What do we really know?

NOTE: The following represents the analysis-based opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

One trait that virtually every serious public administrator/bureaucrat I’ve ever met shares, both practitioners and academics, is overpreparedness.

No matter the assignment, task, idea or duty, our habitual instincts, often reinforced by training, instill a mindset to to anticipate anything and everything, even if it is hardly related to the focus of what we are supposed to be working on.

A few weeks ago, I was asked to write up an analysis of an internal program. This morning, I turned in a report nearly 40 pages in length, constituting more than 30 hours of research, interviews and study. More than likely, everyone who will read it will only be interested in one or two paragraphs from the one-page executive summary.

What “they” take from our work, of course, is what really matters. Most of us do not have direct involvement in the policies, branches, agencies or aspects of society we attempt to influence. If we happen to be part of the bureaucracy, it does not hurt that our influence is limited since, really, what do we honestly “know” about the struggles, challenges and opportunities that other encounter on a daily basis.

This recent post I found from a sales and marketing site makes the point in a manner rather noncohesive with our discipline. After all, we are not really “salesmen”…

…except that everyone, when trying to advocate their ideas, has to eventually “sell it” in order to gain acceptance.

When we try to convince, influence or encourage supervisors or the public to take one of our suggestions, it honestly does not matter what we say or present. The research, findings, conclusions and recommendations we place before them, along with the mountains of data and research within our own memory banks (ready for rapid delivery at the shortest moment of silence in a conversation) is meaningless when we are trying to actually make something happen.

What matters is the interpretation and relevance of our ideas in the world, as seen by the listener. This is a world and “community” of their choosing. We cannot determine its boundaries or limits (we might be able to influence them). We cannot force others to consider our assessments when they do not reflect their interests, values or concerns.

Humans are, for the most part, self-focused. From a positive perspective, that leads most of them to be self-reliant and disinterested in purposely disturbing society (since it does not benefit them). If we seek to influence their decisions, particularly on those matters that the societies known as jurisdictions must deliberate on and administer via government, the public must interpret our ideas in a manner that enables them to connect with their personal, individual interests.

Two options are available to us to make this happen. The first is to overprepare the way we know how, and accept the choice made by the public to ignore or embrace our ideas. The other is to prepare as we normally do, then work just as hard to shape the message so it proves, or convinces the citizen that we know, and respect, who they really are.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association. You can follow Ken online via Facebook & Tumblr.

Digging Out

NOTE: The following represents the analysis-based opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

Four years ago last month, my wife and I relocated from Northern Virginia to Eastern North Carolina. As the helpers we hired to assist with unpacking started unloading the truck and taking out our belongings, one inquired about a particular possession.

When I stated that that is was a snow shovel, the man positively replied, “You’re not going to need that down here.”

Every winter since, we’ve seen snow collect on our driveway and sidewalks.  Every winter since, that snow shovel has proven to be a valuable asset.

Self-preparedness sometimes involves holding onto resources and lessons that are often ignored or discouraged when facing different environments. Encountering a new situation, experienced incumbents might downplay the applicability of an idea or action learned from a different job or situation because, in the context of their stature, the present surroundings or institution are entirely different.

Just as human nature has a tendency to believe that every location or societal environment is different, it encourages us to ignore what has worked in the past in search of a “new idea” that has not proven success, or awareness of potential (negative) externalities.

The same could be said of the current fiscal crisis facing municipal and state governments, especially how politicians and bureaucrats focused on the “new” rather than the “known” exacerbated conditions that recently enabled a total collapse of a basic government function.

In the case of New York City, the common sense public service duty of snow removal was (quite frankly) FUBAR’d as a result of a series of events, facilitated and executed by elected and appointed government leaders. Common dilemas such as poor financial planning, labor unrest and misperceptions regarding boundaries of government response and individual citizen responsibility all play noticeable roles.

Last summer, I read about the immense pride NYC had in their new, multi-million dollar playground projects. While I am not an expert on how City revenues are raised and specific designations, it seems to me that these projects represented a critical lack of focus by City leaders, elected and otherwise, on the “dirty” and “less alluring” elements of local government.  Cool playgrounds are great, but they can’t save a life when an ambulance can’t make it down a street because it’s covered in 2 feet of frozen snow.

The easiest culprit to pin down in NYC snow removal fiasco, though not specific, is a lack of prioritization. This is an obvious and ominous legacy of decades of relative spending freedom enjoyed by governments, politicians, administrators and citizens at all levels across the country. Our newly-arrived climate of austerity, necessitated by significant, unfunded, current and future obligations, forces us to take stock of the public services and operations that matter “most.”

