A Solutions-Oriented Administration
OK. Who replaced James Garner with a doppelganger?
Although his first year in office was filled with missteps, awkward and even embarrassing statements, and missed opportunities, the mayor has turned things around, as Dick Cheney would say, "Big Time."
No one ever said the mayor was dumb. But more than a few were heard to say he was already a lame duck just six months into his first term.
Funny how you don't hear that talk anymore.
Like him or not, you have to admit the mayor is governing with boldness and vision.
He has, to date, been responsive to pleas for a more aggressive codes enforcement regime. He's begun to root out the dead wood, particularly in the building inspection operation and has been unafraid to confront the problems facing the city.
Garner's Democratic Party allies forged a bond with the progressives and helped to bring new blood to that party's county operation.
He and his staff found a way to keep the city running despite a draconian budget hit from the state owing to previous mismanagement of the city's finances.
Garner's team, political and administrative, succeeded in securing the continuation of the Scribner Place redevelopment project in the face of fanatic opposition. In doing so, Garner gained new allies and admirers.
And now, today, the mayor made a dramatic and potentially risky move to get a handle on runaway financial disaster in city operations.
For several years now, the city's sanitation operations have required large subsidies from the city's quasi-independent sewer utility. While there's nothing particularly wrong with one city revenue stream helping to pay for the expenses of other city services, the losses had become too large to ignore.
One solution was to continue to operate at a loss while draining funds from the sewer operation.
Another would be to raise the monthly collection fee by about 50%.
How bad was the situation? The sanitation operation spent $900,000 more last year than it collected. With substandard equipment that the city is locked into being an exacerbating factor, the future looked bleak.
Raise rates, but continue to operate inefficiently? No, says James Garner.
In a press conference today, the mayor announced that the city's household garbage and refuse collections, including recycling, will now be contracted out to a private firm.
Once the contract is executed, the losses come to a screeching halt. Debilitating lease payments for defective trucks come to a screeching halt. The new contract promises a rapid response without raising collection rates by even one dime. Where once the Sewer Board was handcuffed by the demand to subsidize sanitation operations, they now can begin to address serious infrastructure weaknesses and rehabilitate the sewer fund reserves.
Residents are expected to see only positive changes. The mayor believes that a private firm that lives and dies on its ability to keep the city and its residents happy will improve services. He believes that a firm whose sole focus is on waste collection can operate this essential city service with greater efficiency.
Our rates stay the same. For now, our collection bins will remain the same. The city immediately stops hemorrhaging nearly $1 million a year.
Necessarily, this is going to be a jolt to the city's sanitation workers. A significant number will be transferred to the city's streets department where they will take on the task of cleaning up the city's alleys, streets, and one hopes (someday) its blighted properties.
The remainder of those workers will be offered employment with the city's contractor. So long as they can pass the pre-employment qualification screening, every current worker will have a job.
This is not the James Garner of one year ago.
He's applying his business acumen to solving the city's problems. He's unafraid to spend his political capital. And he's offering a progressive vision for New Albany's future.
What's the most remarkable thing about today's announcement?
Think about it. For politicians of the past, jobs meant power. The patronage privilege, particularly in New Albany, has always been the key to a mayor's power.
But this mayor is surrendering city jobs. Rather than being power-hungry, he is, arguably, surrendering power in a manner that seems to be an unalloyed benefit to the city.
Politically, it's a risky move, but one we think is worth it. A year ago, few would have expected Garner to take any political risks. His election day popularity began to wane about one hour after his inauguration, if not sooner. Some local reporters were making Garner, and by extension, New Albany, their whipping boy. Even loyal Democrats were questioning Garner's ability to govern.
It ought to be interesting to see how the city's sanitation workers react. By all accounts, they were strong supporters of Garner in the last election. CM Donnie Blevins, a city worker and a member of council elected in the city at large, is a senior employee in what will now be a department in name only.
If things work out the way the mayor expects, most of the ill will generated by his announcement will come from just this one nervous late-July weekend. By next week, when all the facts are laid on the table, perhaps the city's sanitation workers and their other city worker colleagues will see this as it really is.
For if the city manages its money wisely, and this seems to be the case here, those who stay on the city's payroll should have enhanced job security and greater resources available to do their jobs.
On a personal note: My knee-jerk reaction when I hear about governments contracting out essential services is that it is almost always a bad thing. I'm suspicious that a service that need not earn a profit is being turned over to a private entity that must earn a profit. I worry that a private firm, unconcerned with being re-elected, will be less responsive to citizen concerns. In short, I hate privatization.
But on reflection, I'm persuaded that this is not "privatization." The city is not going out of the sanitation business. It is contracting out a service that it has proven it is unable to run on a cost-effective basis. The city will retain the power to transfer or revoke the private contract. For all we know, the city may reclaim direct control of this city service somewhere down the road.
For now, the power of the city checkbook and the potential competition for future contracts will ensure that the private firm providing this service will be accountable to the city. And I'm convinced the city will demand a top-flight performance.
