Left In Lowell

Charley had an amusing time reading the Globe editorial which essentially outlines how Sal DiMasi’s rejection of the more innovative (and controversial) proposals in the budget, like the corporate tax loophole closings, and budget business-as-usual, will hamper efforts for a balanced and sane budget.

However, that editorial reminded me of another of the interesting proposals Patrick put forth, which is to say, consolidating line items for departments to allow for more flexibility in spending by the executive branch:

Members of that committee, along with their counterparts at Senate Ways and Means, criticized the governor’s budget earlier this month because it consolidated many individual items from previous budgets into large appropriations, which would be spent at the discretion of departmental managers.

The Constitution gives the Legislature the power to appropriate money, as the Ways and Means members insisted. But lawmakers should delegate this power to line managers to make the decisions, rather than divvy up the money in advance on Beacon Hill. For instance, administrators of the trial court system would be better able to make savings in the $560 million appropriation proposed by the governor if they could move money freely among the courts, rather than be restricted by 149 individual line items. The Legislature has given the administrators some flexibility in the past, but it has always been hemmed in by unnecessary limitations.

There’s a balance to be struck between micromanaging where the money’s going, and allowing money to be moved around within a department to the best effect. It happens in business all the time, as well as government.

For instance, the lack of line items in past Lowell city budgets meant that City Councilors did not have the key information they needed to be sure the budget from the city manager was efficient or not wasteful. CM Lynch has promised to change this, put more transparency into the process, so that the people, and their elected representatives, can peruse the numbers and be sure they add up to a sound fiscal policy.

However, on the other hand, too much micromanagement stifles productivity and becomes inefficient. Have you ever worked for a boss who insists you get his approval for every little aspect of a project you’re on? How much do you end up twiddling your fingers waiting for him, or because you have to take extra time to explain the little details to him so he can even make his decision? When the whole time, you knew perfectly well what the next step should be anyway? And then that boss goes and makes a different call, that will actually take more time or produce less result than what you would have done?

Now is our state budget being micromanaged by the legislature? Anecdotally, I’d answer with a resounding “yes!” People I know who work for or with state agencies say time and again that the restrictions that come with the funding they receive makes them very inefficient. These people are all dedicated public servants who want to help people - in education, homelessness, child services, or wherever. I’m no budget expert, but the signs are there.

The only time one should resort to micromanaging a situation is when the person who executes the policy is a known problem (especially if you can’t or won’t fire them). I think that might be why the legislature got into the habit of doing it - under Republican governors, the legislature knew that money expenditures, if left up to Romney types, would not go to the priorities where the legislature intended them (for better or worse) to go. So, they line-itemed everything to death. (Romney still managed to screw people, like with the sound barrier between the new Route 3 and a very exposed neighborhood in Chelmsford.)

Now, we have the chance to stop micromanaging the line items under a Governor that honestly cares that state services be delivered and delivered well. Cutting the restrictions placed on appropriations will, in my opinion, only increase the productivity of those services, and the flexibility will allow Patrick to carry out the priorities we who elected him share. With few exceptions, the legislature shares them too. And he will do so with an efficiency we have not seen in this state in a long time. Tying the hands of this governor isn’t necessary. So, let’s get out of the bad habit of micromanaging.

I have to say, as disappointed as I might be with how much more this appropriations bill could have accomplished with stronger language or even cutting off funding for the Iraq debacle, that this is a good first step. This bill puts on a binding timeline for getting out (Aug 31, 2008), and mandates that our troops be adequately equipped and trained before shipped off to the combat zone (something we haven’t been doing, which is dangerous for them, and something which will further restrict the “surge” because we don’t have enough soldiers at readiness capacity). How anyone could possibly vote against the latter motion and still consider themselves “for the troops” is beyond me.

Of course, the Decider-in-Chief will probably veto, or at best, sign-statement this away, ignore the law, and cause a constitutional crisis (I’ve always said it will come to that), but the fact is, Mr. Bush, elections matter. The people spoke in November. Now, I don’t know if you care about your party or your legacy, but keep up this course, and both are in serious jeopardy. Your party will be lucky to gain a majority nationally in 20 years, at the rate they are going.

Given this Iraq bill, vetoed or not, and all the myriad scandals surrounding the White House right now (too many to count!), consider this duck totally lame.

Too bad it didn’t come sooner, before so many people died or so many lives were destroyed.

Don’t forget to submit questions on this thread (there’s some good ones already on there) for when we bloggers get the ear of the Governor tomorrow after his community meeting relaunching the Patrick Committee!

Once again, Jim has come through (and in record time!) with the audio download of my interview this morning with City Councilor Eileen Donoghue, a candidate for the 5th congressional district race. You can listen at Community Connections.

Again, previous interviews include Niki Tsongas and Jamie Eldridge.