Torn

I must confess I am a little bit torn. While we want our government officials to be somewhat proactive in anticipating and addressing concerns, it seems to me that there are significant problems with the whole notion. And while many states and localities are moving toward privatization of services, we in Montana seem to be drifting in the opposite direction.

The first thing that bothers me is a lack of accountability. While it seems that some government officials fancy themselves CEOs (with our money, of course), it does not seem to me that they face the same scrutiny as I face in my businesses, whether from owners or from the market. Let's use an example.

Our local government decided to get out in front of the 'crowds' in the Lewis and Clark Signature Event. I am not opposed to that per se, assuming that Manager Lawton and his staff did the research necessary to determine that the 'crowds' were coming and the events would break even or make money. But, now that the 'crowds' failed to materialize, it appears we have likely lost money on the whole event.

Manager Lawton's next performance review is the place where it will get interesting. Will the Commission, as usual, rave over what a great job he has done and recommend another pay increase? Or will they point out that, while he has had a good record, the City lost money due to his decisions and, therefore, this year there will be no increase?

If I own a little retail store and I think there will be crowds coming for the Signature Event, I might choose to borrow money to increase my inventory and advertising. If I am wrong and the 'crowds' never materialize, the economic facts will prevent my bonus this year.

But the City can, and will, just raise taxes. No accountability. I have nothing personal with the City Manager, but how can he be continually lauded, year after year, while our growth is stagnant, meth use is on the rise, and it's really windy here. (Ok, maybe the meth isn't his fault!) You have to wonder if sometimes he is being evaluated on whether the Commission likes him, rather than on an objective analysis of his successes or failures.

Another problem with the 'proactive leadership' is a failure of accountability on the front end. In other words, these people are essentially political animals, so they tend to approach things as political issues requiring advocacy rather than business decisions requiring analysis.

A case in point: A consortium of localities consisting of Great Falls, Missoula, Helena, Butte-Silverbow, and Bozeman, wants to purchase Northwestern Energy to create a new sort of public utility. Is this a good idea? I don't know; I am researching the deal now and hope to write more in the future. But if you go to the consortium's web site, you'll find it completely lacks something you would find in virtually any business proposal offered to shareholders or other constituents of management.

What's that, you ask? It lacks a downside. In other words, these five governments, whose background in public power administration completely eludes me, want to put the rate payers on the hook for 2 billion (with a "b") dollars. And yet their press documents paint only rosy pictures. What's the downside folks? Whether I bail you out with tax dollars, or increased rates, I am going to pay for your mistakes if you make them. How can I trust you with 2 billion dollars if you won't disclose the risks? And Northwestern sure thinks there are risks!

So, while it might be a good idea in limited cases for our government officials to pretend to be CEOs, we must demand answers to the tough questions, and they must be held accountable for their errors. Since the answers to the questions do not seem to be forthcoming (in fact, no one even seems to be asking the questions), and since the accountability seems to be lacking, maybe Manager Lawton and his colleagues should stick to trying to figure out how to keep our pools open.