In recent years local government administrators have experienced plenty of stress. They've been dealing with rapidly diminishing revenues, expansive and expensive workforces, vocal organized labor, elected officials and the mandate to deliver essential services while cutting taxes.
But, before the stress, they had a pretty nice run. Let's face it, from the late nineties until about 2005 they had exponentially increasing tax revenue or as we say in Miami - "coño como tenÃan dinero". With plenty of cash in their general fund, they did what most government administrators do. They increased government by expanding services.
Fair enough. Everyone wants a robust portfolio of services. However, some public administrators got into the strange practice of spending your money by trying to match the private sector. The phrase "being more like the private sector" entered the vernacular but these good natured folks misinterpreted what it meant. They missed the point.
To start, "being more like the private sector" doesn't mean mimicking services that the private sector offers at a higher price, including pensions, merit pay, civil service rights, Department Directors, Assistant Department Directors, and Assistants to the Assistant Department Directors. No, that's not it. It means offering a good service efficiently and at a value to the customer, the individual paying for it, or in this case, the taxpayer.
For example, many administrators implemented services like 3-1-1 call centers. For those of you who don't know, 3-1-1 is the easy-to-remember access to non-emergency municipal services or a Citizen Information Center. Basically, it's a customer service hotline and a good thing. It provides a fast, simple and convenient way for residents to get information from their local government. Residents get one-on-one personal customer service in various languages by dialing one easy-to-remember number.
Well, unfortunately, some administrators implemented this service by building facilities, leasing or purchasing expensive call center equipment, entering into long-term maintenance contracts and hiring a lot of call center staff to take your calls at all hours at the night.
The same service could have been offered more efficiently and at a value by outsourcing it. I'm not saying to outsource the call center to India, the Philippines or Transylvania for that matter. But, if an administrator is smart, they would have a private company offer the same 3-1-1 service with the stipulation that they must be located in the community they serve and only employ residents of that community as the call center's staff and administrators. This provides better value, creates jobs and keeps the dollars in the local economy.
Local governments can also look at outsourcing some of the more traditional government functions. For example, the public school system's primary mission is to educate our students and take care of our teachers. If that is their goal, why should they expend resources trying to run a business transporting students? Wouldn't it be better for our teachers and kids if student transportation were outsourced to a national company that could leverage the significant economies of scale, global resources, capital investment, and expertise in safety and systems for transportation solutions? I think so. They too could be mandated to only hire local drivers and maintenance workers. By doing so, our public school systems would be able to invest more money in our teachers and students, which is what the families depend on them for.
Now, before I go too far, there are some core services that government should clearly not outsource. Public safety is number one. We need our cops on the street, in uniform, and ready to do the job whatever it takes. The last thing we need is a private corporation taking over a police department. That type of outsourcing could open the doors to some kind of future dystopian nightmare. Scary! But there needs to be a dialogue on other services as well.
If done right, outsourcing provides the best of both worlds: a robust portfolio of services offered to the taxpayer at a price they can tolerate and, more importantly, afford.
If the Public has a complaint mail in the complaint or come to a Government Meeting they have them every month. Only emergency calls should be accepted.
This system worked well for 100's of years !
http://www.khanacademy.org/
The Kids can learn everything they need there and the Parents can stay home with them.
Let the money paid for ALL School activities go to the Parents. In this way the Parents will also grow and learn along with their kids. Leaders need to also be instructors, mentors, and authority figures.
Imagine Parents being paid $14,000 to $16,000 a year to stay home and teach their kids. That is a JOB !
If they want Sports let them join a Boys and Girls Club . Pay to play and no more $200,000 Score Boards billed to the Public .
There seem to be studies done on everything silly thing imaginable, I find it inconseivable that there are no studies that have been done on outsourcing of government Services.
(Quote) Rep. Keith Downey of Minnesota: "I have an overall saying: If it's in the yellow pages, why is state government performing it?"
He raises an interesting question.
(Quote) Sen. Barb Goodwin of Minnesota: "For example, if you go into a budget meeting now and get a budget book, you'll know exactly how many employees are in that agency, but you won't know how much is in contracts. We've increased four-fold what we're privatizing out in the last 20 years, and yet we don't know how much each agency has in contracting. We don't know how many contractors they have on. We don't know how many of these dollars are going out of state. So, we really lack a lot of good information."
An example of how much government employees care about how taxpayers money is spent? Talk about government employee efficiency! Is this example in Minnesota only or is it widespread?
Just as most businesses call in independent efficiency experts to help improve their products and services, government agencies should undergo the same style of independent anaylis.
When you think I'm not being fair,
you'll have to settle for my being honest.
For example: Outsourcing the 311 service means that local experts will no longer be available to answer questions, you loose the benefit of years of civil service experience. Instead you have a bunch of people with scripts and no clue trying to provide information that people need. Consolidate, yes, outsource, definitely not.
As for school buses, I want people who are accountable locally transporting the things that are most precious for me. I don't want to have to worry about some company cutting corners on things like safety in order to make a buck and improve the bottom line. I'm sure there are private companies with excellent records, but there is always a profit motive. Depending on the size of the community, it's better to have a consolidated well run public solution for school transport.
As an attorney, I'm sure you have no problem affording the services your private schools and gated community provides. I can see why you might complain about paying taxes for services you choose not to use, but it's your choice. Most people don't have that choice.
I'm sorry, I don't buy a single one of your arguments.
Of course, if you're talking about outsourcing to a company in the US, fine. It might help that local economy, but if you think like a corporation, you'll see that third world country services are less expensive.
And that's (part of) why the US is sinking.
And that's sad.
Much cheaper.
I'm sure when you call you expect gold star service, but are unwilling to pay the people to provide that service to you.
That is much less likely to happen if contracts come up for renewal on a regular basis.
Doesn't it strike anybody as counter-intuitive, possibly even counter-factual, that services provided by government at no profit to itself can suddenly be provided by a private supplier who must make profit to survive, for less?
Isn't behind such a notion another belief: that union labor costs will always be larger than non-union labor working for a private company? But since to the labor costs there it is necessary to add in profit to shareholders and executive compensation, isn't it just possible there's no savings at all?
And isn't there invariably less oversight, more room fro cronyism and kickback and favoritism in a privatization scheme?
Otherwise, isn't this an essay putting forward a belief, not facts?
This is the reason that it isn't counter-intuitive: the government would pay someone more to answer a phone than a private company would. The government would pay someone more to drive a bus than a private company would. The government would also pay mechanics more to work on the bus than a private company would. The government would offer benefits that private companies likely would not. That there is money to be saved there is a very strong argument.
The point against it is that these would not be very high quality jobs. These wouldn't be the sort of thing that one wants to make a career of. The counterpoint to that is perhaps these jobs should never have been seen as something to make career-worthy in the first place, or that the time where they were careers is long past. Administration is one thing, sitting at a phone bank is another. If the government opened up a state grocery shore, bag boy would be considered a good job too.