|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
Meanwhile, the local press was trumpeting news of the county’s computer crashes and raw sewage pouring from manholes. A huge number of property tax appeals in 1998 — stemming from a massive reappraisal — resulted in a court-ordered rollback in rates that temporarily cost the treasury millions. The political environment was just as bad — one county management employee described it as “toxic.”
Things couldn’t get worse, it seemed. Then, they did. In June 2000, County Commissioner Michael Hightower pleaded guilty, as did an aide, to accepting bribes from a company that then received almost $30 million in county contracts. The result was a near-total housecleaning at the elected leadership level.
The current leaders seem anxious to address the county’s long-standing problems. But major change takes time and stability of leadership. And in some positions, stability is in short supply. The new public works director, appointed last June, is the fourth to hold the job in five years. Robert Taylor is the seventh person to lead the county’s technology effort in five years.
Still, the county has already made measurable progress in its management systems. The major departments have been reorganized. The 2001 budget was the first to be presented as part of a five-year operational and capital plan, and efforts toward performance-based budgeting are under way. Taylor was upgraded to the position of chief information officer, carrying with it new authority over information systems and marking the first time such a post has existed in the Fulton County government.
There has been a strong effort to bring greater professionalism to key staff positions. The finance director has loaded his office with CPAs and emphasized training and professional certification. The approach has been infectious; other departments are now beefing up their staffs as well.
Regardless, the county will face the continuing challenge of strained resources. An annual commitment to fund the greater Atlanta public transportation system eats up the local-option sales-tax money that other counties use for capital spending. “Our capital budget is woefully inadequate and should be at least three or four times annually what it is,” says Andrews. “We’ve identified half a billion worth of needs and we’re limping along with a $25 million to $35 million capital program.”
Positives: Strong professional staff; new five-year financial forecast and operating plan; vastly improved pension-funding mechanism; debt affordability analysis includes certificates of participation and capital leases; efforts to tighten up contracting oversight include a rule that regulates contact with vendors during bidding process.
Negatives: Still suffering from legacy of bribery scandals; all contracts need board of commissioners approval, slowing down process; little training offered on contract management; e-procurement still in “dream” stage; more formal investment oversight needed; unit cost-accounting efforts minimal.
Positives: Five-year capital plan in place for first time in 2001; new 20-year transportation plan; increased focus on maintenance; substantial efforts to obtain better information, including comprehensive space analysis; regular condition assessment of roads; heightened condition assessment of buildings through studies of roofs, heating and air-conditioning systems, automated preventive-maintenance program for facilities.
Negatives: Sewer and wastewater treatment collection systems, storm water systems and intersections have not kept pace with growth, due to lack of planning and resources; public works hampered by high turnover in leadership; some project delays; capital management information systems need greater capacity; pavement-management system not in use; maintenance funding runs far below maintenance needs.
Positives: Revamping of personnel rules involves unions as participants; good communication with employees; broad-band pay structure in place, allowing flexibility.
Negatives: Slow hiring; scant central workforce planning; no strategic plan for HR, although one is in development stage; no tuition reimbursement.
Positives: Commission resolution of 1999 pushed performance measurement; pilot projects have demonstrated impact on funding decisions and management; increased strategic planning efforts at individual department level.
Negatives: Central strategic planning and direction lacking; few reports to citizens; no central verification of data; weak on performance audits; new performance-measurement effort won’t involve all departments until 2004.
Positives: New CIO position and management structure in place; newly set procurement standards and centralized purchasing; five-year strategic plan; some good individual systems, such as use of electronic commerce in courts; new land use and criminal justice data systems moving toward full integration; online permitting system in early stage of implementation.
Negatives: Web site weak, with few transactions available; infrastructure shortcomings cause bottlenecks and technology failures; frequent leadership turnover; lack of standards in past led to hodgepodge of wiring, equipment and software; poor training resources; HR management system limited; archaic tax information system; no offsite setup for disaster recovery.
|
 |
hen Tom Andrews arrived as Fulton County’s manager in November 1999, he discovered a government running in what he describes as “make-it-up-as-you-go-along” fashion. Some 40 agencies, he says, “just kind of plopped around with very little collaboration or partnership.”