I get it.
We'd all like to save money, and we'd all like to save money in a way that doesn't change core services. Whether you're talking about the work the city does or the work the schools do, we'd all like the streets plowed, the birth certificates issued, the parks open, the trash picked up, the libraries open, and oh, yes, the children educated, all with the money we've got.
I understand where Councilor Lukes is coming from then, when she makes, as she has in the past, another suggestion around merging departments. It sure seems like it would save money, right?
It doesn't work out that way.
I think most of us keep a picture in our heads of what "education" looks like, and for most of us, it's probably some variation on a teacher in a classroom with some kids. Thus, when we look at a school budget, and we see things in there that aren't "teacher-kids-classroom," the first impulse is "cut it!"
We can't.
Worcester Public Schools have 24,000 students. We have 3600 employees. We have 50 locations. We have 6600 computers.
It's easy to see how some of this directly impacts the kids: they do research online, or they type up a paper in a computer lab.
There are plenty of computers, though, that are doing other things that we absolutely have to do: tracking grades, checking attendance, tracing certification, following IEPs, planning bus routes (which change), substituting teachers, recording nurse visits...nearly each of these has its own system, all of which have to be done (for legal, monetary or safety reasons), all of which would be significantly more expensive to outsource.
There's a similar number of complicated applications in the city: tracking health & code permits, following DPW calls, using the GIS system of mapping, tracking city finances, reporting on police and fire calls, assessing property...again, all of these have their own system, all are necessary.
You'll note, though, that they aren't doing the same things. Those are separate applications, which cannot be merged and somehow done together.
Now the theory in mergers is usually that you can save on "overhead and management." On this one, though, overhead is already paid for (it isn't as though we're going to close a wing of City Hall or DAB), and management is actively part of the day-to-day operations. The managers don't read reports and go to meetings; they roll up their sleeves and do tech support, retrieval and the rest.
We're just not going to save money this way.
5 comments:
I think this is a very important point, and one that I think would also apply to why the library has (and needs) its own tech department.
Sometimes it's not as easy as saying "hey, you've got some computer guys and we've got some computer guys -- let's have our tech guys take on the work of your tech guys." Those folks usually have some sort of specialty that isn't easily transferrable.
i wish you would consider the merger of the technical services departmentm the city already prorates and charges the schools for a large percent of the city it dept oin the foundation budget cakculation, Why can;t they share directors, receptionists, payroll clerks, photocopiers? please keep an open mind on this alot can br accomplished in this type of consolidation. the state has already accomplished alot of this--they said it couldnt be done because each agency had a seperate mission
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=afagencylanding&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Research+%26+Technology&L2=Oversight+Agencies&L3=Information+Technology+Division&sid=Eoaf
T, if we're talking about the same thing--IT--the city doesn't cover that under foundation.
There are no receptionists or secretaries for IT, they don't have a photocopier, and the director of that department (and I'll vouch personally for this, because I've been in his email loop) does a bunch of the work of the department.
And we do our own payroll, 'though the processing (and this IS covered under foundation) is done by the city.
I've never worked in a non-profit government environment, but every corporation I've worked for has had a support team for each application that they run. That includes programmers (if applicable), support personnel and supervisors/management. They then report up to centralized management all falling under a CIO. So you have several layers of managements. If you have ten applications you have ten support teams with ten managers who report to at least two VPs who then report to the CIO. So you can have all IT report to one management structure, but what you can't do is reduce headcount by having the same staff support multiple applications. It's incredibly impractical and it's incredibly inefficient since each application requires specific knowledge to support. The best support people also understand the business requirements behind what they're supporting. And the general government financial reporting needs are different than the school financial reporting needs, so expecting someone to bounce between the two and not screw up is asking a lot.
Lastly, it's hard for someone to serve two masters. Who do you support first? I've seen corporations with teams of people solely devoted to figuring out priorities for non-emergency work to be done.
could you point me to the sheet showing the things the city-side contributes to fondation like percent of city manager and percent of city treasurer? i am sure taht Techbical Aervices is on that list. the schools "pay" a percent of technical services because that is money that the tax levy would have to give to education.
Post a Comment