Challenged and (Short) Changed?

The buzz at the beginning of the legislative session was that the Administration and its private contractor Public Strategies Group (or "PSG") had found $38 million in "savings" and "efficiencies" in the budget through its new report "Challenges for Change." You can read the report here.

Some of the language in the report is a little puzzling. For example:

“These challenges are not just about money; they are about better results with less money. In contrast to a “cut,” challenges give Vermonters hope that at least some of the budget balancing solution will be a winner for them.”

Takeaway: "Cuts" are not actually "cuts." A little Orwellian for my taste. Best of all, these cuts will give us "hope" and make us all "winners."

Or, consider the speed at which the report urges adoption of its recommendations:

"'Design' can be a structured, rapid process for adding a lot of the necessary meat to the bones of these challenges. It can even take place during the upcoming legislative session so that legislators and the Governor can see more specifics before approving the concept. Good designs can be produced in two to three weeks if the design process is intensively supported with people facile in new thinking."

Takeaway: Don't sweat the details. These cuts are best made quickly, by “facile” thinkers. And, if you oppose them you’re obviously just stuck in the “old way of thinking” and clearly are not a “facile” new thinker.

Hmm. What about taking opposing views and/or debating the recommendations of the report:

"There will be great resistance to every one of these challenges. This is natural; in fact, it is desirable because the resistance can teach us what we need to know to make the changes successful. We have found that the best approach is not to try to overcome the resistance, but rather, to embrace it. Embracing the resistance does not mean yielding to it."

Takeaway: Resistance is futile.

So, what's it going to cost Vermont's essential programs and services?

"The eight challenges issued here will address an estimated $38 million general funds and $12 million in property tax pressure in FY 2011. In FY 2012, after full implementation, it is estimated to reduce spending $72 million in general funds and $26 million in property tax pressures."

Umm. $38 million now? And, $72 million later? Wow. A total of $110 million. Who knew this much money was just lying around?!

Oh, but it's actually not just efficiencies or money to be had. It actually does require cuts after all (unspecified cuts, but cuts nonetheless). You see the report actually highlights each section by providing how much a percentage will be cut (e.g., 5% in Human Services in FY 2011 and another 10% in FY 2012) followed by a bunch of platitudinous bureaucratic gobbledy-gook that seems to be trying awfully hard to disguise it.

In addition, the report advises that Vermont should establish so-called "charter agencies" with wide latitude to make new rules, policies and procedures and cut through bureaucratic red-tape. Trouble is that bureaucratic red-tape is there for a reason. State agencies can't just unilaterally act. They must abide by federal and state laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations are in place to ensure the proper distribution of funds, to protect recipients (due process anyone?), and to assure that certain outcomes are met. Is it always the most efficient vehicle with the best outcomes? Nope. But, it usually does OK, and it balances the rights of individuals, the interest of taxpayers who provide the funds, and fair outcomes with the needs of administering the various programs.

The charter agency idea has been tried. Once. In Iowa. After five years of experimenting, the state allowed the authorizing language to sunset. Nobody wanted to go back. While at least one writer claims that the end result was that certain efficiencies and practices did come out of the exercise, the charter agency idea itself was not the answer:

"I was not a big fan of charter agencies," says state Senator Jeff Danielson, who did his Master of Public Administration thesis on the misuse of performance measures in government. "I viewed it as kind of a fad, as basically the culmination of the privatization movement where you tell an agency to be entrepreneurial and operate on its own, but the reality is they still had to deal with legislative oversight and rules."

You can read the whole article here.

Many Vermonters are increasingly questioning just where the $38 million in "savings" will come from and how it will affect Vermonters. There are many unanswered questions about this plan: How will it affect low-income and working Vermonters? Who will be monitoring the program to ensure results? What happens if the savings are not as great as claimed? What is the interplay between "deregulating" state agencies and the federal and state requirements the state must comply with? Put another way: is this even legally possible? And, even if it is... is it advisable?

Let's hope that all these questions are asked and answered by the legislature before any action is taken to adopt this plan. Vermonters should be assured that the end result is not a challenge only to low-income people who get short-changed in the process.