The following is a "white paper" I have authored with respect to improving efficiency and confidence in local government by way of a Government Services Study Committee, which I proposed to the Board back in March. The proposal for the committee was adopted by way of a 3-2 vote.
The post is lengthy as the issue at hand is daunting; for your convenience, it is available in the right sidebar for download. I welcome your feedback by way of email to trcreamer@gmail.com.
Introduction
Section 4-2, paragraph c, “Powers
and Duties in General” of the Sturbridge Town Charter states that “The executive powers of the town shall be
vested in the Board of Selectmen, and may be exercised by them jointly or
through the town agencies and offices under their general supervision and
control. The Board of Selectmen shall cause the laws and orders for the
government of the town to be enforced, and shall cause a record of all their
official acts to be kept...”.
As the Executive Branch exercising
“its powers jointly or through the town
agencies and offices under its general supervision and control”, the Board
of Selectmen have an inherent obligation to ensure that the taxpayers of the
Town of Sturbridge are provided with the best services in the most efficient,
productive, and professional manner possible. To that end, the Board of
Selectmen has a responsibility to ensure a top-down structure of policy
development and implementation that provides our various departments and
employees with the support, resources (both human and technological), professional
development, management, and environment (i.e. working conditions) that
contribute to the highest level of professional service and productivity in the
most cost-effective manner.
To ensure a level of government
efficiency that recognizes and achieves the highest return on investment to our
taxpayers, we must be sure our fundamental approach recognizes that the
business of government is accountable to its stockholders (i.e. taxpayers). As
such, it must manage, invest, and spend funds collected from same in a manner
respectful to, and reflective of, the expectations and sacrifices of those who
shoulder our community’s tax-burden. Specific to that point, a comprehensive
study titled “Defining and measuring productivity in the public sector,”
outlines three core rationales supporting the position that public sector
productivity is crucial to the role of government:
"1) the public sector is a major employer,
2) the public sector is a major provider of services in the economy,
which in turn impact the financial flexibility of residents and the cost of
doing business within our community, and
3) the public sector is a consumer of tax resources”.
As such, changes in public sector
productivity may have significant implications for the economic stability and
vitality of a community. In recognition of such, a 2007 wide-ranging government
productivity analysis conducted on behalf of the State of New York identified
that “Research and local initiatives have
shown that for many functions, local services can be provided more efficiently
or effectively on a broader scale”.
Cynicism
Surely, during times of economic
uncertainty there is greater focus on, and skepticism of government
productivity and efficiency. As residents working in the private sector
experience wage freezes or cuts, benefit reductions, increased contributions to
health care, underemployment and/or unemployment, coupled with the increasing
cost of government each year, there arises a greater awareness of, and/or
connection to an often echoed belief – unfounded or otherwise - that government
is filled with “fat” at the expense of struggling taxpayers. Undoubtedly, recent
excesses highlighted at the federal level within the General Services Administration
(GSA) and those at the State level such as the “Big Dig”, which has been called
“America’s greatest highway robbery” do little to dispel any assertions to the
contrary that government is inefficient. Though clearly these excesses are well
beyond the scope of any irregularities one might witness at the local level –
were such even to exist, there is always skepticism in terms of local
government’s efficiency and effectiveness in managing taxpayer funds. Such a
position is clearly supported by grass roots organizations emerging across the
country such as the Government Efficiency Movement (GEM), which “…strives to
identify and implement new approaches to municipal cost-cutting by rethinking
the nature of local government structures”.
Corroborating this lack of faith as
it relates to local government’s management of taxpayer funds has been
glaringly evident this past year in Sturbridge, as witnessed by the effort to
repeal the Community Preservation Act, the Citizen Petition to level-fund the
fiscal year 2013 budget, followed by line-item challenges to the overall budget
and our Town Meeting Warrant. Rather than review these citizen challenges with
any level of cynicism, we should welcome the fact that they exist and embrace
the idea of responding to them with a measurable means of quantifying the
services we offer as a community. It is only through such an approach that we
can truly understand our “net worth” as a governing entity and improve upon the
business of governing.
