(Not the game by Milton Bradley)
I open with a passage from an email I sent senior staff a few years ago:
"I’m strongly committed to providing a safe and healthy workplace for employees. I’m also committed to maintaining public access to our public buildings. A perfectly safe environment simply does not exist. Our job is to carefully the real risks against the real costs and make thoughtful decisions. While we may have employees worried about a mass shooting or act a violence by a member of the public, the odds of that occurring are incredibly low.
Our responsibility—as department heads and professionals—is to build “the management case” for our decisions. In my experience, people do a terrible job of assessing risk. Psychology Today agrees. (Bonus points to anyone who gets 100 percent right on the quiz.) If you prefer something more academic, you might try “Overreaction to Fearsome Risks.” Or for a middle ground, this blog page by Bruce Schneier."
Why do administrators--who generally advocate a calm, data-driven approach to evaluating risk--become speed bumps in legislative overreactions to unfounded fears?
There are some obvious answers. Legislative bodies are more influenced by voter perceptions (valid or not) than by data. If the vox populi demands things that make them feeler safer (rather than actual being safer), they are entitled because "democracy." Failing to take action against a perceived threat--however unlikely--opens one up to the accusation of "not caring." Perhaps the most obvious... people regardless of education and training are not good at evaluating risk.
Delving a bit deeper, there are more satisfying answers. Every public policy--no matter how ill-advised--benefits someone. For example, the United States spends over $7 billion a year on the TSA for security theater rather than actual security. That sum goes to far more than rank-and-file employees. Entire industries are built around monetizing fear. This is less an issue in the private sector. In corporate America, money spent on security is weighed against other potential investments. The issue is far more pronounced in government where the few who benefit greatly speak more loudly than the many who pay slightly. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to rational decision-making in the face of fear is the pervasive expectation for government to "do something," even when the most pragmatic approach is to do nothing.
After all, one might think, why does government exist save to do something? And in no small measure that is why the hammer of government sees every problem as a nail... even when the "problem" is a barely visible crack in a beautiful stained glass window. As public administrators, we cannot fall victim to the "what if" game, playing perpetual defense against threats less likely than winning the lottery. We need to lead discussions on risk, not simply react to them.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Friday, June 8, 2018
Anthony Bourdain, RIP
According to the news this morning, Anthony Bourdain, 61, died in Paris today reportedly by his own hand. He gave an interesting interview for Reason magazine in December 2016 one can find here.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Speed traps
According to Vermont Public Radio:
"Law enforcement issued more than 24,000 tickets worth upwards of $4 million in fines to drivers in Vermont in 2017. A quarter were issued in just three Vermont towns: Plymouth, Bridgewater and Mount Tabor.
The top two towns, Plymouth and Bridgewater, have a couple of things in common. They both contract the Windsor County Sheriff's Department for speed enforcement services, and that department issues nearly three times as many tickets as any other law enforcement agency in the state."
My favorite quote from the pieces is from Windsor County Sheriff Michael Chamberlain who said, “There are no sidewalks,” he said. “It wouldn’t take much for someone to go off and hit a child, or hit a family.” Given his four decades plus of law enforcement experience, he may have delivered that line with a straight face.
Let's be honest. Plymouth, Bridgewater, and Mount Tabor are not champions of pedestrian and motorist safety while the rest of Vermont is engaged in a sensible Volvo version of Death Race 2018. These municipalities have created and perpetuated speed traps for the money.
In Maryland, all revenues from traffic citations go to the state. In neighboring Delaware, municipalities keep the money. Where do you think speed traps are more common? Ask anyone from the Free State who routinely travels to beaches in the First State. Economics 101, people (including local governments) respond to incentives.
Yes. Speed traps may enhance traffic safety, much as red light cameras, speed cameras, or school zones adjoining building that haven't housed students for years. The real motive, however, is money. Traffic enforcement should be driven (no pun intended) by legitimate safety concerns, not balancing a budget. The Maryland model of citation revenues going to the state minimizes the profit motive for local governments and that's better for everyone.
