While not one often to admit it in mixed company, one of my degrees is in journalism. When I arrived at university, I told my Jesuit advisor I wanted to write and was thinking about majoring in English. He tartly observed that English majors study what other people have written; journalism majors write.
Not long ago the Baltimore Sun's editorial board responded to a request from the Boston Globe to opine on the dangers of an assault on free press. A snippet from that editorial:
"So that’s the goal: to assess, analyze and uncover truth. That’s obviously easier said than done, and our profession’s “truths” do not always reflect the entire public’s — particularly those on the right. While we try to keep our personal feelings out of our work, they can still unintentionally influence the things we cover and the way we cover them. And to many, that’s a failure on our part — one we’ve largely been given a pass on in the past. But not in today’s partisan climate."
Newspaper circulation has dropped below what it was in 1940. Newspapers had it good for decades, but when technology changed the nature of mass communication, they were slow to adopt as an industry. One of the reasons is arrogance. Newspapers largely survived the advent of television news albeit with no small measure of diffidence towards the purportedly less serious medium. What happened along the way, however, was the vast diminishment of "two paper towns." As newspapers settled into comfortable local monopolies, they did what monopolists do. They stopped caring about innovation, customers, and costs. They lobbied Congress to block electronic classified ads and other competition. Newspapers attempts to transition to the digital medium was inevitably ham-handed. When the lower transactional cost of the Internet and low/no cost sites like Craigslist, newspapers simply lumbered along like dinosaurs looking for a tar pit.
Another factor is that newspapers began drifting away from the role of informing into the role of opining. Pick-and-shovel journalism is hard work, and often tedious. During my nearly 20 years leading local governments, I've often apologized to reporters covering public meetings with a version of, "I'm sorry you had to sit through that." And I've been quick to praise lucid, well-written news stories about rambling, difficult-to-follow public discussions. Great local reporters are rare and incredibly valuable. On that note, a tip of my hat to Abby Andrews, local government beat reporter for the Times Record who has proven one of the best.
Tip O'Neill is most often given credit for the phrase, "All politics is local." I think there's an argument to made be that all journalism is local. Great reporting will always be great reporting. And there will always be a market for accurate, timely, local information. What the editors at the Baltimore Sun dismiss is any recent assault on the free press pales in comparison to the damage newspapers have done to themselves.
Showing posts with label administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label administration. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Risk matters
(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.
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, 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
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.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Intellectual Honesty
One of the most important qualities a city manager or county administrator can possess is intellectual honesty. For a broader perspective, this list of "ten signs of intellectual honesty" may be useful.
To be intellectually honest, we have to admit 1) we exist within a culture; 2) this culture influences us; 3) we don't know how the culture influences us; 4) we all are guilty of confirmation bias.
In my experience, the vast majority of city managers and county administrators are devoted public servants. We all strive to lead local governments that are engaged, responsive, transparent, and ethical. We believe in the power of government to do good and stand prepared for the moments a community sees a problem and decides, "We must do something!"
We rally. We inspire. We support. We agree that something must be done and to dedicate ourselves to doing it!
The danger for local government leaders is failing to recognize that the "something" may be worse than doing nothing. Working shoulder-to-shoulder with kind, caring, and dedicated public employees can be terrifically exciting, meaningful, and fulfilling. With so many intelligent and devoted people working so selflessly... how could we possibly fail?
And yet local government often does.
Intellectual honesty requires us to ask tough questions and not be content with the "echo chamber" answers we often receive from our fellow professionals (or professional associations). As a profession, public administration would benefit by asking "Why?" far more often, and exploring the possible answers without so many preconceived notions (including that of our own nobility).
It's a tough time for intellectual honesty in America. Public discourse is dominated by hyper-partisan rhetoric. Far too many individuals in positions of responsibility--in government and the Fourth Estate--seem to have abandoned even a passing commitment to facts or truth. There is a palpable sense that large swaths of the body politic have simply given up on expecting intellectual honesty from anyone in power.
City managers and county administrators can be advocates for intellectual honesty, but only if we begin with our own profession.
To be intellectually honest, we have to admit 1) we exist within a culture; 2) this culture influences us; 3) we don't know how the culture influences us; 4) we all are guilty of confirmation bias.
