Measure this, Albemarle!
Any good teacher knows that a good lesson plan needs clear, specific, measurable objectives. Measurable objectives include what is to be achieved, who is responsible for its completion, and by when.
Not to sound simplistic or redundant, but measurable objectives require a specific metric — something that can actually be measured. Activity is not measurement. Activity ON a measurable objective using specific metrics leads to results — good, bad, ugly, full, partial, or not at all — over time.
In government, both measurement and activity carry a price tag — taxes.
Measured results may or may not be worth taxpayers’ money. Activity alone is never a guarantee of worth to the members of the public who are footing the bills.
Unfortunately for Albemarle taxpayers, the six Democrats on the Board of Supervisors and their high-paid County Executive and his Staff are much more enamored with and invested in activity rather than measurable results, in my view. It’s because they seem to be a long way from knowing how to write and carry out clear, specific, measurable objectives.
The Board’s unanimous approval on October 11th of what their Executive and his Staff call a Priority-Driven Budget for FY2017-2019 is a prime example of how to bury measurement beneath activity.
The County Executive and his Staff got six months worth of salary and benefits for their activity on priority-based budgeting. The Supervisors got six months of meetings filled with repetitious, unspecified word-smithing. The public got a mostly worthless piece of paper that elected and hired County officials will be able to spin any way they want during 2017, 2018, and 2019 because they’ll be able to demonstrate activity rather than having to prove measurability.
Take a look at the following 18 Albemarle County objectives. They are the result of at least a half million dollars per year being spent on compensation for the County Executive and his Staff. They are the product of six months of bureaucratic writing. They are mostly un-measurable, Board of Supervisors-approved priorities that will carry a price tag of two and a half years worth of tax dollars.
• By December 2016, Board adopts a balanced 2-Year Fiscal Plan through a priority-driven budgeting, efficiency and transformation initiatives, and implementation of alternate funding strategies, and by December 2017 improve long-term structural realignment.
(How does the Board plan to measure “efficiency initiatives?” What are “transformation initiatives?” How much “improvement” of whatever “long-term structural realignment” is does the Board want by December 2017? What is the measurement metric for this?)
• By December 2016, Board provides direction on use of urban service district(s) to fund enhanced services/infrastructure, with implementation by July 2018 if approved.
(Will the Board say yes or no or maybe to urban service districts? What kinds of service districts is the Board interested in? Where might the Board apply such service [special taxing] districts?)
• By March 2017, Board considers regional transit organization study endorsed by PACC [Planning and Coordinating Council, I believe]. By December 2018, Board reviews MPO [Metropolitan Planning Organization] plan for bike/pedestrian improvements.
(How will the Board measure “consideration? How will the Board measure “reviewing?”)
• By April 2017, Board adopts desired vision as an early outcome of the small area plan process.
(How will the Board measure “desire?”)
• By April 2017, staff will develop technologies and procedures to map storm water infrastructure not already mapped and commence mapping throughout the County. By January 2018, Board will determine role and responsibility of local government for maintaining infrastructure not already dedicated to public use.
(How much “developing” and “commencing” by staff will be considered by the Board to have met this alleged measurable objective?)
• By July 2017, implement a salary compression remedy, using turnover and overtime data to prioritize specific areas that need attention, with an initial focus on police and other most critical departments.
(What will constitute “implementation” by the Board? Does the Board not already know what are its “most critical departments?”)
• By October 2017, present recommendations to the Board to increase opportunities for by-right development that meets urban form established in Comp Plan through proactive rezoning and improves balance between residential, commercial and industrial tax base. (Accelerate this timeline and work in sequence with related efforts to the greatest extent possible.) By May 2018, present draft ordinance to implement Rio/29 vision and encourage by-right implementation of desired urban land use form. (Accelerate this timeline and work in sequence with related efforts to the greatest extent possible.)
(WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN? WHO WROTE THIS? AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED THIS LANGUAGE? CAN BOARD MEMBERS TELL ANYONE IN LAYMAN’S TERMS WHAT THIS GOVERNMENTAL GOBBLEDYGOOK MEANS? How does the Board plan to measure “acceleration,” “sequencing,” and “greatest extent?”)
• By December 2017, increase partnerships and incentive options that will promote desired business development/expansion.
(So, will the Board be satisfied if the activity of “increasing” and “promoting” within this alleged measurable objective increases by one or will it require more than one “partnership” and “incentive option?” How again does the Board plan to measure “desire?”)
