Where is the biggest waste/inefficiency in state government, and what will you do about it as governor?

Vermont has failed in the past to keep up with technology that leads to efficiency in the work place. Over the past several years we have made a conscious effort to correct this situation. In this past budget, even in these difficult times, we have made investments in technology that will eliminate redundant records and allow for better, faster exchange of information within state government. As governor I will make sure that we continue to make these investments as they are needed.

A business the size of state government needs managers who work with employees all of the time to encourage ideas that lead to efficient, effective government. There is not better place to get these ideas than the state workforce. As governor I would make certain that all managers and state employees understand that this is a goal for everyone in their everyday work and reward and encourage creative thinking that leads to better programs.

That said, I believe the only way to truly identify what is waste and what is inefficient in state government is through a process similar to Challenges for Change. Each program in government should meet with the advocates for their programs and people who use the services that the programs provide, and agree upon a set of outcomes for those programs. Then the same group needs to decide how they will measure the outcomes. This process has the effect of having all of the people involved in programs, both providers and consumers, set the priorities for the programs and how to measure those outcomes. The next step is to go through each of the programs involved and see if the programs address the outcomes they have agreed upon. If they don’t, then why should we continue to do those programs? One of the issues for government is that many programs are started, but few are eliminated. Now is the time to stop programs that do not meet the goals we chose.

The above process does not have to be overly time consuming and because it is an inclusive effort, it can be a very positive process. In these difficult times, it is much better to find the positive outcomes we all want and work together towards supporting those programs, than arguing about reductions. This means that there may well be programs that will be terminated, but those dollars can be saved or be redirected to services that address outcomes that can be measured. This is all a necessary part of right-sizing Vermont government.

Addressing the next $120 million budget deficit

In order to deal with another year and another substantial deficit, as Governor I would ask legislative leaders to meet with the current administration, me, and the staff I would be appointing to budget writing assignments. It will take all the knowledge we have to develop a budget for the upcoming year.

For several years I have been focusing on the area of corrections for savings. We currently spend almost $140 million a year on this part of the budget. We know that we incarcerate a high percentage of non-violent offenders. Our goal needs to be to help Vermonters with substance abuse deal with their issues and become productive members of society.

This will take years to accomplish. For example; we currently have budgeted for 700 out of state prisoners. Each one costs us $23,000 a year. If we were to bring home all 700 of those prisoners, we would save $16 million. That is a great deal of money, but what would we do with all those prisoners? It will take years and a big investment to develop the programs we need to rehabilitate these Vermonters and to find housing and jobs for them so they do not return to a life of crime. But at least we are beginning to make these changes.

I would ask that each program in government meet with the advocates for their programs and people who use the services that the programs provide and agree upon a set of outcomes for those programs. Then the same group would decide how they would measure the outcomes. This process has the effect of having all of the people involved in programs, both providers and consumers, set the priorities for the programs and how to measure those outcomes.

The next step would be to go through each of the programs the state provides and see if the programs address the outcomes that have been agreed upon. If they don’t, then why should we continue to do those programs? One of the issues for government is that many programs are started but few are eliminated. Now is the time to stop programs that do not meet the goals we chose.

This process does not have to be overly time consuming and because it is an inclusive effort, it can be a very positive process. In these difficult times, it is much better to find the positive outcomes we all want and work together towards supporting those programs, than arguing about reductions. This means that there may well be programs that will be terminated, but those dollars can be saved or be redirected to services that address outcomes that can be measured. This is all a necessary part of right-sizing Vermont government.

I do not believe it is right to ask Vermonters to pay more taxes until government as a whole goes through the above process. Our state revenues are at about the same level that they were in 2005. We must get our spending back to those levels.

Susan speaks to the Vermont Chamber of Commerce Business Expo.

On May 26, she spoke to an audience at the Vermont Chamber of Commerce Business Expo. Chris Graff is the moderator.

Innovation and Intellectual Property, Jobs, Economic Development, the need to support Regional Planning Commissions, Challenges for Change, Economic Development, Agriculture and her experience are some of the subjects covered.

A Moderate Approach to the Budget

"I've balanced the budget for 16 years."

"The thing about being the moderate is you get beaten up by both sides. I'm pretty resoundingly, every year, beaten up by both sides. I think that proves my point that I'm the moderate."

Douglas Ignored Legislative Intent

from vtdigger

Lawmakers decried the Douglas administration’s decision to eliminate a conservation position in the Department of Fish and Wildlife at a press conference Wednesday.

Bartlett sees the administration’s decision as a matter of priorities. “This is a continuation of this administration not being supportive of conservation and/or planning,” Bartlett said.



 
The position was written into the budget bill that passed in the last legislative session. Legislative leaders said Gov. Jim Douglas violated lawmakers’ intent and negotiated in bad faith when he signed the budget bill and then shortly afterward allowed administrative officials to ignore language in the bill. That wording was designed to protect a staff wildlife biologist who provides technical assistance for towns engaged in conservation planning to protect wildlife habitat.
 
