01_improving efficiency and confidence in local government_final

7/31/2019 01_Improving Efficiency and Confidence in Local Government_Final

1/9

1

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY

AND

CONFIDENCE

IN

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BY WAY OF A

GOVERNMENT SERVICES STUDY COMMITTEE

Thomas R. Creamer, Selectman

Town of Sturbridge

21 June 2012


2/9

2

Introduction

Section 4-2, paragraph c, Powers and Duties in General of the Sturbridge Town Charter statesthat 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 obligationto ensure that the taxpayers of the Town of Sturbridge are provided with the best services in themost efficient, productive, and professional manner possible. To that end, the Board ofSelectmen has a responsibility to ensure a top-down structure of policy development andimplementation 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 serviceand productivity in the most cost-effective manner.

To ensure a level of government efficiency that recognizes and achieves the highest return oninvestment to our taxpayers, we must be sure our fundamental approach recognizes that thebusiness of government is accountable to its stockholders (i.e. taxpayers). As such, it mustmanage, invest, and spend funds collected from same in a manner respectful to, and reflectiveof, the expectations and sacrifices of those who shoulder our communitys tax-burden. Specificto that point, a comprehensive study titled Defining and measuring productivity in the publicsector, outlines three core rationales supporting the position that public sector productivity iscrucial 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 theeconomic stability and vitality of a community. In recognition of such, a 2007 wide-ranginggovernment productivity analysis conducted on behalf of the State of New York identified thatResearch 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 ofgovernment productivity and efficiency. As residents working in the private sector experiencewage freezes or cuts, benefit reductions, increased contributions to health care,underemployment and/or unemployment, coupled with the increasing cost of government each


3/9

3

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 strugglingtaxpayers. Undoubtedly, recent excesses highlighted at the federal level within the GeneralServices Administration (GSA) and those at the State level such as the Big Dig, which hasbeen called Americas greatest highway robbery do little to dispel any assertions to the

contrary that government is inefficient. Though clearly these excesses are well beyond thescope of any irregularities one might witness at the local level were such even to exist, there isalways skepticism in terms of local governments efficiency and effectiveness in managingtaxpayer funds. Such a position is clearly supported by grass roots organizations emergingacross the country such as the Government Efficiency Movement (GEM), which strives toidentify and implement new approaches to municipal cost-cutting by rethinking the nature oflocal government structures.

Corroborating this lack of faith as it relates to local governments management of taxpayer fundshas been glaringly evident this past year in Sturbridge, as witnessed by the effort to repeal theCommunity 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. Ratherthan review these citizen challenges with any level of cynicism, we should welcome the fact thatthey exist and embrace the idea of responding to them with a measurable means of quantifyingthe services we offer as a community. It is only through such an approach that we can trulyunderstand 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, butequally, albeit somewhat differently, it exists among those who govern. Perhaps morechallenging an obstacle than anything else, the lack of support that will manifest, and in factdoes exist among colleagues - both elected and appointed, is an element that cannot beoverlooked. 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 disputethe very idea of an independent review. These impediments however, do more to substantiatethe 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 onecannot escape the simple fact that we as an entity have a moral, ethical, and professionalresponsibility to the stockholders of this community the taxpayers to ensure that we areproviding 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 systemswe currently employ to demonstrate a return-on-investment for residents. More directly, do we infact even have a means by which we are able to demonstrate our overall effectiveness andefficiency 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 thelocal level (the taxpayers who fund all operations), is the lack of a definitive cost-basedaccounting 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


4/9

4

most recent No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) report lists the Burgess enrollment at 939students, which equates to a cost-to-educate ratio of $9,686 per student. The MassachusettsDepartment of Education lists the student number at 953, which equates to a cost-to-educateratio of $9,544 per student. Regardless of the figures used, we can identify a cost ofapproximately $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 ofdollars invested in our schools by way of the Massachusetts Comprehensive AssessmentSystem (MCAS), as well as the graduation rates and college-placement rates achieved beyondelementary school. Whether one is a supporter of said approach or otherwise, it provides afoundation for measuring some level of student and teacher productivity, something not similarlyavailable as it relates to Sturbridges general government cost-ratios.

