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
Justin Smith
Students
Bill Cox
Miranda G. Schmidt
Piotr Stipa
Jim Clark
Jess Mortenson
Joe Adams
Jennifer K. Bennett
Nathan Johnson
Mandy C. Caretto
Jon Smith
Bryan D. Apple
Lisa B. Herman
Jeff Foster
Andrea L. Siroky
Sarah A. Gneckow
Rochel C. Russell
Colette Vonada
Dan C. Dobler
Dave Anderson
Terry J. Gould
Amy Evenson
Chad Brandon
Luke Forsythe
Jeremy A. Kendall
Erica Donovan
Jackie Leal
Sloganmobiles
We encounter conflicts of opinion in government every day. Many people are convinced that their opinion is the right one and all others are wrong. It is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of what will work best to benefit the people most. There are many members of the public that have thoughts and ideas to improve government. As a class, we researched and discussed many of these ideas.
The Activity
To begin our project the class conducted a door to door poll which netted approximately 200 responses. In answer to our first question seeking ideas on how government services could become more efficient, we heard over and over suggestions to consolidate and cut executive, administrative and managerial positions.
The next question asked about unneeded services. Many people thought welfare, executive, administrative and managerial positions and health care (Medicare and Medicaid) were all unneeded.
The third question asked about the services that should be cut if tax revenue decreased. The most popular responses were that cuts should be made in welfare and executive, administrative and managerial positions.
Question four asked what services should be protected at all cost. The response to this were police, fire and health care.
The last question asked what government services should be added. Most people thought no services should be added, although a few thought social programs and health care needed improvement.
The second poll we conducted involved public officials. We talked to the office of our U. S. Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Budget Director, Superintendent of our school district, our City Manager, City Commissioner and Mayor as well as the presidents of U.S. West, Norwest and Valley banks.
When asked what services should be cut if a tax levy failed, the most popular answers in terms of popularity were welfare and education with roads and athletics tying for third place.
Opinion as to how deep services were likely to be cut included answers like (a) depends on what is cut, (b) cut to the bare minimum, and (c) five percent budget cut.
To the third question: "What would the impact be on the community?", there were four frequent responses. Deterioration in education and negligible impact were the first and second most popular choices, while an increase in unemployment and a decrease in police protection tied for third.
The fourth question, "If taxes are not raised this year, what services can we expect to do without?" did not have clear cut popular choices. The most popular by one vote was programs for women and children. The tie for second included welfare, corrections, waste and no programs would be cut.
From these polls students came up with ideas which, for the purpose of the Singer Foundation essay, we will refer to as alternatives. We then discussed theses ideas in an attempt to discover advantages and disadvantages. We ended up with 89 alternatives which we narrowed, by vote, to seven and finally came up with the one alternative we thought would most benefit the people. Our final selection was the alternative to place local advertisements on all government vehicles.
The Project
According to our plan, advertisers would pay for their signs and the money raised from this would go to help pay for the vehicles. This, we determined, would raise $1,628,000 per month for the purchase and maintenance of state passenger vehicles. We have 1,628 state passenger vehicles in Helena and each would bring in $1,000/month from sign advertisements. If you include trucks and buses, our alternative would raise the total per month to $14,374,000. this figure to $72,488,000 per year which would go towards government vehicles. This idea could save taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. The savings could then be used to expand or implement beneficial programs. or even to decrease taxes.
Incentives and Disincentives
Of course their are incentives and disincentive to our plan. The incentives were no displacement of workers, new jobs, more revenue, reduction of large billboards around town and the opportunity for small-budget businesses to advertise. The disincentives are the signs might cause a distraction, they might attract more vandalism, and small businesses without any money to spend on advertising might be hurt. Also the signs would require more government control (regulating the wording used on the signs) and there might be a reluctance by state workers to drive "sloganmobiles." As for this last item, one member of our class actually polled state workers to find out what they thought of our proposed alternative. He reported that 36 of the 40 workers asked said they wouldn't mind driving vehicles with advertisements on them. If this is what the majority would answer, then this idea would go smoothly if it were to ever go before the legislature.
We uncovered another obstacle. There is a state law stating that no government vehicle will be used for personal reasons. There is a State Department of Transportation policy stating only flags, seals and bumper stickers are allowed on the vehicles. This is a contradiction because all of these items are a form of advertisement. They are not advertisements in the sense that they involve government, but they are advertising our government and opinions about our government.
Conclusion
Many people like things to stay the way they are. This is a great idea to raise some money in government. After hearing all the positive aspects of our alternative we're sure you will agree that this plan will save money and benefit the people of the community greatly. The government needs new ways to raise money without raising taxes. This is one of those ideas, and it is profitable idea. Back