The Uselessness of the Executive Council

And it is the confirmation process (0.00 / 0)

in which such commitments should be extracted.

If Lynch demands it before nominating, it looks like a backroom deal. The EC should have publicly demanded it.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 10:54:55 AM UTC

Last year the Pew Center's Grading the States report... (4.00 / 3)

... gave us the lowest score of any state , a D+, in their  "assessment of the quality of management in the 50 states".

There were a lot of reasons, including lack of controls and audits, poor quality IT systems, lack of strategic planning, lack of electronic access to information, etc. One of the reasons cited was the delays created by the archaic contracts review process in the Exec Council:

This process can delay procurements for agencies for weeks or months, limiting the ability of agencies to manage toward goals quickly
and efficiently. While the council's review might reduce the potential for fraud or misspending, the low threshold for review
means that the council must inspect hundreds of contracts. This limits its ability to review more significant contracts in depth and
slows the review process.

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 11:09:43 AM UTC

Executive Council Should Be Abolished... (4.00 / 1)

...at least, that's my viewpoint.  I've even sponsored a couple of bills to do so, but it's probably more likely we'd reduce the size of the Legislature before doing away with the Executive Council.  

The real problem I see is that the EC creates 5 additional "politicians," who no matter how good they are they have as their obligation to "get" more things, more political appointments, more contracts, more money spent in their own district.  That means making deals -- it happens -- with the other members of the Executive Council, AND with the Governor, no matter who the Governor is -- Republican or Democrat.  

"Politics" can serve a purpose, of course.  But already we have 424 politicians in the House and Senate.  Fortunately for them, their districts are smaller, and they are a little closer to those whom they represent.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:00:06 PM UTC

Poor Kathi Rogers (4.00 / 1)

Back around '93 she spent an enormous amount of time working on abolishing the Executive Council. She had thought through every aspect and really did a great job, but came up short of the needed votes.  

County government is another that we have all worked on abolishing too.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:55:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, Kathi Led The Effort Several Times! (0.00 / 0)

...and we talked about that recently.  Well, a visionary idea is always ahead of its time, by definition.  I tend to think she has a new view of County Government now, but maybe Peter Burling can continue his cause on that.  We'd save so much money doing many of those functions of County government in a more unified manner.  And elmininate even more politicians!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 13:01:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Favorite saying (4.00 / 4)

My favorite line during the debate over my bill to abolish the Executive Council was "The Executive Council is a speedbump on the road to the future!"

I tried three times to have the Council abolished but alas the Republican Majority including then Governor Steve Merrill pulled out all the stops to keep the Council going.

With regard to County Government I have always beleived that the county can do many things cheaper and more efficently then the State, including prosecuting criminal cases. Anyone want to see how a liberal Democrat can cut spending and increasing services at the county level look for my budget in 2010.

---

by: katbeep @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 13:37:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nice Kathi (0.00 / 0)

Ohhhhhh, what is it with those Republicans?!

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 14:30:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

County Government can also do some things better than the towns. (4.00 / 4)

Some governmental functions which, in a rural, farm based society made sense to organize on a town by town basis, are no longer efficient when done that way.

One example is fire protection. There is incredibly wasteful duplication of capital assets when each little town has to have one of each of the very expensive types of equipment needed today to fight fires.

Police is another-- here the waste is not some much in capital but in labor and management costs. The four towns around me have about 13,000 people and four police chiefs, four administrative assistants etc. Since each town now wants 24/7 police coverage, there are probably twice as many officers as really needed in the midnight to eight shift.

Buying in bulk is another area where a greater geographic unit would result in savings. Sand, paper fuel etc would all be cheaper if bought this way.

One solution would be to shift some functions to county government. Another would be to encourage the group of regional town association such as currently exists in the Suncook river region and elsewhere to expand to  cover more activities.  

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 17:11:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If my town is any indication.. (0.00 / 0)

...good luck on encouraging regional town associations. We have a volunteer fire dept, a small police force, and a tiny library. But any time regionalization  is raised, everyone throws their hands and cries out that it can't be done, too many people will quit, etc., etc., etc. The only way we will regionalize is if we are forced or bribed to do so.

The only plus to keeping the services at the town level is you know what's going on. At the county level, not so much. I would guess there isn't 1 person in 10 who knows who approves a county budget.

Except on this blog, of course ;-)

---

by: Michael Marsh @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 20:15:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True story on regionalization of fire departments (4.00 / 2)

One year at town meeting I asked the fire chief if he had ever given any thought to moving toward regionalization of capitol purchases. He said that it was a great idea but that it would take 15 years to accomplish.

So being a patient person (and having an Irish memory that can retain slights for 800 years), I waited through fifteen years of town meetings and on year fifteen asked how far we had gotten down the road to regionalization. The answer of course was not an inch.

The next year I put an article on the ballot to form a committee to study regionalization which met for a year and presented a report on the pros and cons from the point of each town department with inventories, personnel, and missions with comparisons to 6 or 7 surrounding towns.

The chair of that committee took over and has created a regional committee with select board members from most of the towns in this region who have enthusiastically endorse group purchasing.

We are now in year 19 and almost ready to gingerly approach the concept of proposing a merger of police and fire efforts. Even at this pace it is likely to cause a huge uproar in the affected departments. The enormous strain put on households by the current property tax system does have the effect of creating support for anything that can cut costs.

As the select board members from the towns are experiencing the savings that regionalization has brought in purchasing, they are more and more open to considering tackling the big items.

Eventually it will happen.

 

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 21:05:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cost? (4.00 / 1)

Anyone have any idea of how much it costs to keep the EC going? Curious.

No'm Sayn?

---

by: BurtCohen @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 22:43:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Point (4.00 / 1)

You'd also need to estimate the indirect costs, per Jim's earlier post ["their obligation (as politicians) to get more things"].  No doubt these dwarf direct expenditures such as salaries, office space, expenses, etc.

If no one has done this, it might make a great conceptual business school cost modeling project -- we used to do stuff like this all the time  during my days up at Tuck.  Perhaps our friends up there could recommend it to an enterprising student?  Might strengthen the case for change in Concord.  

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 22:52:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The biggest cost, adjusting my tinfoil hat, (0.00 / 0)

Could be the enormous opportunity for influence peddling that the Council represents.

I'm making that comment based solely on the structural problem, not on any history or knowledge of problems. A relatively unnoticed group, that can block vendor B from getting a contract and thereby direct it to vendor C. A group that is one-fifth the size of the state Senate, which itself is often charged with being too small and easy to lobby?  

---

by: elwood @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 22:58:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]