Initially, it looks like too many leaders are not prepared to part with their dream projects and simply focus on making sure that the “dirty work” gets done. Of course, I doubt many of them have much personal experience with a snow shovel.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association. You can follow Ken online via Facebook & Tumblr.

We do not define “Community”

NOTE: The following represents the opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

Frustration is an emotion expressed often by public administrators. Whenever a group of bureaucrats get together, formally or informally, discussion can often turn to the difficulties we face with policy, regulations, elected officials and citizen complaints.

Sometimes, when expressing their frustration with citizens, a comment like this will eventually boil to the surface.

“Do they have any concept of ‘community’?”

Criticisms directed at those we are supposed to serve naturally bother me on their surface.  This one in particular, however, led me to seriously think about the concept of “community” and its interpretation by government professionals.  While this is a commonly-used term by just about everyone, across all faiths and political ideologies, I find myself questioning its applicability within the language of our field.

“Community” can be defined to include many different things, but it generally means a group “sharing common characteristics or interests.” Communities can transcend neighborhoods, jurisdictional boundaries and even nations and continents (especially in our modern, online culture).

Government, especially at the local level and through the services provided residents and our interaction with them, can and does influence individual perceptions of what they’re “community” is. However, the key there is remembering that as far we can tell, “community” is a matter of perception, and as such, is defined on an individual basis.

For those of us who seek to keep things as simple and literal as possible, words and their proper application do matter. Just as we need to do our best to avoid ambiguity in our lexicon, often used to avoid confrontation with the citizens we serve when discussing a topic or initiative they oppose, we should also do our best to not define those concepts whose frame of understanding belongs to them on an individual level.

Governments can and should strive to position themselves in a matter where individual citizens choose (on their own valition) to include us in their personal definition of community. However, we need to be wary of our efforts to “grow” or “build” community as a matter of public policy.

One way is to end the common use of the term to describe quality of life-oriented programs. Whether we are building “community” centers, of assisting with economic and housing initiatives through “community development” offices, our excessive embrace of the word may do more to hurt than help our ability to establish and grow positive relationships with citizens.

As for me, the next time I hear a fellow practitioner or academic ask if a citizen they are not in agreement with has an understanding of “community,” I need to have the courage to reply, “They do, and it for them to decide, and us to respect.”

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association. You can follow Ken online via Facebook & Tumblr.

Meet Someone at a Conference? Don’t Forget to Followup!

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

The competitive world us professionals face, regardless of field, necessitates using every possible opportunity to improve our abilities, identify avenues for providing our services to broader audiences and (most importantly) building spheres of influence on a person-to-person basis.

Conferences, workshops, classes and even chance encounters provide professional with ideals mediums for developing relationships with colleagues, residents or potential employers and clients. Conversations lead to the sharing of ideas, comparing of projects, suggestions for future collaboration and, most importantly, swapping of contact information for future engagement.

Of course, a single opportunity to strike up a discussion or suggest how one could best help out with someone’s research or upcoming capital project does not always yield long-term benefit. Most of us can admit that of the hundreds, if not thousands of people we “connect” with face-to-face for the first time, few of them develop into professional relationships that yield their potential.

While differences in personality, time constraints and numerous other reasons can explain this phenomena, one critical factor within our control and ability to take action is the manner with which we followup on those initial introductions and meetings. How do you process the dozens of business cards, napkins and notes than you compile during a conference in order to tie these individuals into your critical network?

First of all, keep in mind that followup is always appropriate if someone hands out their business card or contact information. Shortly after receiving their information, take a moment to note the reason for a potential followup on the back or below the contact information, just in case you need to “jog” your memory later.

Next, remember that follow ups should be consistent with the tone set in the first encounter. Unless you “promised” something to the other person, re-initiate contact with a short email, phone call or written note. Make sure to reference a topic or item discussed.

If you are looking for a job or career advancement, do not use the first followup to send them a copy of your resume. Hand written notes work best in this case. Briefly remind them that you had a nice time talking to them about “career opportunities” or something like that, and do not forget to include another copy of your business card. The message can also include an offer to send them a copy of your resume, at their request.

If you happen to followup by email or on the phone, you also might want to consider scheduling responses (via Outlook, phone calendar, etc.) for 1-2 business days later, especially when it involves a multi-day conference.

One strategy I developed that worked well following a recent conference was to take some time before I left to go home and sort through the cards and notes aI received, as well as notes I wrote during sessions and encounters. I wrote out a list of those individuals I needed to followup on, as well as the information we discussed that I needed to include in the followup message.  When I got back to work, I had everything I needed to do on a single sheet, arranged as action-oriented tasks.

