The Observation Deck

I received a Lakewood Alive update today indicating the following:

“The four City departments to serve as pilots for implementing the CitiStat process have been identified: Building Department, Fleet Management, Division of Aging and City Council. LakewoodAlive plans to follow-up on the results of this pilot program in the months ahead.â€Â￾

I understand Lakewood Observers are preparing an article on CitiStat. So I’d like to outline a few questions.

RATIONALE

What exactly is the rationale for this selection: Building Department, Fleet Management, Division of Aging and City Council?

Is municipal management serious about CitiStat?

Is the capacity of municipal management to implement the system across all departments lacking - manpower, time, money?

It would seem to me that effective municipal management dictates that all departments should be managed and measured through CitiStat.

WHY NO SAFETY

Why isn’t safety in the CitiStat game plan?

I had understood the Grow Lakewood Report to indicate that safety was the top priority for the city, a point to which I agree.

Speaking personally, I am disappointed that safety forces are not the focus of the pilot?

I happen to believe Lakewood needs more cops on the street sooner rather than later.

WHAT ARE THE IDEOLOGICAL/POLICY VALUES DRIVING THIS PROGRAM?

Ideological and policy assumptions about the value of privatization of public services are emerging from the deployment of CitiStat in Baltimore.

Who in Lakewood has articulated and accepted these ideological and policy assumptions?

Have the assumptions been stated and understood?

Where and how do Lakewood’s agents - Mayor and Council, Grow Lakewood and Lakewood Alive – square with the privatization agenda and efforts to inject competition into city services?

BALTIMORE NUGGETS

A quick and dirty Google search will quickly turn up Baltimore nuggets such as:

Mayoral Speeches: ROTARY CLUB METROPOLITAN BALTIMORE ASSEMBLY http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/mayor/speeches/010321.html
*.... we are making Baltimore's *government* more cost-effective. Through *CitiStat*: *...* We will look at selling city properties and *privatize* *services*. *...*
http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/mayor/speeches/010321.html - 21k

*CitiStat Report of the Week: http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/news/citistat/Reports/GS011115.pdf* This week, the Department of Public Works' General Services Bureau is online. We are tracking the use of CitiTrack to reduce work order backlogs (map http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/news/citistat/Reports/GS011115.gif). And we continue to track job placement of custodians and guards affected by the privatization of this function.

Has the Mayor and Council bought into this paradigm shift?

Or it it too early to say?

“TIPPING POINTâ€Â￾ AND SALE OF PUBLIC ASSETS

If Lakewood is at the tipping point, is it time to sell off assets?

Which assets?

How does Citi-Stat assess their market value as asset?

PRIVATIZATION OR RESIDENCY INCENTIVES

Perhaps the matter of residency incentives for municipal employees, something kicked around on the LO deck before, is a moot issue if privatization is the expected outcome once the data has been captured from CitiStat.

Bottom line is the very norm of the city is now subject to what the Manhattan Institute might term “a revolution in municipal management.â€Â￾

A deep and visionary discussion about the reform of norms and values in the city is in order.

I hope Lakewood Observers will undertake a deep and critical inquiry into CitiStat and the implications for reform of norms and values in the city.

It would be especially gratifying to see the newly elected and standing council members, along with city employees and citizens step up to the plate, enter the dialogue and articulate their interests and concerns about where the city is going with CitiStat.


Kenneth Warren

A couple of statements highlight the spread between aspects implicit to this critical inquiry.

In the topic <civic intelligence questioned>
http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=977

Mayor George, @The Lakewood Buzz

"One of the main reasons I ran for Mayor in 2003 was because I had grown tired of elaborate plans, unrealistic visions, civic yaking, esoteric discussions, rambling arguments, and overall intellectual gymnastics.

Lakewood needs ACTION. Again, ACTION."

and,

In the topic < Charter Issues on the Ballot - Watch Out!>
http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1216

Dr. Larry Keller,

"The need is to refurbish the water and sewer systems. As this is costly, and not a project for direct voter approval in my mind as most will lack the information and elections are seldom effective systems for conveying information, I would hope the amendment is approved.

As all the infrastructure needs will be costly, and any diversion is to be stopped, a professional government is the best remedy. Our City Manager charter with Article V devoted to a professional financial system is a better protection than the vagaries of a referendum. "

***

The drill down to general assumptions is concerned with:

how assumptions are worded;

how this language is to be understood;

how they are operationalized, (i.e. how they work together toward an end);

what the assumptions' intentional (i.e. human,) contexts are;

what the assumptions' explicit and implicit (even perhaps, 'hidden,') agendas are;

how these assumptions in turn plug into views of the future;

and, found in this, further assumptions about these future factors, variables, contingencies both certain and uncertain;

now, given current and future bundles of assumptions, what biases and prejudices and selections and ideologies are part of these bundles;

which worldviews are negotiated or non-negotiable in the assumptions;

who doesn't get any say in any of this;

what is the strategic cost/benefit analysis--is its data solid;

what are best and worst cases;

what alternatives can't make it to the table and why;

are there assumptions made about which persons get to make decisions about any of the above;

are there, then, also assumptions about 'convening,' i.e. who gets to sit at the table;

in this last consideration, are there hidden psychosocial, political, economic, class, race, educational, assumptions worth evaluation;

what are the competing visions of a community's future, in the most open system enabled to allow unqualified participation and engagement?

***

Ken, the LO, especially extended through the mission of the Visionary Alignment, could be said in but one view to build critical inquiry from the foundation provided in this last assumption.

