![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
livingdebMy city has a proposition to require an independent efficiency audit with the goal of identifying ways to save money. Good idea, eh? No brainer, eh?
Except that "the city is [already] routinely and robustly audited"(1); City Council's Audit and Finance Committee already performs "annual audits of all departments on a rotation basis, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and equity."(1) (See sources below.)
So what gives? I tried thinking of rational reasons to do this anyway, because that's what I do. Possibilities that come to mind are:
1) our city is incompetent and/or
2) our city is corrupt.
So we should hire someone who's actually good at this and is not already in the bribery loop.
Our city definitely could be more efficient. There's nothing like watching a road get re-striped, then re-surfaced, then dug up to replace the utilities to convince me of that.
Until recently, I have also felt that our city is also corrupt. But in the last year or two, road changes and bus changes have actually been much more often on the improvement side than not. So maybe that new 10:1 City Council system is working (where only one member is at-large). Interesting.
So I found more information:
* This would not be redundant with current city audits. The city auditor "specializes in accounting for city spending, not evaluating how to achieve savings in programs."(2) [I don't see how that's not redundant with auditing for efficiency and effectiveness.]
* "It requires the audit be conducted by a third-party, independent firm with great experience in these audits."(3)
* "It requires the audit be conducted on the entire city enterprise, including all city departments such as the General Fund Departments, Austin Energy, Austin Water, Austin Transportation Department, and so on."(3)
* "It requires the firm be given unfettered access to the information they need to conduct a thorough audit."(3)
* "The audit ends with an "implementation plan" which includes a list of recommendations and associated tax savings, which the city council will have the sole authority to implement with input from the public."(3)
* "'The proposed ordinance must be understood as a response to Austin's high taxes, high spending, and high debt load in return for questionable quality in city services,' TPPF attorney Robert Henneke wrote."(1)
* Costs: $1 - 5 million(2) or $3 - 5 million(4)
* Savings (if you took every single one of the recommendations): "hundreds of millions of dollars"(3) or $160 million(2)
* How often? Once? Every year? I have no idea.
Sounds great, right? But the decision makers of the PAC that started the petition "all have connections to the Koch Brothers."(4) I consider those guys to be specialists in corruption (spreading it, not stopping it), plus they seem downright evil, so that makes me want to vote no.
For example, we have a rule against dark money in Austin. So we can see that the group that organized the petition drive got all their money from another group, but this other group says they don't have to reveal their sources. "It's ironic how [Citizens for an Accountable Austin] wants to shine a light on the way our city spends money but won't turn the light on its own propaganda funding," Hinojosa continued. "That's just fishy and makes me question their motives."(1)
I have the philosophy that I shouldn't dismiss an idea just because of the person who proposes it. Even people I normally disagree with can have some ideas I like, so I should evaluate ideas on their own merit. But in these modern times*, I feel I also have to watch out for charlatans. I feel like the Koch brothers are all about being winners by turning everyone else into losers or suckers. I don't mind being kind of a loser, but I do mind being a sucker.
TPPF is involved, and their "'local spending' recommendations advocate 'Certain local governments should be made to undergo a private sector-led efficiency study.' If Austin voters don't approve Prop K, according to TPPF's social media, the group has vowed to bring the issue to the Capitol." (1) That sounds like a threat. I get the idea that "certain local governments" include all progressive ones, not all poorly run ones.
So where's the catch? I notice it does not say the firm has to be non-partisan. Who are these firms with great experience? Are they all partisan? Are they all owned by the Koch brothers? I don't know.
People opposed feel this is a way for extreme right wingers to access more city data (the report would be public) in order to find more things to legislate against at the state and national level. They feel that all the the recommendations to save money would involve abolishing progressive goals, abolishing enforcement of pesky laws trying to make you be more ethical, and privatizing everything else. (See the first comment below for specifics.)
You'd think we could pick an auditor with progressive leanings rather than with extremist right-wing leanings, but I don't know. Apparently not. (And it would have to already exist, so that it could have a history of experience with this type of audit.) I don't see anyone talking about this.
And pretty much everyone in our city government opposes it. So if it passes, I don't see there being a good relationship between the city and the auditor.
* The atrocity du jour (that I've noticed): the US just voted against a UN resolution to ban killing people for being gay.