Finally, do not forget, as soon as possible, to post business card and contact information into your electronic contact file. Whether you use Outlook, Google, or another application to maintain your contact records, it is important to be able to find information there before you forget to enter it in, or lose the business cards.

Without followup, potential relationships will go absolutely nowhere. Taking the time to initiate communication after that first encounter is not something one should leave to the other party. Action on your part is critical, especially in order to cultivate the growth of the professional network of contacts, colleagues and friends you need in order to succeed in the competitive world of the 21st century.

Additional information on this topic is available at http://everyjoe.com/work/networking-crisis-solved-how-to-follow-up-with-a-new-contact-386/.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association. You can follow Ken online via Facebook & Tumblr.

2010 SECoPA Sets Impressive Course in Wilmington

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

The picturesque riverfront of Wilmington, North Carolina, was the scene for academic and practitioner discussion and collaboration during the 30th Southeastern Conference of Public Administration (SECoPA), held October 13th-16th.

The conference, held at the Wilmington Hilton Riverside, was attended by 326 academics and practitioners, including 123 current students of public administration.

More than 70 sessions were held where academics and practitioners at the federal, state, and local level presented research on topics ranking from finance and human resources, to nonprofit management, environmental policy, and comparative theory. Along with heavy representation from institution in the southeastern US, the conference also saw presenters from across the country, as well as visitors from India, Singapore and Turkey.

Traditional sessions were complemented with special offerings featuring Wilmington’s new convention center and collaborative visioning process. A pre-conference presentation by the Alliance for Innovation focused on the importance of innovation, partnerships and organizational renewal in the current environment of government fiscal crisis.

Plenary luncheons featured presentation of annual SECoPA awards, along with engaging presentations by Meredith Newman, ASPA President, and the Honorable Carolyn Justice of the North Carolina General Assembly. Dr. Newman’s presentation focused on the need to improve response capacities in anticipation of potential crisis and disaster, while Representative Justice focused her remarks on the importance of a personal commitment toward ethics for those in public service.

Winners of 2010 SECoPA awards include:

Donato J. Pugliese Award
Professor Ed Jennings, University of Kentucky

Senator Peter B. Boorsma Award
Professor Alan Rosenbaum, Florida International University

Distinguished Public Service Practitioner Award
William E. Solomon, J.D., Miami-Dade Parks & Recreation

Robert Kline Award (Best Master’s Student Paper)
Meredith Howes, University of Kentucky

Morris W.H. Collins, Jr. Award (Best Ph.D. Candidate Paper)
Winner – Gina Scutelnicu, Florida International University
Honorable Mention – Matthew Howell, University of Kentucky)

Attendees were impressed with the conference’s positive atmosphere, along with the visible work put forth in organizing and hosting the event by the University of North Carolina at Wilmington’s MPA Program.

“(UNC-Wilmington Professor) Tom Barth and company are to be congratulated for putting on a first rate conference,” said past SECoPA Chair, Dr. Steven Condrey. “The annual SECoPA conference is a clear model for other regions to follow in designing a conference that unites the academic and practitioner communities.”

As conference chair, Dr. Barth declared this year’s SECoPA a rousing success. ““It was gratifying to see the wonderful mix of faculty, students and practitioners at theSECoPA 2010 Conference.”

“I have discovered first-hand what makes the annual conference so special….tremendous cooperation, collegiality and a welcoming atmosphere for many students and practitioners who are presenting for the first time,” Barth added.  “However, it was also special to see so many leading scholars from the field also in attendance, sharing their insights and offering suggestions.  Thank you to all the SECoPA 2010 participants!”

During the final evening reception, attendees learned about plans for the 2011 SECoPA, scheduled for September 21st-24th in New Orleans. A raffle and silent auction were also held, raising $1,370 for the SECoPA Endowment Fund.

“Once again, I left a SECoPA Conference energized about the many panels I attended and proud to be a part of an organization that takes its work seriously,” said incoming SECoPA Chair, Dr. Dorothy Norris-Tirrell.

To learn more about SECoPA, visit their website, http://www.aspaonline.org/secopa.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association. You can follow Ken online via Facebook & Tumblr.

Honey! Did You pay the fire bill?

NOTE: The following represents the analysis-based opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.