In my experience, the vast majority of city managers and county administrators are devoted public servants. We all strive to lead local governments that are engaged, responsive, transparent, and ethical. We believe in the power of government to do good and stand prepared for the moments a community sees a problem and decides, "We must do something!"
We rally. We inspire. We support. We agree that something must be done and to dedicate ourselves to doing it!
The danger for local government leaders is failing to recognize that the "something" may be worse than doing nothing. Working shoulder-to-shoulder with kind, caring, and dedicated public employees can be terrifically exciting, meaningful, and fulfilling. With so many intelligent and devoted people working so selflessly... how could we possibly fail?
And yet local government often does.
Intellectual honesty requires us to ask tough questions and not be content with the "echo chamber" answers we often receive from our fellow professionals (or professional associations). As a profession, public administration would benefit by asking "Why?" far more often, and exploring the possible answers without so many preconceived notions (including that of our own nobility).
It's a tough time for intellectual honesty in America. Public discourse is dominated by hyper-partisan rhetoric. Far too many individuals in positions of responsibility--in government and the Fourth Estate--seem to have abandoned even a passing commitment to facts or truth. There is a palpable sense that large swaths of the body politic have simply given up on expecting intellectual honesty from anyone in power.
City managers and county administrators can be advocates for intellectual honesty, but only if we begin with our own profession.
A tough gig
Anyone who thinks serving as city manager or county administrator is "just another job" might benefit from reading this article from the Tacoma News Tribune.
One cannot blame the reporters--Derrick Nunnally and Candice Ruud--for the headline, " Will Tacoma’s next city manager be a downgrade?" Unless something has changed since I studied journalism in the 80s, copy editors write headlines.
I will take Nunnally and Ruud to task for going with an "if it bleeds, it leads" approach to writing an article. Particularly disappointing is the observation, "During the past three years, three of the four (finalists for the Tacoma city manager job) have applied to manage cities smaller than Tacoma and been passed over."
Neither Nunnally nor Ruud have any idea why a given candidate was not offered a position. They did not participate in the interviews or the subsequent discussions. They do not know who the competing candidates were (internal or external) or how those candidates performed in their interviews. There are numerous reasons a person might be "passed over" for a job opportunity that have no bearing on a candidate's qualifications.
This is just another example of the tired bias--bigger is better. I will cut Nunnally and Ruud a bit of slack because they exist in the world of journalism where writers aspire to larger media outlets. As a profession, journalism tends to see working for the Washington Post or New York Times as superior to the Tacoma News Tribune.
Tenure in a larger organization--whether that is a newspaper or a local government--is not a reliable indicator of talent. The hiring process is far to subjective to draw any conclusions. This is particularly true for city managers and county administrators where elected officials make the final decision. An unsuccessful candidacy should not be held against a person regardless of their field.
One cannot blame the reporters--Derrick Nunnally and Candice Ruud--for the headline, " Will Tacoma’s next city manager be a downgrade?" Unless something has changed since I studied journalism in the 80s, copy editors write headlines.
I will take Nunnally and Ruud to task for going with an "if it bleeds, it leads" approach to writing an article. Particularly disappointing is the observation, "During the past three years, three of the four (finalists for the Tacoma city manager job) have applied to manage cities smaller than Tacoma and been passed over."
Neither Nunnally nor Ruud have any idea why a given candidate was not offered a position. They did not participate in the interviews or the subsequent discussions. They do not know who the competing candidates were (internal or external) or how those candidates performed in their interviews. There are numerous reasons a person might be "passed over" for a job opportunity that have no bearing on a candidate's qualifications.
This is just another example of the tired bias--bigger is better. I will cut Nunnally and Ruud a bit of slack because they exist in the world of journalism where writers aspire to larger media outlets. As a profession, journalism tends to see working for the Washington Post or New York Times as superior to the Tacoma News Tribune.
Tenure in a larger organization--whether that is a newspaper or a local government--is not a reliable indicator of talent. The hiring process is far to subjective to draw any conclusions. This is particularly true for city managers and county administrators where elected officials make the final decision. An unsuccessful candidacy should not be held against a person regardless of their field.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Is local government the "high ground"?