Sources
(1) Tuma, Mary. "City Slickers: How the state's most influential conservative think tank works to undermine local control." The Austin Chronicle (10/12/18) (very left-wing)
(2) Craver, Jack. "Council faces legal action over wording of two ballot initiatives." Austin Monitor (8/13/18)
(3) Searle, Michael. "What is Proposition K? And why should Austin support it?" Window on Windsor (10/2018) (my neighborhood association newsletter; the pro half of the pro/con section)
(4) Butts, David. "Proposition K is an attack on Austin self-governance. Vote no!" Window on Windsor (10/2018) (my neighborhood association newsletter; the con half of the pro/con section)
The League of Women Voters guide is not yet out, and I can't find any articles on this issue from the Texas Tribune, another source that tries to be unbiased.
Except that "the city is [already] routinely and robustly audited"(1); City Council's Audit and Finance Committee already performs "annual audits of all departments on a rotation basis, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and equity."(1) (See sources below.)
So what gives? I tried thinking of rational reasons to do this anyway, because that's what I do. Possibilities that come to mind are:
1) our city is incompetent and/or
2) our city is corrupt.
So we should hire someone who's actually good at this and is not already in the bribery loop.
Our city definitely could be more efficient. There's nothing like watching a road get re-striped, then re-surfaced, then dug up to replace the utilities to convince me of that.
Until recently, I have also felt that our city is also corrupt. But in the last year or two, road changes and bus changes have actually been much more often on the improvement side than not. So maybe that new 10:1 City Council system is working (where only one member is at-large). Interesting.
So I found more information:
* This would not be redundant with current city audits. The city auditor "specializes in accounting for city spending, not evaluating how to achieve savings in programs."(2) [I don't see how that's not redundant with auditing for efficiency and effectiveness.]
* "It requires the audit be conducted by a third-party, independent firm with great experience in these audits."(3)
* "It requires the audit be conducted on the entire city enterprise, including all city departments such as the General Fund Departments, Austin Energy, Austin Water, Austin Transportation Department, and so on."(3)
* "It requires the firm be given unfettered access to the information they need to conduct a thorough audit."(3)
* "The audit ends with an "implementation plan" which includes a list of recommendations and associated tax savings, which the city council will have the sole authority to implement with input from the public."(3)
* "'The proposed ordinance must be understood as a response to Austin's high taxes, high spending, and high debt load in return for questionable quality in city services,' TPPF attorney Robert Henneke wrote."(1)
* Costs: $1 - 5 million(2) or $3 - 5 million(4)
* Savings (if you took every single one of the recommendations): "hundreds of millions of dollars"(3) or $160 million(2)
* How often? Once? Every year? I have no idea.
Sounds great, right? But the decision makers of the PAC that started the petition "all have connections to the Koch Brothers."(4) I consider those guys to be specialists in corruption (spreading it, not stopping it), plus they seem downright evil, so that makes me want to vote no.
For example, we have a rule against dark money in Austin. So we can see that the group that organized the petition drive got all their money from another group, but this other group says they don't have to reveal their sources. "It's ironic how [Citizens for an Accountable Austin] wants to shine a light on the way our city spends money but won't turn the light on its own propaganda funding," Hinojosa continued. "That's just fishy and makes me question their motives."(1)
I have the philosophy that I shouldn't dismiss an idea just because of the person who proposes it. Even people I normally disagree with can have some ideas I like, so I should evaluate ideas on their own merit. But in these modern times*, I feel I also have to watch out for charlatans. I feel like the Koch brothers are all about being winners by turning everyone else into losers or suckers. I don't mind being kind of a loser, but I do mind being a sucker.
TPPF is involved, and their "'local spending' recommendations advocate 'Certain local governments should be made to undergo a private sector-led efficiency study.' If Austin voters don't approve Prop K, according to TPPF's social media, the group has vowed to bring the issue to the Capitol." (1) That sounds like a threat. I get the idea that "certain local governments" include all progressive ones, not all poorly run ones.
So where's the catch? I notice it does not say the firm has to be non-partisan. Who are these firms with great experience? Are they all partisan? Are they all owned by the Koch brothers? I don't know.
People opposed feel this is a way for extreme right wingers to access more city data (the report would be public) in order to find more things to legislate against at the state and national level. They feel that all the the recommendations to save money would involve abolishing progressive goals, abolishing enforcement of pesky laws trying to make you be more ethical, and privatizing everything else. (See the first comment below for specifics.)
You'd think we could pick an auditor with progressive leanings rather than with extremist right-wing leanings, but I don't know. Apparently not. (And it would have to already exist, so that it could have a history of experience with this type of audit.) I don't see anyone talking about this.
And pretty much everyone in our city government opposes it. So if it passes, I don't see there being a good relationship between the city and the auditor.
* The atrocity du jour (that I've noticed): the US just voted against a UN resolution to ban killing people for being gay.