Not only however, are we
challenged with a growing level of cynicism among residents, but equally, albeit
somewhat differently, it exists among those who govern. Perhaps more challenging an obstacle than
anything else, the lack of support that will manifest, and in fact does exist
among colleagues - both elected and appointed, is an element that cannot be
overlooked. Long-term relationships, emotional ties to particular departments
or programs, along with the comfort-level that accompanies the “status-quo”
will serve to hinder and dispute the very idea of an independent review. These “impediments”
however, do more to substantiate the need for a thorough review of our
practices and productivity than they do to diminish such. Despite any views to
the contrary – and there is little doubt that many will be provided – one
cannot escape the simple fact that we as an entity have a moral, ethical, and
professional responsibility to the stockholders of this community – the
taxpayers – to ensure that we are providing them the very best return on their
investment.
Productivity/Efficiency Measurements
In consideration of our
responsibility to the public, one must question the benchmark or systems we
currently employ to demonstrate a return-on-investment for residents. More
directly, do we in fact even have a means by which we are able to demonstrate
our overall effectiveness and efficiency to residents? If so, what is it? If
not, then why?
Further challenging the manner by
which we justify services we provide our customers at the local level (the
taxpayers who fund all operations), is the lack of a definitive cost-based
accounting approach with respect to the value our tax dollars provide in terms
of a cost-per-resident ratio. For example, the Burgess Elementary School budget
for FY13 is $9,095,756. The most recent No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) report lists the Burgess
enrollment at 939 students, which equates to a cost-to-educate ratio of $9,686
per student. The Massachusetts Department of Education lists the student number
at 953, which equates to a cost-to-educate ratio of $9,544 per student. Regardless
of the figures used, we can identify a cost of approximately $9,600 to educate
a child in Sturbridge. Within the educational system there exists a measurement
criterion that helps to provide a basis for determining the effectiveness of
dollars invested in our schools by way of the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS), as well as the graduation rates and college-placement
rates achieved beyond elementary school. Whether one is a supporter of said
approach or otherwise, it provides a foundation for measuring some level of student
and teacher productivity, something not similarly available as it relates to
Sturbridge’s general government cost-ratios.
Were one to utilize a strict and
rather broad budget-based approach in determining fiscal efficiency on the
general government side, one might be led – inaccurately so to believe that
general government operates more efficiently and provides a higher return on investment
than does the education side. For example, excluding the Burgess School budget
and the Tantasqua share of the Regional School budget, the Town’s general
government budget for FY13 is $11,873,588, which at approximately 9,800
residents, equates to a cost-per-resident ratio of $1,211 for general
government services. If you include both school budgets, the cost-per-resident
ratio, based upon the FY13 budget of $26,750,919, would stand at $2,729 per
resident for overall government services – including education.
The question, however, is the
reliability of these numbers – considering they do not include all of the fees
residents pay for other services that are not associated with general taxation,
as well as the difficulty in measuring the productivity and efficiency of
government services. For example, the ability to measure snow operations within
the Town is not something that could be quantified with an “MCAS” type
qualifier, nor could one “MCAS” grade our permitting process in the various
departments. Equally, the school cost-per-student ratio is based solely upon
those utilizing said services thereby reflecting a more accurate cost
comparison, whereas the cost-per-resident ratio referenced model is based upon
an entire population, not all of whom benefit from or use all town services. Thus,
any attempts to compare the education side of our budget with the general
government side of our budget would be disproportionately unfair to our
education system as an apples-to-apples comparison simply does not exist.
That said, we do have the ability
to rate our productivity against other communities by way of cost-comparing
services provided against funds (taxes/fees) leveraged for same. The often used
10-Town Comparison may provide a basis for measuring our cost-per-resident
ratios if the data in those communities completely aligns with and is available
for comparison. Equally, one might find
some value in utilizing the widely-referenced Cost of Community Services (COCS)
model that compares a community’s revenues/liabilities as related to
commercial/industrial operations, acquired open space, and residential demands,
to formulate a benchmark with which to measure some level of “costing out” a
community.
For example, the August 2010 COCS
study reports that for every dollar raised by way of residential taxes in the
Town of Becket, MA, it costs them $1.04 to provide services to same – excluding
any and all education costs. Conversely, for every residential tax dollar
raised in Deerfield, MA, it costs them $1.16 to provide services to same –
excluding any and all education costs. Note that these are dollar-to-dollar
comparisons as opposed to the previous dollar-per-resident comparison. This
contrast serves to beg the question as to why it costs more in Deerfield to
provide services than it does in Becket. Certainly there are many factors for
the disparity but the key element for consideration is that no business can
adequately quantify or qualify the services it provides without conducting a
regular inventory of its overall operations. To be clear, the “costing”
examples provided are not offered as the template or solution to addressing the
challenge of government efficiency/productivity, but rather as a starting point
for dialogue, debate, and challenge.
