Summary Paragraph: In which Menin reprints a manifesto that was nailed to his cyber-doorway this morning, regarding the hopes and aspirations for a new way of doing business here in Newburyport.
When I got back on-line this morning, I found someone had mailed a document to my cyber-front door, called "A Pragmatist's Manifesto." It was signed Lord Timothy Dexter, one of Newburyport's most peculiar and endearing characters. It was Lord Timothy, if you remember, who made a fortune selling bed-warming pans and mittens, gloves and hats to the West Indies, and did the same shipping coal to Newcastle. And while he never had schooling to speak of, and managed to write a pamphlet (A Pickle For The Knowing Ones"), some 8,600 words long, with purely phonetic spelling, without using any punctuation. Because so many people complained, in the second edition of the pamphlet, he added an additional page of punctuation marks, that his readers "might salt and pepper them where they would be most useful."
Dexter was considered a lackwit, and was scorned by the upper crust of Newburyport; but the man knew how to run against the tide very successfully. So if this Dexter's work, we might want to pay heed to it.
I've taken the liberty of correcting the spelling, restructuring the sentences, and adding the punctuation; some teacher's habits are hard to break.
A PRAGMATIC MANIFESTO, OR HOMESPUN SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS PLAGUING THE MUNICIPALITY OF NEWBURYPORT
by the Late Lord Timothy Dexter
PART THE FIRST, OR THE INTRODUCTION:
In observing the governance of the municipality of Newburyport since my fortuitous arrival in 1765, I have made several observations over the past 250 years. Their constancy over that period of time leads me to believe that they are institutional problems, that is, they are built into the fabric of municipal governance, and for many years, people have been operating under the delusion that "this is the way things have always been done, therefore this is the way they should be done."
Of course, this is the antithesis of progress. It is also a very good working definition of insanity- continuing to do the same thing in the same way and expecting a different outcome. I'm not well-versed in the workings of the mind, but , having been called so many times, I daresay I do know crazy when I see it. I also know split personality when I see that. In this case, I would call it a curious case municipalitis divergence; in which the two major elements in the city governance process, the schools and the City-side of the budget could not be more different in their style, function, and level of accountability to the populace.
Using the knowledge gleaned from the Zen philosophical tracts that I have studied, the core of our municipal problem is fundlessness to accomplish civic goals, of course. But the way the City does things right now, in terms of identifying and meeting budgeting and civic priorities, leads me to believe that without substantive changes in municipal attitude and style, throwing money at problems will not solve them. We simply aren't ready as a mature and responsible municipality to do anything more than happily band-aid problems and hope they will stop bleeding. It would be farce, if so many weren't having their lives affected by it.
Don't get me wrong, friends. I believe that the City faces a funding burden for providing services that is the result from a convergence of poopy things: the disappearance of federal funds, shifting the burden to the state, the drying up of state funds moving the burden to the municipalities, and the straight-jacketing of municipalities by Prop 2.5, rising assessments, and frankly inefficiencies in the way money is allocated and spent.
PART THE SECOND, OR SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF INEFFICIENCIES AND GENERAL INSTITUTIONALIZED SILLINESS
Somehow, someone decided that the school budget and the city budget were irretrievably, irreconcilably separate. Different procedures emerged to develop the two sides of the budget, they were put together at different times, and only met at the point at which the Mayor, having met separately and privately with Department Heads, reconciled the City-side and the School-side budgets for submission to the City Council, which holds hearings (brief ones, at which public attendance is welcome but direct feedback is not encouraged., because the City Council can only make budgets cuts, it can't add to budget lines; it can suggest where the Mayor might better allocate funds.
In simpler words, the School-side of the budget is an open, transparent process. It starts by getting recommendations from the School Council (a parent student group at each school); moves through a dialogue with all the administrators, will this year and going forward result in all known variables being sussed out by a new forecasting tool, and a expense budget will be developed; once developed, it is completely open to public scrutiny through a series of public hearings where feedback and and changes are made before voting .
Simpler- schools, sunlight and community feedback, city-side darkness, one to one negotiations with the Mayor that are closed to public input; Mayor closes door, meets with Department head, pulls rabbit out of hat and voila! presents complete budget to surprised City Council.
Night/dark/ Open/closed. Yin/yang. Mom and apple pie- one and the same, two sides of the same coin.
Possible solution: How about opening up the City- side of the budget to the same process and public scrutiny that the School side is requiring of itself. That way, you don't end up with Department heads going mano a mano with the Mayor, and you get sunlight and fresh thinking; you get legitimate expenses justified and and questionable expenses questioned.
Why aren't we already doing this? Institutionalized anti-pragmatism. Good old boys. Good old girls. Because we can. Because Department Heads can. Because Mayors won't make the process a pubic one. A million reason why it happens; none of them particularly legitimate when you look at what the School Committee has accomplished with it's budget, nearly as large as the City-side.
