Defending the 98 percent

We all know the stories by now. Over-the-top spending by officials at the Government Services Agency (GSA), Secret Service agents hiring prostitutes while on the job, and numerous more tales of corrupt or wasteful spending by government officials.

In the wake of these scandals, Congress has convened several hearings about the issues. In addition, amendments have been offered on two bills to encourage greater accountability and transparency in government travel and conferences. A right move that demonstrates concern for better account of taxpayer dollars.

In spirit, the proposed legislations, H.R. 2146 and S. 1789 offer safeguards for federal employee spending on travel and conferences. However, ASPA and several public affairs groups are concerned that the legislations are overly expansive and could have a negative impact on the professional development of the 99 percent of federal employees. For while the recent news stories would make us believe that government is filled with corrupt, wasteful individuals many of us are aware of the reality that the recent newsmakers are the exception and NOT the rule.

That’s why ASPA is concerned about the amendments overly restrictive language around attendance and participation in conferences organized outside of government agencies. Restricting the ability of public employees to participate in professional conferences jeopardizes the important exchange of information that takes place between the public sector and nonprofit organizations.  Concerned about the impact of these particular sections of the bills, ASPA submitted letters earlier this month to several members of Congress voicing its concern.

A copy of that letter is posted on the ASPA website.

ASPA is fully supportive of the goal of reducing wasteful spending. We believe that the recent incidents have unfairly painted public servants as corrupt. Rather, our experience has shown that the majority of public servants are committed, hardworking and honest.

We heard this from several Cabinet Secretaries during the Town Hall Meeting held by the Partnership for Public Service during Public Service Recognition Week. Here’s a  video of that event.

Public Service Town Hall Meeting

As Congress continues to investigate and consider better ways to serve as stewards of taxpayer dollars, we just wish to remind members of Congress that there’s 98 percent of public servants that are already doing just that.

2012 ASPA Conference Call for Proposals is Now Open

We invite you to share your knowledge and experiences with over 1,100 attendees at the most comprehensive public administration conference of 2012. “Redefining Public Service through Civic Engagement,” March 2-6 at the Flamingo Las Vegas, will bring together government and nonprofit professionals, scholars, students, and citizen groups to learn what is happening in various areas and obtain skills that they can implement in their communities, states and countries. Click here for more information and the submission form.

Separately, consider submitting a proposal for a webinar on a professional development topic that you feel is relevant to the needs of public service practitioners. This is our third year of offering webinars. Topics have included Human Resources, Performance Measurement and Accountability, Budgeting and Financial Management, Emergency Management, Leadership Development, and Project Management.

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.

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.

e-Governance and public administration system approach

By Rajesh Kumar Shakya, Ph.D. Student (DPA)

The debate on e-government for public administration mostly revolves around focusing on its functions of service delivery, information management, and use of technology.  But public administration extends far beyond that. Public administrators need a broader public administration system approach towards e-government that surpasses the technocratic emphasis, and blend seamlessly for the full benefits of e-government in all areas of public administration. Public administration system approach helps the governments to escape from the technology dilemma that currently dominates e-government. E-government is a necessity for the countries aiming for better governance. Governance extends beyond government enclave, to civil society and the private enterprises. It applies to all entities from individual family to the state. So the e-governance should embrace the potential of exercising political, social, economic, and administrative processes and govern the whole matters.

E-government should be used in both the functionaries and governance aspects of the public administration transforming into cross-cutting e-Administration, which broadens the values of public administration. We should enrich public administration through e-government exploiting the immense possibilities it offers. Also, if we stick the use of e-government only for the information management, it will challenge the fundamental essence of public administration. Under the public administration system approach, e-government requires public agencies to harmonize their vision, resources and infrastructure, to integrate governance processes and interoperate in sync for the operation of government machinery, and providing services to its beneficiaries.  