I recently read a well-intended short essay entitled, "Is #localgov Part of 'The Swamp'?" The article by Miranda Lutzow offered three ways local governments can differentiate themselves, "We're accountable. We're accessible. We care."
My initial response via LinkedIn:
"What we think--as mostly professional city/county administrators--is far less telling than what citizens think. While polls generally show folks more approving of local governments than state or federal, we have our share of highly visible failings.
Bell, California? Flint, Michigan? Ferguson, Missouri, where the local government's dependency on court-driven revenues contributed heavily to serious racial and policing issues. Pick any city in California where retired city administrators are earning $200k+/year in pension payments while municipal services are suffering.
It's easy to dismiss these as aberrations, but I think an argument can be made that they are systemic problems. And the not-so-pleasant truth is that our profession has fallen short in addressing them."
Ms. Lutzow generously responded, sharing her opinion that the examples I provided are indeed aberrations and asking, "If you believe mismanagement truly is systemic, how do you think we, as a profession, should go about addressing systemic failures?"
Active mismanagement is one kind of failure. It's easy enough to focus on headlines like those coming out of Bell, California, in 2010. The larger problem our profession's apparent inability to move the needle on transformational problems (rather than just nibbling on the incremental ones).
Let's take public pensions as an example. State and local government pensions. The cumulative level of unfunded liabilities has been estimated at $5 trillion. Trillion. With a "T."
It's easy enough to blame the pension crisis on politicians, but that's a bit like blaming the owners of the White Star Lines for the Titanic. Public administrators are at the helm of local (and state) governments. It is our responsibility to manage beyond the election-to-election focus and lead ethical and financially sustainable organizations.
The amount of pension debt is staggering. And the "salt in the wound" is every story citizens read about pension spiking. I can understand why everyday folks feel like we're either not competent enough to stop the financial bleeding or are corrupt enough to take advantage of the system. (And closing lemonade stands doesn't help us either.)
The meta-idea of Washington, D.C. as "the swamp" is about far more than individual corruption. It is about the widespread perception that government cannot (or will not) solve the transformational problems we face from community to nation. Local governments may be more highly regarded than state or federal bureaucracies but a high point in the swamp is still swampy.
My initial response via LinkedIn:
"What we think--as mostly professional city/county administrators--is far less telling than what citizens think. While polls generally show folks more approving of local governments than state or federal, we have our share of highly visible failings.
Bell, California? Flint, Michigan? Ferguson, Missouri, where the local government's dependency on court-driven revenues contributed heavily to serious racial and policing issues. Pick any city in California where retired city administrators are earning $200k+/year in pension payments while municipal services are suffering.
It's easy to dismiss these as aberrations, but I think an argument can be made that they are systemic problems. And the not-so-pleasant truth is that our profession has fallen short in addressing them."
Ms. Lutzow generously responded, sharing her opinion that the examples I provided are indeed aberrations and asking, "If you believe mismanagement truly is systemic, how do you think we, as a profession, should go about addressing systemic failures?"
Active mismanagement is one kind of failure. It's easy enough to focus on headlines like those coming out of Bell, California, in 2010. The larger problem our profession's apparent inability to move the needle on transformational problems (rather than just nibbling on the incremental ones).
Let's take public pensions as an example. State and local government pensions. The cumulative level of unfunded liabilities has been estimated at $5 trillion. Trillion. With a "T."
It's easy enough to blame the pension crisis on politicians, but that's a bit like blaming the owners of the White Star Lines for the Titanic. Public administrators are at the helm of local (and state) governments. It is our responsibility to manage beyond the election-to-election focus and lead ethical and financially sustainable organizations.
The amount of pension debt is staggering. And the "salt in the wound" is every story citizens read about pension spiking. I can understand why everyday folks feel like we're either not competent enough to stop the financial bleeding or are corrupt enough to take advantage of the system. (And closing lemonade stands doesn't help us either.)
The meta-idea of Washington, D.C. as "the swamp" is about far more than individual corruption. It is about the widespread perception that government cannot (or will not) solve the transformational problems we face from community to nation. Local governments may be more highly regarded than state or federal bureaucracies but a high point in the swamp is still swampy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)