Buyer's Remorse
Well, it looks like even the Mayor may be feeling a bit of buyer's remorse regarding the bailout package from the state.
The latest injurious insult is the hiring of another out-of-towner to serve as the $130,000 a year executive director of the board. The Andover businessman's own description of his new duties is telling. He was quoted in the Republican as saying that his job will consist of "getting to know the various city departments and making recommendations to the control board."
The people of Springfield now get to subsidize some on-the-job training for the control board's new executive director. The biggest weakness of the board was that its chairman and 3 of five members know absolutely nothing about our city. The fact that they have now hired another person who knows absolutely nothing about Springfield to help them solve our problems is ridiculous.
Our city of 150,000 people clearly has a talent pool of qualified individuals whose experience in government and familiarity with our community would have provided the board with a top notch executive director.
It is important to recognize that this decision reveals much more than a political tin ear. It also represents a fundamental misunderstanding of public administration. The board's majority is quickly exposing their preference for what is known as a generic theory of management. This means that management is management, that the principles and strategies are fundamentally the same in both government and business administration. Effective management in either sector involves a primary focus on the bottom line. Whether the customers are consumers or citizens, the goal of management should be the provision of high quality, low cost goods and services to the target market. Because they do not see the difference between public and private administration, the fact that their new executive director doesn't know our city is not a problem. Business is business. All we need is a good manager. His knowledge of management is all that matters, right?
To most this sounds pretty good. After years of mismanagement, many believe, such an approach is refreshing and necessary. In the short term, some focus on the bottom line is, in fact, refreshing and necessary. However, the unfolding perspective of our new control board also presents some significant long term problems.
Springfield is a community, not a company. It's a city, not a subsidiary. If we get caught up in the notion of citizen as customer we may fall into a dangerous trap. Consumers are valued for their ability to pay. Business choices focus on providing a product that satisfies the demand of those with an ability to pay. If this notion is subtly transferred to citizens then we will (almost unconsciously) begin to value citizens solely for their ability to pay. This is already a problem in politics that can be seen in political rhetoric that focuses on taxpayers, rather than all of our citizens, or our community as a whole.
Why is this a problem? Many have no problem with focusing on the needs and demands of "productive" citizens.
It’s a problem because the members of our community come in every shape, color, and variety. Our needs and ability to pay varies just as widely. A government attuned (almost unconsciously) to only taxpayers runs the risk of further alienating and marginalizing less affluent and vocal members of our community. Not only is this morally wrong and problematic for our already slumping morale, it’s also untenable. By legitimizing the citizen as customer approach we will encourage so-called “productive” citizens to look for a good deal elsewhere, in Longmeadow or East Longmeadow for example. If people measure their citizenship by their property tax bills in relation to the services they enjoy, they will not have any loyalty to our community. By reducing citizenship to rational consumption we may end up with the worst of both worlds, a shrinking tax base and growing social and economic burdens.
Balancing our books by further dividing the haves and the have nots in our community is a very serious mistake. The control board needs to come to grips with the implications of its approach to public administration. The only way for this to happen is if the members of our community force the board to see us as citizens, members of a community, bound together by more than the desire for a good deal.
The control board cannot fix Springfield. Only the citizens of Springfield can do that. The actions of the control board so far reveal that they don't get it. It is my sincere hope that the promised citizen advisory board is created soon and that its members are prepared to support and defend the long term health of our community. It is also my sincere hope that the rest of us take the time to monitor the activities of the control board and to register our opinions about its work as clearly and as aggressively as possible.