31 Responses to “The Efficiency Review - the full doc, and the redux”

1. posted by John H at August 28, 2008 12:43 pm :
   

   As I sit back and read this review. It reminded me why was it I ran for city council the first time. And yet 2 1/2 years later, not much has changed.

   I asked for a city plan 4 years ago and have yet received one, and this explains why.

   I hope they don’t view this as a stack of notes and toss it in the corner. The need to read and breathe this review, to follow what WE as citizens have been asking them for years.

2. posted by brenda p at August 28, 2008 2:02 pm :
   

   re: plan — Public input session re: city’s comprehensive plan Sept 10

3. posted by GiGi at August 28, 2008 4:02 pm :
   

   I am just am happy that it is written now in Black and White! There is nothing in this report that should surprise any of us.

4. posted by Lica at August 28, 2008 7:06 pm :
   

   This is the start of something big! I am excited to see a written plan. This is a new day for the city of Petersburg. We need leaders (elected and otherwise) with positive energy to bring these ideas to life. It takes great courage to look at your flaws and shortcomings on paper. But this is the first step to becoming a great city. It will take time but it can be done!

5. posted by brenda p at August 29, 2008 10:04 am :
   

   Moderator note: some folks have written in asking why they don’t see their comment above.

   Short answer: comment moderation is now on.

   Related answer: I’m now teaching again, on top of everything else I’m doing. I’ll be putting less time into this site, focusing on posting calendar items and events to the main section, but reducing the time/effort that the comments have represented. I may turn comments off altogether; haven’t decided. To be determined based upon time considerations.

6. posted by 1860 at August 29, 2008 2:13 pm :
   

   Perhaps someone else in Petersburg could take the baton you pass to them? I think comments are the life blood of a blog like this.

7. posted by brenda p at August 29, 2008 3:48 pm :
   

   That could be an option.

8. posted by brenda p at September 3, 2008 12:43 pm :
   

   During last night’s city council meeting, the Mayor called for members of Council to work on setting a date for a first meeting b/t now and the 2nd meeting of October, wherein they would focus on setting out a process (for ??? — I don’t recall exactly) in relation to the Efficiency Review.

9. posted by brenda p at September 4, 2008 12:16 pm :
   

   A question I’ve heard raised among neighbors: when will Berkshire return to present a summary of their findings to City Council and the public? For my own part, dunno. A good question to address to our council reps I would guess. And of course, as soon as I’m informed of such a date, I’ll beam it up.

   BTW, here’s two updated links to P-I articles last year, when the efficiency review was first approved:

   Petersburg is focusing on efficiency (Sept. 14, 2007)

   Petersburg City Council makes smart move toward streamlining city government (June 24, 2007)

10. posted by shawn at September 8, 2008 8:30 am :
    

    Wow! actual investigative reporting!

    http://www.progress-index.com/articles/2008/09/08/news/pi_progindex.20080907.a.pg1.pi0907generals1_s1.1904788_top2.txt

    Where’s the REAL P-I.

11. posted by brenda p at September 8, 2008 9:02 am :
    

    Hm, the link you provided gives “Oops! We’re sorry. We recently upgraded our Web site and the page you requested … could not be found!”

    So I searched the P-I site for articles Sept. 7 that you might have been referencing.

    found:

    Study lays out tough choices for Petersburg City Council

    and — holy moly — the following:

    Petersburg Generals operating in the dark?

    In case there are further link issues, the above article begins:

    An internal city review of the city-owned Petersburg Generals baseball team has raised serious questions about the operation of the amateur franchise, including whether the city followed the law in purchasing the team.

    The city review suggests that the city has mismanaged public funds and raises numerous questions about the baseball team, according to a memo from the city attorney to the Petersburg City Council.

    Timeline - Steps toward the Petersburg Generals

12. posted by Petersburg People’s News (V2) » The P-I investigates city’s handling of Petersburg Generals - Petersburg, Virginia at September 8, 2008 10:04 am :
    

    [...] in the thread on the recently released Efficiency Review, this article (Petersburg Generals operating in the dark?) has been brought to our attention. The [...]

13. posted by brenda p at September 29, 2008 12:49 pm :
    

    Yesterday’s P-I notes that the contract with Berkshire Advisors (the consultants that conducted the Efficiency Review) allows for them to return to Petersburg to present their results and answer questions, but to date they’ve not been asked to do so.

    Would you like Berkshire to present the results to the community in a public forum? If so, indicate same using PPN’s poll feature!

    See We got polls! for more info.

14. posted by shawn at September 30, 2008 10:20 am :
    

    Alright. Who’s gonna vote ‘no’ to a poll like this? Ever heard of Louis Brandis? “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Who’s gonna disagree.

    I’ve found that the easiest way to lose friends in this town is to oppose whatever no-core thing the city decides to support. They may agree with you that funding for X is stupid, but funding for THEIR pet, whatever it may be, is sacrosanct.

    The only thing to do is point out the inconsistancy: if you approve of taxpayer dollars being spent on x, you have no moral high ground to say that supporting Y is wasteful.

