May 10, 2022 - Minutes of Public Meetings - Apprenticeship and Training Council

Download this document (Word)

Present

Public Representative Shaunta Chapple, Employer Representative Michelle L. Butt, Employee David J. Wilson, Sr., Employee Representatives Allen B. Clinedinst III and Neil E. Wilford, Jr., and USDOL/OA Consultant to the Council Ronald Leonard notified Director Chris MacLarion that they were unable to attend before the meeting convened.

Chairman Cavey called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. at Delaware Elevator, Inc., 2207 Allen Drive, Salisbury, Maryland 21801.

Chairman Cavey introduced himself and asked everyone in attendance to sign in if they hadn’t already. Chairman Cavey asked everyone to introduce themselves. Those present made their introductions. Chairman Cavey thanked Georgeta Wainwright, of Delaware Elevator, for hosting the Council meeting.

I. Minutes of the March 8, 2022, Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council meeting.

A motion to approve the March 8, 2022, minutes was made by Mr. Smarte, seconded by Mr. Shmelzer and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

II. OPENING REMARKS

Chairman Cavey invited Maryland Department of Labor Assistant Secretary James Rzepkowski to speak. Mr. Rzepkowski thanked everyone for attending and welcomed them on behalf of Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford and Department of Labor Secretary Tiffany Robinson. Mr. Rzepkowski said in the previous Council meeting, he highlighted the accomplishments in apprenticeship during Governor Hogan’s term in office as his term was reaching its end at the close of 2022. Mr. Rzepkowski said he looked forward to hearing Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program Director Chris MacLarion’s report that would also highlight related accomplishments in the apprenticeship program. Mr. Rzepkowski said the number of registered apprentices may bring a drum roll from him.
Mr. Rzepkowski presented a governor’s citation to Councilman Norbert Klusmann. Mr. Rzepkowski asked Chairman Cavey for a moment to recognize Mr. Klusmann for his retirement following 37 years of dedicated service to the Sheetmetal Workers Local 100. Mr. Rzepkowski said Mr. Klusmann was an apprentice from 1981 to 1985 when Mr. Rzepkowski was in middle school. Mr. Rzepkowski said Mr. Klusmann was a training instructor from 1988 to 1995, while Mr. Rzepkowski was in high school and beginning college. Mr. Rzepkowski said Mr. Klusmann was still active with Local 100 at the time of the meeting despite his retirement. Mr. Rzepkowski said Mr. Klusmann continued to serve as a member of the Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council, and had served on the Council for seven years at the time of this meeting. Mr. Rzepkowski said Mr. Klusmann, as a Council member, focused on barrier removal so all interested parties could have access to high-quality career paths through apprenticeship. Mr. Rzepkowski said Mr. Klusmann takes a lead in achieving diversity in apprenticeship, as well as safety in apprenticeship. Mr. Rzepkowski clarified that the governor’s citation recognized Mr. Klusmann for his retirement from Local 100, not the Council, since Mr. Klusmann continued to serve on the Council. Mr. Rzepkowski read the citation aloud. Mr. Rzepkowski said that Mr. Klusmann retired prior to this meeting, but the pandemic presented interruptions in presenting the governor’s citation. Mr. Rzepkowski handed the citation to Mr. Klusmann to much applause, and thanked Chairman Cavey for the time.
Chairman Cavey congratulated Mr. Klusmann. Mr. Klusmann thanked Mr. Rzepkowski and Chairman Cavey, said the citation was unexpected and joked that Mr. Rzepkowski and Chairman Cavey might not be inclined to thank him by the close of this meeting.
Chairman Cavey asked Mr. MacLarion to present the director’s report.

III. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

A. Mr. MacLarion thanked the Chairman, Council, and Delaware Elevator for hosting the Council meeting. Mr. MacLarion wished everyone a good morning.

B. Apprenticeship Training Fund update:

• Total Fund Balance $1,168,521.10
• March contributions: $12,342.58
• April contributions: $12,325.13
• Payments for the two-month period were in the amount of $12,982.32 for:
• 1. YA Pennants - $3,490.00
• 2. SkillsUSA Grant - $8,657.00
• 3. JATC Outreach event co-sponsor - $835.32

C. Mr. MacLarion said that Nicholas Burdick, of the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Apprenticeship, was expected to attend the Council meeting, but was unable to attend. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Burdick was the new multistate navigator for USDOL/OA. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Burdick’s children were sick and he was not able to join the meeting. Mr. MacLarion said Ronald Leonard, who normally represented USDOL/OA at Council meetings, had recently notified staff of his soon-to-be retirement. Mr. MacLarion predicted that Mr. Burdick would replace Mr. Leonard at future Council meetings. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Leonard was an incredible advocate for registered apprenticeship and provided Maryland program staff with years of guidance and assistance. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Leonard would be missed by the apprenticeship community.

D. Mr. MacLarion said, as reported in the March 2022 Council meeting, MATP staff conducted comprehensive outreach to each and every active and inactive registered apprenticeship program in Maryland. Mr. MacLarion said staffed called and visited numerous programs, provided technical assistance to sponsors to reactivate programs, and to ensure contact with staff. The primary goal was to assure business service support but also to ensure staff had updated and correct data, and that programs that were defunct or no longer in business were no longer recorded. Mr. MacLarion said 15 total program cancellations were presented at the March 2022 Council meeting, and seven more cancellations were on the agenda for this meeting. Mr. MacLarion said the combined 22 cancellations were the majority of cancellations resulting from staff outreach.

E. Mr. MacLarion presented an update on 29 CFR Part 30 Equal Opportunity in Apprenticeship. Mr. MacLarion said the first Equal Opportunity subcommittee meeting was held March 28, 2022. Mr. MacLarion said Councilmembers on the subcommittee were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Sackett, Mr. Shmelzer and Chairman Cavey. Mr. MacLarion said the Council’s subcommittee members were joined by numerous state staff including the division’s deputy assistant secretary, the policy director, policy staff, Maryland Office of Fair Practices staff, an assistant attorney general, and MATP staff. Mr. MacLarion said draft regulations were finalized for review as a result of the March 28 meeting, and an update would be provided at a future Council meeting.

F. Mr. MacLarion said Youth Apprenticeship was approved in 20 of 24 county school systems and Baltimore City for some time. Mr. MacLarion said he was excited to announce that Worcester County Public Schools had recently become the 21st school system in Maryland approved for youth apprenticeship by the Maryland State Department of Education. Mr. MacLarion said a large portion of the 1,000-plus page of Council’s packet related to this meeting was materials related to Youth Apprenticeship. Mr. MacLarion said the packet reflected support from the business community in growing Youth Apprenticeship. Mr. MacLarion said a total of 137 youth apprentices were registered in the State of Maryland. Mr. MacLarion said 92 of the 137 youth apprentices were soon to graduate from high school, and both of these numbers were records for the State. Mr. MacLarion said this was a remarkable achievement when considering the COVID-19 Pandemic’s effect on Maryland schools.