"Law enforcement issued more than 24,000 tickets worth upwards of $4 million in fines to drivers in Vermont in 2017. A quarter were issued in just three Vermont towns: Plymouth, Bridgewater and Mount Tabor.
The top two towns, Plymouth and Bridgewater, have a couple of things in common. They both contract the Windsor County Sheriff's Department for speed enforcement services, and that department issues nearly three times as many tickets as any other law enforcement agency in the state."
My favorite quote from the pieces is from Windsor County Sheriff Michael Chamberlain who said, “There are no sidewalks,” he said. “It wouldn’t take much for someone to go off and hit a child, or hit a family.” Given his four decades plus of law enforcement experience, he may have delivered that line with a straight face.
Let's be honest. Plymouth, Bridgewater, and Mount Tabor are not champions of pedestrian and motorist safety while the rest of Vermont is engaged in a sensible Volvo version of Death Race 2018. These municipalities have created and perpetuated speed traps for the money.
In Maryland, all revenues from traffic citations go to the state. In neighboring Delaware, municipalities keep the money. Where do you think speed traps are more common? Ask anyone from the Free State who routinely travels to beaches in the First State. Economics 101, people (including local governments) respond to incentives.
Yes. Speed traps may enhance traffic safety, much as red light cameras, speed cameras, or school zones adjoining building that haven't housed students for years. The real motive, however, is money. Traffic enforcement should be driven (no pun intended) by legitimate safety concerns, not balancing a budget. The Maryland model of citation revenues going to the state minimizes the profit motive for local governments and that's better for everyone.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Why do natural disasters often bring out the best in people...
and the worst in local governments?
Another dispatch from the post-Hurricane Irma mess comes from Green Cove Springs, Florida. According to Clay Today, city officials rousted a food truck driver who wanted to provide food including FREE meals for anyone in a utility vehicle.
Why? Someone apparently complained and Mayor Mitch Timberlake agreed saying that the food truck operator should have asked the City first.
In response, I cannot improve on the account artfully provided by Clay Today:
"Had Roundtree decided to press his case at City Hall, he would have been greeted with a sign that read: “Due to Hurricane Irma, City Hall offices and services will re-open on Thursday, Sept. 14, 2017.”
Local attorney John Whiteman happened to take a photograph of the sign on the glass door, fully reflecting the blue skies-sunshiny day. “Not the best message because it gives the impression that no one's working when I'm certain that wasn't true,” Whiteman said, speculating that the city’s administrative leaders were ensconced in the security of the police station for the duration of the emergency, thus avoiding having to communicate with the general public about things such as food truck permits."
In the aftermath of a major storm in a community where the local McDonald's ran out of food at 2 p.m., city officials found the time to dispatch law enforcement to give the bum's rush to a small business meeting a community need. I can only imagine what might have happened to an enterprising 10-year-old who opened a lemonade stand. I presume nothing less than the SWAT team in full tactical gear would have sufficed to protect the interests of the local beverage industry.
Another dispatch from the post-Hurricane Irma mess comes from Green Cove Springs, Florida. According to Clay Today, city officials rousted a food truck driver who wanted to provide food including FREE meals for anyone in a utility vehicle.
Why? Someone apparently complained and Mayor Mitch Timberlake agreed saying that the food truck operator should have asked the City first.
In response, I cannot improve on the account artfully provided by Clay Today:
"Had Roundtree decided to press his case at City Hall, he would have been greeted with a sign that read: “Due to Hurricane Irma, City Hall offices and services will re-open on Thursday, Sept. 14, 2017.”
Local attorney John Whiteman happened to take a photograph of the sign on the glass door, fully reflecting the blue skies-sunshiny day. “Not the best message because it gives the impression that no one's working when I'm certain that wasn't true,” Whiteman said, speculating that the city’s administrative leaders were ensconced in the security of the police station for the duration of the emergency, thus avoiding having to communicate with the general public about things such as food truck permits."
