|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
But while innovative in many ways, Mecklenburg also is saddled with responsibilities it lacks the power to discharge. Education, for example, takes up half of the county’s $1 billion annual budget each year, but county leaders have virtually no authority over how the schools are run — that’s the province of an independently elected school board.
For years, the county was unable to get good expenditure projections from the schools to feed into its own budget. And as outrage mounted over the deterioration of school buildings, finger-pointing became a local sport. The school board blamed the county for not funding maintenance of schools over the years, while the county simply said that the school board didn’t ask for those dollars. It was a situation “designed for conflict,” says Jerry Fox, the recently retired county manager.
There are other areas, as well, in which Mecklenburg’s ability to control its destiny is limited. The county jails are jammed, but it’s the Charlotte police that fill them up and the state of North Carolina that runs the courts and does the sentencing. “The county is caught in the middle,” says John McGillicuddy, executive assistant to the county manager. “Our responsibility is housing criminals. We have no control over inflow or outflow.” The county might want to raise some additional tax money to deal with its corrections problems, but it can’t really do that, either. The state of North Carolina blocks its ability to raise revenue except through the property tax — which the county board already increased a hefty 15 percent this year.
Mecklenburg deserves points, however, for seeking ways around its structural problems. To mitigate court crowding, it recently agreed to fund more personnel, even though that’s supposed to be the state’s job. Even more ambitiously, the county has decided to fund a pilot for a new court system. “You can argue all day long that the state should provide that,” says Jerry Pinkard, director of Information Services and Technology. “But whether it’s state or local money, it is a local problem.”
Positives: Balanced budget, with healthy general fund balance of 8 percent; fully funded pension system; excellent efforts to communicate financial information to citizens, including Internet “chat-room” discussions about budget; AAA bond rating; good financial reporting and financial controls, with budgetary flexibility; procurement card in use; much-improved flow of information from schools for financial projections.
Negatives: Escalating debt levels without clear limits set; little long-term investment or formal oversight of investment management; limited internal auditing; lax requirements for formal bidding on contracts; several kickback scandals in contract area; more procurement training needed.
Positives: Annual condition assessments and good preventive maintenance of governmental facilities; projects, once started, tend to stay on time and on budget; capital planning process includes good citizen involvement through Citizens Capital Budget Advisory Committee.
Negatives: Last capital needs assessment identified $3 billion in total county needs; schools a major problem, with rusting pipes and leaky roofs, although county beginning to address this; technology for asset and project management lacking; new courthouse project slow in getting started due to controversy over location; capital improvement plan goes out only three years.
Positives: Consistent HR policies and practices; great communication between management and employees; newly revamped compensation system with pay banding; approach to discipline non-punitive, with emphasis on mediation; innovative appraisal and recruitment; leadership and team-based training emphasized; five-year workforce plan in early stages of development.
Negatives: Limp HR technology, with reliance on manual processes, although new system in development; classification system frustrates some departments.
Positives: Good long-term strategic planning at central and departmental level; major long-term partnerships with external players, particularly in social services; active citizen participation and outreach; strong results-orientation in social services, health and environment, engineering and building standards; measurement clearly useful in guiding management and policy decisions; new planning and evaluation unit recently added in county manager’s office.
Negatives: Some areas, such as libraries and parks and recreation, lag in sophistication of measures; centralized technology is weak for data collection and management; quantity of performance material has been difficult for citizens to digest; measurements sometimes inconsistent, although new balanced-scorecard approach will help.
Positives: Financial information on good, integrated information systems; GIS has won multiple national awards; information sharing is strong; formal and consistent project implementation and management, with attention to cost-benefit analysis for IT investments; good training; unified Web site with city of Charlotte provides information and multiple transactions; many new systems in development, including improved criminal justice IT system and human services case-management information system.
Negatives: Poor technology in human resources; capital management technology lacking; old legacy mainframes used by state of North Carolina force county into redundant data entry.
|
 |
ecklenburg County has a tradition of a strong professional staff and a reputation for good intergovernmental relations. Its Web site is consolidated with that of Charlotte, the largest city in the county, and it offers a broad array of services that citizens can receive without even knowing which government is providing them. A number of city and county programs have been consolidated to avoid duplication.