It must be understood that any
measurement system - as identified in the works of Arie Halachimi and Geert
Bouckaert in their study of Organizational Performance and Measurement in the
Public Sector, “…consists of practices, procedures, criteria, and standards
that govern the collection of data (input), the analysis of the data
(throughput), and the compilation of the results into quantitative or
qualitative forms (output)”. Thus, if one is to ensure an accurate, objective,
and reliable outcome, it is critical that the input, throughput, and output are
based upon hard data that minimizes dependence upon “averages” that
unintentionally tend to mislead or misdirect the outcome. To highlight this
point, Halachimi and Bouckaert reference “the story of a man who drowned in a
lake whose average depth was only 12 inches; the data on the average depth
ignores the additional information that many parts of the lake were much deeper
– and dangerous”. Clearly, the failure to have a more complete picture of the challenges
we face, is done at the peril of our community and the future of Sturbridge.
Though there are many factors
that comprise a community as well as the costs associated with providing
services – some of which are quantifiable, others perhaps not so, there is
little doubt that the failure to implement a quantifiable means of measurement -
as it relates to government productivity and efficiency - is a disservice to
those whose hard-earned incomes are the revenue source from which all services
are provided. To that end, an objective, fact-based, measurement-minded,
detailed-oriented, fearless review of our organization and the services we
provide should be welcomed, embraced, and encouraged as a means of proofing the
structure and effectiveness of the government of the Town of Sturbridge.
Roles/Responsibilities
Generally, the Government
Services Study Committee (GSSC) will conduct an overall efficiency/productivity
study of all Town departments that includes the following:
·
Overall Government Services offered
o
Staffing review associated with those services
o
Hours associated with those services
o
Staffing & experience levels associated with
those services & departments
o
Cost/benefit to overall community
o
Cost/benefit Ratio
o
Cost per resident ratio
More specifically, the GSSC will compartmentalize its study
to include a detailed analysis of each Town department/service to include the
following:
·
A review of each town department to include
o
Department responsibility
o
Services provided
o
Manning/Staffing levels
o
Total personnel/work hours
o
Compensation (e.g. salary, hourly pay, etc.)
o
Job Classifications associated with each
position
o
Department overtime and policies associated with
use of overtime
o
Existence and use of compensation/flex time
o
Sick days expended
o
Vacation days allotted/expended per department
o
Impact of sick days/vacation days on overtime
where applicable
o
Overtime costs, compensation time or flex time
liabilities associated with each department – where applicable
o
Compensation/Flex time accrued/expended where
existent
o
Effectiveness of fulfilling overall department
responsibilities
o
Department Requests/Needs
o
Cost/benefit of services provided and
recommendations attendant to same
o
Current in-place collective bargaining agreement
review (where applicable)
o
Cost/benefit of current collective bargaining
agreement
o
Cost/benefit Ratio
o
Cost per resident ratio
o
Recommendations/considerations for future
collective bargaining approaches
·
Recommendations consistent with a best-practice
return on investment approach for services provided.
o
This would include recommended increases,
decreases, consolidation of services/departments/personnel, or status quo
staffing, as well as recommendations for outsourcing or in-sourcing where
applicable.
· Recommendations consistent with a best-practice
return on investment approach for town department staffing levels.
o
This would include recommended increases,
decreases, consolidation of services/departments/personnel, or status quo
staffing, as well as recommendations for outsourcing or in-sourcing where
applicable.
Process
The Government Services Study
Committee (GSSC) would function as a Special Committee of the Board of Selectmen
– reporting directly to the BOS – and be charged with providing quarterly
updates to the Board as well as being assigned and/or developing a schedule
defining benchmarks and a timeline for initiation/completion of each
department’s review. In support of same, the GSSC will be granted the authority
to access and review all financial and non-confidential personnel records
necessary to fulfill their charge.
