Note to reorg committee: “Enough detail already”

As I reviewed the reports from Thursday night’s Reorganization Committee meeting I realized they are coaxing the devil out with details. The committee was charged with determining how a new city could be formed by reorganizing “old” Greenwood with the Center Grove area. But they’ve taken it to a point where they are projecting down to the level of a five dollar a month fee to study flood protection. Enough already! All they are doing is providing ammunition for those who may oppose the reorganization.

The problem seemed to begin when the effort stopped being called a “reorganization” and became a “merger.” A reorganization implies that you look at the totality of the organization, in this case city government, and try to find ways to improve its function, become more efficient, and serve more customers (residents). This is not how it is being approached at all. Rather, they are going to the current department heads and simply asking “how much would your department have to grow to serve another 42-thousand people?” What they are not asking is “How can we best provide this service to the residents of a reorganized city?”

In early June I wrote an article called One city, three communities. In it I suggested that if we could have two tax districts, we could have three. The resident of Center Grove did not need all the services of the current city of Greenwood. For example, Center Grove is already served by at least two private garbage collection firms. Why should Greenwood’s current contract be re-written and residents taxed for a service that is not needed? The same applies to snow removal, why not contract with private firms to provide the service when needed rather than expanding the fleet of city vehicles, a major capital expense.

I “formally” presented these ideas to the reorganization committee at the time I wrote the article. So far I have received no response. I have asked to be on the agenda for the next meeting so I can ask them what they have done with these ideas.

The details concerning the sewer and septic systems are are another example of too many details too soon. Yes, they need to assure that there capacity to serve the new area. But to determine how many homeowners have to agree to have sewers installed before all will be assessed for the cost is just too much detail. Likewise, specifying that those on failing septic systems must connect to city sewers, rather than fix the problem themselves is something that can be until well after everyone votes.

Finally, where have they looked for new ideas? Organizations such as the Reason Foundation have analyst who focus on efficient government. I have personally talked with one of these analyst and he was excited to share new ideas on efficient government. These are the resources that the committee should be reaching out to for new ideas and new approaches. While I strongly support the incorporation the Center Grove area, if it’s going to happen through reorganization I want it to meet the mission statement of the Reorganization Committee to create an “efficient” government. That’s the committee’s challenge, more importantly it’s their mission.

Since a little humor is always good, let’s hope the reorganization process works out better than this example of creating something new.

No related posts.