WARNING!!! The following includes positive perspective on a Conservative commentator’s take on a public policy issue.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

South Fulton, TN, is the northern point of what I refer to as the “Tri-Cities” of Northwest Tennessee (along with Union City and a frequent destination during my college days, Martin). In case you’re wondering, they’re “South Fulton” because they border Fulton, KY.

Now that I’ve offered an essential geography lesson, let’s discuss how this little slice of heaven  took center stage in the age-old debate over the “Tragedy of the Commons.”

South Fulton is in Obion County, where unincorporated residents do not receive fire protection services from their county government.  Fire departments are established in each of Obion County’s eight municipalities.

Prior to a couple of years ago, South Fulton’s fire department would not respond to any calls beyond its jurisdiction boundaries. In response to requests from neighboring residents, the City decided to offer fire protection within its “rural services area” for a $75 annual fee. This is offered as an opt-in plan, though the City does make multiple efforts to make sure all eligible unincorporated residents area aware of the plan.

Last week, the home of Gene and Paulette Cranick, unincorporated residents who were eligible for but chose not to pay the fire service subscription fee, caught fire and eventually burned to the ground. Despite numerous 911 calls and pleas for assistance, the South Fulton Fire Department would not response.  The department did respond once a neighboring resident who had paid for the service called in to report that the fire spread to his property. In that situation, firefighters only did what was necessary to avoid the spreading of the fire to the subscriber’s parcel.

The Cranicks, who opted not to pay the subscription, offered to pay for protection costs on-the-spot. However, South Fulton’s policy was firm: payments must be made in advance.

Since reaching the ether of the Internet this weekend, the story has made national news and generated public debate. It established prevalence as a topic on popular national shows hosted by Glenn Beck and others, as well as in commentaries by the New York Time’s Paul Krugman and contributors to National Review’s popular blog, The Corner. On the day this article was written, the topic “firemen let house burn” was among the top 10 topics discussed on the Internet in the US, according to Google Trends.

For some, this issue has touched an emotional nerve. Others see this as a critical test of upholding a more libertarian model for citizen participation in and funding of government services, seeing whether or not practices can be upheld to make sure that circumstances do not devolve where the oft-discussed “tragedy of the commons” develops itself.

I realize there are those who read this article who are completely dumbfounded that fire protection is not a service guaranteed at some level for all American residents and landowners. This is a reality, and it serves as one of the primary reasons I prefer to locate to incorporated areas with their own fire departments, funded with property tax dollars.

For some, especially in rural areas, the “government that governs least governs best” is more than a slogan. It is a way of life they are willing to embrace, good or bad. Those desiring additional services, and willing to contribute what is necessary to provide them through taxes or fees, find themselves locating to incorporated areas, even if they bring the cities and town to them through annexation.

The reality, however, is that in far less and far more serious situations, South Fulton’s fire service solution for surrounding unincorporated residents represents issues that all local governments find themselves with. We know there are services we provide that are sought both by residents within our jurisdiction and those living beyond. We must have the means, structurally and legally, to collect equitable revenues across the board so all recipients are active contributors to the continued delivery of effective service.

The greatest challenge we face, regardless the service, is when we are faced with actually telling someone “no” because they did not pay. In the case of the Cranick’s, City of South Fulton officials made a conscious decision not to offer a “last second” option in order to ensure that the potential for “free loading” service recipients was minimized. If the demand for services with these unincorporated areas is too great, and payment for services is not effectively enforced, South Fulton’s resources may be stretched too thin, negatively impacting its ability maintaining quality service for in-jurisdiction residents and businesses who provide most of their needed finances.

Should participation in paying for government services be a means of testing eligibility for the sake of equity? In cases like this, as cold as it sounds, I believe it should. So did Glenn Beck, who drew a comparison to the potential for similar problems under proposed healthcare reform. Whether you agree with Mr. Beck or not, his openness to seriously examine the potential ramifications of the original intent-focused, limited government ideology he is actively promoting shows significant maturity. Unlike many who discuss the essential balance between freedom and personal responsibility, Beck shows a willingness to honestly identify likely positives and negatives for all parties involved.

Overall, the public debate on this issue has incorporated multiple arguments and viewpoints. While some make the heart string appeal for moral imperative and delivery regardless of location, financial realities of services like fire protection make it far more difficult. As a local government budget professional, I cannot imagine the difficulties South Fulton and similar cities face because of the lack of similar services for unincorporated areas.

Other alternatives are available. I am grateful not only to live and work with a great, professional fire department here in Rocky Mount, but also have counties where unincorporated areas maintain volunteer fire districts funded with tax levies. Through a series of mutual aid agreements, our City and the rural volunteer departments supplement each others’ services as necessary to ensure the highest possible quality to our residents.  It may not be a perfect solution, but compared to the limited options that face residents in Obion County and other areas without guaranteed fire service, it is an honest slice of heaven.

