Stop signs

Talking about stop signs is public discourse in miniature.  Few things are more ubiquitous than the white-on-red octagonal signs.  To engineers, they are traffic control devices governed by the MUTCD--the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

The MUTCD is exactly the thrilling page-turner you'd expect from engineers writing about inanimate objects.  A far more readable Cliff's Notes version can be found here, with the more racy title, "Speed Control in Residential Areas."

Here's an excerpt:

"Residents’ complaints are usually accompanied by a proposed solution to the speeding problem...stop signs. Traffic officials respond that stop signs installed to control speeding: (a) don’t work, (b) are frequently violated, (c) are detrimental to safety, (d) are not warranted in the Manual* and, (e) actually increase speeds between stop signs. When residents are told that stop signs are not the answer to the speeding problem, they feel they must fight city hall to get them installed. A confrontational relationship is established between residents and traffic officials and the stop sign becomes a “trophy” which is awarded to the winner of the confrontation. Solving the speeding problem becomes secondary to winning the “trophy”. The end results of this process are: (1) unhappy citizens, (2) continued complaints and requests for more stop signs, (3) increased political pressure and, (4) often, approval of stop sign installations to bring the controversy, temporarily, to an end."

Obviously, the authors have experienced the unmitigated joys of a public debate over putting stop signs at the corner of <insert random tree name> avenue and <insert random number> street.

Like the problems that occupy most of local governments' time, speeding is complex, widespread, and slippery.  And like many issues, it's only a problem when "other people" do it.  For those who doubt cosmic justice, I offer the example of the resident who was complaining most loudly about speeding in their neighborhood being the first to receive a traffic citation on the same street for <wait for it> speeding!  To add sauce to the goose, most speed studies come back showing the perceived speeding is not nearly as excessive as portrayed.

People want simple, straightforward solutions to problems they perceive.  Few pieces of painted metal are more simple and straightforward than a stop sign.  Engineers and pretty much anyone who believes in the Enlightenment prefer rational solutions to specific, real problems.  One can have an intuitive notion that stop signs make a street safer... but belief is not the same as proof.  And the expenditure of public funds and governance of public facilities--even on something as modest as a stop sign--should be governed by rational thought, engineering best practices, and scientific evidence.

The great advantage of scientific discourse is that someone eventually wins, understanding that all such victories are temporary, good only until better data, measures, or testing comes along.  We no longer argue about whether the earth is flat (well, mostly). Theological debates, on the other hand, are endless absent one side eliminating the other.  If we can't agree to follow a rational process in putting up or taking down stop signs... how much chance do we have solving much larger problems?

Pension revisited

An essay I wrote for the Maryland Reporter:

About a year ago, I wrote an essay for MarylandReporter.com  suggesting the state legislature look to local governments for ideas on how to successfully manage pension systems.  Naturally, the opposite has happened.

Del. Mary Ann Lisanti of Harford County is pushing HB 971, legislation that would require local government pensions to provide a potentially budget-breaking disability benefit for some public safety employees.

Del. Lisanti’s bill is a response to a line-of-duty injury suffered by a police officer in one of Harford County’s municipalities. There’s no question that it is a situation that tugs at heart strings. It’s also the perfect example of the old legal adage: Hard cases make bad laws.

Caroline County—the state’s second poorest—has its own pension system.  After years of hard work and sacrifice, our system is stronger that the state’s. Del. Lisanti’s well-intentioned effort to benefit a single individual will have a profound effect on thousands of local government employees including ours.

Our actuaries are crunching numbers now, but there’s no doubt the new benefit will be expensive, not only to provide but to administer.  The smaller the pension system, the greater the impact.  The reasons are much same as why small counties cannot afford to self-insure for worker’s compensation.  With a small pool of employees, even one or two unanticipated claims can dramatically increase costs.  The inherent volatility and disproportionately high administrative costs makes self-insuring impractical.

If HB 971 is passed, Caroline County faces the prospect of having to increase what employees pay into the pension, cutting spending to pay a larger employer share, and/or restructuring pension benefits for future retirees.  Since about 75% of our annual budget is dictated by state mandates, we have few options—none appealing.

The bill also backdates the benefit to 2015, presumably to benefit Delegate Lisanti’s constituent.  This is problematic not only for pension funds, but for bond rating agencies.  How can those agencies evaluate our creditworthiness if financial mandates can be imposed ex post facto?

We understand the issue.  We already provide long-term disability insurance at no cost to our employees.  We are working towards other solutions we can afford, and not just for public safety employees.  After all, other workers can be left disabled due to a work-related injury. They deserve no less consideration.

Whatever we do must be financially responsible.  It’s laudable that Del. Lisanti wants local government pensions to match the lavish benefits promised by Maryland’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Pension System (LEOPS).  The unflattering reality, however, is that state has woefully underfunded LEOPS despite an employer share of nearly 40 cents for every dollar in wages.  By comparison, the employer share for Caroline’s fiscally sustainable pension system is less than 12 cents.

It is tempting but would be intemperate to suggest the Maryland legislature fix its own pension systems before dictating how we should manage ours.  My request is more measured.  Give local pension officials time to do the actuarial work necessary to determine the impact.  It is unconscionable to ignore the plight of workers disabled in the line of duty, but no less so to blindly force local governments to make pension promises we cannot afford to keep.