Agenda - Council - 10/13/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

POPULAR WAYS TO REDUCE EXPENSES There are several ways to reduce local gov- ernment expenses: --An old favorite, and one which doesn't re- quire much analysis, is to just reduce every department's budget across the board. A variation on this is to exempt fire and police departments from the reductions to allay cit- izens' fears about less protection from crim- inals and fires. --Another old favorite is to impose a hiring freeze on all departments and force person- nel reduction through attrition. --The third old favorite is to order all depart- ment heads to devise reductions of pre- scribed dollar amounts and to come in with their plans to achieve those specified re- ductions, along with the implications of e;, e- curing the plans, such as what happens when certain services are reduced. --The fourth method is to select certain ser- vices currently performed for either reduc- tion or elimination. --The fifth obvious method is to engage in a textbook, long-term, productivity program, which seeks to reduce expenses without di- minishing services by encouraging employ- ees to work harder. PITFALLS ASSOCIATED WiTH THE POPULAR METHODS Unfortunately, all five of these approaches are loaded with pitfalls and fraught with the danger of creating more problems than they solve. Some of the pitfalls associated with each of these ap- proaches and reasons why none of these con- ventional approaches works very well are out- i;ned heX'i, as ,s the way that ' 1. Reduce Every Department's Budget Across The Board The principal argument against this idea is that it is plainly arbitrary although it is often based on a notion that cutting every department the same amount is a "fair" way to distribute cuts. What is perceived as "fair" to the departments may not be "fair" at all to the citizens they serve. Arbitrary cuts can result in unplanned and unnecessary reductions in service that might be avoided by a more reasoned search for opportunities for cost reduction. Further, if police and fire departments are exempted from these cuts, the impact on other departments is exacerbated. In fact, police and fire departments often provide the greatest opportunities for achieving efficiencies that will allow reductions in cost without reductions in protection or other services. 2. Impose A Hiring Freeze This is sometimes seen as a painless method of cost reduction, because no layoffs are in- volved. One hears of policies that say, "De- parting employees will not be replaced unless their jobs are essential." This method results in the local government allowing resigning or re- tiring employees to determine which jobs are to go vacant, rather than the leaders deciding, by careful analysis, which jobs are really not needed. If the job is not "essential" in the first place, why should it continue to be filled just be- cause the incumbent does not elect to resign or retire? 3. Have Department Heads Propose Methods For Reducing Their Budgets By A Specified Dollar Amount The real danger here is what some call the "Washington Monument Syndrome," referring to Park Service superintendents who close the Washington Monument to visitors at 3 p.m. daily, setting off a furor among disenchanted tourists who immediately lobby their congressmen to re- store the money to the parks budget. This tech- nique is usually a very effective way of pushing the cuts to other departments, a way which has not been lost among city and county department heads. Facea with a prescribed quota of cuts, they may immed:,ate!y announce intentions discontinue or curtail the most visible and politi- cally popuiar programs they operate. 4, Disconf, nu3 Or Cu,~;! Selected Services The problem here is that costs can almost al- ways be reduced without eliminating or curtailing services to citizens. This is an "easy" method, but it can shortchange taxpayers by failing to seek efficiencies that can get them more, not less, for their money.