In the aftermath of a major storm in a community where the local McDonald's ran out of food at 2 p.m., city officials found the time to dispatch law enforcement to give the bum's rush to a small business meeting a community need. I can only imagine what might have happened to an enterprising 10-year-old who opened a lemonade stand. I presume nothing less than the SWAT team in full tactical gear would have sufficed to protect the interests of the local beverage industry.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
A lemonade stand by any other name...
According to News &7 Miami, code enforcement officers in Miami-Dade County began issuing warning citations to property owners only hours after Hurricane Irma passed.
The report quotes Celso Perez saying:
“At the time this officer was out here, we didn’t have power, we didn’t have food, we didn’t have ice. He is crazy, ridiculous. The mayor said that the county would help us recover from the storm and were there to help us. Before the county picks up the debris, the code enforcement guy will beat them to it and some for having my fence down, write me a ticket or something. I’m mad, very upset about this.”
Perez' response is not surprising or unusual. It is the same reaction one sees when local authorities declare war on a lemonade stand. The issue became pervasive enough to wind up on the pages of the National Review.
What is it that causes local government officials to apparently lose any semblance of common sense? Is it as simple as NR's Kevin D. Williamson concluding, "We are ruled by power-mad buffoons."
Having known many well-intended (though occasionally ham-handed) enforcement officials, I don't think this is the Madness of King George. Part of the problem is incentives. Success in code enforcement is normally measured by the metric of "fixing problems." This incentivizes seeing things as problems.
There are time when an incentive is financial. In Delaware, local jurisdictions keep the money from traffic citations. In Maryland, the fines are remitted to the state government. Where do you think it is more likely to be let off with warning? Incentives matter. Always.
Incentives also can be cultural. Harkening back to the Miami-Dade example, what do code enforcement officers do? They enforce codes. What if the job title was changed to "Regulation Navigators"? What if building inspectors became construction facilitators? What if the focus shifted from enforcing a set of rules towards helping residents accomplish goals within a structure?
Until we figure this out, we'll continue to see lemonade stands shut down by overzealous officials. And with every heartbroken four-year-old, the public trust in local government will further diminish.
The report quotes Celso Perez saying:
“At the time this officer was out here, we didn’t have power, we didn’t have food, we didn’t have ice. He is crazy, ridiculous. The mayor said that the county would help us recover from the storm and were there to help us. Before the county picks up the debris, the code enforcement guy will beat them to it and some for having my fence down, write me a ticket or something. I’m mad, very upset about this.”
Perez' response is not surprising or unusual. It is the same reaction one sees when local authorities declare war on a lemonade stand. The issue became pervasive enough to wind up on the pages of the National Review.
What is it that causes local government officials to apparently lose any semblance of common sense? Is it as simple as NR's Kevin D. Williamson concluding, "We are ruled by power-mad buffoons."
Having known many well-intended (though occasionally ham-handed) enforcement officials, I don't think this is the Madness of King George. Part of the problem is incentives. Success in code enforcement is normally measured by the metric of "fixing problems." This incentivizes seeing things as problems.
There are time when an incentive is financial. In Delaware, local jurisdictions keep the money from traffic citations. In Maryland, the fines are remitted to the state government. Where do you think it is more likely to be let off with warning? Incentives matter. Always.
Incentives also can be cultural. Harkening back to the Miami-Dade example, what do code enforcement officers do? They enforce codes. What if the job title was changed to "Regulation Navigators"? What if building inspectors became construction facilitators? What if the focus shifted from enforcing a set of rules towards helping residents accomplish goals within a structure?
Until we figure this out, we'll continue to see lemonade stands shut down by overzealous officials. And with every heartbroken four-year-old, the public trust in local government will further diminish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)