Were one to utilize a strict and rather broad budget-based approach in determining fiscalefficiency on the general government side, one might be led inaccurately so to believe thatgeneral government operates more efficiently and provides a higher return on investment thandoes the education side. For example, excluding the Burgess School budget and the Tantasqua

share of the Regional School budget, the Towns 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 residentfor overall government services including education.

The question, however, is the reliability of these numbers considering they do not include all ofthe fees residents pay for other services that are not associated with general taxation, as well asthe 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 quantifiedwith an MCAS type qualifier, nor could one MCAS grade our permitting process in thevarious departments. Equally, the school cost-per-student ratio is based solely upon thoseutilizing 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 benefitfrom or use all town services. Thus, any attempts to compare the education side of our budgetwith the general government side of our budget would be disproportionately unfair to oureducation 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 ofcost-comparing services provided against funds (taxes/fees) leveraged for same. The oftenused 10-Town Comparison may provide a basis for measuring our cost-per-resident ratios if thedata in those communities completely aligns with and is available for comparison. Equally, onemight find some value in utilizing the widely-referenced Cost of Community Services (COCS)model that compares a communitys revenues/liabilities as related to commercial/industrialoperations, acquired open space, and residential demands, to formulate a benchmark withwhich to measure some level of costing out a community.

For example, the August 2010 COCS study reports that for every dollar raised by way ofresidential taxes in the Town of Becket, MA, it costs them $1.04 to provide services to same


5/9

5

excluding any and all education costs. Conversely, for every residential tax dollar raised inDeerfield, MA, it costs them $1.16 to provide services to same excluding any and all educationcosts. 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 inDeerfield 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 orqualify 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 toaddressing the challenge of government efficiency/productivity, but rather as a starting point fordialogue, debate, and challenge.

It must be understood that any measurement system - as identified in the works of ArieHalachimi and Geert Bouckaert in their study of Organizational Performance and Measurementin the Public Sector, consists of practices, procedures, criteria, and standards that govern thecollection of data (input), the analysis of the data (throughput), and the compilation of the resultsinto 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 harddata that minimizes dependence upon averages that unintentionally tend to mislead ormisdirect the outcome. To highlight this point, Halachimi and Bouckaert reference the story of aman who drowned in a lake whose average depth was only 12 inches; the data on the averagedepth ignores the additional information that many parts of the lake were much deeper anddangerous. Clearly, the failure to have a more complete picture of the challenges we face, isdone 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 withproviding services some of which are quantifiable, others perhaps not so, there is little doubtthat the failure to implement a quantifiable means of measurement - as it relates to governmentproductivity and efficiency - is a disservice to those whose hard-earned incomes are therevenue 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 serviceswe provide should be welcomed, embraced, and encouraged as a means of proofing thestructure and effectiveness of the government of the Town of Sturbridge.

Roles/Responsibilities

Generally, the Government Services Study Committee (GSSC) will conduct an overallefficiency/productivity study of all Town departments that includes the following:

Overall Government Services offeredo Staffing review associated with those serviceso Hours associated with those serviceso Staffing & experience levels associated with those services & departmentso Cost/benefit to overall communityo Cost/benefit Ratioo Cost per resident ratio


6/9

6

More specifically, the GSSC will compartmentalize its study to include a detailed analysis ofeach Town department/service to include the following:

A review of each town department to includeo Department responsibilityo Services providedo Manning/Staffing levelso Total personnel/work hourso Compensation (e.g. salary, hourly pay, etc.)o Job Classifications associated with each positiono Department overtime and policies associated with use of overtimeo Existence and use of compensation/flex timeo Sick days expendedo Vacation days allotted/expended per departmento Impact of sick days/vacation days on overtime where applicableo Overtime costs, compensation time or flex time liabilities associated with each

department where applicableo Compensation/Flex time accrued/expended where existento Effectiveness of fulfilling overall department responsibilitieso Department Requests/Needso Cost/benefit of services provided and recommendations attendant to sameo Current in-place collective bargaining agreement review (where applicable)o Cost/benefit of current collective bargaining agreemento Cost/benefit Ratioo Cost per resident ratioo Recommendations/considerations for future collective bargaining approaches

Recommendations consistent with a best-practice return on investment approach forservices provided.

o This would include recommended increases, decreases, consolidation ofservices/departments/personnel, or status quo staffing, as well asrecommendations for outsourcing or in-sourcing where applicable.