    It is sad enough when you live in a muni that is rich and has trouble controling spending, but when one is poor, and most of the money that is spent actually is appropriated from other localities, it is beyond sad.

    Someone one council needs to show leadership to demand that BA be invited to speak publically. And we need to support whoever has the guts to show that leadership.

    A councilperson who has made mistakes in the past can be forgiven for changing direction. Opposing transparency should be punished.

15. posted by John H at September 30, 2008 12:49 pm :
    

    They should be there to speed this process up. It took by a few days to read this review. It did not take me six months to disect. Most of the report is broken down into easy segments. To figure this out is not rocket science. The first 30 pages tells you what is wrong, the rest just reinterates the facts.

16. posted by shawn at September 30, 2008 7:55 pm :
    

    I did not read the whole review. It had an excellent table of contents, so I was able to read the most important things within 30 minutes.

    Certainly, according to the report there are things that need to be done first before trying to tackle ANTHING else.

    These things are: 1. massively reduce non-core services. 2. improve the police force and school system.

    Improving the schools would be easy, if someone was willing to do the politically hard things necessary. You’d have the teachers unions and the NAACP down here trying to get the parents mad, but someone with guts like Mayor Fenty of DC could do it, if he had support.

17. posted by John H at October 1, 2008 10:14 am :
    

    The Petersburg High School, PHS Booster Club, Petersburg City Public School & Petersburg Citywide PTA
    Cordially invite you to attend the
    1st Annual Homecoming Reunion Week
    October 20-25, 2008

    Reunite with alumni, old friends, former teachers, and also speak with our students.

    Enjoy the Homecoming Game Friday October 24, 2008 @ 8:00 PM
    An Alumni Reception will be in the PHS Cafeteria from 6:30 -8:30 PM

    Donations can be made to the Petersburg High Scholarship Fund
    For more information, Contact John Hart @ petersburgpta@yahoo.com or (804)943-1745

18. posted by tg4360 at October 1, 2008 12:38 pm :
    

    I’ve been saying for quite a while (enough that people who know me are tired of hearing it) that the city needs to drastically cut spending on anything outside of dire needs.

19. posted by brenda p at October 9, 2008 11:03 am :
    

    To date, I’ve seen no word re: Council bringing Berkshire back to present the results of the Efficiency Review. In yesterday’s P-I, however, it appears that Council will themselves publicly discuss the ER at 5:30pm Oct 28.

20. posted by Patrick N. Washington at October 16, 2008 9:21 pm :
    

    The Efficiency Review hits the right notes.

    The City’s leadership should immediately start the five-year process that is recommended to revitalize this city by focusing on core services and spinning off those services that are not directly duties of the local government.

    With baseball teams, new libraries, and golf courses, the city government is forgetting about its primary purposes of keeping the streets safe and educating our children.

    I will definitely be there on the 28th to see whether our council will seriously consider these recommendations.

21. posted by Patrick N. Washington at October 16, 2008 9:26 pm :
    

    Another thing I would like to add that when anyone or any organization seeks to do so many things, it can forget about the most important things.

    I think the main two issues that is on the mind of the citizens of Petersburg to improve this fair city is to fight crime and improve our education.

    The city leaders should put those two things on top of their list of priorities. Then once the city handle those two things— then maybe the city can start branching off to other areas.

    You can try to do everything and accomplish nothing.

22. posted by tsnyunt at October 17, 2008 12:47 pm :
    

    From just reading the Executive Summary this is a stunning report. As in a rock hitting against year head. I’d be in a daze if I were a manager in this city.

    Does somebody know the background of why this study was commissioned, who paid for it and why the city managers submitted themselves to such a beating.

    Will the city council act on this?

23. posted by brenda p at October 17, 2008 2:27 pm :
    

    See the 2007 P-I articles listed in comment #9:

    The review is designed to look at all the functions of the city and how to make it more efficient. According to the proposal by Walker, the final report will distinguish core and required services from discretionary services, the level at which core services will be provided, the relationship between resource expenditures and investments.

    and

    Petersburg Mayor Annie M. Mickens said the idea to hire an outside efficiency firm was part of the Vision 2020 plan earlier this year.

    See also line item 8.b. of the minutes from the June 15, 2007 City Council meeting (page 8):

    Vice Mayor Webb stated that in the Vision 20/20 plan, City Council set forth specific goals to be
    accomplished in the next two years. He stated that City Council should do this for three reasons. He stated that this is a basic government practice and that everyone should take a look at this and use this. He stated that this process has proved itself successful and that they would like to continue this. He stated that City Council would like to continue to have the City to be the best and play its part in continuing to grow and progress.

    Mayor Mickens stated that she does believe that one of the guiding factors that City Council needs to look is the principles for this study, and to discuss the expectations of this efficiency study. She stated that she is asking that City Council be able to put out the RFP. She asked that City Council discuss this during the retreat. …..

24. posted by David P. at October 19, 2008 8:11 am :
    

    It will be interesting to see how much the attractiveness of the Efficiency Review wanes if and when hard decisions are faced by the City in its implementation. I believe I can identify services that are not core and I can do so with relative ease. I think many persons reading this could do the same. The problem will be that our sets of non-core services will likely not contain the same elements.