Sources
(1) Tuma, Mary. "City Slickers: How the state's most influential conservative think tank works to undermine local control." The Austin Chronicle (10/12/18) (very left-wing)
(2) Craver, Jack. "Council faces legal action over wording of two ballot initiatives." Austin Monitor (8/13/18)
(3) Searle, Michael. "What is Proposition K? And why should Austin support it?" Window on Windsor (10/2018) (my neighborhood association newsletter; the pro half of the pro/con section)
(4) Butts, David. "Proposition K is an attack on Austin self-governance. Vote no!" Window on Windsor (10/2018) (my neighborhood association newsletter; the con half of the pro/con section)
The League of Women Voters guide is not yet out, and I can't find any articles on this issue from the Texas Tribune, another source that tries to be unbiased.
no subject
on 2018-10-14 02:27 am (UTC)But from other sources, I find mostly speculation on the real goals. Here are some things that other people are guessing:
* "the Koch network of organizations ... favors low taxes, less government oversight, and scant services for the poor."(1)
* The real goals are to "oppose workers having rights such as sick leave or a living wage, ... destroy unions and let employers be able to fire at will, ... privatize government services including our electric utility, ... oppose environmental regulations that fight climate change and eliminate Austin's tree ordinance, etc."(3)
* "At a Texas Tribune Festival session the weekend before TPPF's panel, Henneke and conservative Rep. Paul Workman attacked Austin's paid sick leave ordinance – currently blocked by a temporary injunction sought by TPPF – and its author, City Council Member Greg Casar. ... Paid sick leave is not TPPF's only Austin target; in 2016, the group was behind a lawsuit to overturn the city's short-term rental ordinance. When not suing the city, they're writing near-obsessive, zealous takedowns of Austin and other progressive Texas cities in their blog or on social media, giving fuel to the state's conservative legislators and leadership – despite Republicans' traditional championing of democratically elected local control."(1)
* "TPPF has already announced its latest plans to cripple Austin and other municipalities. An 18-group "Conservative Texas Budget" coalition led by TPPF unveiled its legislative priorities at the Capitol in late September. These include abolishing the corporate franchise tax, put in place to cover prior property tax pandering by state government, and a revenue cap requiring voter approval for city property tax increases above 2.5% – a cap strongly opposed by many urban officials throughout Texas."(1)
* It's "a thinly veiled attempt to collect detailed and sensitive city data that TPPF and GOP legislators could use to make their anti-Austin cases."(1)
* "An outside group may come in and say we can privatize it and save this amount, but for Austinites, money and values go hand in hand. It's important we leave those decisions to local elected officials. ...third-party audits don't always align with the values of the community, pointing to the 2011 Austin ISD facilities master plan, conducted by Ohio-based consultants, and the resulting community uproar when the plan proposed school closures. "They weren't looking at equity, they were just looking at square footage and the cost of buildings, but policymakers have to consider a lot more than that," said Hinojosa" (1) "Searle provided "government efficiency reviews" from New York firm Alvarez & Marsal that include "opportunities for the monetization of underutilized and abandoned" public land and facilities and "opportunities to outsource or privatize functions currently performed in-house." The firm, known for helping restructure Lehman Brothers and Arthur Andersen post-Enron, has faced criticism over its recommendations: In Kansas, it suggested a single, high-deductible health insurance plan for all state employees, greater use of inmate labor, and the full privatization of its Medicaid eligibility system. A contract with New Orleans ended with the layoffs of 7,000 teachers after Hurricane Katrina, later found to be improperly handled by a federal appeals court."(1)
* "[I]n the states where this has been done, Louisiana and Kansas, it has been rejected or turned into a disaster for their state governments. There are few examples of this being done in major cities."(3)
* "TPPF has lobbied the Legislature to support outsourcing and divestiture of both state and local services, including stripping cities of their municipal utilities."(1)
* "it's another way for TPPF and its Republican backers, hellbent on undermining Austin's local control, to try to roll back or privatize city services. The think tank has attacked a slew of Austin policies, including the city's short-term rental and ridesharing regulations, single-use bag ban, the upcoming $250 million affordable housing bond, and paid sick leave, giving critics plenty of reasons to believe the seemingly innocuous proposal is a Trojan horse."(1)
* "Let's be clear, this is an attack on our city by extremist elements who cannot stand the fact [that] Austin follows its own path. They oppose workers having rights such as sick leave or a living wage. They want to destroy unions and let employers be able to fire at will. They want to privatize government services including our city owned electric utility. They oppose environmental regulations that fight climate change and eliminate Austin's tree ordinance. In a sentence: They love what donald Trump is doing and want more of it."(3)