County gets strategic
We met this morning with several representatives of county government.
They wanted to update us on Guilford's first-ever strategic planning process. And they wanted to ask what we thought about county government's strengths and weaknesses.
Among those attending was commissioners Chairman Paul Gibson, Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen, County Manager David McNeill, HR Director Sharisse Fuller, Health Department Director Merle Green and Transportation Director Mark Kirstner.
The whole idea, they said, is to improve the way county government operates by creating a unified vision, setting clear priorities and working toward more focused objectives.
You don't hear this kind of stuff from county government very often, where two-fisted, knockdown, dragout disagreements typically rule the headlines. To paraphrase Tina Turner in "Proud Mary," Guilford never ever had a strategic plan.
But the folks who visited us seem genuinely committed and enthused about what the process can accomplish. Gibson quipped, "We're going to have to change our evil ways."
The county has been holding forums to seek public input on the process, as well as meeting with other groups in the community.
This is a good idea that ought to reap all kinds of dividends, especially long term. It also could build better relationships with other governments in the county.
But the current commissioners will have to endorse the process. And so will future commissioners.
"The majority of the board has bought into this," Gibson said of the current commissioners.
But when asked what could derail the process, he didn't hesitate. "Channel 13."
Cable Channel 13 televises the commissioners' meetings.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I beg to differ. You hear stuff like from politicians all the time. Maybe the county commissioners aren't up to speed on this, but the rhetoric of "the vision thing" is banal to the point of banality. It wears off. The grandiose architectures of cloud-cuckoo land inevitably grind down against the pressures of reality. The five- and ten-year plans will work as well as they did in the Soviet Union. Perhaps an idea of consequence slips through the oppressive machinery of a visionary bureacracy. Perhaps not. In the meantime, faux-visionists and utopian dullards have something to occupy their time. Reports will be issued. Woo-woo.
Posted on September 7, 2007 3:54 PM
Why so cynical, Brian?
What harm could it do to create a vision, set priorities, agree on measurable outcomes and (gulp) actually ask citizens what they think?
Posted on September 7, 2007 7:21 PM
Allen, cynicism is its own reward.
But since you asked, what's come out of the half-dozen or so other visionary projects that you've praised on this blog in the past few years? What measurable outcomes have been agreed upon and (gulp) actually measured?
I'd hazard a guess and say not many.
Visionarianism is a bureacractic cult practice, like sacrificing goats was for our distant ancestors. It is largely self-contained. When politicians agree on "creating a unified vision, setting clear priorities and working toward more focused objectives," you can be certain to a degree of certainty that the vision, priorities, and objectives so indicated will be "identified" at some unspecified future date that won't end up actually occuring in history itself. The process is the product, and the product is feel-good self-delusion that "something is being done."
I boldly predict, then, that nothing will be done--that a year from now, the only measurable outcome will be the hours wasted in the quixotic quest for measurable outcomes. In a giddy mood, I might not rule out some minor reshuffling of personnel or a new form or two. The headlines, I suspect, will continue to be ruled as they have in the past. Call me a cynic.
Posted on September 9, 2007 11:45 PM