Change is Difficult until it Comes. The article points out that Allegheny's reform barely passed -- although almost all support the reform today. It seems to me that effective reform will require stakeholders to internalize what the populace is saying and realize meaningful change at the Cuyahoga County department level. Perhaps we should be even better positioned for effective change since the voters in every single municipality in the County supported Issue 6. That's quite amazing. I hope we have the option of choosing elected leadership, particularly at the County Executive position, that has limited vested interest in the status quo and the current County department structures. I go back to Niccolo Maciavelli's observation about inertia:It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. The hesitation of the latter arises... in part from the general skepticism of mankind which does not really believe in an innovation until experience proves its value.
Leadership. The article observed that Issue 6 is not automatically going to be good. A poor and inefficient system can be overcome by effective leadership. A good, more efficient system can fail with poor leadership. Importantly, Allegheny County looked to a business leader as its first county executive. It would not be impossible for someone from current County and state government, unstained by all the recent corruption scandal, to effectively manage meaningful reform. It is just much more likely that an effective and well known independent or Democratic non-career politician, proven in the for-profit or non-profit sector, would be capable of pursuing reform with the objective focus necessary at this important point. (I doubt a Republican could win in Cuyahoga County notwithstanding the Voinovich years.) This initial County Executive, if successful, should be a transformational leader -- driving others, including elected council officials and other key stakeholders, to join in tough decisions unpopular with many in the current system. The right person, in my view, will more likely than not be a transitional leader, as well. More below.
Reorganization. The article also observed that Allegheny County reform in 2000 and 2005 resulted in significant services reorganization -- Allegheny purged hundreds of county jobs.
Morton Coleman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh's Institute of Politics: "The first test of your county executive will be this: Does he or she clean the place up?" Terminations and attrition in Allegheny County pared hundreds of jobs from the county payroll in the first few years, and 600 more after voters approved a 2005 charter amendment that abolished several other elected countywide offices.
Getting rid of jobs is not the point -- the point is leading government to do what it does better, more efficiently, with less redundancy and with greater technical proficiency at all levels. If it is done well, then there will be even greater credence to rationalizing certain municipal and county services over time -- a critical evolutionary step for Cuyahoga County, Cleveland and the County's many municipalities. That change will never come quickly, but will never come at all if reformed County government is not demonstrably better at performing functions and delivering services than municipalities. We have never seen a structure shake-up in Cuyahoga County government of this magnitude and any organization that is not periodically reinvented gathers people, processes and even whole organizational sub-structures that are inefficient, unproductive and redundant. I cannot imagine there is not tremendous opportunity for the right leadership. Alleghny and for-profit experience suggests that forced change in leadership can result in significant operating improvements. But if we do not see significant reorganization, re-combination and rationalization of at the department levels during the first term of a County Executive, we should not expect to see meaningful government reform.
Accountability of the Executive. The article pointed out that a county executive system does not mean that the County Executive will be inherently more honest or even more effective than commissioners. But it does mean that one person will be the focal point of success, failure as well as friction with unaligned stakeholders and those simply resistant to any change. Therefore, it will be important that other leaders, the media and the citizens hold the executive accountable for effective reform. People within established systems are hugely resistant to change. Transformative leaders, therefore, take many arrows. If the County Executive is successful in driving stakeholders to reform how government services are delivered with relentless purpose, that person may find, like Allegheny County's first Executive, that he or she is not re-elected -- even as he or she achieves meaningful reform that benefits County government and citizens. I would hope the leader that emerges takes the risk to be transformative. Successful reform may offer that person only cold irony, marking them as a one-term transitional leader. This is all the more reason that a career politician may be the wrong choice at this juncture.
Stakeholder Engagement. The article points out that after the Allegheny County adopted its charter, a group of 500 people came together as a transition team. The article noted that they examined "every department," broke the government into "distinct functions" and came up with 800 recommendations for "procedures, rules, cuts and consolidations." The new County leadership must have a large, diverse band of critical stakeholders from all sectors who have a vested interest in the process and in reaching reform through an objective and analytical process. The successful County Executive will need to bring a group of stakeholders together with a clear charge to make recommendations that are objective, based upon best practices (learning from efforts in other Counties, including Allegheny) and whose implementation is measurable. This is the clearest path to meaningful transformation. Such analysis and recommendations should look at functions of government (not wedded to current department structure). In addition, nothing should off the table. See, in contrast, the recent report Cleveland initiated which, surprisingly, appears to have removed from the table any loss of positions. Of course, a large diverse group is a significant risk if the County Executive and council is incapable of managing the process to reach actionable recommendations. My curiosity is piqued that Allegheny County could pull off an effort involving 500 people. But the point is this: elected leaders should be getting stakeholders involved in the process, drive the process relentlessly on function and not form with great attention to detail, and get those stakeholders vested in the success of the venture. The Issue 5/Issue 6 schism may be yet another reason to look toward emerging political leadership coming from the private for-profit or non-profit sectors (rather than career politicians) for the first County Executive.
Evolution. The article points out that the current structural reform here, if like Allegheny County's journey, will likely be just a beginning. Allegheny County, despite its reforms in 2000 and 2005, remains one of the top most fragmented counties with 130 municipalities. Although the article does not cite it, here's a 2004 Brookings report on Allegheny County's continuing challenges due to its diffuse local political structures. Cuyahoga is only a little better, having 59 separate municipalities. The article also recognizes that even many of the staunchest detractors of the reform efforts of 2000 and 2005 in Allegheny County grudgingly observe it has lead to positive change for their county. Virtually no one wants to go back -- but the effort just barely passed in 2000! My Observation: All organizations need to continue to reinvent themselves. This must include local and regional governments. Issue 6 is only a beginning of Cuyahoga County's journey. There have to be significant opportunities over time to provide government services more effectively, more efficiently, with better scale in such a diffuse and fragmented County system. Frankly, I question if anyone in the current political leadership in Cuyahoga County has managed a significant organizational restructure. This may be yet another reason to look toward proven leaders in the for-profit and non-profit business sectors to emerge for the first County Executive. Query if any of the other candidates have this experience in a large organization.
I support re-thinking county and regional governance. I hope that it is done thoughtfully and critically. I plan to carefully consider the emerging candidates for the County Executive and council positions. I would absolutely love to hear views about who would make a good first County Executive and why as I inform myself before the coming election.
Pittsburgh's Allegheny County offers Cuyahoga some lessons in reform | Metro - cleveland.com - cleveland.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment