List members: I've been following the city hall consideration of the McKinsey & Company report. I thought I'd give some of my thoughts on what I've read and seen so far.
To start with, the goal of augmenting the city's efforts on housing and job creation is a worthy endeavor. Organizing resources to meet that goal is obviously necessary. But� (You did know that "but" was coming, didn't you?) � I've got some problems with the methodology and recommendations of the report. First, does the report criticize the city for failing to meet goals that had never, in fact, been set? The general tenor of the report is that the city has spent the better part of a billion dollars and all it has to show for it is 52 houses and less than half the jobs that will be added by suburbia. My feeling is that the city is being faulted for failure to achieve goals that nobody knew about until the report was issued. I don't think the city ever said that it was going to spend a billion on housing and job creation. The money was spent on many projects that had nothing to do with housing and jobs. But to say, after the fact, that the city failed on housing and job creation is a belated inspiration. We may want to say now that the city should now make housing and jobs a priority. But that is different than saying that it has failed to meet those goals in the past. Second, if I accept, for the sake of argument that there has been a failure to meet pre-set goals, then I don't see the connection between that failure and the solutions recommended. The core recommendation is to reorganize city government by creating a planning and development czar as a new intermediate layer of government between any development function and the city council. The city is criticized for a "flat organizational structure." That stands on its head the usual criticism that government is too hierarchical. But what does an additional hierarchical level do for supposed poor performance on housing and jobs? I'm not too sure that there is one. Third, does the "dotted line" connection of "external agencies" represent a realistic distinction between them and ordinary departments of government? The "dotted line" supposedly indicates an "appointing (not reporting) relationship" to the city council. While it is true that the "external agencies" don't have the same relationship to the city council, that doesn't eliminate the reporting relationship. As an example, look at the NRP Policy Board. Of its 18 members, one is the mayor and the other is the president of the city council. In addition, there are representatives of Hennepin County, the Minneapolis Board of Education, the Minneapolis Library Board, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. All those agencies are members of the NRP's board because the NRP reports to all of them. Making the NRP functions part of a department of city government means that the reporting relationship to those other governmental bodies is terminated. It also degrades the present NRP governing board to being just an advisory body. That seems contrary to the stated purpose of getting different governmental bodies to work together. Fourth, the consideration of moving "external agencies" to be a component of a department of city government does not seem to contemplate the current requirements of state law. For example, the entire NRP program is a creature of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1831. Creating a multi-purpose board "similar in composition to the current NRP Policy Board" doesn't conform to the state law. Nor does the discussion seem to recognize the goals established by that state law. Fifth, while "one-stop shopping" sounds appealing, there is a serious downside to that organizational structure. What is being proposed in "one-stop shopping" is the combination of regulatory functions with promotion functions. As many people have found, that combination creates an inherent conflict of interest within a government agency. In any case, what does the solution of "one-stop shopping" have to do with the problem of poor results on housing and job creation? Are their any examples of a developer of housing or business giving up because he or she had to make two or three stops? The spaghetti-wiring chart in the report entitled "Navigating Development Processes" makes it look like there are 17 or more stops. In reality, it overlays several separate processes. By doing so, anyone could present a spaghetti-wiring chart. Sixth, the report recommends a major restructuring of city government. But does that restructuring really achieve anything? There is a bouillabaisse school of public management. A bouillabaisse is a stew of large chunks of seafood in a broth. Because of the large chunks, when you stir it, the stew appears to be an entirely different. It is, of course, still bouillabaisse. The report, if implemented, would stir the bouillabaisse of city government. It would look entirely different and those inclined to do so could take credit for serving an entirely new stew. However, it contains the same ingredients and will still taste the same. If the cook wants a different stew, then more than stirring is needed. Well, that's enough. I want to get back to my original thought. That is, making housing and jobs city priorities and organizing to achieve those priorities is a worthy and appropriate goal. But I'm beginning to think that the McKinsey & Company report serves to frame the debate rather than resolving it. Since McKinsey did the work pro bono, my position might seem like "looking a gift horse in the mouth." That is not what I want to do. The people who did the work on the report and the company that supported them deserve all the credit they can be given. But I think that even they would regard the city taking their report as a first step in a longer, but ultimately successful process, as an appropriate use of their work. Steve Cross Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