We have a tiny team in place. Its own bias reduces to the radical idea:

the rejection of cynicism

What I've become aware of over the last year is that there is a very cynical idea afoot in Lakewood.

I'll offer a twofold version.

[b] it is that (1) a citizenry is too stupid to be allowed to become involved in decisions about the future of the community;

and,

(2) but, that's okay because there are already processes in place which buffer the stupid citizenry out of decision making, information flows, and the qualifying presumptions of who gets convened to sit at the 'table'.

I'll give two examples. Lakewood's teenage males and Section 8 residents aren't to sit at any damn table where decisions are made.

Question for Jay, Mary Anne, Ken, Jim...

Is the full Grow Lakewood Report available to be downloaded? I see the report made to the Mayor and Council but I've heard there also is a more extensive (complete?) report.

I expect that Lakewood Public Library, both Main and Madison will obtain copies of the full Grow Lakewood report shortly.

Kenneth Warren

Tony Felice wrote:... That's why I find the LO project so exciting. The fact of these questions being asked here about CitiStat--the fact of its being observed in this way--will affect what it turns out to be.[/b]

Tony

Glad you jumped in was great meeting you the other night. I am glad we already have some many people willing to look and digest CitiStats. My biggest fear with data is always presentation. I paid for a house doing wacky charts for BP that would prove whatever point they needed with whatever numbers we were given,

I am not saying that LakewoodAlive or the city would do that but when thinking people rely totally on numbers as presented, rarely does anything good come of it. As Ken points out one of the most troubling aspects is that they are not doing ALL parts of the city.

Thanks again for the kinds words on behalf of everyone and for jumping in.

Ken,

Rest easy, the City's contract with GovStat LLC (which is implementing CitiStat) is well underway.

We are allowing GovStat personnel complete and total free reign to implement the program...their recommendation is to concentrate on four departments at the onset and and to avoid the safety forces, at least initially..in short, we are following their recommendations to the "t".

After City wide review, GovStat personnel suggested the four departments in which CitiStat should be considered.

Not surprisingly, GovStat personnel has given the Administration high marks for good government and management techniques, e.g. goal setting, performance based management techniques, performance benchmarking etc....making implementation of the program a much easier task. Our City financial benchmarking system won a national accounting award last year!!

We are excited about the potential of CitiStat and will make every effort to keep everyone abreast of the program and its progress.

Thanks for your questions.

TJG

Where are we on this topic? It is now February, implementation is set for August/September. Can we get a status report?

Citizen outlines the beginning of a smart inquiry. Bottom up.

Mayor replies,

Rest easy, the City's contract with GovStat LLC (which is implementing CitiStat) is well underway.

We are allowing GovStat personnel complete and total free reign to implement the program

Begging more questions. Still, top down. Or: from the top come inchoate assurances.

I asked in the middle of November, directed to Jay, "could the full Lakewood Report be sent to the library?"

Three months later...

***

My basic question about CityStats is: what's the downside?

This follows from a routine framing of cost/benefit, weaknesses/strength. Given that CityStats is a managerial tool, as any professionally trained (i.e. for example, MBA, or developed in a corporate setting, etc.) manager should well know, there is no free lunch, smart implementation proceeds from smart vetting.

Thus, I assume the mayor et. al. could back away from the kind of assurance we've come to associate with George Bush, ('trust us, we know what we are doing') and provide more exacting details about what the SWOT was for CityStats.

So: what is the upside, what is the downside?

This isn't too much to ask.

what is the downside?

Change is hard, especially for government. That's not a downside to me, but I'm sure it would be for the administration.

Danielle, the easy embrace of CityStat, begs a lot of questions. Some have been raised by Ken.

Mine is simple. What was viewed by city managers as being the downside: risk, hazard, consequence? Etc.?

No free lunch. So: what is the thinking behind implementation? What makes up the critique of CitYStats used by Lakewood's top level managers, city council, to analyze the range of consequences?

Ummm, what were the numerous downsides?

Stephen, what bothers me is that we haven't heard much at all. I haven't heard any city officials tout any downsides, there just hasn't been movement. The meeting about CityStat was in October and still nothing. I would just like to know what is being done. The last update we received from the Mayor was in November. Suzanne's question has merit "Can we get a status report?".

It sure does, Danielle.

Kevin, any councilpersons have insight on current status?

any councilpersons have insight on current status?

It has been nearly two weeks since this question was last asked. Last night council looked at cutting some aspects of the recycling program. I believe the amount was $40,000. In light of this I would like to know where are we with Citistat. A lot of money was spent on that and I believe it was close to $40,000 but I could be wrong. Rumors are that the administration isn't interested in Citistat any longer. I'd like to know if this is true. So please someone in the know, where are we with Citistat?

Danielle Masters wrote: Rumors are that the administration isn't interested in Citistat any longer. I'd like to know if this is true. So please someone in the know, where are we with Citistat?

I am not in the know. But....

Citistat is a program that quantifies the performance of city departments and costs of city services. For example:

How much sick time is used?
How does the use of sick time compare with historical averages?
How many calls are answered by the police and fire deparments?
How does that compare with historical averages?
How do you measure the quality of city services?
How does the staffing at all levels compare with historical averages and other similar communities?
How does the compensation package of city employees compare with the private sector?
How does the compensation package of city employees compare with the pay and benefits of city residents?

I am sure you can think of many other examples of things that can be measured and evaluated. The next step would be to make decisions based on the data collected. Since the city will never reach the first step it will never reach the next.

City officials are not interested in the Citistat program because they are afraid to let the citizens (voters) know how the money is being spent. They prefer discussions on how many slinkees the recycling department hands out.