|
|
From Governing’s Montana
Montana has some burning issues that aren’t so serious in other states. Forest fires, for example. The state’s managers know that if they can control a wildfire before it has consumed 10 acres, they can reasonably control the cost. The good news is that Montana accomplishes this feat in about 95 percent of fires. The bad news is that the other 5 percent make up about 80 percent of the state’s forest fire costs. Four years ago, the bill came in at close to $70 million. Fortuitously, the Federal Relief Tax Act windfall paid about half the expenses. That doesn’t happen most years. 
Given the seriousness of the problem, Montana has every reason to take a long-term approach to fires, either making plans for dealing with them more effectively or setting aside some cash for the times it fails. The Legislative Auditor’s Office has been raising this issue for years, suggesting a severity fund to address abnormal wildfire seasons and a proactive wildfire strategy that can more effectively keep fires within that magic 10-acre realm. Up to now, the legislature has ignored both options, preferring to rely on a process that could jokingly be referred to as “management by prayer.” But it’s no joke: That’s the way Montana handles of lot of its important decisions. It tries to deal with today and hopes for the best tomorrow.
Not only does the state not have a contingency fund for forest fires, it has no fiscal rainy day fund at all. “Budgeting is political and in your face,” explains one external source close to the legislature. “No one is looking beyond the two-year biennium.” Another state official concurs: “It’s a part-time legislature that meets four months every two years. They are overwhelmed, and as soon as they get the picture, they are termed out.” (Members of the House and Senate are all limited to eight consecutive years.) Administrative nearsightedness affects management of the state’s infrastructure as well. Although capital planning and project monitoring are for the most part done competently, and transportation and road maintenance dollars have been trending upward, there is a deferred- maintenance backlog for state-owned buildings of $181 million. Since Montana doesn’t own very many buildings, that’s a dramatic figure. As former budget director Chuck Swysgood admits, “you don’t get much done by throwing $2 million at it at a time.” Then there’s the state’s rather haphazard approach to workforce planning, which leaves it at great risk over the next decade. Some 31 percent of Montana’s employees have been identified as eligible for retirement. Over the next five years, that number approaches 68 percent. But as one executive branch source says, “many people in the agencies see the gap but just feel that it’s too big for them, and they are just going to try to ride it out.” Randy Morris, the director of human resources, says he’s hoping to persuade others to confront the future mainly by “identifying some success stories or a champion to have as an example to hold up.” Montana’s “Goals and Objectives” program is problematic as well. There is no statewide strategic plan; individual agencies are left to develop plans of their own. A few of them, mostly large agencies with federal ties, do practice comprehensive strategic planning and monitoring of results. But most agencies don’t. That’s not too surprising when one considers the level of interest from policy makers. After a few years of publishing a big book of all the agencies’ goals and objectives, Montana’s Office of Budget and Program Planning recognized that there was minimal interest. A few years ago, it published just three copies for the legislature. Two legislators took the trouble to get one. Note: This corrects the number of Democratic state House members from the version that appears in Governing.
Copyright © 2005, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc. |
 |