Although his first year in office was filled with missteps, awkward and even embarrassing statements, and missed opportunities, the mayor has turned things around, as Dick Cheney would say, "Big Time."
No one ever said the mayor was dumb. But more than a few were heard to say he was already a lame duck just six months into his first term.
Funny how you don't hear that talk anymore.
Like him or not, you have to admit the mayor is governing with boldness and vision.
He has, to date, been responsive to pleas for a more aggressive codes enforcement regime. He's begun to root out the dead wood, particularly in the building inspection operation and has been unafraid to confront the problems facing the city.
Garner's Democratic Party allies forged a bond with the progressives and helped to bring new blood to that party's county operation.
He and his staff found a way to keep the city running despite a draconian budget hit from the state owing to previous mismanagement of the city's finances.
Garner's team, political and administrative, succeeded in securing the continuation of the Scribner Place redevelopment project in the face of fanatic opposition. In doing so, Garner gained new allies and admirers.
And now, today, the mayor made a dramatic and potentially risky move to get a handle on runaway financial disaster in city operations.
For several years now, the city's sanitation operations have required large subsidies from the city's quasi-independent sewer utility. While there's nothing particularly wrong with one city revenue stream helping to pay for the expenses of other city services, the losses had become too large to ignore.
One solution was to continue to operate at a loss while draining funds from the sewer operation.
Another would be to raise the monthly collection fee by about 50%.
How bad was the situation? The sanitation operation spent $900,000 more last year than it collected. With substandard equipment that the city is locked into being an exacerbating factor, the future looked bleak.
Raise rates, but continue to operate inefficiently? No, says James Garner.
In a press conference today, the mayor announced that the city's household garbage and refuse collections, including recycling, will now be contracted out to a private firm.
Once the contract is executed, the losses come to a screeching halt. Debilitating lease payments for defective trucks come to a screeching halt. The new contract promises a rapid response without raising collection rates by even one dime. Where once the Sewer Board was handcuffed by the demand to subsidize sanitation operations, they now can begin to address serious infrastructure weaknesses and rehabilitate the sewer fund reserves.
Residents are expected to see only positive changes. The mayor believes that a private firm that lives and dies on its ability to keep the city and its residents happy will improve services. He believes that a firm whose sole focus is on waste collection can operate this essential city service with greater efficiency.
Our rates stay the same. For now, our collection bins will remain the same. The city immediately stops hemorrhaging nearly $1 million a year.
Necessarily, this is going to be a jolt to the city's sanitation workers. A significant number will be transferred to the city's streets department where they will take on the task of cleaning up the city's alleys, streets, and one hopes (someday) its blighted properties.
The remainder of those workers will be offered employment with the city's contractor. So long as they can pass the pre-employment qualification screening, every current worker will have a job.
This is not the James Garner of one year ago.
He's applying his business acumen to solving the city's problems. He's unafraid to spend his political capital. And he's offering a progressive vision for New Albany's future.
What's the most remarkable thing about today's announcement?
Think about it. For politicians of the past, jobs meant power. The patronage privilege, particularly in New Albany, has always been the key to a mayor's power.
But this mayor is surrendering city jobs. Rather than being power-hungry, he is, arguably, surrendering power in a manner that seems to be an unalloyed benefit to the city.
Politically, it's a risky move, but one we think is worth it. A year ago, few would have expected Garner to take any political risks. His election day popularity began to wane about one hour after his inauguration, if not sooner. Some local reporters were making Garner, and by extension, New Albany, their whipping boy. Even loyal Democrats were questioning Garner's ability to govern.
It ought to be interesting to see how the city's sanitation workers react. By all accounts, they were strong supporters of Garner in the last election. CM Donnie Blevins, a city worker and a member of council elected in the city at large, is a senior employee in what will now be a department in name only.
If things work out the way the mayor expects, most of the ill will generated by his announcement will come from just this one nervous late-July weekend. By next week, when all the facts are laid on the table, perhaps the city's sanitation workers and their other city worker colleagues will see this as it really is.
For if the city manages its money wisely, and this seems to be the case here, those who stay on the city's payroll should have enhanced job security and greater resources available to do their jobs.
On a personal note: My knee-jerk reaction when I hear about governments contracting out essential services is that it is almost always a bad thing. I'm suspicious that a service that need not earn a profit is being turned over to a private entity that must earn a profit. I worry that a private firm, unconcerned with being re-elected, will be less responsive to citizen concerns. In short, I hate privatization.
But on reflection, I'm persuaded that this is not "privatization." The city is not going out of the sanitation business. It is contracting out a service that it has proven it is unable to run on a cost-effective basis. The city will retain the power to transfer or revoke the private contract. For all we know, the city may reclaim direct control of this city service somewhere down the road.
For now, the power of the city checkbook and the potential competition for future contracts will ensure that the private firm providing this service will be accountable to the city. And I'm convinced the city will demand a top-flight performance.
posted by All4Word at 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home