(Continuing the policy of promoting diaries from officeholders and officeseekers. – promoted by kestrel9000)
Wow did the first week begin at full speed! The long list of issues that are asking for attention and the complexity of these issues are certainly going to make for a very interesting and intense session.
I want to talk about the Challenges for Change, the program that the Speaker, Pro tem and Governor all stood together and said this is good and we need to do it. At the end of last session, we all knew that Vermont and the country were in a serious recession and that it would be a long time before we all recover. We also knew that it was time to take a serious look at how we deliver state services and find ways to do it better with less.
More after the jump
In the face of significant state layoffs and the continued dropping of revenues, we put aside $100,000 to ask for proposals from professional groups that have worked with governments of all sizes to help us reach the goal of permanent savings through restructuring. Our target was $34 million in 2011, with more in the next year.
A company called Public Strategies was awarded the contract. They have over 20 years of experience and they have previously done work in Vermont. The result of their work with the oversight committee is Challenges for Change. This document is available on the legislative web page and I highly recommend you check it out.
The way to change how government services are delivered is not by having some high paid folks from “away” come in and give you ideas. It is best achieved by having the executive and legislative branches working together to achieve common goals. What Public Strategies has done is facilitate these communications. The outcome is a series of “challenges”. Let me give you an example.
A challenge is to get better outcomes from contractors and grantees at a 3.5% lower cost in FY11 and 10% less cost to the state in FY12. The state of Vermont has a total of $200 million in contracts every year. Most of these contracts and grants pay for hours or other units of effort, not for results. It’s time to make a change to performance-based contracts. In other states, these changes have led not only to significant dollar savings, but better services.
This effort is all about looking at government services in a different way. It’s about setting the outcomes that we want, allocating the money and evaluating the results. Now I know that sounds simple, but mostly government doesn’t work that way. This type of reform can lead to a much more transparent form of budgeting. It will allow the folks who are working in an area to know exactly what the outcomes are that are expected of their programs. They know they will be measured on the outcomes. We all will know what is working and what isn’t working.
I find this entire idea really exciting and am looking forward to working with folks over the session to further develop the idea of developing more challenges for each agency.
The best way to reach me is to give me a call at home and leave a message 888-5591, or through my website, www.bartlettforgovernor.com
Here’s the link: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo…
The Economic Development section of the report calls for a data driven strategy, which is great (and overdue). The new strategy is supposed to be based on analysis that (in many cases) has not been done. So how is it possible to achieve the savings in year one (FY11) before the new strategy is developed and implemented?
In addition, it is not clear who will do the data collection and analysis. Ideally, it will be disinterested parties because otherwise it cannot be truly objective. That means it can’t be the Agency of Commerce, which has failed to do this for years and is biased to the status quo. And it shouldn’t be the Commission of the Future of Economic Development (CFED) because it has failed to do so after three years and almost $300,000. Nor should it be the proposed Econ. Dev. Board because it will be dominated by traditional business interests (who are not known for cutting edge thinking and who are not objective).
And note that the CFED proposal for a new board includes two new paid positions at the same time existing state jobs are being slashed.
It is noteworthy that weeks after the Challenges for Change report was released, the Governor asked to raise the annual VEPC / VEGI cap by $15 million. This assumes the tax “incentive” program is cost-effective. But where is the objective analysis to prove it?
I fear that this process (at least in Economic Development) is just a cover for maintaining the existing strategies but cutting the budget and assuming we will get better results for less.
The proof will be evident very soon. If the Leg. agrees to appropriate money for the same old programs without any meaningful effort to evaluate their efficacy OR to consider new alternatives, the Challenges for Change will be exposed as nothing more than cover for more program cuts. This is not leadership.
When will the legislature find the courage to ask hard questions and consider changing course? We’ve had a quarter century of Trickle Down. We can do better.
If you give it to them, it will pass.
Huh? I know Bartlett is going for the good ol’ Vermonter thing, but come on. I generally despise when people nitpick for minute grammar for mistakes that, but that sentence is incoherent. Im not asking much, and I actually think Bartlett’s “real Vermonter” schtick is kind of appealing, but you have to be able to communicate better than that to garner my confidence. Hope for better next time Sen. Bartlett.
from candidate Susan Bartlett to an update I just posted to my diary, “A Carefully Crafted Emergency.” It concerns Susan Bartlett’s position on that issue.