|
|
From Governing’s
Grading the Counties introductionFebruary 2002 issue
THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT
Report Card:
The demands of rapid growth and suburban development in the past decade have created an increasing debt burden, currently estimated at $1.2 billion, more than the debt held by the state of Tennessee. “The debt issue is a silent killer,” says a former member of the county commission. “Operationally, the county is a pretty lean machine. But looming in the background is this monster.” Another shadow on the future is the correctional system. Shelby County houses more prisoners than 11 of the states. The county has been involved in a federal lawsuit regarding jail conditions and has had to spend money on improving the facilities that it badly needed to keep up its general fund balance.
Meanwhile, a state school-funding formula has been another crusher: It mandates that for every dollar the county gives the schools it runs directly in unincorporated areas, it must provide $2.57 to Memphis, the dominant jurisdiction within its borders. In order to raise $30 million for a new high school, it has to sell $107 million in bonds and give $79 million of that money to the city. Given the rapid population growth in Shelby’s outer reaches, this is a formula for fiscal failure in the long run, although the county and city have made some compromises to mitigate the pain.
A saving grace here has been reasonably good management, with Mayor Jim Rout providing strong leadership, although he has direct control over less than half of the county government. Rout, who has been in office since 1994, has emphasized strategic planning and quality-management principles, and introduced a new performance-appraisal system that ties managers’ evaluations to results. Training and rewarding employees have received strong emphasis.
Shelby County had a run-in with corruption problems: Former Finance Director Henry J. Marmon was imprisoned for embezzling $40,000 from the treasury between 1996 and 1998. Since then, however, financial controls have been strengthened. With a consolidated budget, recently instituted long-term budget forecasts and human resources policies that apply consistently to all employees, the county has been able to maintain a stable administrative structure. This is particularly impressive, given its divisions of political responsibility.
Most recently, Rout has joined with the Memphis Area Chamber of Commerce to introduce business techniques into government through a High Performance Partnership, which uses retirees from Federal Express and other local corporations to aid in fleet management and other nuts-and-bolts management tasks.
Positives: Long-term budget outlook; good budgetary balance; 5 percent of general fund set aside in reserves; fully funded pension plan; very good financial reporting; increasing professionalism in procurement for the county and good outreach to local businesses for contracting.
Negatives: High debt level; no formal debt policy or affordability criteria, although new policy in development; budgets occasionally late; financial management technology needs update; limited central oversight of contracting.
Positives: Good capital-planning process, with citizen involvement; public-private partnerships and sponsorships help control costs and deal with maintenance; regional cooperation good; frequent condition assessments for facilities, roads, bridges, other capital projects; capital construction tracked well, with results reported thoroughly; maintenance receives emphasis.
Negatives: Shortcomings in capital management computer systems; databases and geographic information systems a work in progress, with condition-assessment information still often decentralized.
Positives: Tremendous emphasis on training, along with good training assessment; flexible hiring practices; inroads in managerial performance appraisal, with links to strategic planning; increasing use of non-monetary rewards; successful labor-management partnerships; number of grievances reduced.
Negatives: Minimal workforce planning, although effort to develop future outlook in infancy; somewhat inflexible compensation structure; performance pay planned but mostly not available yet.
Positives: Newly centralized strategic planning, with teams set up to accomplish measurable objectives; managerial performance appraisal tied to objectives; ample training, with central quality-management effort leading to consistency; Service Quality Indicators taken seriously, with notable efforts in corrections, health, pretrial services and public works.
Negatives: Strategic planning still at very early stages for many departments; no strong validation efforts for data accuracy; county commission making little use of strategic planning or performance-measurement effort; weak reporting to citizens on government results.
Positives: E-government initiative pulls together elected officials and central administration with common plan and goals; training good, both for end-users and IT specialists; emphasis on customer service and tech support; generally good project management; criminal justice system highly integrated; procurement works well; disaster-recovery plan in place.
Negatives: IT leadership structurally weak, with no official CIO position or IT steering committee; GIS systems somewhat diffuse, forfeiting benefits of integration; some administrative proceses still too paper-intensive; financial and capital management systems need update.
|
 |
helby County faces an array of obstacles that sometimes looks about as daunting as the Great River next door. So far, though, its managers don’t seem weary or sick of trying.