G. Mr. Rzepkowski mimicked a drum roll as Mr. MacLarion announced that 11,134 adult apprentices were registered in Maryland as of the date of this meeting.

H. Mr. MacLarion said that for possibly the first time ever in the Council’s history, longtime MATP staffer John Taylor did not attend the Council meeting. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Taylor requested an exception to stay at the Baltimore office to print an exceptionally large number of graduation certificates for apprentices. Mr. MacLarion said Mr. Taylor’s need to stay at the office was compounded by technical difficulties with the office printer. Mr. MacLarion said a lot of plumbing, HVAC and electrical apprentices were graduating, and related licenses were at stake.

I. Mr. MacLarion presented updates on registered apprenticeship (RA) programs that were under enhanced technical assistance and monitoring at the direction of Council. Mr. MacLarion said Gina Schmitt, of CroppMetcalfe, was in attendance. Mr. MacLarion said a compliance review of CroppMetCalfe’s RA program was included in the Council’s packet. Mr. MacLarion said staff was extremely happy with the sponsor’s hard work and commitment to revamping and turning around the entire RA program. Mr. MacLarion said the sponsor’s staff was a pleasure to work with. Mr. MacLarion said he hoped the Council would agree with the MATP staff’s assessment when the final review report would be read later in this meeting.

J. Mr. MacLarion said the Laborer’s Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee presented staff with updated standards of apprenticeship that were under staff review with the intent to present the new standards to the Council at the July 2022 meeting. Mr. MacLarion said staff was happy with progress on this initiative.

K. Mr. MacLarion said Colt Insulation continued to resolve all items identified by the Council in a previous meeting. Mr. MacLarion said relevant apprentices were made whole for wages, documentation was provided to staff, and staff attended related instruction classes for the remaining apprentice, and also assisted the sponsor with any other needs. Mr. MacLarion said staff obtained a schedule of all the sponsor’s classes for the remainder of the year.

L. Mr. MacLarion said Monocacy Valley Electric had a hearing scheduled with the Office of Administrative Hearings the day after this meeting. Mr. MacLarion said related updates would be provided at the July 2022 Council meeting.

M. Mr. MacLarion said a subcommittee meeting was held between the Maryland Higher Education Commission and members of this Council. The subcommittee met to explore issues related to community colleges, registered apprenticeship, and other issues such as articulation, and related instruction. Mr. MacLarion said a draft guidance letter was in the final approval process and staff anticipated that MHEC Assistant Secretary Dr. Emily Dow would appear before the Council at the July 2022 meeting to review the letter with the Council. Mr. MacLarion thanked MHEC and community college representatives for their ongoing work. Mr. MacLarion thanked Chairman Cavey, Mr. Shmelzer and Dr. Chapple from the Council for their work on this subcommittee.

N. Mr. MacLarion said the agenda for this meeting that was previously sent by email was missing Item 11. Mr. MacLarion provided a revised agenda and said the Item was contained in the packet that coincided with the agenda and the item was the Kinsley Construction review.

O. Mr. MacLarion said the ratio guidance was approved by this Council several months before this meeting. Mr. MacLarion said staff had been meeting with the Maryland Occupational Safety and Health unit, commonly known as MOSH, and MOSH representatives asked staff to review several items in the ratio guidance. Mr. MacLarion said these items had language in which MOSH was unable to assist. Mr. MacLarion said he felt staff would be able to draft replacement language relatively easily. Mr. MacLarion said, with the Council’s approval, staff could draft new language, share the new draft with the ratio subcommittee for approval, then bring the new draft back before the Council at the July 2022 meeting pending approval by the subcommittee.

P. Mr. MacLarion said two packets were available for review by the Council. The packets contained changes requested by the Council during the March 2022 meeting.

Q. Mr. MacLarion said he was happy to answer any questions the Chairman or Council members might have.

Chairman Cavey asked if Council members had any questions about the director’s report.
Mr. Shmelzer asked Mr. MacLarion if a motion was needed to approve drafting new language related to ratio guidance (Letter O. in the Director’s Report). Mr. MacLarion requested a motion.

Mr. Shmelzer made a motion for staff to draft new language for ratio guidance that would be referred to the ratio subcommittee for approval. This motion was seconded by Mr. Smarte and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

Chairman Cavey asked if there were any more questions.

A motion to accept the Director’s Report was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Ms. Anderson and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

IV. OLD BUSINESS

A. PROGRAM REVISIONS:

1. Community College of Baltimore County (Faith Ramsburg) – Revision to add the occupation of Instrumentation and Electrical Technician. Related instruction to be provided by the Community College of Baltimore County. Catonsville Campus. (item 1)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda for the March 8, 2022 Council meeting.
Mr. MacLarion said Ms. Ramsburg was unable to attend because of an emergency and he would present her items at this meeting. Mr. MacLarion said he was joined by Linda Rhoads of CCBC. Mr. MacLarion said this item was on the agenda in a previous Council meeting, but it was tabled so electrical licensing issues could be further explored.

A motion to accept this revision was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Smarte and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

After the vote, Mr. Shmelzer asked, when a review is conducted, would staff review the standards of this apprenticeship to screen for any issues like the one that caused this item to be tabled at a previous meeting. Mr. MacLarion said staff would address such issues during a review if necessary.

V. NEW BUSINESS

A. NEW PROGRAMS:

1. Harford Community College (Kelton Addison) – Occupation of Child Care 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 2)

