|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Fortunately, they don’t screw up very often. But when they do, they have numbers on it. The county’s managing-for-results program, now in its third year, has been adopted by all departments, and county leaders expect them to use it as a tool to ensure regular improvement. The county council has improved its understanding of outcome data and the ways it can enhance agency performance. Meanwhile, the county has made good use of its many citizens with public service experience at the federal level. When they’re not busy with their day jobs, federal workers lend their expertise to numerous advisory committees and task forces.
Montgomery’s focus on improvement also includes a three-pronged auditing system: an Internal Auditor’s office, an Office of Legislative Oversight, and the Office of the Inspector General. The oversight office handles performance audits as well as information gathering for the County Council. The Inspector General’s position was created in 1998 to investigate waste, fraud and abuse. Inspector General Norman Butts says he hasn’t found much: “I don’t think there are any systemic problems,” he insists. “It’s a well-run government.”
It is, however, a government that’s seeing years of happy economic forecasts turn sour. Reliance on the income tax brought millions in surpluses during the late 1990s; the 2002 budget included a forecast of just 1.3 percent income tax revenue growth, down from 7 percent last year. County officials maintain that they’re prepared, and in their budget forecasts have separated their income tax revenue into employment — and capital gains-related monies. But this year’s total revenue reflects growth of only 3.5 percent over 2001, and the county faced a $20 million shortfall, which it closed using one-shot resources of carryover and cash previously designated for capital projects. The 2003 budget process will be even more of a challenge, with current spending up 7.6 percent and substantial wage increases for county employees.
Positives: Twenty-eight years of AAA bond ratings; good investment and debt policies; comfortable rainy day fund balance; six-year projections for operating and capital budgets; spending guidelines can be exceeded only by supermajority vote of council; good financial flexibility for managers; random audits of procurement activities; almost all procurement conducted online.
Negatives: Reports generated by computer system aren’t always timely; master contracts aren’t used extensively in procurement; small gap in FY2002 closed with one-timers; wage increases present more difficulties for 2003.
Positives: Good use of citizen advisory boards to guide capital project priorities and development; county executive and council usually agree on priorities; incentives encourage project completion on time and on budget; comprehensive inventory; new computer system has improved the capital-budgeting process.
Negatives: Tight construction market causing delays and cost overruns, particularly in school construction; substantial road maintenance backlog; no pavement management system; no centralized maintenance database, though information is reasonably good at department level; adherence to facility planning process varies among agencies.
Positives: Personnel managers included in high-level county decisions; Management Leadership Service offers pay for performance and has reorganized 113 managerial job classifications into three; strong alternative dispute resolution process has reduced grievances; very good communication with employees; great human resources Web site; expanded probationary period for new employees encourages mentoring.
Negatives: Workforce planning still in the very early stages; job advertising requirements can delay hiring; training opportunities underutilized.
Positives: Good focus on outcomes and service quality measures; department heads under pay for performance; extensive measurement and strategic planning training available to managers; three offices perform audits or performance reviews; use of community reviews for the Department of Health and Human Services; council has increased attention to performance; budget office beginning to validate data.
Negatives: Baseline data collection proceeding slowly; no countywide strategic plan; contracts need additional use of performance measures.
Positives: Interagency IT policy committee, including school officials, develops countywide IT plan; extensive project analysis and justification required; performance measures used to track projects after implementation; Health and Human Services uses integrated client systems; good use of Internet for citizen services; centralized PC replacement; long-standing disaster-recovery plan.
Negatives: Antiquated e-mail system lacks ability to attach files or link to Internet; no effective way of monitoring networks for outages; more integration needed to enhance reporting capabilities; some procurement standards need update and countywide expansion.
|
 |
ontgomery is not an easy place to be a county official. Most residents have no other local jurisdiction governing them, so the county is all they focus on. And they focus relentlessly. The voters here are well educated and politically sophisticated, with dozens of citizen groups checking up on everything from transportation to education. There is substantial coverage from the Washington Post and D.C. television stations, and the media make their ideas known. “You can’t hide here,” says Robert Kendal, the county’s budget director. “The world’s going to know about it if we screw up.”