Recommendations consistent with a best-practice return on investment approach fortown department staffing levels.

o This would include recommended increases, decreases, consolidation ofservices/departments/personnel, or status quo staffing, as well asrecommendations for outsourcing or in-sourcing where applicable.

Process

The Government Services Study Committee (GSSC) would function as a Special Committee ofthe Board of Selectmen reporting directly to the BOS and be charged with providingquarterly updates to the Board as well as being assigned and/or developing a schedule definingbenchmarks and a timeline for initiation/completion of each departments review. In support of


7/9

7

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 ofSelectmen after a public meeting with the Finance Committee, Personnel Committee, andDepartment Heads so as to allow input with respect to the process. This all-hands meeting, aswell as continued dialog with all stakeholders is a critical component of the process as itprovides opportunity to vet concerns, allay fears, and promote positive participation in theprocess, thereby nurturing or where appropriate developing the necessary emotional andintellectual investment in our Towns customer service approach.

Additionally, it might be wise to consider securing the services of a productivity sciences firmto solicit some initial guidance/input with respect to the process. These services (provided bynumerous professional organizations), could help jump-start the process, while providing aframework for industry best-practices with which the GSSC could benchmark its continuedoperations.

Upon completion of individual department studies, the reports would be publicly reviewed by theBoard of Selectmen, followed by a joint meeting with the Finance Committee for additionalreview and commentary prior to action by the BOS. If adopted, the GSSC Report would guidethe process for consideration of any future requests and or initiatives specific to towndepartments. In addition it would provide a valuable tool for the Board of Selectmen and thecommunity when assessing resources/needs/wants plus serve as a potential guide in support ofthe Boards 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 ofSelectmen for an indefinite period.

Restructuring/Discharge

The Board of Selectmen maintains the right to at any time restructure the committee as deemednecessary or appropriate to its special assignment, or to discharge members unable to fulfilltheir charge in a manner best suited for the committees ability to function independently,objectively, and transparently.

In addition as this is a Special Committee with a specific responsibility, the Board of Selectmenwill 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 asystems-based approach to productivity and efficiency measurement, it requires individuals


8/9

8

willing/able to undertake a Systems Thinking 1 model. Additionally, this body requires thecredentials/credibility to command the level of universal cooperation necessary for success. Inrecognition of such, experienced members of the Executive Branch and the Finance Committeeform the basis for a strong foundation with which to staff the GSSC. Equally, the comprehensivenature 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, thefollowing 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 paidcapacity or related to employees of the town. It is preferable that residents-at-large have aprofessional background in business/personnel management and/or a professionalfinancial/accounting background. Additional preferable experience may include individuals witha 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, itsorganization 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 theresponsibilities of chairman in the event of absence and/or resignation of the chairman, thesecond-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 dialogfocused on producing the best model by which to analyze/measure our communitys productivityand efficiency. There is little doubt that the very thought of analysis can spur fear, anxiety, anddistrust among those subject to such review, while equally creating skepticism among publicofficials 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 fromemotional 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 aboutourselves by way of an objective, honest, and rigorous self-inventory. To that end, in recognition

1 Systems Thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing "problems" as partsof an overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially contributingto further development of unintended consequences . Systems thinking is not one thing but a set of habitsor practices [2] within a framework that is based on the belief that the component parts of a system canbest be understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than inisolation. Systems thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect.


9/9

9

of the high regard we all maintain for our community, we should embrace this review as atestament that speaks to just how good we really are at what we do.

Thomas R. Creamer, Selectman Town of Sturbridge

01_improving efficiency and confidence in local government_final

Documents