Mr. Addison said he was joined by Matt Baylis and Laura Hutton of Harford Community College.
Chairman Cavey asked the Council for questions. Mr. Klusmann said, under the selection processes, the prospective sponsor asked prospective apprentices for information about traits, hobbies, physical conditions. Mr. Klusmann said he didn’t understand why the sponsor needed information about hobbies. He also asked what the prospective sponsor meant by physical conditions. Mr. Klusmann asked if physical factors meant black or Hispanic. Mr. Addison said physical condition meant potential disabilities for which an applicant for apprenticeship might need assistance.
Mr. Klusmann said the standards also stated that the college would refer candidates to an employer and the employer would have an opportunity to interview the apprentice. Mr. Klusmann said this was more reflective of a referral service than an apprenticeship program. Mr. Klusmann said that Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5, “does not say apprenticeship to me at all.” Mr. Klusmann repeated that he viewed this prospective program more as a referral service than apprenticeship.
Mr. Addison said the prospective sponsor would vet prospective apprentices. Mr. Addison said if a prospective apprentice was not hired by one employer, this prospective apprentice would be given an opportunity to interview with other employers.
Mr. Klusmann said he understood, but he was still uncomfortable with the selection process. Mr. Klusmann said there was too much room for interpretation, and the paragraph in question was too subjective. Mr. Klusmann said the paragraph would enable employers to arbitrarily reject apprentices. Mr. Klusmann repeated that this looked like a referral service rather than an apprenticeship program.
Mr. Shmelzer said he agreed with most of what Mr. Klusmann said. Mr. Shmelzer said the prospective sponsor intended to work with employers from across the state. Mr. Shmelzer asked how the college planned to recruit, considering there was agreement among community colleges that established boundaries. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor intended to establish a statewide apprenticeship program at the request of the Maryland State Board of Education. Ms. Hutton said this program was discussed at a statewide community college meeting and the prospective sponsor was the only college to undertake this initiative. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor met with its marketing department and determined that the best way to reach its target audience was through social media which would allow the prospective sponsor to easily target individuals throughout the state.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the prospective sponsor had permission to market this would be program outside Harford County. Ms. Hutton said there was no signed permission but MSDE representatives asked the prospective sponsor to obtain such a document. Ms. Hutton said other community colleges were aware of this potential program. Mr. Shmelzer asked if the Maryland Higher Education Commission was involved in this process. Mr. Shmelzer said he thought this would fall under MHEC’s purview. Ms. Hutton said MHEC is a part of MSDE, with MSDE serving as the “umbrella organization” for MHEC. Mr. Shmelzer said he would like to follow up on this and make sure approval of statewide recruitment was documented.
Mr. Shmelzer said the related instruction totaled 257 hours. Mr. Shmelzer said there were roughly 10 to 12 modules, and he asked if the modules would be presented sequentially. Ms. Hutton said there would be a timeline and the classes would be held at specific points in time. Ms. Hutton said, for example, the first course would be presented first because it was required by state law. Ms. Hutton said that other courses led to certificates and would also be presented in sequence. Mr. Shmelzer said that this sequence was not presented in the Standards of Apprenticeship and he asked that this portion of the standards be resubmitted to show the sequence of classes. Mr. Shmelzer said it was “extremely important” to have the sequence identified clearly.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the CPR, First Aid, and medication administration instruction would be held in person. Ms. Hutton said yes. Mr. Shmelzer said he was concerned that in-person classes would be challenging for apprentices who lived farther away considering this would be a statewide program. Mr. Shmelzer asked what would happen if this instruction was missed, what accommodations would be made, and how often the classes would be held. Ms. Hutton said the classes would likely be held all together on a Saturday and would be offered more than once and in more than one location throughout the state. Ms. Hutton said she anticipated that many apprenticeship applicants would already have obtained these classes, particularly CPR.
Mr. Shmelzer said he was concerned about the selection process and the outreach efforts. Mr. Shmelzer said the other items he mentioned could be easily addressed, but the recruitment issue raised by Mr. Klusmann was a larger concern.
Mr. Sackett asked if there were plans to include a CDA certification in the apprenticeship. Ms. Hutton said the program would meet all licensing and certification requirements, and the program would be revised to meet future requirements when needed. Mr. Sackett asked if there were enough on-the-job training hours to meet requirements. Ms. Hutton said there were more than enough.
Mr. Shmelzer said roughly 80 percent of the instruction would be offered online. Mr. Shmelzer asked how the prospective sponsor would communicate with employers on the apprentices’ progress through the modules. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor would conduct regular site visits and meet face-to-face with all the employers and apprentices. Ms. Hutton said related instruction progress and any challenges, would be discussed during these meetings. Ms. Hutton said between meetings, the prospective sponsor’s staff would communicate regularly with apprentices to track progress and potential challenges. Ms. Hutton said regular contact with apprentices would enable the prospective sponsor to conduct further outreach to employers as needed.
Mr. Shmelzer asked Ms. Hutton for more details about the schedule of instruction. Ms. Hutton said the related instruction was asynchronous but not self-paced. Ms. Hutton said, as an example, that instruction would have to be completed within a single month with further due dates for particular assignments within that month. Ms. Hutton said apprentices would be contacted if they fell behind. Ms. Hutton said this would enable apprentices to complete instruction and assignments on various days, but within the timeframe of due dates.
Mr. Klusmann asked who would select apprentices. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor would obtain applications, would conduct the selection process, and then match the potential apprentices to potential employers. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor would not force participating employers to hire any particular apprentice. Ms. Hutton said an employer might decide any particular apprentice would not be fit for employment. Ms. Hutton said different employers had different philosophies of care. Ms. Hutton said if any particular participating employer rejected any given apprentice, that apprentice would be available to be interviewed by other participating employers. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor’s apprenticeship committee would facilitate matching apprentices with participating employers. Mr. Shmelzer asked what entities would serve on the committee. Ms. Hutton set the committee would include employers, college representatives and organizations related to licensing and teaching. Mr. Shmelzer said organizations related to licensing and teaching would be great as ex officio members, but the committee would be made up of the college as the sponsor and participating employers. Mr. Shmelzer assured the prospective sponsor that committee membership was a common topic for guidance and advice from the Council among sponsors. Mr. Shmelzer said it was important for employers to be involved in the selection process and the Sponsor, in this case, should play a limited role in interviewing. Ms. Hutton said the college did not intend to interview candidates directly but intended to collect materials related to selection and hiring.
Mr. Klusmann said he “still can’t go along with” the language in Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5. Mr. Klusmann said the interview process in No. 5 was a “gatekeeping item.” Mr. Klusmann said the language could be used to arbitrarily disqualify potential apprentices. Mr. Klusmann said apprenticeship is supposed to be inclusive, and “this is not inclusive at all.”
Chairman Cavey said he had a question. Chairman Cavey asked if the committee would participate in the selection process. Ms. Hutton said it would. Mr. Cavey asked how many apprentices would be interviewed in the same timeframe. Ms. Hutton said up to 25 apprentices would be selected in one cohort. Chairman Cavey said, hypothetically, that 50 people would apply and then the cohort would be narrowed down to 25 and asked if this was correct. Ms. Hutton said yes, hypothetically. Chairman Cavey asked how the 25 that were selected would be placed. Ms. Hutton said she was more familiar with childcare than apprenticeship and the wording in the Standards of Apprenticeship were copied from examples of other standards. Ms. Hutton said as of the date of this Council meeting there were five employers ready to participate in the apprenticeship program, but that 50 more were interested. Ms. Hutton said that the committee would be representative of all employers, including future employers. Ms. Hutton said the committee would select apprentices then send apprentices to be interviewed by employers that weren’t necessarily on the committee. Ms. Hutton said, in the language in No. 5 that concerned Mr. Klusmann, the intent was to facilitate a match in philosophy of childcare between a potential apprentice and the proper employer. Chairman Cavey said that Ms. Hutton was correct that the committee was representative of employers, but the employers needed to understand that the committee was responsible for interviewing and selecting apprentices. Chairman Cavey asked how 25 apprentices would be selected from a group of 50 who were interviewed, and then what would happen to the 25 who were selected. Ms. Hutton said the 25 who were selected would be pointed to certain employers based on what the committee determined to be the best fit. Chairman Cavey said most programs in Maryland rank apprentices. Chairman Cavey said the person who scores the highest would be ranked No. 1 and any apprentices ranked after No. 1 would not be able to be placed with an employer until No. 1 was placed. Ms. Hutton asked if this was the case even if an employer wanted No. 2. Chairman said another business would have to hire No. 1 before No. 2 could be hired. Ms. Hutton said that the prospective sponsor’s intent was to rank potential apprentices, but also give employers an opportunity to determine if these potential apprentices were a good fit for employment. Chairman Cavey said the No. 1 candidate would have to be hired before any other apprentice could be hired.