Without sitting down and talking to elected officials and administrators for South Fulton and Obion County, there is no way to really understand the circumstances that forced South Fulton to maintain a hard line on fire protection beyond its jurisdiction limits. It would be interesting to see if issues such as annexation, city-county disagreements, or other means of political infighting often prevalent in rural areas (the closest explanation I can find to suggest how terse relationships are in the area is this local story).

Regardless the debate, the incident does remind residents and the elected representatives of the importance of fire protection. Ironically, or otherwise, Obion County’s Commission Budget Committee approved an agreement between the County and all of its municipalities (except South Fulton) to offer fire subscriptions to unincorporated residents, utilizing City departments. It appears that the plan replicates South Fulton’s program to include the entire County, offering an option for utilization by all property owners.

The economic challenges facing and awaiting local governments across the country, not to mention the likelihood that necessary State and Federal budget cuts will impact funding for local (subsidized) programs, will force us to evaluate not only how select services are offered, but also the distribution of benefit across populations. The South Fulton incident will serve as an opening salvo in a battle over delivery guarantees and the means we utilize to make sure they can be provided without creating financial heartache for governments, or their taxpayers.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA graduate of Thee University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association. You can follow him online at http://facebook.com/kwhunter or http://kwhunter.tumblr.com.

Bell Tolls for Effective Communication of Compensation

NOTE: The following represents the analysis-based opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.Abuse of the public trust for personal, monetary gain is almost equivalent to treason. At the very least, as the former City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and all but one elected official of Bell, California, have learned, it is definitely criminal.

The scandal involving the “Bell 8” over their excessive pay and benefits took a serious turn last week when they were arrested on dozens of charges stemming from actions that included excessive salaries for paid staff, stipends for City Council members to serve on boards and commissions that barely met, and  inappropriate loans of City funds to individuals and civic groups. Their former City Manager alone faces 53 counts involving the misappropriation of more than $5 million of taxpayer funds.

The lasting impact for Bell, a working class city with one of the highest tax rates in California and a significant debt burden, could be far worse. Audits have uncovered millions in illegal tax collections that will have to be repaid. Far more difficult for the City and its remaining leadership will be restoring any semblance of trust or respect with their citizens.

Beyond Bell and Los Angeles County, the scandal served as another reminder of the significant disconnect in communication between local governments and the citizens they are supposed to serve. As I mentioned last week, the growing gap in compensation between government and private sector employees is very significant, and it has been growing in the same direction for about forty years. Government data basically shows that, as a whole, the conventional wisdom that government employees did not earn as much as their private counterparts on the basis of salary is no longer accurate, and has not been for decades.

Naturally, citizens are responding by demanding more information on the compensation provided employees hired by their governments. I have heard several counterparts discuss requests made to them by individuals wanting specific information on employee salary and benefit amounts. This follows a trend that has been in place for a little while, as evidenced by the decision last summer by the Nashville Tennessean to post actual salaries for all State of Tennessee employees.

Government employee salary and benefit information is a matter of public record, and when requests are made, local jurisdictions have a moral and ethical obligation to provide honest information to inquiring citizens. As a means of maintaining public trusts by promoting institutional accountability, jurisdictions are and may continue to adopt new practices where employee salary information is made on websites and other sources.

Proactive delivery of this information to a desiring public (i.e., pushing rather than pulling, for those of you in public relations) does provide local governments the opportunity to tailor the message to provide convey the truth with an honest perspective. In North Carolina, jurisdictions can take advantage of the requirements set forth in the NC Transparency Project, an initiative of the right-leaning John Locke Foundation.

The NC Transparency expectation in this area for local governments to provide general employee salary information by job code (or title), as well as for specific employees making $50,000 or more per year. Several jurisdictions, like the City of Concord, achieved compliance with the first part by including pay plan documents that show the pay scales each of their position titles are aligned with.  For positions held by multiple employees, a solution such as this makes the most sense.

Identifying those employees with higher salaries ($50,000 or more) has not been met with the same level of adoption. However, this concept is an appropriate middle ground in order to give citizens the information they are most concerned about (salaries of management and senior positions). In order to apply the proper context, jurisdictions may consider showing comparisons for these positions with state or survey group averages.

