As I listened to anniversary discussions about the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina, I was struck by the fact that New Orleans and its people were failed by the political process at all levels. The Corps of Engineers had plans for more protective construction, including surge gates that would have prevented water from Lake Ponchetrain and the Gulf of Mexico from rushing into the canals the reach into the city. But they weren’t built, largely because they would have cost too much. The levees that did exist were not properly maintained, partly because of a multitude of “responsible” agencies and the temptation to use some of the maintenance funds for other purposes. Similarly, experts for years were pointing out that New Orleans was more vulnerable than in the past because its coastal wetlands had been disappearing, killed by the unanticipated consequences of flood protection and commercial development. As they watched the growing disaster, the people who had tried to do the right thing, but hadn’t been able to, were especially distraught.
Although we are unlikely to face a similar disaster, we can apply the lessons learned by asking ourselves what threats we are collectively ignoring, what important but boring or difficult work we are letting slide. Are our institutions focused on the most important issues, or distracted by dissention or trivia? Are we organized effectively to deal with serious issues? Are we attracting good people to make the decisions? And making the best use of their talents, skills and dedication?
Over the years, I’ve had the honor of being on many boards and committees of different kinds. Some were public boards that make decisions within a legal framework, and have professional staff to advise them, such as the Planning Board or the Select Board. Some were committees trying to run small organizations, often overburdening a small staff with skittering priorities. Others were committees with a specific task.
In all these contexts, it is difficult for members of a committee to maintain commitment to a particular goal, even when everyone on the committee has agreed it is important. It’s even harder if the decision wasn’t unanimous. We all have many interests, and lives outside of the responsibilities of the board we are on. Turnover means at least some time to “get up to speed”; it sometimes means new priorities. Any goal that takes longer than one term of office can easily get lost in the departure of an advocate and the arrival of someone new.
For these reasons, a committee that actually has to get things done is most effective if it has good, dedicated and consistent staff. That person can monitor goals, projects, and implementation. That works better than hoping committee members will do it consistently. For example, where I live, we have realized that our 30 year old wooden buildings have significant amounts of carpentry repairs that need to be done. Keeping track of what is on the list to be done next, reporting on progress and any surprises, etc. are best done by the property manager, not the Board members who may serve for a year or two, have jobs and lives, and are not carpenters (if we’d wanted to do home repairs we might have chosen to live in houses).
In local government we rely on the knowledge and contributions of our employees. The reality is that for most people most of the time, when the things we really depend on are working well, it’s largely due to the employees and to the policy makers over the years who have given them the resources to do their jobs well. I recently had an opportunity to interview Larry Shaffer on “Through the League Lens” on ACTV, and he commented specifically about how well maintained our sewage treatment plant is (also about 30 years old). We want that facility to work well; we have current and previous staff, including the previous Town Managers, and the volunteers who worked with them on important boards and committees, to thank for the fact that it does. But, for the future, besides continuing to maintain facilities, what should we be doing? Soon the Comprehensive Planning process will begin, and it will focus on some issues: sprawl, housing, transportation, etc. But what about unpleasant surprises? What are the likely effects of global climate change on our region? What if there is a major pandemic flu? Or a terrorist attack near here? None of these things is likely to happen, particularly in the few years of any one person’s term in office. But if one does, we’re all going to expect our government to be prepared to help us. I find myself hoping that somewhere in Town Hall, the Bangs Center, and the Police and Fire stations, people are thinking about these things.