Mr. Smarte made a motion to table this item until the July 2022 meeting to address the language in Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5, among other issues, and this motion was seconded by Mr. Shmelzer.

Mr. MacLarion asked to speak. Chairman Cavey said there was a motion and a second to table but invited Mr. MacLarion to speak. Mr. MacLarion, to address one of Mr. Shmelzer’s concerns, gave an example of an apprenticeship program that covered a geographic area similar to this prospective sponsor’s geographic area, and the apprentices were able to participate without many issues. Mr. Shmelzer said that the example was not a college model. Mr. MacLarion said he understood, but the program and its recruitment area were similar. Mr. MacLarion said the college was able to recruit beyond its typical zone, and if other community colleges took issue with that, the colleges could raise those issues with MSDE or MHEC. Mr. MacLarion said, generally, if there is an apprenticeship program at one college, and other colleges don’t offer that program, then the college is free to recruit in those areas.
Mr. MacLarion said he understood there was a motion to table, but he wanted to address the Council’s concerns related to Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5. Mr. MacLarion said “physical factors” should probably be eliminated from the standards entirely. Ms. Griffith said the prospective sponsor should consider addressing this language with its counsel. Ms. Hutton said COMAR contained language that states that anyone who works in childcare must pass a physical exam to screen for health concerns such as tuberculosis. Ms. Hutton said the physical exam language was meant to detail the medical exam. Ms. Hutton asked for the specific language Mr. Klusmann was citing. Mr. Klusmann cited “physical factors” in No. 5 specifically, as did Mr. MacLarion, who read a portion of the language aloud. Ms. Hutton said that language was copied from another example. Mr. Klusmann said he understood, and he was there to correct it.
Mr. MacLarion asked if striking the entirety of Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5, would address the concerns of the Council. Mr. MacLarion said this would establish a standard ranking system. Mr. Shmelzer said this would likely be a decision the participating employers would have to make. Mr. MacLarion said he would like to turn to the prospective sponsor and asked Ms. Hutton if the prospective sponsor would be willing to remove Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5. Mr. MacLarion asked the Council, if the sponsor agreed, if this would remedy the concerns of the Council. Mr. Klusmann said he would not have a problem with that as long as the prospective sponsor, and the related committee, understood that selection processes should not be used for gatekeeping and discrimination. Ms. Hutton said the prospective sponsor was willing to remove this language. Ms. Griffith asked if there was another portion of the standards that detailed the need to pass a physical and a background check. Mr. MacLarion said this was detailed in the Qualifications of Apprenticeship. Mr. MacLarion deferred back to Chairman Cavey, but suggested making a different motion to accept the standards with the language in Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 5 removed.

Chairman Cavey said the motion to table was seconded and asked for questions on the motion. Five council members voted in favor of the motion, and Mr. Sackett opposed (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent). This item was tabled to the July 2022 meeting of the Council.

Mr. Wallace said he was at the MSDE meeting referenced in the previous conversation on this item. Mr. Wallace said, because of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, schools were trying to establish pathways for students to receive industry credentials. Mr. Wallace said that the Council was doing its job in assuring that prospective sponsors were coming in line with apprenticeship standards.

