|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
At first, one might assume that being the capital of California would be an advantage — after all, it is responsible for the existence of all those well-paying jobs. But there are complications. The state workforce is under civil service, heavily unionized, and resistant to almost any change at the local level that might affect union jobs. The county has found it extremely difficult to make changes in its outdated civil service structure or to privatize any significant county functions.
Although the relationship with the unions has been improving, the issue of employee trust still looms as one of the most crucial factors in Sacramento government. Three times in 1997, the county put most of its employees on a four-day work week, in order to deal with a temporary fiscal crisis. “That just turned everyone off,” one human resources official recalls. “The county had a right to do it, but it wasn’t equitable.” The following year there were strikes. Recently, the county eliminated the three lowest salary grades — which had been added to save money a few years back — in an attempt to demonstrate good faith to its workers.
Meanwhile, the county continues to grapple with an awkwardly decentralized approach to information technology, which leaves it with “have” and “have not” departments. The “haves,” including public works, possess their own funding streams, and many are doing impressive technological improvement. The “have nots,” such as “animal care and regulation,” and “environmental review,” are left to battle for dollars with all the rest of the county’s functions. And that leaves them struggling.
As do officials in all California counties, those in Sacramento complain loud and hard that they’re regularly mistreated by the state. Over the years, for example, California has increased local property-tax support for schools and reduced the level of its own support. During flush economic times, the state decided to cut the car tax — a major source of income to the counties — and used its surplus to help reimburse county budgets. Now, however, with the state surplus gone, there are worries that the reimbursements will end, and that jurisdictions such as Sacramento, with big populations and a heavy load of responsibilities, will suffer.
Positives: Good revenue projections; long-term budget forecasts; restrained spending growth for budget year 2002 to maintain structural balance; solid rainy day fund and good general fund balances maintained; one-time resources, such as tobacco settlement money, not used for ongoing expenditures; detailed cost accounting in public works and enterprise funds; financial management system allows real-time reporting; good communication of financial information to citizens through the Internet; good investment policies and oversight; recent countywide training effort for contracting.
Negatives: Spending overstated in budget due to high rate of job vacancies; more training needed for managers to make best use of financial information technology; excessive budget flexibility for managers has caused problems; underfunded auditing arm; debt options severely limited; minimal use of performance measures in contracting.
Positives: Good long-term planning for transportation projects and maintenance; good citizen input into plans for non-traditional modes of travel, such as bicycle paths; good coordination between transportation department and utilities.
Negatives: County currently lacks comprehensive facilities plan, although one being developed; project selection can be overly political; $120 million in deferred roadway maintenance; lack of central database; limited capital planning for facilities; facilities funding historically shortchanged; “galloping scope creep” in facilities management; just beginning to do condition assessments on facilities.
Positives: Central HR office moving toward more collaborative approach with departments; reasonably strong workforce planning; county creating first formal HR strategic plan; piloting online applications; moving toward more centralized recruiting; use of vacation and sick leave accrual to supplement salary structure; innovations in training; efficient probation process.
Negatives: Rapid growth leaves county with high vacancy rate; fragmented recruiting efforts; hiring often marred by inflexible processes; rigid salary structure; class and job descriptions often obsolete; no mechanism for recognizing or rewarding superior performance; termination process very time-consuming.
Positives: Countywide strategic plan with much input from stakeholders; new effort to utilize performance measures with an emphasis on outcomes; progress at developing baseline data and targets.
Negatives: More frequent updating of strategic plan needed in the county; few departments do long-term strategic planning; two false starts in efforts to use performance measures; departments uneven in use of performance measurement.
Positives: Reasonably strong entity-wide systems; criminal justice system well integrated; excellent GIS; new strategic plan in works, although none exists currently; newly centralized project-management office.
Negatives: Facilities-management information system weak but new one in works; agencies without independent funding fall behind in technology innovation; Web site needs improvement; minimal post-implementation review of projects; little central control of procurement; overly long procurement process.
|
 |
acramento County contains more than a million citizens — a majority of them in unincorporated territory, and thus a direct county responsibility — but equally important to its governmental life, it includes the nation’s largest state capitol complex, with more than 70,000 state government workers.