|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
The government of Hillsborough is run by a seven-member commission. Elections are highly partisan, and for a long time the commission has essentially been split down the middle, with majority control tilting back and forth between Democrats and Republicans. Despite this, County Administrator Dan Kleman has managed to hold his job for seven years, providing refreshing stability for a county that used to run through administrators almost as often as it put new calendars up on the wall.
Kleman isn’t to be envied. The fragile political balance, with jockeying for power among commissioners, other elected officials and independent boards, makes for a management minefield. The annual struggle to whittle down the sheriff’s budget is as predictable as the Gulf tides, and the Planning Commission and the county administrator rarely seem to be in agreement on major issues.
Partially as a result, many management initiatives have withered on the vine. In 1998, the board of commissioners stopped the county administrator’s office from pursuing a major survey of citizen opinion — a significant disappointment to managers. More recently, the commission expressed its desire to embark on a program of managed competition for county contracts, encouraged departments to try it, then changed its mind, causing considerable confusion. In 2000, county officials were all set to launch a joint Web site with the city of Tampa, but that was squashed at the last minute by objections from the Hillsborough tax collector.
Despite the political obstacles and an unwieldy governmental structure, Kleman and his staff get high marks for professionalism. Citizens are well informed about county finances and policies. A set of three- to five-year goals guides budgeting decisions. Hillsborough also took the lead in joining forces with Florida’s other large urban counties to compare their performance-measurement systems and try to arrive at common ways of measuring results. The first comparative report was released last year.
Positives: Comprehensive financial policies; strong financial management training; five-year revenue/expenditure projections; solid structural balance; several tiers of reserves; biannual budget helps board focus on program costs; good communication to citizens, including nationally recognized taxpayer’s guide; strong investment management; online purchase orders; cooperative purchasing with other governments.
Negatives: Many complaints about central accounting system; weak IT inhibits cost-accounting and procurement; vendor information outdated; limited financial flexibility for managers.
Positives: State-of-the-art IT system for transportation; six-year, all-inclusive capital improvement plan, although in fast-growing county, transportation horizon could be longer; department projects ranked with formal criteria; close attention to operating impact of capital projects; good data on maintenance needs; implementing new project-management system.
Negatives: Coordination needed among county and regional planning organizations; better prioritization needed across departments; $1.7 billion estimate to bring county assets to good condition; inconsistent project management, though newly standardized approach will help.
Positives: Revitalized HR department trying to win departmental cooperation; centralized training office started; Civil Service Department has increased outreach for classified recruitment; flexibility for managers in hiring; performance pay; non-cash reward and recognition programs.
Negatives: Very little information about personnel due to weak IT capacity, although new system coming; personnel system separates civil service and HR offices; no central workforce planning; hiring delays; training resources meager; arduous process to terminate poor employees; no labor management partnerships or efforts at alternative dispute resolution.
Positives: Hillsborough led effort to compare performance in Florida’s large urban counties; better links coming between county commission goals and resource allocation; all departments have mission statements and objectives; many have strategic plans; six of 40 departments and agencies report progress on quarterly performance measures.
Negatives: Quality of measurements varies by department, although increased commission focus should drive improvements; no countywide strategic plan; departmental strategic plans vary in quality and format; commissioners halted citizen survey; efficiency measures weak; limited performance audits.
Positives: Transportation technology good; central IT department set up for commission-run agencies in mid-1990s, although multiple IT directors still work for independent elected officials, authorities and commissions; infrastructure supports transmission of data, including graphics; emphasis on computer-based training; regular update cycle for desktops; inroads on imaging; data sharing in law enforcement agencies.
Negatives: No CIO; technology poor in human resources and spotty in financial management and social services, although new systems in process; project proposals need more detailed cost-benefit analysis; IT strategic plan has short horizon; GIS should be better utilized; not all elected officials follow standards; limited transactions on Web; disaster recovery needs improvement.
|
 |
lthough it includes the metropolis of Tampa, Hillsborough can’t really be described as an urban county. It sprawls across more than 1,000 square miles of land, 87 percent of it unincorporated, and that 87 percent contains nearly two-thirds of the population. Because so much of Hillsborough is not incorporated, the county budget is huge, which is necessary to provide a large variety of municipal-style services as well as the traditional range of county functions.