2. Classic Motor Museum of St. Michaels, Inc. (Robert J. Zimberoff) – Occupation of Automotive Technician. Related instruction to be provided by Penn Foster. Request for registration of an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices. (item 3)
Mr. Zimberoff said he was joined by Jan Soderberg, a member of the board of directors for the prospective sponsor.
Mr. Klusmann said he repeatedly saw Appendix E, Apprentice Selection Procedures, No. 3, in the standards of apprenticeship for various sponsors. Mr. Klusmann said he was unhappy with No. 3. Mr. MacLarion said this language was from the template form that was approved by the Council and used in every program, except perhaps JATC models that use federal language. Mr. MacLarion estimated this language was used in approximately 2,800 programs. Mr. Klusmann suggested removing this language in the future because it was too subjective.
Mr. Shmelzer said the standards stated 166 hours per year of instruction, but five hours at 32 weeks per year was only 160 hours. Mr. Zimberoff said the first year contained an OSHA 10 certification which added 10 hours to the first year, and 166 hours would be the average, with 170 hours the first year and 160 hours in the second and third years.
Mr. Shmelzer asked what would happen if an apprentice missed a class. Mr. Zimberoff said the sponsor was a museum and maintained regular hours for museum guests. Mr. Zimberoff said apprentices would be invited to use the classroom to make up time. Mr. Zimberoff said, depending on how much time was missed and how many classes were missed, with the courses being available online the apprentice might have an opportunity to make up courses on their own time. Mr. Zimberoff said the intent was to offer a structured classroom environment that would assist apprentices in staying on pace.
Mr. Shmelzer said Penn Foster, as an instructional provider, presented challenges in the past. Mr. Shmelzer asked how the sponsor would update the participating employers on related instruction progress. Mr. Zimberoff said the sponsor would log hours in the classroom as a safeguard against potential issues with the online instructional provider. Mr. Zimberoff said Penn Foster logs the time apprentices are receiving the education online. Mr. Zimberoff said the sponsor would correlate Penn Foster’s logged hours with classroom hours and attendance records. Mr. Shmelzer asked if dedicated staff would be assigned to correlating hours and notifying the sponsors. Mr. Zimberoff said there was a dedicated volunteer base that would fill this role.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if there was dedicated lab time within the related instruction. Mr. Zimberoff said not at the moment. Mr. Zimberoff said the sponsor’s representatives were looking at ways to introduce labs. Mr. Zimberoff said the program included an Automotive Service Excellence certification. Mr. Zimberoff said the only standard certification available for privately-owned auto shops was ASE and ASE does not require an educational component. Mr. Zimberoff said that the sponsor was adding an educational component to this certification, and the employers were excited because they thought adding theory to the certification would be of benefit.
Mr. Klusmann asked if the ASE certification only required work experience. Mr. Zimberoff said ASE required two years of work and passing a test to acquire a certification.
Ms. Anderson said she struggled with portions of the related instruction being taught solely online. Ms. Anderson said a lack of hands-on instruction was a critical shortfall of the prospective sponsor’s program. Mr. MacLarion asked the Council to consider the location of the program. Mr. MacLarion said a big issue in many states with automotive programs was a lack of educational providers within a reasonable distance of the employers. Mr. MacLarion said staff explored options including providers in Delaware, but the Council and staffed strived to keep the program within Maryland, where there are not many options. Mr. MacLarion said another sponsor’s automotive program was based in Frederick, but apprentices were sent all the way to Montgomery County and Community College of Baltimore County for related instruction. Mr. MacLarion said there were not many options. Mr. MacLarion said a diesel program registered in Maryland sent apprentices to Indiana and Michigan for the educational component. Mr. MacLarion said he agreed about the value of labs, but with severely limited options, the prospective sponsor was offering online curriculum.
Ms. Anderson asked if employers could send mentors or journeyworkers to the classroom. Mr. MacLarion said this was not built into the standards, but the sponsor could offer opportunities for instructional field trips to the participating employers. Mr. MacLarion said the sponsor could evolve its opportunities like all apprenticeships do. Mr. MacLarion said the prospective sponsor was in a rural area and the online instruction decreased barriers and opened opportunities. Mr. MacLarion said this was an educational outlet that was not required by the industry. Mr. MacLarion compared this to the HVAC industry in which registered apprenticeship exceeded state licensing requirements.
Mr. Shmelzer said he suspected once the program was running that the employers would add labs, but there was no requirement or oversight for it. Mr. Zimberoff said the prospective sponsor’s leadership was already discussing creating classroom opportunities at the participating employers’ sites.
Mr. Sackett said there was a detailed outline for the curriculum and he asked where it came from. Mr. Sackett said he thought ASE was also bringing a diesel program online. Mr. Zimberoff said Penn Foster’s curriculum was directly related to the ASE certification. Mr. Zimberoff said there was a direct correlation between the on-the-job training with ASE and the educational component. Mr. Zimberoff said the prospective sponsor was hoping to get this program started and look at other occupations, potentially diesel mechanic or technician. Mr. Zimberoff said the prospective sponsor was also interested in working with body shops, but the prospective sponsor identified a need for automotive technicians on the Eastern Shore, particularly Talbot County.
Mr. Sackett asked if the cost of the apprenticeship was covered by the prospective sponsor. Mr. Zimberoff clarified that the cost was covered by the employers. Mr. Sackett said he looked online and the relevant education was offered for $800, but the cost included in the standards was $975. Mr. Zimberoff said Penn Foster offered a more intensive full-time model of instruction that didn’t include as many hours and wasn’t as costly as the apprenticeship model.
Mr. Klusmann said lab time was very important and it increased the quality of the program. Mr. Zimberoff said he agreed, but he spoke with most if not all the participating employers, and generally, the employers said they needed the theory and they could compensate for a lack of labs through on-the-job training. Mr. Klusmann said one shop might be doing transmissions and another might do motors, but the lab would help compensate for both.
Ms. Anderson said she commended the prospective sponsor for bringing the potential apprentices together in a supervised classroom even though the instruction was provided online. Ms. Anderson said this would help to build camaraderie among apprentices and the employers. Ms. Anderson asked if the supervisor would be able to answer questions or if this was more attendance based. Mr. Zimberoff said this was more attendance based, but the prospective sponsor was looking to add both labs and an instructor.
Chairman Cavey invited a member of the audience, Robert Choisser, to speak. Mr. Choisser said he worked in automotives and had numerous certifications. Mr. Choisser said ASE certifications were a disappointment in that the industry had no other licenses or certifications. Mr. Choisser said ASE had no tactical curriculum or compliance component to their certifications. Mr. Choisser said ASE certifications didn’t necessarily create a highly skilled workforce and additional training and education was needed. Mr. Choisser cited statistics including a projected deficit of 800,000 automobile technicians by 2025. Mr. Choisser said everyone arrived at the meeting in an automobile. Mr. Choisser said auto mechanics had every trade in it, including hydraulics, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and computers, and the biggest component was the computers because the computers controlled the mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic systems. Mr. Choisser said this was an unlicensed trade. Mr. Choisser said the automotive trade didn’t have a standardized pathway to achieve such as apprentice, journeyworker, mechanic and master. Mr. Choisser said when he spoke to many people, they didn’t realize the trade was unlicensed and had an ill-defined career pathway. Mr. Choisser said the industry needed skilled workers and apprenticeship to create a skilled workforce. Mr. Choisser said, in his professional opinion, the industry needed licensure as well. Mr. Choisser said that the workforce was generally under skilled and was compromising safety. Mr. Choisser said students needed a career pathway and this prospective sponsor could offer that through apprenticeship.
Mr. Shmelzer said it sounded like there was a true champion in the audience and received a round of applause. Mr. Shmelzer said he thought Mr. Choisser would find that some of the Council’s suggestions would be built into the program in the future by the prospective sponsor and Mr. Choisser.
A motion to approve the registration of Standards and registration of an Affirmative Action Plan with apprentice selection procedures and goals and timetables for minority and female apprentices was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Ms. Anderson and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

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

B. PROGRAM REVISIONS:

1. Apprentice Training, Inc. (Ginamarie Best) – Revisions to add additional locations for related instruction classes, to add OSHA 30 safety classes to the related instruction curriculum, to increase the journeyworker wage rate for Insulation Worker and to modify the apprentice wage progression schedule. (item 4)

Ms. Best said she was joined by P.J. Goel, the sponsor’s representative.
Chairman Cavey asked if the new training center that was being added was only for insulation worker, not both trades. Mr. Goel said this item modified the standards for insulation worker and did not modify anything for construction worker II. Chairman Cavey said he “took for granted that the Laborer’s training center had something to offer that you don’t have to offer at your training center and that it was adding OSHA.” Chairman Cavey said he thought the insulation worker would only go to the Laborers training center for OSHA. Mr. Goel said this was only for the safety-related portions of the instruction.
Chairman Cavey asked if there were any questions.

