My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
MODERN TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL
Clerk
>
Contracts / Agreements
>
M
>
MODERN TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 11:10:23 AM
Creation date
6/12/2023 4:47:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Contracts
Company Name
MODERN TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL
Contract #
A-2023-069-05
Agency
Community Development
Council Approval Date
5/2/2023
Expiration Date
6/30/2027
Destruction Year
2032
Notes
For Insurance Exp. Date see Notice of Compliance
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Comment #6—Who would be the party responsible for (1) suspending the provider that is <br />under federal, state, or local investigation; (2) notifying the provider of the suspension? If the <br />provider protests, stating they were not afforded due process conduct, who will be responsible <br />for handling any possible legal process as a result of this suspension. <br />Resolution — Removing the provider would be the responsibility of both the Local Board and <br />the state. If either found that a training provider is currently under investigation, then the <br />provider would be immediately suspended by either the state or the Local Board, and the <br />Local Board would inform the provider of the suspension. The provider would then undergo <br />the appeals process if it so chooses, starting with the Local Board. <br />Comment #7 —What if the training provider disagrees with the Local Board's initial eligibility <br />assessment? <br />Resolution —The Local Board must provide the training provider with information regarding <br />the appeals process. <br />Comment #8 —Are initial/informal meetings required as part of the appeals process if both <br />parties waive it based on written confirmation? <br />Resolution —All Local Boards must include an option for an informal meeting in their appeals <br />policy. However, both parties can agree to waive this requirement, and documentation should <br />be uploaded into the Provider Profile. This also needs to be included in the local policy. <br />Comment #9 —Are formal hearings required if both parties waive it? Can impartial hearing <br />officers be employed at the Local Board or does it need to be from an outside agency? Can the <br />hearing officer be a compliance analyst not working directly with ETPL? <br />Resolution — Local Boards must include the option of a formal hearing in their appeals policy. <br />However, both parties can agree to waive this requirement, and documentation should be <br />uploaded into the Provider Profile. Guidance on the appeals process, including impartial <br />hearing officers, needs to be included in the local policy. <br />Comment #10 —Can a Local Board rule to approve a provider on appeal, if the EDD originally <br />rejected it? <br />Resolution —Yes, but the provider/program has to go through final EDD approval before being <br />reinstated to the ETPL. <br />Apprenticeships <br />Comment #11— It appears that a number of requirements are inapplicable to apprenticeship <br />programs, including the WIOA Section 188 requirement. Is this correct? <br />Resolution — Both Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), <br />Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) ensure that apprenticeships meet Equal <br />Employment Opportunity (EEO) standards per 29 CFR 30.3, therefore the Local Board cannot <br />impose additional EEO requirements onto the apprenticeship program. <br />Page 3 of 25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.