The downsizing effort appears to be about or should be about the right size of democratic government. The reasons behind it seem to be it “saves money” “eliminates waste” and “increases efficiency.” The problem is whether these are meaningful and compelling reasons and measures. However, when "efficiency" is the determining motivation of all these reasons-- and it is-- we need to find out what we are really talking about and whether "efficiency" is relevant and meaningful at all.
The only compelling claim that came out of the June 16th meeting of the Niagara Conty Legislature was Leg. Kimble’s observation that the “numbers” being thrown around were at best “arbitrary.” Why arbitrary? Because no convincing reasons were given that cost, waste and inefficiency could be reduced appreciably.
Nevertheless, some continue to make equally arbitrary claims that government is “too big” – “bloated”— “wasteful”—“redundant”—“over-represented”—“fraudulent”. But has anyone even asked yet and demonstrated why they think the NCL is too big and inefficient in the first place? If not, then why are we doing this? What’s the unfounded urgency all about?
Downsizing even gets construed as progress. Niagara County Legislative Chairman Ross in the Tonawanda News said “It’s the principle…. It sets the example and you move from there. … With this ‘going around’ and being visible you’ll likely get a
Legislator Updegrove said in the same interview, “I think it is something we should explore and consider.” But then says, “At this point in time we need to determine how we should implement a reduction.” So I find it somewhat suspicious that Mr. Updegrove mentioned exploring the issue and then immediately starts talking about how to do it. He wanted to start the process of how to do it before we explored the issue. Didn’t he really have his mind made up before any inquiry took place. It seems Mr. Ross and Mr. Updegrove ought to tell us exactly what the principle is and why this is, of all things, progress. And, exactly, what example we are setting and why?
Mr. Updegrove seemed on the right track when he said “The question is what level of representation is optimum?” But then he inexplicably says “We are committed to reducing the size of government in
Mr. Updegrove also claimed the people have “made it clear” that they want downsizing. He nor Legislator Ceretto, who made the same vague claim, made it clear why the people believe this. Without some explanation, justification or argument, there’s no clarity at all.
The Lockport Union Sun Journal concluded that “it[downsizing] makes business sense and tax sense.” If we get past the confused idea that government should be run like a business, we see that it’s not about selling a product nor making profit. Think of it as a business and it will eventually be exploited for nothing but business as we see happening in the Federal Government today. It’s about speaking for the common good. And it doesn’t make sense as business sense nor tax sense.
But still the tax issue seems to carry the day. Yet considering how much money is alloted for managers, lawyers, “public information officers,” etc. to hack away at representation for the sake of several thousand dollars of tax money is penny wise and pound foolish. This can’t be sufficient reason. If it is we’ve vastly over-privileged the value of money in measuring the worth of optimal democracy. If it is the predominant reason, then a few thousand dollar pay cut for each of you could preserve the 4 positions proposed for cutting.
Consolidating services for efficiency is not the same as downsizing or consolidating government for effectiveness. It’s apples and oranges. The kind of “efficiency” achieved in consolidation is not the kind of ‘efficiency’ it might be reasonable to talk about in government. Legislator Wojtaszek’s suggesting that consolidating the county workforce implies the same can and should be done in government manipulatively mixes apples and oranges.
Efficiency is a matter of how things are done, not just how many are doing it. How is it that fewer Legislators deal more effectively with complex issues?
The idea of efficiency mystifies what effectiveness really is in government. Efficiency as a scientific value and standard made some sense in the Progressive Era, through the Scientific Management Movement, Taylorism and Fordism. But when the efficiency model of mechanized labor, standardization and mass production overseen by specialists, experts and managers is applied to government you forget that government isn’t an industry any more than a business. Such technical science applied to government is like trying to make a screwdriver work like a hammer.
Government is more like a craft or art than a matter of mass production. The error is that in industry a product is ready at hand for assembly. The problem is to streamline the process. But in government you don’t know what the final product—the legislation is. It’s a creative process. How do you streamline that? Efficiency applied applied as a measure of government is ill-conceived if not cultish.
We could end up with our own version of three men in a room if we don’t have it already. An oligarchy of those who’ve got the money can, with fewer seats to be sought in government, spend more of that money on fewer campaigns making it even more difficult for the average person to ever consider running for office. Moreover, if you really want uncomplicated efficiency, then dictatorship is the way to go.
Without further study, even beliefs about the value of consolidation may well be spurious. For example UB did a study recently demonstrating that school consolidation which has been happening exponentially over the decades, does not save money except in a very few very small districts and is otherwise not worth other human costs. What seemed even to me like an excess of overpaid administrators turns out, according to the study, to be a virtually negligible part of expenditures.
Mr. Updegrove said at the June 16th meeting that he was “not in theory against [9. And I’d love to hear what that theory is that might settle on 9 but prefers 15. It seems as if the real reasons or motives are simply not coming forth.
Also, Mr. Wojtaszek pointed to the large number of districts in the state. That may be a problem but it has nothing to do with deciding on the optimum size of our Legislature. Nothing. It may have to do with re-districting but not necessarily therefore with the size of our Legislature.
A government too big really only means one that sticks its nose into the privacy and freedom of the peoples lives. Even a government of two people is too big when it tries to do that. Mr. Wojtaszek’s adage that the government that governs least, governs best means it should stick to its charge. It doesn’t mean you should downsize to save tax money.
If efficiency is a measure of anything it’s a measure of how well the community works in harmony with itself not how “big” the Legislature is in number. An “efficient” Legislature has to be effective. An effective one doesn’t have to be efficient. Efficiency without effectiveness is dangerous.
So we should be spending this time talking about Legislative effectivity and not the magical number of Legislators that achieves efficiency. If you want efficiency unplug the D and R parties in NC and NYS. Politicians of all parties should state thinking in terms of a local party defending local interest, a community party, a regional party.
Downsizing’s danger is not just that it plays politics in the system but plays politics with the system. It may make the people feel like they’ve won the war, but in fact this would be a minor victory with possibly major consequences.
Efficiency means timely and proper problem solving, decision-making and innovation. It’s never a matter of simply how fast we can get things done. But reducing the size doesn’t even necessarily guarantee speed. What does speed things up and even guarantee efficiency is integrity, inclusiveness, honesty, transparency, openness and commitment. The right size should be whatever guarantees those 6 characteristic.
So leave the Legislature alone. Let’s talk about those 6 characteristics.
No comments:
Post a Comment