In particular, the integration potential offered by the e-government allows the possibility to transform government machinery, operation processes and improve the quality of government services – improve the managerial effectiveness, promotion of democratic mechanisms, and operational efficiency of public services. It helps to transform the traditional siloed operation, and processes to interconnected, interoperable, participative, and synchronized governance processes. Embracing the e-government paradigm by the governments is possible only if it treats the e-government as a holistic government transformation, not a technical adaptation; and challenges the traditional legacy, perceptions, and values.

[Rajesh  Kumar Shakya is the practitioner e-Government and e-Government Procurement Consultant for different governments in Asia, Europe, and Africa. More issues, aspects, and  practices in e-government around the world will be discussed in his future posts.]

E-Government and the Developing World

By Rajesh Kumar Shakya, Ph.D. Student (DPA)

Poverty in numerous communities is significantly related to a lack of education, information, knowledge as well as of good governance.  Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is a powerful tool to address these root issues.  Economic impoverishment is often related to market inefficiencies associated with poor market information, while poor governance is often related to low levels of community awareness of government activities – all these are information related, as are the skills to act on information itself.  The focus on the ICTs partly represents recognition that these demands on today’s public sectors cannot realistically be resolved by traditional service delivery mechanisms of developing countries.  

It seems that the ICTs, within the context of developing countries, are not just another economic infrastructure.  The role of ICTs in development and especially in poor rural and regional areas has been accepted by the governments around the world as being particularly significant.  Indeed these technologies possibly represent the only realistic option for delivering meaningful outcomes to much of the population within a foreseeable timeframe.   

National and local governments around the world are embracing e-government – are putting services and information online, automating inefficient processes and interacting electronically with their citizens.  The ICTs are able to inexpensively bring services to communities that currently have inadequate services or none at all.  The option is often therefore, not between a human face and a computer; it is more likely between a computer and little or nothing at all. 

This understanding forms the foundation for the vision of e-government.  However, visioning in this area has become extensive and has far outreached implementation.     

One of the principal lessons of e-government implementation worldwide is that the implementation roadmap for e-government must, on the one hand learn from international experience but must also be a home grown product.  Thus any country implementing e-government can learn from the experiences of Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Australia, India and others as well as the less successful strategies, but must also contextualize a strategy for specific to their countries.  A strategy that is simply imported from another jurisdiction represents the ‘black box’ approach and is almost guaranteed to lead to a loss of understanding, ownership and probably commitment, as well as engendering a culture of dependency.

Issues and Challenges

E-government is not a pre-packaged solution for participation and good governance, efficiency or clean government.  Instead e-government entails deep public sector reform that must be evolutionary.  E-government is about transformation where technology is a catalyst and a tool.  Yet, if e-government is an isolated process and not part of a larger program for improvement then it is unlikely to deliver its potential or expected benefits.  Success in e-government ultimately requires changes in how government manages information, and how civil servants undertake their jobs and interact with the community.  E-government transformation like any major public sector reform also presents costs and risks, both financial and political.

These risks are usually significant. There are already several examples of failures in different countries because of insufficient understanding, loose ownership and uncoordinated implementation approach. Such failures not only waste opportunities and resources, but also challenge the public trust on e-government, and innovative programs initiated by the governments. Particularly the governments in developing world need to start with such dimensions of e-government, where chances of success is high, citizen support and participation is more likely, and also value-for-money is clearly visible and value-for-service can be appreciated. The first success may then bring the snow-ball effect on the implementation of other areas of e-government. Early failure may hold back the reform process and correcting the mistakes politically and financially may cost a lot. Simply using computer hardware and software, and automating the same old red tapes are not e-government. Public agencies need to identify the objectives for reform and then consider how technology can assist.  Properly applied technology is a tool to enable and facilitate government reform, improperly applied technology is a waste of money.  Moreover, e-government in the developing world mostly hindered by different socio-political, and need based challenges like volatile government leadership, lack of resource commitment, lack of access to technology, inadequate physical, legal and other supporting infrastructure, corruption, and many other cultural factors.