A motion to approve these revisions was made by Mr. Smarte, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

2. Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc. Chesapeake Chapter (Sheila Jackson) – Request for the addition of a new related instruction site to be located at Wor-Wic Technical and Community College in Salisbury, Maryland. (item 5)

Ms. Jackson said the Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Program staff received an official letter on March 21, 2022 from Mr. Shmelzer, the sponsor’s representative and Council member. The letter requested the addition of Wor-Wic Technical and Community College as an instructional provider. Ms. Jackson said the sponsor and the college was in the process of reaching an agreement at the time of this meeting. Ms. Jackson said should the college and the sponsor not reach an agreement, the sponsor would come back before the Council in at its July 2022 or September 2022 meeting to request a different location in or near Salisbury.
Mr. Shmelzer recused himself from the vote on this item. Mr. Shmelzer said the sponsor was struggling to reach an agreement with the college. Mr. Shmelzer said “plan B” was the American Job Center in Salisbury, and the sponsor also had a third site in mind in the area. Mr. Shmelzer said the sponsor had met with eight contractors on the Lower Shore and that other contractors affiliated with this group non-joint program had satellite offices in the area. Mr. Shmelzer said he anticipated a first-year class on the Lower Shore of roughly 15 to 20 apprentices. Mr. Shmelzer said he and the sponsor’s staff were also communicating with public school systems in the region. Mr. Shmelzer said the sponsor tried to establish a class on the Shore roughly 15 years ago but failed. Mr. Shmelzer said he thinks the time is now, and a lot of employers were dissatisfied with the related instruction offered in Delaware.
Mr. Klusmann asked, regardless of the specific location, if the Lower Shore was where the sponsor intended to host new classes. Mr. Shmelzer said yes.

A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Smarte, Mr. Shmelzer abstained, all other Council members voted yea. Motion carried (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

3. Better Business Bureau of Greater Maryland (Charles Marquette) – Revision to apprentice wage progression schedule for the occupation of Sales Representative. (item 6)

Mr. Klusmann asked if any apprentices were under the old wage scale. Mr. Marquette answered no because no apprentices were registered to date.

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

4. Association of Air Conditioning Professionals (Faith Ramsburg) – Revision to related instruction to provide for an in person seven-week course in Brazing and Soldering through Montgomery College. (item 7)

Mr. MacLarion presented in Ms. Ramsburg’s absence and said he was joined by Peter Constantinou, the sponsor’s representative.

A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Smarte and seconded by Mr. Klusmann.

Chairman Cavey asked for questions on the motion before the final vote. Mr. Klusmann asked if this was just soldering and brazing. Mr. MacLarion said yes. Mr. Shmelzer said he hoped the sponsor would come back with labs for future years. Mr. Constantinou said the sponsor would consider adding labs.

The Council unanimously approved the motion (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

5. Community College of Baltimore County (Faith Ramsburg) – Revisions to journeyworker wage rate and apprentice selection procedures for the occupation of Patient Care Technician. (item 8)

Mr. MacLarion said he was joined by Ms. Rhoads, the sponsor’s representative.
Mr. Shmelzer asked for a walkthrough of how the background check and drug testing would work. Mr. Shmelzer asked if an applicant would take the reading test then take the drug test. Ms. Rhoads said the drug test would occur closer to the final selection. Mr. Shmelzer requested a step-by-step description of the process. Ms. Rhoads said interested candidates would be supplied with multiple applications for multiple occupations. These potential apprentices would participate in an informational session then could choose to supply an application for any of the occupations within a certain time from the date of the informational session. The online applications would then be reviewed by a subset of the committee, and those individuals would then complete a reading assessment, and then those individuals would be paired with an employer and at that point a drug test would be administered.
Mr. Shmelzer said he was concerned about the process if multiple employers were involved. Ms. Rhoads said she hoped multiple employers would be involved. Ms. Rhoads said the plan was to always advance selected candidates to all employers once applications were scored.
Mr. Shmelzer said while he worked as a sponsor, his program looked at adding similar conditions for background checks and drug tests to the program but chose not to because he and other sponsor representatives felt drug tests and background checks were the responsibility of the participating employers, not the sponsor. Mr. Shmelzer said this might raise privacy concerns as well.
Mr. MacLarion asked Mr. Shmelzer if, once apprentices were ranked and sent to employers, if the employer would conduct an interview and might not take them. Mr. Shmelzer said no. Mr. Klusmann said if the applicant didn’t pass a drug test, he/she would have to be notified. Mr. MacLarion clarified that the drug test was required for licensing of the occupation.

A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved. (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

Chairman Cavey thanked the sponsor’s representative for joining the meeting.

6. Volvo Group Trucks Operations (Jennifer D. Runkles) – Request for reactivation of the occupation of Tool Maker with updated related instruction and work processes. Related instruction to be provided by Blue Ridge Community and Technical College. (item 9)

Ms. Runkles said she was joined by Victoria Grossman, Mark Gentry, Samantha Morris and Troy Sellers who represented the sponsor.
Mr. Shmelzer asked how Blue Ridge would provide progress reports related to attendance and grades. Ms. Runkles said Volvo had experiencing using Blue Ridge for other occupations, so the sponsor had a working relationship and was already collecting such information.

A motion to approve this reactivation was made by Mr. Smarte, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

Chairman Cavey said the Council was moving onto program reviews, and asked staff to offer brief remarks because of time constraints.

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

1. Mid-Atlantic Carpenters’ Training Centers – Baltimore (Charles Marquette). (item 10)

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

2. Kinsley Construction, Inc. (Coral Crawford). (item 11)

Mr. MacLarion presented this item on behalf of Ms. Crawford.
Mr. MacLarion said the sponsor requested this review ahead the usual schedule because a new director was taking over, and the sponsor wanted staff assistance to assure the program was running smoothly.
Mr. Shmelzer asked what outreach the sponsor was conducting in Maryland because the sponsor seemed to primarily be operating in Pennsylvania. Mr. MacLarion said staff recommended that the sponsor begin working with American Job Centers in Maryland.

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

3. Community College of Baltimore County (Faith Ramsburg). (item 12)

Mr. MacLarion presented in Ms. Ramsburg’s absence. Mr. MacLarion said staff recommended that another review be conducted in six months.
Mr. Shmelzer asked if the sponsor held apprenticeship committee meetings even though there was only one employer. Mr. MacLarion said yes, and staff recommended that the sponsor make every effort to add a second employer in order to maintain a group program.