Sen. Susan Bartlett and Sen. Peter Shumlin (both Democratic candidates in the gubernatorial primary) and House Speaker Shap Smith said the Legislature saw the position as an essential component of the department’s conservation policy.
 
Douglas administration officials say the executive branch has the right to decide the fate of individual employees and positions. David Corriell, Douglas’ spokesman, accused lawmakers of trying to micromanage personnel.
 
“On the one hand, the Legislature through Challenges for Change wants the government to run more efficiently, and on the other hand, they’re running government as inefficiently as possible by dictating the way the administration is managing government,” Corriell said.
Observers say the stalemate over the language in the law could lead to a constitutional showdown between legislators and the administration. At issue is whether the administration is obliged to uphold language in the law that it deems unacceptable, and conversely whether the Legislature has the right to insist that it do so.
 
It’s too early to say if the question will become a constitutional issue, according to Attorney General Bill Sorrell, who, as of yesterday, had not been asked by legislative leaders or the administration to weigh in.
 
Smith said there are no plans yet to sue the administration over the elimination of the position. He called the decision a “breach of the good faith that we all contributed towards in reaching a budget compromise.”
 
“When we passed the budget document, we expected it to be followed,” Smith said. “It’s not merely guidance – it is the law of the state of Vermont. This year we worked very diligently with the administration to put together a budget that could be signed by the governor and was the result of many compromises, and to then have the governor sign the budget, and then ignore the language of the budget, really cuts against the spirit of the compromising that we did to get to a budget we could all leave the building with, without the repeat of the veto and override scenario that happened last year.”
 
Jonathon Wood, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, said in a recent interview that there is no constitutional problem. “Those powers are clear and absolute,” Wood said. “The administration has the authority to do this. We have to manage the budget and the Legislature sets the budget. They fund certain programs and we manage the positions.”
Bartlett said the administration is choosing to ignore “what the budget said.”
 
“If the budget’s a guideline, and you don’t need to pay attention to it, maybe you just need one branch of government,” Bartlett said.
 
The position, Fish and Wildlife Scientist II, was held by Jens Hawkins-Hilke, who worked with 50 to 80 towns a year to help them identify and map habitat. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife grant paid for half of Hawkins-Hilke’s salary, which was roughly $22 an hour. He was laid off recently and has filed a grievance with the union. According to the legislative letter of intent, his position would have cost the state roughly $16,000.
 
He provided technical support for towns, as well as helped local community members understand the scientific concepts behind conservation, such as habitat protection. Often this meant helping towns identify what kinds of habitat they valued for recreation, hunting, fishing and other wildlife, he said. Some towns are focused on deer yards; others are interested in protecting salamanders.
 
Hawkins-Hilke said in an interview that he was No. 4 on the reduction-in-force list at ANR last year. He survived the first round of cuts, but in February he was told his position would be eliminated. Town planning commission and conservation commission officials canvassed lawmakers about the RIF and pressured the Legislature to retain the position. By mid-June it was clear the administration had gone ahead with its original plan.
 
Wood called it a “limited service position” that wasn’t “meant to be a full-time job” and he said the agency will continue to offer services to local communities through its district offices.
 
“The position provides planning assistance to towns and municipalities — just assistance to conservation commissions and town plans on the types of things in towns that could be done to protect wildlife habitat,” Wood said. “That type of thing has been done by the department for many years.”
 
Mike Hedges, a member of the Waterbury Conservation Commission, said he is not confident ANR will help his group finish mapping for new subdivision regulations. Nor is he counting on help from officials from the agency with plans for protecting a moose crossing corridor on Route 100 near Walker Construction. It’s the only place, he said, where the large game animals can pass from the Green Mountains to the Worcester Mountains. Hawkins-Hilke identified the crossing for the commission and was going to help them develop a plan for protecting the area.
 
“It’s hard for others to take up those extra duties,” Hedges said.
 
Wood said the agency is responding to constant downward budget pressures.
 
“There aren’t any more paper clips to cut,” Wood said. “We’ve been into significant cutting of positions for a while now. There isn’t any choice.”
 
Wood said game wardens, however, continue to be fully funded by the Department of Fish and Wildlife because they “are a high priority.”
 
“I have not tried to cut game wardens, though the Legislature has cut their overtime,” Wood said.
 
Since the recession began in 2007, the agency has eliminated 100 positions, many of which were federally funded, according to Wood.
 
Corriell said the state faces an uncertain revenue outlook in the current fiscal year and a $100 million deficit in fiscal year 2012. He said small amounts add up to “real money” in the budget and that government leaders have to make hard decisions.
 
“This is a very challenging time, and as a state government there need to be priorities,” Corriell said. “What we need to do is focus on growing our economy. It’s short-sighted to focus on one position.”
 
Bartlett also sees the administration’s decision as a matter of priorities. “This is a continuation of this administration not being supportive of conservation and/or planning,” Bartlett said.

Linda Carbino Interview

Linda Carbino talks with Susan about running government, budget difficulties and support for folks struggling with Mental health and substance abuse issues.

Watch it here ...