The scheduling/determination of
each department's review will be determined by the Board of Selectmen after a
public meeting with the Finance Committee, Personnel Committee, and Department
Heads so as to allow input with respect to the process. This all-hands meeting,
as well as continued dialog with all stakeholders is a critical component of
the process as it provides opportunity to vet concerns, allay fears, and
promote positive participation in the process, thereby nurturing or where appropriate
developing the necessary emotional and intellectual investment in our Town’s customer
service approach.
Additionally, it might be wise to
consider securing the services of a “productivity sciences firm” to solicit
some initial guidance/input with respect to the process. These services
(provided by numerous professional organizations), could help “jump-start” the
process, while providing a framework for industry best-practices with which the
GSSC could benchmark its continued operations.
Upon completion of individual
department studies, the reports would be publicly reviewed by the Board of
Selectmen, followed by a joint meeting with the Finance Committee for
additional review and commentary prior to action by the BOS. If adopted, the
GSSC Report would guide the process for consideration of any future requests
and or initiatives specific to town departments. In addition it would provide a
valuable tool for the Board of Selectmen and the community when assessing
resources/needs/wants plus serve as a potential guide in support of the Board’s
development of collective bargaining strategies and future planned
expenditures.
Appointments
As this is a Special Committee, appointments
to the GSSC will be made by the Board of Selectmen for an indefinite period.
Restructuring/Discharge
The Board of Selectmen maintains
the right to at any time restructure the committee as deemed necessary or
appropriate to its special assignment, or to discharge members unable to
fulfill their charge in a manner best suited for the committee’s ability to
function independently, objectively, and transparently.
In addition as this is a Special
Committee with a specific responsibility, the Board of Selectmen will determine
upon completion of the project, the necessity or lack thereof for any continued
role in support of its primary roles/responsibilities.
Composition
As the role of the GSSC places
significant demands upon its members in terms of employing a systems-based
approach to productivity and efficiency measurement, it requires individuals willing/able
to undertake a “Systems Thinking”[1]
model. Additionally, this body requires the credentials/credibility to command
the level of universal cooperation necessary for success. In recognition of
such, experienced members of the Executive Branch and the Finance Committee
form the basis for a strong foundation with which to staff the GSSC. Equally,
the comprehensive nature of the responsibilities associated with the GSSC would
suggest a working group capable of multi-functional research that at times may
require cross-disciplinary analysis. Thus, the following composition is
recommended:
2 Members of the Board of
Selectmen
2 Members of the Finance
Committee
3 Residents-at-large
The resident-at-large positions
are to be filled by individuals not serving the town in any paid capacity or
related to employees of the town. It is preferable that residents-at-large have
a professional background in business/personnel management and/or a
professional financial/accounting background. Additional preferable experience
may include individuals with a strong background in statistical analysis and/or
data base management systems-analysis.
Organization
As the GSSC will be established
as a Special Committee of the Board of Selectmen, its organization – in terms
of its chairmanship – shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen, consistent
with Parliamentary Procedure. As such, in that the vice-chairman must assume
the responsibilities of chairman in the event of absence and/or resignation of
the chairman, the second-serving BOS member of the GSSC shall serve as its
vice-chairman.
Additionally, the committee shall
elect a clerk, responsible for the maintenance of all records, reports, and
minutes of meetings.
NOTE: This document is intended to provide the basis for
constructive and meaningful dialog focused on producing the best model by which
to analyze/measure our community’s productivity and efficiency. There is little
doubt that the very thought of analysis can spur fear, anxiety, and distrust
among those subject to such review, while equally creating skepticism among
public officials or others who may be generally inclined to support the current
system or structure as is. More often than not, the reluctance to consider or
support analysis of a system stems from emotional attachments and/or a level of
comfort with the known; this is certainly understandable. It is however worth
noting that the strength of any system or organization comes not from what we
think we know about ourselves, but rather from what we have proven we know
about ourselves by way of an objective, honest, and rigorous self-inventory. To
that end, in recognition of the high regard we all maintain for our community,
we should embrace this review as a testament that speaks to just how good we
really are at what we do.
Thomas R. Creamer, Selectman –
Town of Sturbridge
[1] Systems Thinking has been defined as an
approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as parts of an
overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and
potentially contributing to further development of unintended
consequences. Systems thinking
is not one thing but a set of habits or practices[2] within
a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of
relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.
Systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.
Posts