A motion to approve this review including staff recommendations was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Smarte and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

4. CMH, Inc., DBA Cropp Metcalfe (Coral Crawford). (item 13)

Ms. Crawford said she was joined by Gina Schmitt, the sponsor’s apprenticeship coordinator. Mr. Klusmann complemented staff and the sponsor for their work following the request of the Council in a previous meeting for intense monitoring of this sponsor.

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Smarte, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

After the motion but before the vote, Mr. MacLarion said Ms. Schmitt drove roughly 3-1/2 hours from Virginia. Mr. MacLarion said the addition of Ms. Schmitt as apprenticeship coordinator made a critical difference for the operation of this program. Mr. MacLarion thanked Ms. Schmitt for working with staff for six months and for her repeated trips to Baltimore. Ms. Schmitt said she was hired at about the same time this program was put under intense monitoring by the Council, and she met many MATP staff members before she met many of the sponsor’s staff. Ms. Schmitt said she welcomed MATP staff assistance and she was fortunate to have guidance from MATP staff. Ms. Schmitt thanked MATP staff for its professionalism and responsiveness. Ms. Schmitt thanked the Council for its oversight as well.

5. Delaware Elevator, Inc. (Coral Crawford). (item 14)

Ms. Crawford said she was joined by Georgeta Wainwright, the sponsor’s representative and host of this meeting.
Staff recommended the sponsor continue its increased outreach to address deficiencies in registration of female apprentices.

A motion to approve this review with staff recommendations was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

6. Westmoreland Electric, LLC (Coral Crawford). (item 15)

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Bromley, seconded by Mr. Klusmann and unanimously approved. Mr. Smarte temporarily left the room during the vote on this item (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

7. Quality Heating and Air Conditioning Co. Inc. (Robert J. Zimberoff) (item 16)

Mr. Zimberoff said the sponsor experienced challenges in collecting documentation from related instruction providers because of the pandemic, and staff recommended ongoing monitoring of the sponsor’s ability to collect such records.
Mr. Sackett asked why the sponsor didn’t register apprentices in 2021. Mr. Zimberoff said the sponsor did not hire because of the pandemic and had just recently begun recruiting again.
Chairman Cavey asked if the instructional providers shifted to virtual offerings because of the pandemic. Mr. Zimberoff said yes. Chairman Cavey asked if apprentices were being held back. Mr. Zimberoff said graduation rates as presented to Council were affected, but the affected apprentices were on the proper wage schedule and were earning the journeyworker rate; they were being treated as if they had graduated.

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Sackett, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

8. Choptank Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 17)

Mr. Klusmann said the sponsor was doing well with recruitment of minority and female apprentices, but thought the sponsor could do better, and asked staff to communicate to the sponsor that he hoped to see continued improvement.
Mr. Sackett asked about the sponsor’s capacity to hire apprentices considering it received 73 applications in 2021 but only hired six apprentices. Mr. MacLarion said the sponsor was a small cooperative, with a limited ability to hire, but with very high completion rates. Mr. MacLarion said the sponsor had only operated with an AAP for one year. Mr. MacLarion said the sponsor shifted tremendously, and he would like to see more progress as well.

A motion to approve this review was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Smarte and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

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

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

a. KaRon Masonry, Inc. – Occupation of Bricklayer
(Coral Crawford). (item 18)
b. Strickland Fire Protection, Inc. – Occupation of Sprinkler Fitter
(Ginamarie Best). (item 19)

E. VOLUNTARY REQUESTS FOR CANCELLATION OF STANDARDS OF APPRENTICESHIP:

1. Cresthill Baptist Child Development Center effective March 16, 2022. (item 20)

A motion to accept this request for cancellation was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Ms. Anderson and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

F. OTHER BUSINESS:

1. Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. (Kelton Addison) – Request for registration of an apprentice Electrician with credit beyond the fifty percent (50%) level for on-the-job training and/or related instruction. (item 21)

Mr. Addison said he was joined by Julia Yearian, the sponsor’s representative.

A motion to approve this request was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

2. IBBS Corp. (Ginamarie Best) – Request to register two Information Security Analysts with credit beyond the fifty percent (50%) level for on-the-job training and/or related instruction. (item 22)

Ms. Best said she was joined by Francesca Urrutia, the sponsor’s human resources manager.

A motion to approve this request was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

3. CMH, Inc., DBA Cropp Metcalfe (Ginamarie Best) – Request for registration of an apprentice Plumber with credit beyond the fifty percent (50%) level for on-the-job training and/or related instruction. (item 23)
Ms. Best said she was joined by Ms. Schmitt.
A motion to approve this request was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Ms. Anderson, and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).
4. Steamfitters Local No. 602 JATC (John P. Taylor) – Request to register an apprentice Steamfitter with credit for on-the-job training and related instruction beyond the fifty percent (50%) level due to delayed registration. (item 24)

Mr. MacLarion presented on behalf of Mr. Taylor. Mr. MacLarion said, to the best of his knowledge, this was the first apprentice brought to this Council for an after-the-fact registration.

A motion to approve this request was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Smarte, and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

5. Karl Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Faith Ramsburg) – Request for after-the-fact registration and completion of an apprentice Machinist. (item 25)

Mr. MacLarion presented this item on behalf of Ms. Ramsburg. Mr. MacLarion said he was joined by Joanne Mosser, the sponsor’s representative.

A motion to approve this request was made by Mr. Smarte, seconded by Mr. Bromley unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

Mr. MacLarion thanked the sponsor’s representative for making a long drive.

6. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of General Appliance Repair Service (MATC No. 1270).
(Kelton Addison). (item 26)

Mr. Shmelzer made a motion to approve the deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for items 26 through 31. This motion was seconded by Mr. Smarte and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

7. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of H & S Heating & Air Conditioning Co., Inc. (MATC No. 2051). (Kelton Addison). (item 27)

See item 26.

8. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of Zach Phipps Electrical, Inc. (MATC No. 2230).
(Kelton Addison). (item 28)

See item 26.

9. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of Danneman’s Auto Service, Inc. (MATC No. 2071). (Ginamarie Best). (item 29)

See item 26.

10. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of Marchant Machine Corporation (MATC No. 1491).
(Ginamarie Best). (item 30)

See item 26.

11. Recommendation for deregistration of Apprenticeship Standards for the defunct apprenticeship program of Chesapeake and Potomac Chapter of Architectural Woodwork Institution (MATC No. 1319). (Charles Marquette). (item 31)

See item 26.