Another option of communicating government employee compensation that jurisdictions may want to consider is to examine the distribution of total contribution across job titles, departments, or pay grades. Generally speaking, citizens understand that government employees in high-demand roles (police, fire, public works, and other critical services) need to be paid sufficiently in recognition of their service and in order to avoid losing them to other potential employers. Their concerns, more often than not, are about the compensation levels of management, especially the impact of their higher salaries as it relates to those of direct service providers.

Preparing a graph or other visual aide that shows how total compensation is split across each department, job title, or pay grade should give citizens a better understanding of how their taxes, fees, and other revenue commitments are distributed to achieve and maintain quality services. If citizens see that the lion’s share of jurisdiction salary money is going to police officers, firefighters, and other service positions, rather than administrators, they are likely to be less critical of individual salaries, so long as they are not at unethical levels.

Government has a moral obligation to stand accountable and open with respect to the compensation of its employees. Public inquiry, along with rigorous review by elected officials, provides the best possible defense against unscrupulous behavior that leads to scandal and crises of trust.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA Graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of theAssociation for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

A Closer Look at the Government/Private Sector Compensation Gap

NOTE: The following represents the analysis-based opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.

Click here if you have problems with this article, of if you would like an unformatted copy.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

Reports on the growing gap in compensation between government employees and their private sector counterparts, specifically focusing on the higher salary and benefit levels enjoyed by government workers, is not surprising. The present economic climate, along with the increased prominence of government involvement in life and society engineered by the Obama administration since it took office last January, easily facilitate the opportunity for the media and pundits to make quick note and judgement of a situation that, from an economic standpoint, does not bode well for the general public and their desire for economic growth.

Of course, the media and political focus is on the basic and the present. By now, we have all heard that total (salaries and benefits) Federal employee compensation was approximately $117,780 in 2009 (according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis). This is 93% greater than the comparable average (per FTE) in the private sector ($61,051).  Respectively, state and local government employees’ average compensation is only 14.5% greater than the private sector.

(Click here for “2009 National Average Employee Compensation”)

For most of the public, recent media reports are the first time they have ever seen evidence that government employees, on average, earn more in benefits and salary than private sector employees.   Many have been long aware of the gap government employees enjoy with respect to the value of their benefits, but the fact that Federal workers now possess significant advantage in direct earning potential is a discovery that shocks, and angers, most people who learn of it.

The reality, however, is that this compensation gap has existed for a while. Looking at the BEA’s sector compensation data for the past 80 years, we see that average compensation levels between the three employment groups remained close until 1970.

(Click here for image “Total Compensation, Salaries Acrruals & Benefits, per FTE, 1929-2009”)

Between the end of the second world war and the end of the 1960’s, government employees lagged behind private sector employees in salary and acrruals (i.e., vacation, sick time, etc.), but saw greater value associated with their benefits. With the arrival of significant inflation in the late-60’s (precipitated, in large part, to increased Federal spending and monetization), indexed government salaries kept up with the cost of living, while private wages did not. Between 1968 and 1973, Federal employee wages (which started out this period close to private sector and state/local government) rose 10.5% per year, while private wages grew only 6.3% annually (growth for state and local was 7.1%/year).

(Click here for image “Salaries & Accruals per FTE, 1967-1980”)

In 1970, average Federal wages climbed ahead of the private sector, and they have remained there since. State and local wages continued to remain relatively close to the private sector until 1983 (once again influenced by inflationary indexing).

There are other factors, of course, that contribute to these disparities. Federal civil service reform in the 1970’s, especially the establishment of the Senior Executive Service, providing not only higher base salaries for thousands of select positions, but also the opportunity for annual performance awards and greater annual increases. According to Office of Personnel Management reports for FY 2009, more than 6,200 SES employees earn base salaries averaging more than $160,000, with performance bonuses averaging more than $15,000 (see http://www.opm.gov/ses/facts_and_figures/data_trends09.asp for more information).

Another factor, not discussed much, is the impact of salary “accruals”, including sick and vacation time. Workforces across the board are aging, but Federal workforces are in good position with respect to longevity-based allowances for vacation and sick time. Given that these accrued compensation days (along with the potential for comp time for certain salaried positions) is valued at ever-growing levels of pay, the impact to overall compensation (and its potential impact on short-term liabilities the government incurs on behalf of its workers) is magnified.

Benefit disparity requires much less an explanation. The same economic pressures that forced the private sector to limit growth in employee wages also contributed to the implementation of additional efficiencies to constrain growth in benefit costs. While private workers labored through reductions in health insurance coverage and the transition from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution retirement programs, government employees across the board relished in more generous provisions, mostly inherited from the pre-1969 era.  Naturally, the cost of these benefits skyrocketed, especially on the Federal employee level. More than likely, without significant reduction measures, the value of these benefits will continue to grow, only increasing the compensation gap with private industry, even if salary growth is curtailed out of economic, fiscal and political necessity.