    I am aware that the the Efficiency Review has evaluated responses from a number of sources and that “we” self-identified non-core services in this evaluation process. It’s likely that not many would protest the non-core status of the golf course. But the cemetery? At risk youth services? Others (pick your own pet project)?

    I am not saying I believe (or don’t) that the cemetery or such youth services are, in fact, core services. But I can already hear the screams if these services are cut. In the abstract, it’s easy to say “cut.” When the knife hits the nerve, though, it may be really hard to keep cutting.

    It’s also easy, I think, to look at the review itself uncritically; not only because it was created by out-of-town experts, but perhaps because it says some things that so many have been saying for so long. These factors should not be allowed to cloud evaluation of the review itself. I am sure there it contains many important and salient points. Past experience tells me it is not 100% perfect.

25. posted by christopher white at October 20, 2008 9:01 am :
    

    Cutting service to Blandford cemetery should not be an issue. The graves are perpetually cared for through the cemetary’s sinking/perpetual care fund. If there is a question about mainting Blandford, the question that needs to be asked is, whether the funds put in this fund by the folks buried in Blandford are still in the sinking fund as required by state law, or have the funds been diverted by the city for some other purpose?

26. posted by David P. at October 25, 2008 6:41 pm :
    

    Have I read the Review correctly? As I have read it, the identification of core services was effected by application of a “mathematical formula” to the results of a survey. The survey itself was only distributed to council members. Only two of these returned the survey. AND a consultant modified one response in these two surveys because the answer to one question was nonsensical. So now we have identification of Petersburg’s core services on the basis of only two elected person’s opinions.

27. posted by shawn at October 26, 2008 6:01 pm :
    

    I find it odd that council approved the money to be spent, but many did not fill out the form. Is that right?

    David, I agree with a lot of what you have said — but I really DO think the city should stop trying to do EVERYTHING.

    That said, I don’t want any witchhunts either. We need crime lowered, and we need schools producing smarter, better socialized adults.

    I am not an ideologue — do whatever works! And don’t keep doing more of what doesn’t work.

    That said, it read that crime is down this year 23% from last year!!!!

    Isn’t that awesome??

28. posted by brenda p at October 27, 2008 4:35 pm :
    

    “So now we have identification of Petersburg’s core services on the basis of only two elected person’s opinions.”

    I’m not sure that is quite right, as the consultants also solicited information from various department heads. Lest I muddle the details, this might help clarify.

29. posted by David P. at October 28, 2008 8:31 am :
    

    Brenda, thanks for this information. I was trying to decipher the data in section C-1 of the report itself. I had not seen in the report itself that the consultants had solicited and/or received information from department heads relating to identification of core services. I suppose I just missed it. Has anyone found it there?

    Shawn, yes, my impression is that the council said, “let’s do this” and then many decided not to participate. There could be reasons other than, “I have other priorities.” But, *if* this is what council members decided, I believe it was a politically non-astute move, at the least.

    Shawn, I agree that the City should stop trying to do EVERYTHING. And, in particular, I believe that the City Manager should stop trying to do EVERYTHING. I also believe that a reasonable way to do this is to identify core services in the sort of context outlined in the Efficiency Review (ER). That is, in identifying core services, we need to recognize that some services have broad and “deep” impact, some have narrow and “deep” impact, some have broad and “shallow” impact, while others have narrow and “shallow” impact. Furthermore, some are legislated requirements. The community may also decide that some are “moral” requirements.

    In fact, I largely agree with the assessment of the ER.

    My recent posts on this matter are an attempt to prompt some discussion of the following:

    1) the ER should be read with a critical eye, particularly if we agree with its conclusions. At this stage of my reading it, for example, I am deeply concerned about the apparent lack of participation in determining core services. This concern would remain, even if I personally agreed 100% with the ER conclusions about this.

    2) it will not be satisfactory for the City to simply cite the ER if services are curtailed or eliminated. This is because of the political reality (in my opinion) that people will resist, in varying degrees of volume, such cuts. The City will need to prepare its citizens well for the fact that what some of them will see as core services are not, in fact, core services in the view of the larger community. And the City administration needs to steel itself for the resistance to some of these cuts, which resistance (I expect) will emerge.

    And, by the way, the reduction is crime *is* awesome!

30. posted by brenda p at October 29, 2008 10:14 am :
    

    I think inviting the consultants back to give a presentation and Q&A session would be a great way to address basic questions such as the one above about the process used and others that may be out there, before the city moves forward in any meaningful way. Of course, that’s my own opinion.

    On a similar but different note, the P-I covers last night’s City Council work meeting on the subject.

31. posted by brenda p at November 4, 2008 5:36 pm :
    

    In this site’s first poll, launched Sept. 29, we asked: “Would you like Berkshire Advisors to be invited to give the community a presentation of the Efficiency Review?” As of Nov. 4, when I decided it was high time to yank it, the poll received 46 (94%) for “Yes, please!”

Leave a Comment