E-government cannot be implemented simply by issuing an order from political leaders or a central authority – this would be a futile expectation. E-government requires that officials change the perceptions and actions, and the way they exchange information between government departments (G2G), with the community/Citizens (G2C), and with business (G2B). 

[Rajesh  Kumar Shakya is the practitioner e-Government and e-Government Procurement Consultant for different governments in Asia, Europe, and Africa. More issues, aspects, and  practices in e-government around the world will be discussed in his future posts.]

ASPA Hosting Professional Development Workshop for New Professionals

You know the time will come when you will advance to a new level in your career. Whether it is a change in accountability, authority, job perspective or management, you want to be ready to make a smooth transition. Join your colleagues on Wednesday, October 6 in Washington DC for a highly-interactive workshop “Preparing Yourself for the Next Level of Your Career.”  Michael Card has put together a great program.  Those of you who have attended his workshops at recent ASPA conferences already know what I’m talking about.  It’s a full day program for $99.  We’ll also feed you lunch.

This program is in less than three weeks and seating is limited to ninety participants.  Please reserve your spot today to ensure the best rate possible. 

Here’s the link to sign up – Register.
Here’s a link for a flyer promoting the event – Flyer.

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.

Did North Carolina’s Unemployment Really Fall Below 10%? (Brief Study on Labor Force Participation)

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 Bureau of Labor Statistics released July 2010 unemployment statistics at the State level this morning. Their published findings show North Carolina’s unemployment rate at the seasonally adjusted rate of 9.8% (unadjusted rate 9.9%). This is the first time since March 2009 that the adjusted rate has been reported below 10% for the state.  The report also showed that the State added about 5,500 jobs in July (14,132 net gain over the past 12 months).

This good news aside, statistics also show a continued decline in the size of the overall state labor force (8,100 fewer workers in July, and 47,000 fewer in the last 12 months).  Because the BLS does not provide an estimate of the overall workforce age population, we do not know how their adjustments in labor force represent their view on labor market participation. However, we do know looking at national reports that labor force participation was reduced in a statistical manner throughout the course of the recession, though Federal reports show that the number is being adjusted upward in recent months.

Labor market participation is adjusted by officials to account for the attitudes of those out of work, as well as reflect changes in citizen behavior and the impact of historic and demographic shifts.  Over time, labor participation has increased significantly to reflect the rise of the baby boomer workforce and the transition toward two-job households. Taking into account temporary adjustments that reflect periods of full and sparse employment over the past 25 years, our available labor force has averaged a 66-67% participation rate over the past 25 years. This average is still above the actual labor participation reported by the BLS for national statistics, indicating that the posted unemployment rate is probably understated.

The same is true, and even more noticeably, for North Carolina. Without the benefit of updated estimates on the size of the available labor force, we are forced to use annual population estimates for the 16 to 70 age group, as updated by the U.S. Census Bureau. In order to “satisfice” with limited time and resources, as well as account for variances in the workforce due to seasonal factors (i.e., school, summer vacation, holidays), a comparative month average of the participation rates from 2000 to 2007 provides a reasonable basis for evaluating current participation rates, and thus the validity of posted unemployment rates.

Based on this model, the July average labor participation rate in North Carolina (2000 to 2007) was 72.5%. For July 2010, the BLS reported participation at 67.9%, the lowest participation rate in more than a decade. This is a significant difference from the applicable average, meaning that the corresponding unemployment rate (15.7%) is significantly higher than published (9.9%).

As the chart shows, it is plausible that unemployment in North Carolina has resumed an increase, a concept more in line with recent reports on growing first-time claims for unemployment. More importantly, the differential between published rates and those utilizing recent averages for labor force participation suggest a more systematic problem with the State economy that needs immediate attention. If the BLS’ participation estimates are correct, the difference represents the substantial growth of a long-term unemployed population that will place greater burden on established entitlements.

Regardless one’s opinion of the validity of the alternate analysis with respect to measuring unemployment, the exercise makes it clear how far we really are from a clear path toward economic recovery, especially in the Tar Heel State.

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 Managementand is a Board Member and Webmaster for the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association.