From a political perspective, the compensation gap serves to increase the level of anger and dissatisfaction citizens have with the government that, in our country at least, is supposed to reside in the position of humble, respectful servant. While we can get into a litany of discussion about the roles and responsibilities that government employees play in our modern society and economy (to the detriment and benefit of individual liberty and free market opportunity), this ignores a more salient reality. If government workers are compensated better than those in the private sector, is the condition desirable, or even viable?

(Click here for image “% of Total Employment FTE v. Compensation, 1929-2009”)

The answer to both, in my honest observation, is “absolutely not.” As the graph above shows, the government workforce (as a share of total employment) is about 4 percentage points lower than where it was 40 years ago. However, government employees’ share of total compensation in the national economy is actually greater than 40 years ago. Given that government resources are primarily derived from taxes and levies assessed in the private sector, the disparity in compensation represents a profound, destructive impact on the fiscal health of this country.

Prior to end of the 1960’s, relative balance existed between private sector and government employee compensation. The growing disparities with these sectors, especially with respect to the significantly higher values for Federal employees, reflect a trend that needs to reverse course as quickly as possible. We cannot ignore the need to compensate government employees for the services they provide of value to the citizenry, and political shorthand goals of paying government employees the private sector “average” may not necessarily work. The reality, nevertheless, is that respective balance between sectors in compensation must be restored.

State and local governments have some work to do, mostly with respect to benefits. For the most part, if history holds true, their close proximity to the citizenry and its will should enable necessary adjustments. There is also the fiscal reality that smaller governments face, unable to buy their way out of a crisis through borrowing and printing money.

On the Federal level, bringing back balance will require significant civil service reforms, especially with respect to reducing the scope of government employee benefits. Unions and public employment advocates will fight tooth-and-nail to stop the efforts, regardless of and in deference to the financial ruin we face if nothing is done. However, if we remember that government in America exists at the bequest of its citizens, that they are the natural inheritors of power through their God-given rights, we are morally obligated to prove ourselves as the humble servants we are supposed to be.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA Graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association.

Cleaning up our own back yard

NOTE: The following represents the opinions of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations.

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

Even though I spend a few minutes with my young daughter every day, I am more or less a weekend father. Saturday and Sunday mornings are usually for the two of us, spent often at one of several great parks located in Rocky Mount.

Our City commits significant resources to develop recreational facilities that benefit most, if not all, of their residents.  Some are newer than others, but the magnitude of our investments compared to other cities are size is pretty substantial, and inspiring.

Unfortunately, not everything is perfect, and not every park is treated with the same care. This is especially true on the matter of litter, more a result of visitor negligence than park staff laziness.  Regardless the culprit, discovering used popsicle sticks, food wrappers, bottle caps, and other assorted pieces of debris on a playground every Saturday or Sunday is not how I want to start a visit.

It does occur to me that the trash represents a loss of pride among residents in their public grounds. I also believe that this lack of pride is the result of something far worse, the loss of trust that many citizens have of their government, whether it be the federal, state, or local level.

Some of their distrust can be tied to factors beyond our control, from rhetoric and personal difficulties during a time of economic hardship, to misunderstandings on the role and purpose of government to begin with. However, we are practically, criminally negligent, not to mention delusional, if we do not accept personal responsibility for much of the negative opinion that citizens have today of the institutions that are supposed to serve them, primarily through the respect and protection of their individual freedom and liberty.

The federal operating deficit is nowhere near elimination anytime soon, the result of decades of political gamesmanship, social engineering initiatives, and fiscal alchemy. State and local governments are reeling less from recent economic downturns and more so from a chronic willingness to say “yes” to funding every whim and desire imaginable. Many of those initiatives, mind you, came from the mouths of bureaucrats, seeking to find solutions even if no one could identify the associated problem.

The private citizenry are low on wealth, low on patience, and low on trust for anything and anyone that has told them for years that they were “looking out” for their best interest.  Right now, they are doing their best to figure out how they contributed to the problem (perhaps looking too often to government, and not enough on themselves, to deal with certain public issues).

Most of us in public administration are not different than the citizens we serve. We want to do our best for others, as do they. Among our greatest faults, together, is our lack of focus on taking personal action to first correct the problems, or crises we face before recommending a response for others. We often fail to realize that true leadership starts with ourselves.

