Study requires outside help

By The Daily Progress Staff

Published: July 13, 2008

Charlottesville officials have the right instincts in pursuing a review of governmental efficiency and quality of services.

There’s always room for improvement. Leaders who are able to admit that, and to take action, show a commendable attitude of openness and objectivity.

And although we’ve been critical in the past that some studies have been turned over to consultants, this is one project that clearly would benefit from an outside evaluation.

City Council may objectively understand that reviewing policies and procedures is a useful exercise, but actually performing a self-evaluation is another matter, altogether more difficult. And although councilors may be willing and able to objectively self-review, there’s no guarantee that every department head or project leader is able to do the same.

As long as the costs remain reasonable — Council has budgeted $50,000 — a consultant’s study is the way to go.

Meanwhile, councilors are divided over whether the study should go broad or deep. Most favor a broad study, ranging over four to six months.

Another option would be to stagger the review, looking at one department now, others in the future.

At least one councilor wants the study to provide the kind of data that would permit Charlottesville to compare itself with similar cities.

Looking comprehensively at all departments and programs, within a relatively short time frame, would provide a couple of advantages.

Government departments are often interrelated and independent — or at least, they should be, so they can share work, avoid operating at cross-purposes and provide seamless service to taxpayers. A broad overview of departments would provide a real-time snapshot of these dynamics, showing where better cooperation could improve efficiency.

Conversely, during a staggered review the interrelationships could change over time, rendering comparisons obsolete.

There is also value in obtaining data quickly and implementing changes quickly. Taxpayers like to see results for their money, and the sooner the better. Of course, Council should not pursue change just for the sake of change; but there is value in tangible results over lengthy studies that, too often, seem to stretch on interminably.

If an overview reveals areas that deserve deeper study, Council can authorize further review as needed.

One good idea that’s been proposed is to utilize the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia to manage the study, and to use many former government officials — including those who once worked for the city — to do the valuation. This seems a cost-effective and practical proposal — an efficient way to handle an efficiency study.

Another good idea is to make sure constituents have a say in evaluating the quality of services. Quality is a subjective term, and insiders — or former insiders — might have a different viewpoint than the public. But it is the public who is being served, the public for whom programs exist. Finding out from the public whether those services do the job at the right price should be a central component of the city’s study.

And studying services with an eye toward efficiency is a very good idea.