Alternatives: Proposals For Local Governments Struggling With Limited Resources
Alternatives: Proposals For Local Governments Struggling With Limited Resources
In the fall of 1994, the Harry Singer Foundation invited a limited number, of mostly small-town schools, to take part in a pilot program. Students were required to find ways to stretch the resources of local government and make services more responsive to the desires of citizens. The Foundation hopes to gradually add larger communities, and offer categories for innovative state and national projects.
Volunteers at the Foundation narrowed the entries to 22. They were then edited and sent to the National Center for Financial Education in San Francisco, California, where they were reduced to five. These five were then forwarded to a consultant and former-public official in Minnesota who has been in the forefront of the reinventing government movement; the innovative mayors of Indianapolis and Houston, 12 governors, two former-governors and two members of the United States Congress. Many had the help of staff, but all read the proposals and expressed an interest in what these young people had to say.
The final entries are reproduced on the following pages, just as they were seen by the reviewers at the National Center for Financial Education in San Francisco. Across from each paper we reveal the school and participants, information that was kept from judges.
This project was a logical extension of our continuing Responsibility and White Hat programs. Over the years, through student submissions and other sources, we have collected stories of good-things going on around the country, in both the public and private sectors. These inspirational examples have been accessible to anyone with a computer and a modem since the fall of 1993.
Teacher
Students
Mark Stohl
Aaron J. Thoruilson
Heather Braten
Craig Kissinger
James H. Kaczmarek
Dusty Noel
Sabrina Skinner
Roni Graham
Jerome M. Herriges
Justin C. Trafton
David Vanisko
Vanessa E. Picard
Patricia I. Hertweck
Jess R. Harris
Brad Naegele
Denise M. Lamb
Angie Siefert
Autum L. Lang
Mary Del Rane Rolph
Ryan Bahnmiller
Ericka M. Alm
Ryen B. Aasheim
Shane D. Redems
Cathy Alm
Sidney Wilson
David Sedlock
Karen Merdinger
Angela Rigby
Combine Police and Fire Departments
In our modern society money has an important role whether in the life the individual or the society. In the best interest of the people, government provides its fundamental services: protection and an opportunity for a minimum standard of living. To maximize the efficiencies of theses services, financial resources have to be distributed and used wisely. However, the government sometimes loses the overview on the network of services and projects. Now the people can do something for the government. They are closest to the laws and live with the effects. Their ideas just might inspire reform and bring the government closer to the real desires of ordinary citizens. With that in mind, our senior class rose to the challenge issued by the Harry Singer Foundation.
The Activity
In the process of trying to find alternatives for funding government, our class had to find out what the community really wanted. Therefore we formed two polling groups to collect the views of community members. A portion of our class went door to door asking, "What services: 1. are needed, 2. should be cut if a tax levy failed, 3. should be protected at all costs, 4. should be added?" Most important of all, however, was the question, "Do you have any ideas how government could be changed to be more efficient?" About two hundred individuals responded in many different ways to our questions. A few wanted government to cut back on travel, paper work and to consolidate administrative services. Others wanted stricter regulations on welfare recipients, and an increase in recycling in order to keep landfills low.
A second group of students called elected officials, members of the media, academicians and public administrators to receive views from those in positions of power. After gathering the information we had to analyze it before using it effectively. Once the analysis of each question was finished every member of the class had to come up with a few alternatives to existing government programs that they found realistic and practical. In the end we generated too many to choose from wisely so we had a third group go through each alternative and find possible problems with each. Another group looked for the positive aspects of each alternative. After these were read aloud and debated we ended up with seven alternatives. The class chose to work on combining police and fire departments.
The Project
Why do we need two departments doing a job that one could do? Police always show up when firemen are called to fires and other emergency situations. Even though the reverse is not true, with special training, one person could be a fire-police officer. A certain number of hybrid vehicles would have to be purchased in order to handle both services, but major fire equipment could be kept in a garage until on duty fire-police officers were called on scanners. As it stands right now, our city has a very high police officer per capita ratio compared to the rest of the nation. With a combination police-fire system, we could keep the same number patrolling, but still have enough to leave their beats temporarily to assist officers of other patrol areas in fire fighting situations. If a patrol area was left under patrolled by a fire, dispatchers could temporarily reroute driving patterns or contact on-call officers at home through beepers.
In trying to find out more about combining our police and fire departments, we came up against a fair amount of resistance. After spending a vast amount of time trying to find answers to simple questions, we began to realize how much red tape was involved. When asked a simple question, the average person we dealt with would say, "Well, I think it's about Helena, but you'll have to ask so and so for an "official statement." Questioning became even more difficult when you realize that both departments have separate unions and different policies. A few people purposely gave us the run around when asked about merging. Why would someone want to help someone design a plan that could lose them their job?
Incentives and Disincentives
The plan does have negative aspects, or disincentives. First, people would lose jobs. Ten to twenty positions would be lost which means that ten to twenty families could possibly be collecting unemployment while looking for work. Historically, after large amounts of layoffs, morale in the workplace is not high. The transition period, however well planned, could not be completely smooth. This could interfere with efficiency of emergency services. Both jobs require certification; whether the person filling the new job was a police officer or fireman they would have to receive training. training takes eleven weeks and costs $1,145. New vehicles would also have to be purchased in order to have police-fire vehicles. It is highly unlikely that officer positions, management and unions could be combined without a fight.
The positive aspects outweigh the disincentives by a long shot. For a short period, of course, things would be more costly and confusing. In the end, however, the one department would run more economically and more efficiently than the two previously separate departments. Once laid-off workers quit collecting unemployment, ten to twenty less salaries could save taxpayers $200,000 to $600,000 a year. Buying new vehicles would at first cost more, but in the end there would be fewer cars needed for fewer officers when they have to be replaced. A new facility would have to be built in order to house both departments; however, both of the old departments could be sold to private individuals or organizations for business or other purposes. A single facility would also take less money to maintain. Conclusion
In conclusion, there would be a lot of barriers to overcome for our alternative to work. Lots of hard work and open mindedness would also be a big factor. It would be easier in a community that would be just starting out, or a smaller community. For any alternative to work, people have to give and take a little. Without compromise it will be impossible to change the government.
Our class feels that if everyone was willing to work together it might be possible to work something out between the two DepartmentsÑperhaps combining management positions which would minimize the loss of jobs and increase the efficiency of work. Overall we think that our proposal is a good idea with great potential. Back