• By December 2017, increase the physical capacity for educational opportunities for at-risk four-year-olds through an expansion of Woodbrook Elementary and collaboration with local agencies and other non-profit/private providers/foundations.
(What constitutes an “educational opportunity” to the Board? How much of an “increase” in “physical capacity” will constitute accomplishment of this alleged measurable objective? What constitutes “collaboration” to this Board? How much “collaborative” taxpayer money is the Board considering giving away to un-named agencies, non-profits, private providers, and/or foundations? Are any of them named The Senior Center, Inc. or The Center at Belvedere?)
• By January 2018, dedicate transportation revenue sharing money to targeted development area transportation improvements.
(How much money or what percentage increase is the Board considering here? What development area “targets” is the Board considering?)
• By January 2018, adopt an action plan in partnership with private, non-profit interests to partner on redevelopment of the Southwood for both affordable residential uses and business uses.
(Plenty of activity here for the County Executive and his Staff, but is a simple yes or no on an action plan all that the Board wants here to say this alleged measurable objective will have been met?)
• By January 2019, leverage existing and planned public investment to enhance place making in Rio/Route 29.
(ONCE AGAIN WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS MEAN? CAN THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND HIS STAFF PLEASE TRANSLATE? AND THE BOARD APPROVED THIS SENTENCE? What will the Board consider to be an acceptable measurement of “leverage?”)
• By January 2019, increase support for planning efforts and improvement actions to address neighborhood level needs.
(Is an increase in “support” more tax dollars or just a compliment or two by the Board? What will constitute “improvements?” What are the “needs?” What are the neighborhoods being considered?)
• By January 2019, work with partners to increase efforts to address aesthetic appearance of entrance corridors and high visibility urban public spaces. By January 2019, improve deteriorating physical conditions in the County’s urban core neighborhoods.
(“Working with [unnamed] partners” provides another great opportunity for the County Executive and his Staff to hide behind activity rather than measurable outcomes. Will the Board accept the County Executive’s word that “work” was done with “partners?” What will the Board consider as “increased efforts?” What specific areas does the Board want worked on and what will constitute “improvements?”)
• By January 2019, increase resources for quality of life projects (i.e. parks) in the development areas through differentiated funding options.
(What are the “resources” the Board wants increased? Would that not be MONEY? What constitutes a measurable “quality of life project” to the Board?)
• By January 2019, increase support for Family Support program including developing more robust partnerships with entities including Region Ten.
(How does the Board plan to measure “robustness?” Does “support” mean a dollar? Ten thousand dollars? A hundred thousand? How does the Board plan to measure “support?” Who will be the Board’s other lucky “entities” for taxpayer dollars?)
• By June 2019, establish direction, complete design, and be under construction for the project to expand the General District Court.
(Add an approximate cost figure and this would be a quite well-written measurable objective. FINALLY!)
• By June 2019, Board adopts updated Pantops Master Plan including a joint Rivanna River Corridor Plan approved by the City.
(An activity guaranteeing 18-20 months compensation to the County Executive and some of his Staff. It’s also an easily measurable objective — will the Board say yes or no on these two plans by June 2019?)
Please take note that the next big date in this exercise in ambiguity comes in December when the Albemarle Board of Supervisors is scheduled to adopt what the County Executive has been calling a Balanced Two-Year Fiscal Plan based on these 18 priority-driven objectives.
In two months, will we taxpayers finally get ALL the price tags for these 2017, 2018, and 2019 governmental activities?
It’s a measurable objective worth waiting for.
************************************************************************************
Blogilogue (a blog epilogue):
I transcribed the following from the audio of the October 11, 2016 Board of Supervisors work session at which the preceding 18 priority-based budgeting objectives were approved unanimously. This is County Executive Tom Foley speaking shortly before the meeting was adjourned:
“I really do think that, and I really mean it, I think this Board has provided more clear direction on priorities than I think we’ve had for a number of years by the work that has gone in. And this focus on urbanization and revitalization is really an energizing and clear path that you have set. It doesn’t mean the other things aren’t important, but this has been propped up in a way that we haven’t had, I think, in a number of years. And there have been reasons for that too that had to do with recession or whatever, but I really sincerely mean that. So it’s a really helpful thing for staff to say: ‘Okay, we’ve set the mark now. There’s not a question about that. Staff, please deliver on it.’ And, so, we’re pretty focused on that. I can tell you that a lot of folks are really energized about how we start to move this thing forward for you.”