The problem of school finance, one would assume, is one of inefficient, over-spending and complacent administration. The issue of the schools is symptomatic of several things: a disappearance of federal dollars, replaced by a crushing series of federal unfunded mandates; the burden shifting of funding sliding from the feds to the state, which managed to hold on for a year or two, before it, too, shifted the burden to the towns and cities, whose ability to replace literally millions of dollars in lost revenue was limited by Proposition 2.5, which has separated the ultimate responsibility for continuous student achievement from the only resource now available- the municipality.
But one thing is missing from this neat explanation, this deft burden-shifting of responsibility that has occurred like a super-sized domino game in every town and city in the United States over the past 8 years.
What has happened in Newburyport, the retrenchment due to revenue disappearing like witnesses after a mob hit, has happened all across the Commonwealth.
What many communities are doing, that Newburyport has avoided so far, is recognizing that this is also a municipal problem, and that there are some municipal remedies available even before the word "override" spills over the lips.
Municipal reform. Charter reform. Opening the "other 50%" of the City budget to the same sunlight and scrutiny as the School budget would be a great start. Don't justify every penny you want/need to the Mayor in private session, make that discussion as public as the one had by the Schools. Truth in advertising.
There may not be a penny to spare on the City-side of the budget, but until the budgeting process for them occurs with the same transparency as does the School, I would encourage you to remain skeptical; although I realize that many are already cynical. If a "sunshine process" forced the City-side to publicly account for and justify every penny they spend, I am of the opinion that far greater efficiencies could be created. The School Committee learned a long time ago that you cannot continue to operate the way they always have, because in light of all the changes in technology, educational philosophy, the economy, the evolving needs of students, you have to change.
Until the City-side opens it's budget process, there is too great a temptation to believe that the department budgets are being negotiated as they have been for fifty years. Heads may be instructed to produce an overall reduction of a certain percent, but they aren't mandated to come to the table, individually or collectively, with sweeping efficiencies. I would bet that the City-side of the budget has redundancies between departments that could be managed and budgeted for more effectively if it was done in daylight.
Fossils are nice to look at; they provide a lot of information. But they merely a snapshot of something that happened long ago. Public institutions cannot be allowed to fossilize, they cannot stay dinosaurs. As one of your guitar-player philosophers pointed out, "the world is populated by dinosaurs, large ponderous beasts. I am only a small furry mammal trying not to get stepped on. But it is getting a little colder and darker every day, isn't it?"
As one who has successfully run several businesses against long odds, (hauling coals to Newcastle, for example), I am well aware of how you can stash the cash in a budget, how you can make it appear in one column only to move to another when no-one is paying attention.
If the School issue is needing money to support increased student achievement and restore programs lost to witless cuts, then the Task Force on School Revenue is right to comb recent school budgets for possible efficiencies. It is equally right to do the same on the City-side, and make recommendations for change.
The issue is money; there is not enough of it. But antecedent to that is a question that the School Committee has consistently been asked, and has responded to; are we spending our money to achieve the goals we have in the most efficient way? It is a fair and important question. Until you have ensured that the City-side is answering that same question in an open process, you have not truly responded to an important element of the dynamic at play; about spending what you have wisely.
It seems that this Dexter fellow has a pretty good understanding of how the Knowing Ones, the ones who by their own modest admission are smarter than all of us, have been influencing the business practices of the municipalities.
In the next section of Dexter's Pragmatic Manifesto, he will identify the group that will change all of this.
PART THE FIRST, OR THE INTRODUCTION:
In observing the governance of the municipality of Newburyport since my fortuitous arrival in 1765, I have made several observations over the past 250 years. Their constancy over that period of time leads me to believe that they are institutional problems, that is, they are built into the fabric of municipal governance, and for many years, people have been operating under the delusion that "this is the way things have always been done, therefore this is the way they should be done."
Of course, this is the antithesis of progress. It is also a very good working definition of insanity- continuing to do the same thing in the same way and expecting a different outcome. I'm not well-versed in the workings of the mind, but , having been called so many times, I daresay I do know crazy when I see it. I also know split personality when I see that. In this case, I would call it a curious case municipalitis divergence; in which the two major elements in the city governance process, the schools and the City-side of the budget could not be more different in their style, function, and level of accountability to the populace.
Using the knowledge gleaned from the Zen philosophical tracts that I have studied, the core of our municipal problem is fundlessness to accomplish civic goals, of course. But the way the City does things right now, in terms of identifying and meeting budgeting and civic priorities, leads me to believe that without substantive changes in municipal attitude and style, throwing money at problems will not solve them. We simply aren't ready as a mature and responsible municipality to do anything more than happily band-aid problems and hope they will stop bleeding. It would be farce, if so many weren't having their lives affected by it.
Don't get me wrong, friends. I believe that the City faces a funding burden for providing services that is the result from a convergence of poopy things: the disappearance of federal funds, shifting the burden to the state, the drying up of state funds moving the burden to the municipalities, and the straight-jacketing of municipalities by Prop 2.5, rising assessments, and frankly inefficiencies in the way money is allocated and spent.
