for the approval of Weisman Electric Company to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 54)

See item 32.

25. Request for the approval of Dock House, LLC to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 55)

See item 32.

26. Request for the approval of Gluten-Free Bakery Girl to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 56)

See item 32.

27. Request for the approval of J. Richard Breeding to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 57)

See item 32.

28. Request for the approval of WHCP Cambridge Community Radio to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 58)

See item 32.

29. Ratio Guidance (Christopher D. MacLarion) – This item consists of three parts:

• The Revised Ratio Guidance approved by the Council on November 16, 2921. (item 59),
  
  Mr. MacLarion detailed revisions made to the Ratio Guidance in items 59 to 61.

Chairman Cavey said he noticed a typographical error in the agenda that said November 2921, but it should say November 2021.

A motion to approve the revisions as detailed in items 59 to 61 was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Sackett and unanimously approved (Mr. Clinedinst III and Mr. Smarte absent).

• A draft of changes to the Ratio Guidance. (item 60), and
  
  See item 59.

• A draft of the changes tracking the changes. (item 61)

See item 59.

VIII. CLOSING COMMENTS
Chairman Cavey invited Nick Burdick of the USDOL/OA office to speak. Mr. Burdick said USDOL recently awarded a $121 million grant. Mr. Burdick said the Electrical Training Alliance received $3 million in Maryland. Mr. Burdick said USDOL was focused on cybersecurity and IT apprenticeships through a Cyber and IT Sprint. Mr. Burdick compared this to the trucking challenge from earlier in the year. Mr. Burdick said practically every industry needed IT and cyber security specialists. Mr. Burdick said the Sprint would last 120 days through National Apprenticeship Week. Mr. Burdick said the U.S. Department of Commerce was set to release grant funds as well.
IX. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Cavey entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Shmelzer made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved. Council meeting adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher D. MacLarion
Secretary
Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council