The other side of the issue
Larry Robertson, planning officer of the Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps, has a letter in Monday's edition of the Bergen Record expressing TVAC's opposition to bringing all emergency dispatching under a single countywide agency. Having joined the chorus of voices calling for increased use of shared services arrangements to improve cost efficiency, I found Robertson's letter to be a good reminder of how a concept that works well in the private sector does not necessarily translate well to government agencies. That's hardly a reason to abandon efforts to limit unnecessary overlap and infrastructre; but it is a good warning to proceed with caution and heed the lessons of the past from an organization that represents the best that Teaneck has to offer.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:54 PM
8 Comments:
In Larry Robertson's letter, we're seeing yet another example of the "Rule of 566" phenomenon. In a state with such a spectacularly high number of municipalities (one of the highest in the nation in municipalities per capita), we would see tremendous benefit from consolidation. Yet, home rule is an extremely powerful disincentive to achieving these benefits.
Robertson cited the example of municipalities that voluntarily shed the county system and provided their own dispatch service with their own call takers and radio systems. Why? Because local service to residents was faster and more accurate.
In recent years, we have seen Rockleigh and Teterboro shed county service.
Unfortunately, Rockleigh (2000 Census population of 391) and Teterboro (population was 18 in 2000, but it's since grown to about 60-70), are probably the worst examples of local governments that should be forsaking shared services.
Bergen County municipalities have an average population of around 12,600 residents, even smaller than the average outside the County of around 15,200. On this basis, Teaneck (at 2.5 times the state average) is significantly better justified than the Rockleigh's and Teterboro's of our area in demanding the fundamental right to local administration of its municipal services.
Are combined service always better? Of course not. But neither is home rule. Presenting this as a choice of either extreme only blurs the issue.
Any corporation that seeks to outsource any service previously provided inhouse needs to address these same issues. This is not a new analysis or set of considerations, it just seems that no one is addressing this on the municipal level.
The questions that need to be asked when considering potential consolidation that should be asked as part of this process are:
1) Will there be genuine cost savings by sharing services, or would savings only come from reducing quality? Will additional expertise or quality be gained that cannot be justified by going alone?
2) Can appropriate guarantees be made to provide an adequate level of service, with escalating penalties built in if these minimum levels are not met?
3) Is this a vital service that is too risky to share? Are there core safety, security or confidentiality issues that militate against sharing? Might the savings and benefits accrued in normal times be lost by a single catastrophic event or failure?
4) What effect will this have on existing staff assigned to the function? Will they and their home-grown knowledge be lost? Can they be re-assigned to other, more critical core functions.
Whatever the answers are to these questions, "loss of control" should not be used as an automatic veto to justify refusing to pursue shared services and regionalization.
Any cut in staffing or number of locations, any change in the provision of any core service can reduce quality. In an age of out-of-control property taxation, we need to take a look at every aspect of our local government and ask if it could be done better by combining with other local governments or by bringing in providers who can deliver the same services at lower cost.
As long as we properly analyze each situation, and evaluate and strike the proper balance between the benefits AND risks, we will have a chance to make a meaningful dent in our local tax bills.
Alan Sohn
Amen!
Alan Sohn raises excellent issues. One other thing should be noted, though I'm not expert in dispatch systems, I did notice that LarryRobertson's letter was short on examples. I do wonder whether the county system really is so bad (but like I say, I don't have any knowledge of this myself)
Why are we even spending a moment focusing on "fixing" the TVAC? It ain't broken. I'm eternally grateful that we have the TVAC since their dedication and professionalism can mean the difference between life and death.
How about we focus on other areas that might benefit from the introduction of efficiencies of scale such as garbage collection, public works and recycling?
This has nothing to do with TVAC and everything to do with Teaneck.
TVAC is a shining beacon of efficiency. With a contribution of $55,000 from the Township (in 2005), under $1.40 per resident, and some very effective fundraising, the Teaneck Volunteer Ambulance Corps harnesses Teaneck's spirit of community service to provide excellent service at a bargain basement price. It would be hard to spot anything that should be changed at TVAC. If it ain't broke...
Teaneck is another story. I don't know if anyone has a grasp of how Teaneck could find efficiencies by regionalization or alternate service providers. As part of the Teaneck Community Project (the Visioning Process), our Teaneck Taxes task force identified production of a series of reports comparing Teaneck's efficiency in providing services (measured by dollars per resident and other meaningful measures) as compared to other, similar municipalities. A series of rolling audits would analyze each department and identify potential opportunities for savings.
Leave TVAC alone. Let's start digging into the budgets and start finding genuine opportunities for savings.
Let's stop talking about TVAC. They're dedicate and cheap. If DPW was volunteer we wouldn't be talking about sharing their services either.
Let's stop talking about TVAC. They're dedicate and cheap. If DPW was volunteer we wouldn't be talking about sharing their services either.
I have yet to hear anyone point a finger at TVAC, so there's no need to be unsettled by the conversation. As Bergen County embarks on a service consolidation campaign, Teaneck residents will undoubtedly stand united to preserve TVAC, a town treasure, in its current state.
It is, however, quite worthwhile to continue to keep the conversation about shared services going. The letter by Larry Robertson of TVAC brings a few important issues into focus that Mr. Sohn has addressed very well.
Greets to the webmaster of this wonderful site. Keep working. Thank you.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home