PART THE SECOND, OR SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF INEFFICIENCIES AND GENERAL INSTITUTIONALIZED SILLINESS
Somehow, someone decided that the school budget and the city budget were irretrievably, irreconcilably separate. Different procedures emerged to develop the two sides of the budget, they were put together at different times, and only met at the point at which the Mayor, having met separately and privately with Department Heads, reconciled the City-side and the School-side budgets for submission to the City Council, which holds hearings (brief ones, at which public attendance is welcome but direct feedback is not encouraged., because the City Council can only make budgets cuts, it can't add to budget lines; it can suggest where the Mayor might better allocate funds.
In simpler words, the School-side of the budget is an open, transparent process. It starts by getting recommendations from the School Council (a parent student group at each school); moves through a dialogue with all the administrators, will this year and going forward result in all known variables being sussed out by a new forecasting tool, and a expense budget will be developed; once developed, it is completely open to public scrutiny through a series of public hearings where feedback and and changes are made before voting .
Simpler- schools, sunlight and community feedback, city-side darkness, one to one negotiations with the Mayor that are closed to public input; Mayor closes door, meets with Department head, pulls rabbit out of hat and voila! presents complete budget to surprised City Council.
Night/dark/ Open/closed. Yin/yang. Mom and apple pie- one and the same, two sides of the same coin.
Possible solution: How about opening up the City- side of the budget to the same process and public scrutiny that the School side is requiring of itself. That way, you don't end up with Department heads going mano a mano with the Mayor, and you get sunlight and fresh thinking; you get legitimate expenses justified and and questionable expenses questioned.
Why aren't we already doing this? Institutionalized anti-pragmatism. Good old boys. Good old girls. Because we can. Because Department Heads can. Because Mayors won't make the process a pubic one. A million reason why it happens; none of them particularly legitimate when you look at what the School Committee has accomplished with it's budget, nearly as large as the City-side.
The problem of school finance, one would assume, is one of inefficient, over-spending and complacent administration. The issue of the schools is symptomatic of several things: a disappearance of federal dollars, replaced by a crushing series of federal unfunded mandates; the burden shifting of funding sliding from the feds to the state, which managed to hold on for a year or two, before it, too, shifted the burden to the towns and cities, whose ability to replace literally millions of dollars in lost revenue was limited by Proposition 2.5, which has separated the ultimate responsibility for continuous student achievement from the only resource now available- the municipality.
But one thing is missing from this neat explanation, this deft burden-shifting of responsibility that has occurred like a super-sized domino game in every town and city in the United States over the past 8 years.
What has happened in Newburyport, the retrenchment due to revenue disappearing like witnesses after a mob hit, has happened all across the Commonwealth.
What many communities are doing, that Newburyport has avoided so far, is recognizing that this is also a municipal problem, and that there are some municipal remedies available even before the word "override" spills over the lips.
Municipal reform. Charter reform. Opening the "other 50%" of the City budget to the same sunlight and scrutiny as the School budget would be a great start. Don't justify every penny you want/need to the Mayor in private session, make that discussion as public as the one had by the Schools. Truth in advertising.
There may not be a penny to spare on the City-side of the budget, but until the budgeting process for them occurs with the same transparency as does the School, I would encourage you to remain skeptical; although I realize that many are already cynical. If a "sunshine process" forced the City-side to publicly account for and justify every penny they spend, I am of the opinion that far greater efficiencies could be created. The School Committee learned a long time ago that you cannot continue to operate the way they always have, because in light of all the changes in technology, educational philosophy, the economy, the evolving needs of students, you have to change.
Until the City-side opens it's budget process, there is too great a temptation to believe that the department budgets are being negotiated as they have been for fifty years. Heads may be instructed to produce an overall reduction of a certain percent, but they aren't mandated to come to the table, individually or collectively, with sweeping efficiencies. I would bet that the City-side of the budget has redundancies between departments that could be managed and budgeted for more effectively if it was done in daylight.
Fossils are nice to look at; they provide a lot of information. But they merely a snapshot of something that happened long ago. Public institutions cannot be allowed to fossilize, they cannot stay dinosaurs. As one of your guitar-player philosophers pointed out, "the world is populated by dinosaurs, large ponderous beasts. I am only a small furry mammal trying not to get stepped on. But it is getting a little colder and darker every day, isn't it?"
As one who has successfully run several businesses against long odds, (hauling coals to Newcastle, for example), I am well aware of how you can stash the cash in a budget, how you can make it appear in one column only to move to another when no-one is paying attention.
If the School issue is needing money to support increased student achievement and restore programs lost to witless cuts, then the Task Force on School Revenue is right to comb recent school budgets for possible efficiencies. It is equally right to do the same on the City-side, and make recommendations for change.
The issue is money; there is not enough of it. But antecedent to that is a question that the School Committee has consistently been asked, and has responded to; are we spending our money to achieve the goals we have in the most efficient way? It is a fair and important question. Until you have ensured that the City-side is answering that same question in an open process, you have not truly responded to an important element of the dynamic at play; about spending what you have wisely.
It seems that this Dexter fellow has a pretty good understanding of how the Knowing Ones, the ones who by their own modest admission are smarter than all of us, have been influencing the business practices of the municipalities.
In the next section of Dexter's Pragmatic Manifesto, he will identify the group that will change all of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment