A representative view

9 Comments

1. 

   George C

    /  March 18, 2013

   I’m with Julie on this. I have yet to hear from anyone who thought that this survey was anything less than nebulous. After starting to take it I discontinued because it was clear that it would yield no valuable information and indeed could actually end up misrepresenting my views. I understand the Council’s desire to get a better sense of where the citizens want them to go but this survey was a poor effort indeed toward that goal.

2. 

   Nancy

    /  March 18, 2013

   Likewise. I took the survey and have no idea whether the town can divine my priorities from the selection of responses offered. If the town paid for a consultant to do the survey, the town would be within its rights to ask for a redo at no extra cost. The survey clearly did not do its job.

3. 

   Deborah Fulghieri

    /  March 18, 2013

   Did you notice how the survey ranks your choices for you once you’ve made Choice#1? A responder has to change the ranking pre-set by the survey’s designer. If the Town paid a consultant, they should obtain a refund.

4. 

   Del Snow

    /  March 18, 2013

   I would be interested in knowing if the Council had the opportunity to review the questions before this survey was distributed.

   I also would be curious if there is anyone at all that thinks this survey can possibly help CH to arrive at any priorities.

   Minds far darker than mine could think that the inanity of the survey was deliberate. A free do-over is in order.

5. 

   DOM

    /  March 18, 2013

   If we all complain together everything will improve.

6. 

   Many

    /  March 18, 2013

   Ahhh the ol’ “Double Barreled” Question:
   http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n145.xml

   You would think that the smart people in Chapel Hill would have taken logic 101…..or maybe they did.

   Oh BTW Del. In the area of dark minds, I freely admit to guilt on this one.

   Do you walk to school, or carry your lunch?

7. 

   Mark Peters

    /  March 18, 2013

   I agree that the survey in its current form is a waste of time, is nebulous, and could be used to justify whatever agenda someone had. I really don’t believe that is what Matt and others had in mind when they suggested priority budgeting.

   One of the more fruitful surveys we did at work was to ask customers if they had $100 to spend on our next software product release, where would they spend it? We then used that to identify pain points and areas of opportunity to direct future development.

   In years past, the CHCCS school board has published a list of cuts that would occur in 2 or 3 possible budget scenarios. This provided a starting point for public conversations to decide between cuts. This is what I envisioned when I thought about priority budgeting.

   The town should develop a similar list where folks have to make choices about things that are more real. Maybe every staff person should nominate a cut of things that they think are wasteful in their expertise and we can start with that. This would be separate from each department manager’s cuts. Tell us what the possible cuts are and the ramifications of each possible cut. (I recall the ramifications were not well explained the last time around regarding the pool staffing cuts).

8. 

   Terri Buckner

    /  March 18, 2013

   Maybe everyone should sit back and give the process a chance to work before advocating for its demise. From the Center for Priority Based Budget:

   “The underlying philosophy of priority-driven budgeting is about how a government entity should invest resources to meet its stated objectives. It helps us to better articulate why the services we offer exist, what price we pay for them, and, consequently, what value they offer citizens. The principles associated with this philosophy of budgeting are:
   • Prioritize Services. Priority-driven budgeting evaluates the relative importance of individual programs and services rather than entire departments. It is distinguished by prioritizing the services a government provides, one versus another.
   • Do the Important Things Well. Cut Back on the Rest. In a time of revenue decline, a traditional budget process often attempts to continue funding all the same programs it funded last year, albeit at a reduced level (e.g. across-the-board budget cuts). Priority-driven budgeting identifies the services that offer the highest value and continues to provide funding for them, while reducing service levels, divesting, or potentially eliminating lower value services.
   • Question Past Patterns of Spending. An incremental budget process doesn’t seriously question the spending decisions made in years past. Priority-driven budgeting puts all the money on the table to encourage more creative conversations about services.
   • Spend Within the Organization’s Means. Priority-driven budgeting starts with the revenue available to the government, rather than last year’s expenditures, as the basis for decision making.
   • Know the True Cost of Doing Business. Focusing on the full costs of programs ensures that funding decisions are based on the true cost of providing a service.
   • Provide Transparency of Community Priorities. When budget decisions are based on a well-defined set of community priorities, the government’s aims are not left open to interpretation.
   • Provide Transparency of Service Impact. In traditional budgets, it is often not entirely clear how funded services make a real difference in the lives of citizens. Under priority-driven budgeting, the focus is on the results the service produces for achieving community priorities.
   • Demand Accountability for Results. Traditional budgets focus on accountability for staying within spending limits. Beyond this, priority-driven budgeting demands accountability for results that were the basis for a service’s budget allocation.”

   The categories listed in this survey are the council goals and now staff is attempting to identify the communities priorities among those identified by the council.

   This is the best reference I’ve found so far:
   http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/GFOA_AnatomyPriorityDrivenBudgetProcess.pdf

   As with most new efforts, the first year is a bit rocky.

9. 

   Avanti

    /  March 22, 2013

   I agree with Julie McClintock and George C. and many of the other comments. The survey was poorly designed and poorly executed and I don’t believe the results will be useful – except as justifications for predetermined choices.