12. Request for the approval of Waverly Woods Golf Club, LLC to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Sheila Jackson). (item 32)

Chairman Cavey said items 32 through 59 were all youth apprenticeship eligible employer approvals and asked the Council members if they would like to address all these items together.
Mr. Shmelzer said the Council was promulgating regulations with staff and MSDE. Mr. Shmelzer said once the regulations were adopted, the Council would have to take a close look at the program. Mr. Shmelzer said his continued concern was the linkage of related instruction to the youth apprenticeship occupation. Mr. Shmelzer suggested approving items 32 to 59 but revisiting the related instruction issue. Mr. MacLarion clarified that policy was being promulgated, not regulations. Mr. Shmelzer said youth apprenticeship was very exciting, and he predicted substantial participation by November, possibly several hundred youth apprentices, but the program needed to be cleaned up.

A motion to approve items 32 through 59 was made by Mr. Shmelzer, seconded by Mr. Bromley and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

13. Request for the approval of Everglaze, LLC to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 33)

See item 32.

14. Request for the approval of Holabird Tire Company to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Faith Ramsburg). (item 34)

See item 32.

15. Request for the approval of Antraquip Corporation to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jenifer D. Runkles). (item 35)

See item 32.

16. Request for the approval of the Bowman Murray Fulk Group to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 36)

See item 32.

17. Request for the approval of CMG Electric to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 37)

See item 32.

18. Request for the approval of Ellsworth Electric, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 38)

See item 32.

19. Request for the approval of Holistic Health Association of Boonsboro to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 39)

See item 32.

20. Request for the approval of the Inn of Boonsboro to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 40)

See item 32.

21. Request for the approval of Leiter’s Fine Catering to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 41)

See item 32.

22. Request for the approval of the Mellott Company to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 42)

See item 32.

23. Request for the approval of Roy’s Quality Car Care to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jennifer D. Runkles). (item 43)

See item 32.

24. Request for the approval of Brawner Builders, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 44)

See item 32.

25. Request for the approval of Hartge Yacht Yard, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 45)

See item 32.

26. Request for the approval of Hilton Garden Inn Solomons to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 46)

See item 32.

27. Request for the approval of JA Scheibel, Inc. t/a Scheibel Construction to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 47)

See item 32.

28. Request for the approval of Line Load Electrical Contractors, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 48)

See item 32.

29. Request for the approval of Reliable Marine to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 49)

See item 32.

30. Request for the approval of Reliance Test & Technology to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 50)

See item 32.

31. Request for the approval of Precise Systems to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 51)

See item 32.

32. Request for the approval of Simmons Heating and Air Conditioning Corporation to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 52)

See item 32.

33. Request for the approval of Sweet Blue Smoke to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinlair). (item 53)

See item 32.

34. Request for approval of Tom Hodges Auto Sales to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Jane Sinclair). (item 54)

See item 32.

35. Request for the approval of Blue Oyster Environmental to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 55)

See item 32.

36. Request for the approval of C. Albert Matthews, Inc. to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 56)

See item 32.

37. Request for the approval of Emily’s Produce to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 57)

See item 32.

38. Request for the approval of Queenstown Harbor to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 58)

See item 32.

39. Request for the approval of Woods Aviation, LLC to be an eligible employer for Apprenticeship Maryland (Youth) (Robert J. Zimberoff). (item 59)

See item 32.

VI. SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA

A. NEW BUSINESS

1. PROGRAM REVISIONS

• Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local No. 24 JAC (Ginamarie Best) – Revision to apply the Apprentice Wage Progression Schedule percentages to both wages and fringe benefits in accordance with collective bargaining agreement and increase in journeyworkers hourly wage rates. (item 60)
  
  Chairman Cavey thanked Jim Hoos for making the trip.

Chairman Cavey recused himself from the vote on this item. A motion to approve this revision was made by Mr. Klusmann, seconded by Mr. Sackett and unanimously approved with Chairman Cavey recused (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).
2. OTHER BUSINESS:

• Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. Chesapeake Shores Chapter (Jane Sinclair) – Request to register an Apprentice HVACR Technician with credit beyond the fifty percent (50%) level. (item 61)
  
  Mr. MacLarion presented on behalf of Ms. Sinclair who attended an apprenticeship graduation in St. Mary’s County.
  
  A motion to approve this request was made by Mr. Sackett, seconded by Mr. Bromley, and unanimously approved (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

VII. CLOSING COMMENTS
Chairman Cavey invited Mr. Wallace to speak. Mr. Wallace talked about Skills USA, and said he wanted to show the diversity of the organization. Mr. Wallace said more than 700 students competed at the state level, from all over the state, and 126 qualified to move onto the national event which was to occur in June. Many of the skills reflected those needed in apprenticeship occupations.
Chairman Cavey congratulated Mr. Hoos. Chairman Cavey said the insulators union hosts a national competition every year. Chairman Cavey said Local 24 apprentice won the Mid-Atlantic regional competition in April and was moving onto the national competition. Chairman Cavey said he was the apprenticeship director for 18 years and only experienced one win in 2005. Chairman Cavey said Mr. Hoos had two years and won two years.
Mr. Rzepkowski asked Maryland Department of Labor staff from the American Job Center in Wicomico County to stand. Mr. Rzepkowski said AJC staff got an inside look at the workings of apprenticeship by attending this meeting. Mr. Rzepkowski thanked the staff who attended for joining the meeting.
Chairman Cavey said, under other business, at the March 2022 meeting, the Council discussed forming a subcommittee to address rules, regulations and related instruction. Chairman Cavey asked Council members if they would like to create this subcommittee. Mr. Shmelzer asked if this subcommittee would also encompass online instruction. Chairman Cavey answered yes. Mr. Shmelzer suggested waiting to form another subcommittee until other subcommittees previously formed by this Council completed their work. Mr. MacLarion said, with the exception of the EEO subcommittee, the work of other committees was finished. Chairman Cavey said one subcommittee still needed to address MOSH issues. Ms. Griffith said addressing MOSH issues could be achieved with one more meeting, possibly virtually.

A motion to create a rules, regulations and related instruction subcommittee was made by Mr. Shmelzer and seconded by Mr. Smarte.

Mr. Sackett asked if this subcommittee would address youth apprenticeship or adult apprenticeship. Chairman Cavey said this subcommittee was for adult apprenticeship. Mr. MacLarion agreed with Chairman Cavey.

This motion was approved unanimously (Ms. Butt, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clinedinst, Mr. Wilford and Mr. Wilson absent).

Mr. Sackett, Mr. Klusmann, Ms. Anderson, Mr. Shmelzer and Chairman Cavey volunteered to serve on this committee.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Cavey entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Shmelzer moved to adjourn, Mr. Klusmann seconded, and this meeting adjourned at 11:32 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher D. MacLarion
Secretary
Maryland Apprenticeship and Training Council