Governing Magazine/April 2007

DIALOGUE

COASTAL COMPROMISE
 The article on catastrophic insurance issues ["Disaster Unlimited,"
February] presented a thorough assessment of the economic and
political problems surrounding coastal insurance affordability and
availability issues from Texas to Massachusetts. Proposed solutions to
these problems run the gamut from allowing free-market forces alone to
determine the pricing and accessibility of coverage to a dramatic
expansion of state government as a primary insurer.
 The latter approach involves offering coverage at prices well below
what private insurers would charge and transferring the cost of paying
for future catastrophic losses to taxpayers should the premiums
collected by the state prove to be insufficient. This is the approach
taken by the Florida Legislature during a special session in January
2007.
 The best possible solution lies in between these opposing
philosophies. Industry and government must clarify and formalize their
roles so that disaster victims can obtain relief without unfairly
burdening those who are less prone to disasters. We also need to do a
better job of educating policy makers and consumers about the
underlying costs and risks of insuring coastal properties and the
value of the coverage provided by homeowners' insurance policies.
 We are concerned that some states with limited catastrophe exposure
may consider taking drastic action--such as that taken in Florida--
when a more measured approach is called for. Market conditions in
Florida are unique. Over 80 percent of the insured property in Florida
is considered coastal and the total value of coastal property is $2
trillion and growing. The ultimate solution to Florida's property
insurance market may look much different than one that works best for
consumers in Louisiana or South Carolina.
Joseph Annotti
Senior Vice President, Public Affairs
Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
Des Plaines, Illinois

SEA MONSTERS
 Bob Attmore, chair of the Government Accounting Standards Board,
believes that public officials and administrators are acting as
lemmings in pushing back against GASB's efforts to dictate the form of
performance measurement and performance management, declaring that "a
small group of people is telling them it's a bad thing ["Rough SEAs,"
February]." That's not unlike the efforts of a small group of people
at GASB telling every public-sector jurisdiction how to define
performance.
 GASB hasn't completely conquered the world of accounting, so why do
they insist on horning in on the field of performance management? When
GASB has completely solved all the difficulties of properly accounting
for dollars spent, then and only then am I willing to let them into
the debate about how to measure everything we do as public managers.
Until then, I think those of us who actually have to manage
performance for the benefit of our citizens are far better positioned
than GASB to determine what metrics we use to gauge performance.
 I have spent over 20 years working in public-sector organizations
helping those who do the work to define outcomes that matter to
citizens so that they can actually use them to manage that work. It
rarely includes the use of input or output measures that GASB is so
fond of under their Service Efforts and Accomplishments regimen.
 How many potholes you fill doesn't impress anyone--nor should it.
Effort is of little concern to citizens or to elected officials--it is
the outcome that matters. One of the lessons I have learned is to
select metrics carefully and not to force managers and workers to
gather reams of data, which is exactly what SEA would force them to
do.
 Some of the suggestions under a SEA regimen are worth using, but many
are not. I am not interested one iota in an accounting board telling
me how to measure success and thus how to manage and improve it. Stick
to accounting issues, GASB, and leave the issue of managing
performance to others.
R. Barry Crook
Assistant to the City Manager
and Business Process Manager
Aspen, Colorado

Address Correspondence to:
 Letters to the Editor
 Governing Magazine
 1100 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 1300
 Washington, DC 20036
 or mailbox@governing.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2007, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form
without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited.
Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of
Congressional Quarterly, Inc.
http://www.governing.com