Hartford Business Journal

www.HartfordBusiness.com • February 11, 2019 • Hartford Business Journal 21 OTHER VOICES Regional government: A solution in search of a problem By R. Michael Goman M ounting financial stress in the public sector has intensified a drumbeat for more regionalization of local government. Regional government is more efficient, the theory goes, as some duplicative job functions and services could be elimi- nated and buying power would improve through consolidated purchasing. My firsthand experience tells me otherwise. I've lived and worked in five regions in two countries having both regional and non-regional governments, and what I've witnessed is that regionalization reduces service levels to local taxpay- ers and, over time, simply increases the overall size and cost of government. Many Connecticut towns have already joined to form purchasing groups for every- thing from insur- ance to utilities to supplies and materials. Noth- ing prevents towns from forming these groups, and we should encourage local leaders to utilize them wherever possible. Short of coercion, there's no need to create a regional government entity to achieve this purpose. The idea that efficiencies can be found through consolidating func- tional areas and positions wrongly assumes that we have large numbers of town employees who are working below their capacity. Think of it this way: Each individu- al employee can handle only a certain number of tasks, whether those tasks are police calls, building permits, tax billings or any number of similar duties. If we take two towns each having, for ex- ample, two full-time clerks who can han- dle 300 tax-bill inquiries per month, then consolidation would simply mean having four clerks handling 600 inquiries per month. In other words, no net savings would occur. I've been a volunteer mem- ber of a local town board for 17 years, and my direct observation is that our towns manage their workforces quite effec- tively, adjusting positions and hours to reflect the local workload. Where regionalization theory really goes awry is when we recognize that it's likely that consolidation would lead to a decision that the four clerks in my example would now need a supervisor, thereby increasing the overall size and cost of government. This unintended consequence shouldn't come as a sur- prise — since when has big government been more effective than small? Region- al (or county) systems simply do what every large organization tends to do: Over time they get larger, more bureau- cratic, less responsive and costlier. It's also important to recognize that a large share of the necessary leadership and management work done in local government is performed by volun- teers. Regionalized governments in- evitably replace these volunteers with "professional management," adding a whole new layer of overhead. If cost savings is the goal, a regional form of government would have to replace some number of local govern- ments, not simply be layered on top of them. Do we honestly think that a larger, more distant government will be equally accountable, provide higher levels of service, or cost less? Small, local governments are in fact the ideal against which all oth- ers should be measured. They operate with minimal staff and flat manage- ment structures, and they are closely connected to the people they serve. It's easy to communicate with them and hold them accountable. As a result, they tend to be more responsive and do a better job of care- fully managing taxpayers' resourc- es than do their larger brethren. What makes us think that a larger govern- ment unit will improve these results? It strikes me that Connecticut's budget troubles do not reside in our towns. For the most part, local govern- ment does an excellent job of managing their operating budgets and debt levels, while providing residents with high levels of service, responsiveness and ac- countability. Instead of discussing how to make local governments larger (and regional), perhaps our focus should be on finding ways to make our state gov- ernment more cost effective. R. Michael Goman is a principal of Goman + York Property Advisors LLC, an East Hartford-based real estate advisor. Goman is also a former member of the Simsbury Board of Ed. R. Michael Goman HARTFORDBUSINESS.COM POLL LAST WEEK'S POLL RESULT: Should lawmakers eliminate certain sales-tax exemptions to tackle the state's budget deficit? NEXT WEEK'S POLL: Should UConn eliminate its money-losing football program? To vote, go online to hartfordbusiness.com BIZ BOOKS How busy managers, executives can maximize productivity By Jim Pawlak "Two Awesome Hours: Science-Based Strategies to Har- ness Your Best Time and Get Your Most Important Work Done" by Josh Davis (HarperOne, $14.99). Davis recog- nizes that packing more into an already packed day by not taking breaks and working longer hours creates the hu- man version of the economic "law of di- minishing returns." The more one packs in, the more one feels overwhelmed and stressed; both feelings quash productiv- ity and lead to burnout. While his goal of creating at least two awesome hours of productivity each day involves five integrated steps, the first two really make you think about what you're doing and how you do it. 1. "Recognize your decision points." and 2. "Manage your mental energy." All too often we run on autopilot because of pre-programmed workdays (e.g. to-do lists, meetings, phone calls, email, etc.). The "same-old-same-old" becomes a drone-like, "no thought" routine where you move from one task to the next task on the list. Davis' advice — Identify decision points and control what you can. When you complete something, think about "what matters" before diving into "what's next." Deciding what matters depends upon what you've just completed. If the task was mentally exhausting, choos- ing another such task may not be the productive choice — even though it's what's next on the to-do list. Analogy: If you ran eight 100-meter dashes back2back2back … , you'd be ex- hausted — and the time for each dash would be worse. If you ran one each hour, your body would have time to recover and times would be consistent. Takeaway: The brain, like a muscle, needs time to recover. Alternating the types of tasks provides recovery time and boosts overall productivity. 62% No 38% Yes Jim Pawlak Book Review

• Cover