A couple weeks ago, I started taking a plastic bag and sanitary wipe with me to pick up the litter strewn about the playground and elsewhere. The wipe proves itself necessary when dealing with certain items (most disturbingly, soiled prophylactics).   By the end of our time kicking a soccer ball around and riding the swings and slides, I can fill a small bag pretty full with trash, dropping it off in a trash can near the park entrance before getting back in the car, off to another adventure.

Do I expect for there to be no trash there when we return the next week? Of course not. I don’t perform this act of courtesy with an anticipation that it will magically encourage others to change their behavior.  However, if I am not willing to personally take action to remedy the problem that exists, no other possibility realistically rectifies the situation more effectively, or immediately.

Recent events like the August 28th “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, discounted in our own circles as little more than symbolic, should encourage us by the fact that those in attendance are prepared to accept the consequences of the short-sighted and unwise policies and programs they promoted in the past.

They are smart enough to know that our debt and spending crises cannot be cured with quick, painless fixes. They also expect, and deserve, to see their public servants (including us bureaucrats) accept responsibility for our disastrous actions of the past, promising to focus now on simply cleaning up the mess rather than cover it over with another tax-and-debt funded initiative.

We need to kneel before the citizens we serve, confess our own transgressions, and prove through action that we are prepared to repent in meaningful ways that will help our citizens grow and prosper as free individuals in the future. We must lead by example, and that means we must clean up the messes we are responsible for.  Not with ideas or programs mind you, but with our own, humbled hands.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA Graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association.

Historic Perspective on the State of Today’s GDP

NOTE: The following represents the analysis-based opinion of the author and do not reflect those of his employer or any other affiliations

By Kenneth Hunter, Guest Blogger

The August 27, 2010, revision of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the second quarter of 2010 (as well as prior quarters) shows a weakening for current growth, evidenced by a downgrade in annualized growth to 1.6%.  For those who wonder how the Bureau of Economic Analysis calculates “annualized growth,” it’s a really difficult process. They take the differential in annual GDP estimates from one quarter to the next, then multiply it by 4.

Annual examination of GDP serves the purpose of the media and politicians, and it provides little to no value for us concerned about low-term economic outlooks. For people involved in the endeavor of supervising responsible government through prudent, conservative budgeting and financial management, evaluating current activity in an historic context is a responsible means of predicting the range of possible scenarios we may encounter and must prepare for. This is especially true for local governments, who must balance budgets in real terms, uphold state regulatory requirements, and maintain trust and credibility with the citizens we serve daily and directly.

Comparing chained GDP statistics on an annual basis from 1929 to the present, I noticed the 10-year rolling average of GDP growth provides some semblance of predicting a consistent trend, positive or negative. For the past 50 years, the historic average of this metric, for the purposes of a benchmark, is 3.8%. Going further into history would create distortion due to the extended hyperactivity of government spending during the Great Depression and World War II, as well as subsequent spending cuts in the late-1940’s.

Click here for the graph “10-Year Annual Average (Rolling Average) Change in Real GDP”

Starting with the early-1970’s, the rolling average remained close to the historic benchmark with minimal fluctuations. Us practitioners took this stability for granted, developing standard assumptions of annual growth for the purposes of forecasting, budgeting, and projecting the costs of future capital projects. This stability also disguised (or distorted) the long-term costs associated with expanding services, employee benefits, and other aspects of government.

Right now, we see the moving average has declined to its lowest level since the Mid-1950’s. Utilizing the revised data for the second quarter of 2010, our 10-year rolling average for GDP growth is 1.8%, continuing a downward trend starting in 2006. The historic low (1939), of course, reflects the economic realities of the Great Depression.

Our current position with respect to this metric should create concern for those committed to fiscal responsibility, as well as encourage and reinforce their efforts to promote necessary measures of discipline and austerity.  Naturally, subsequent evaluations must focus on prioritization of critical public necessities, realistic projections of current and future revenues, and an appreciation and respect for the economic hardships of the citizens we serve.  While some may be tempted to advocate for raising taxes in order to overcome short-term shortfalls and long-term deficits, we must remember that such actions will create negative externalities on those impacted directly by those increases, and subsequent negative ripple effects throughout the applicable economy.

Click here for an alternate copy of this post, including the graph image.

ASPA Member Kenneth Hunter is an MPA Graduate of The University of Georgia with more than a decade of experience in local government finance. Kenneth is the Budget & Evaluation Manager for the City of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and serves on the Executive Committee of the Association for Budgeting & Financial Management and is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association.