Challenges for Change
“A crisis is too important a thing to waste,” Rahm Emanual once said, suggesting that such times allow us to consider options that might otherwise have gone unseen. Given the huge discrepancy between our financial demands and present resources, we definitely face a crisis and a more radical, more bold approach may well be required.
Typically, governments respond to a large budget deficit with a variation on three possible responses: raise revenues, cut expenses, sell assets, float bonds. In tough times, these solutions alone may seem too painful, unfair, or simply not enough. Is it possible then, that we could challenge some of these old solution assumptions? By bringing the legislature and the agencies together, could we redesign the way services are delivered and produce better outcomes with less cost?
Such was the mission of the bi-partisan “Challenges for Change” group which met this summer. Challenges for Change is a broad brushstroke agreement between the legislature and administration to address a $38 million dollar portion of the $150 million dollar deficit in the General Fund. Representative Joan Lenes reviewed the structure of this in her Shelburne News article last week.
There has been much push-back and grumbling about this in Montpelier. Legislators, non-profits, lobbyists and agency members don’t see how a thoughtful response can be made in such a short time. Others complain about the lack of specifics.
Using the Challenge design, the legislature is removed from providing specific detail and must refrain from micromanaging. All detail is left to the agencies who have the required experience and expertise. “Too often,” as Tom Evslin, our chief technical officer has said, “programs are passed by legislatures in Washington or Montpelier which specify minutely how to spend money but don’t define measurable outcomes all this spending is supposed to produce.”
With this in mind, the focus before my joint committee was regulatory reform. Rather than describing what or how reform will be accomplished, our task is to describe what the end product will look like by defining broad but measurable outcomes such as 1) the permitting process is clear, timely, coordinated and predictable 2) citizens and visitors understand and comply with the laws of the state which protect our natural resources.”
Outcomes with measurable indicators of success are due to Senate Appropriations January 27. The Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture will then have four weeks to develop a detailed plan to achieve the desired outcomes. The Speaker has requested that we have a bill on the governor’s desk by the end of February.
My own response to “Challenges” has been to quit the grumbling and encourage my colleagues to roll up our sleeves and give this an honest effort as requested by legislative and administrative leaders. The administration and legislature are working together, for goodness sake, so let’s not waste this opportunity too! I also believe that a focus on compliance rather than enforcement will allow the agencies to use more creative means to engender compliance. Making compliance easier, more understandable, providing feedback and rewards for those who comply may well reduce the cost of enforcement after the damage is done.
It is possible that the Challenges process might work well in certain areas, such as regulatory reform, but be less effective in addressing the challenges of education or human services. As this is all new, it might be that we struggle through with changes for 2011 and are more proficient in 2012. I do not believe we have harnessed what technology can provide in cutting costs and believe the agencies are hungry for the opportunity to update in this area.
Please join Joan Lenes and me at Open Arms Café Tuesday mornings in February from 7:30-8:30 and most Monday afternoons at Village Wine and Coffee at 4:30. Or contact me at KLWebb22@mac.com