Lazy Sundays ... random thoughts

Snow, cold weather, Christmas tree with lights atwinkle, hot chocolate, good movies, staying in your pjs all day long ... these things have converged to give me a lazy Sunday.

Yes, I'll probably have to go out and shovel the driveway at some point, but considering that we're still expected to get some snow until around 5 p.m., it might be better to wait until tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, some random thoughts.

* I like Roberta de Boer's column on the budgeting survey Toledo City Council approved this week.

"Market research tells us what consumers want.

A political visionary reveals to us something about ourselves, about hopes we never knew we had. A political visionary gets us excited about traveling to a destination we have longed to visit, even though we never realized it existed.

In theory, anyway, I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to have some inkling about the vision of political leaders before we elect them."

* Area birders are out and about to do the annual Christmas Bird Count. I'm hoping the Snowy Owl is still about so he can be counted. I haven't seen him lately, but I have seen quite a few people driving up and down the streets looking for him.

* The Blade doesn't get it - again. They take exception to the President's description of a Portuguese language program as a 'wasteful project' that reflects the irresponsibility of Congressional spending. What the editors don't understand is that it IS a wasteful project because it's not something the federal government should be funding. Education is supposed to be a state issue, but the Congress, and even this President, seem to have forgotten that.

So when Congress spends federal monies to fund pork projects, it is a 'wasteful project,' even if it just happens to be tied to 'educational' purposes. We'd all be much better off if all the monies the feds spent on education was allowed to stay in the states in the first place.

But then there was this: "The amount of the earmark was a mere trifle in a multi-billion dollar bill." Yes, the age-old, "it's only" as an excuse for frivolous or unnecessary spending. Perhaps they should have gone back to read their first paragraph in which they include this quote about the bill: "nearly $10 billion over budget and filled with more than 2,000 earmarks." The problem, as this bill clearly shows, is that eventually, those "it's only's" add up to significant amounts - even for the federal government.

* It's currently 27 degrees, but it feels like 15...winds are gusting up to 20 mph and all my north and east windows are frozen over making it impossible to see outside. Time to see if there's a good movie on TV. Enjoy your day!

$35,000 to do budget survey and the question they should ask

Yep - that's right. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is proposing to spend $35,000 to conduct a survey of Toledoans to find out their thoughts on the budget.

How much do you want to bet that the #1 response is to stop spending money on surveys?

But seriously...

In the April edition of Toledo's employee newsletter, the Mayor said he was going to do the surveys as part of the performance-based budgeting process (or outcome-based budgeting) he wanted to implement. The original plan was to do such outreach in the late summer and to have the departments use that information in formulating their goals for their 2008 budget. Obviously, that didn't occur.

But the city appears to be pursuing this type of a budgeting process and that's a really good thing. It's proven to be an inclusive and good method of budgeting in other cities. How inclusive such a process would be here would depend upon how involved they want the public.

So far, from what I've read and heard of this particular proposal for a survey, I'm not happy. In a city of 298,446 (July 2006 estimate), I don't think that a survey of 400, 800 or 1,200 will give you a comprehensive understanding of what the public wants.

I understand fully the methods by which such small numbers are surveyed and then extrapolated to 'represent' the viewpoints of the large numbers. I also understand that selecting such small numbers, in a way that gives a good representation of the large group is a skill and can be costly. So while it is important to get a good sampling, it's also important to provide an opportunity for all interested citizens to participate.

But, considering the current budget issues within the city, I'm not convinced that spending $35,000 to survey .1-.4% of the population is the most cost effective method - at least, not when other options for reaching more people are available.

Could we pay a significantly lesser amount to develop a survey and then put it on the city's website and make printed copies available in the libraries, police and fire stations, or even mail them out with our utility bills? What about public forums - the mayor holds them regularly. Wouldn't these options allow for more public input? And, isn't that what it's all about? Getting feedback from the community about their desires for the priorities in the budget?

Frank Szollosi had a suggestion for the poll as well.

"I'd also like to include a question on how people feel about their tax burden."

Personally, I'd like a poll that would ask me my top five priorities for spending. But, knowing only the top priorities doesn't help an elected official make good decisions. A critical question to ask is "what five programs or spending priorities would you cut in order to have your top priorities?"

If you don't ask this question, you'll get a list of things people want. And that's okay, but if you ask enough people, you'll find that everything government does is wanted by someone. So it's not enough to just ask for the top priorities.

If you ask this question, you'll get a good idea of what citizens DON'T want their money spent on - and that will give city council and the mayor good guidance for where to start reducing ... guidance they definitely need considering the reduction in criminal justice services that the mayor is proposing for 2008.

And the questions should be developed without 'control' of the elected officials. I don't want a question that asks "do you think flowers make the city look nice?" Most would answer yes to that question - but that doesn't mean that they want money spent on flowers versus something like roads or police cars or jails. I want questions measure intensity in addition to interest. I'm interested in flowers, for example, but my intensity for them is certainly far less than for other items.

Hopefully, if the city goes forward with this survey, they won't be limited to a very small targeted number of people - but will offer the survey to anyone willing to take it. And the questions will be such that you'll get good guidance - and not just what elected officials hope to hear. And, finally, they will actually use the information to formulate the goals and the budget for the city. And that would be a very good thing.