Public Recreation in Cleveland in 2013?

PD reports: "Visitors to Cleveland's public swimming pools -- now free -- would have to pay admission if the city enacts recommendations of a consultant submitted Tuesday."

It is not surprising, the release of "Management & Efficiency Study – Cleveland, Ohio" (download as .PDF here) by Public Finance Management seems to have Northeast Ohio leadership heads spinning. At least, that is the appearance from coverage of related news - and lack thereof - in the PD.

Last night, Henry Gomez posted to his blog that a "Consultant's report suggests that Cleveland must cut jobs to remain financially sound", where he pointed out: "A quick glance reveals the significant conclusion that "Cleveland cannot address its financial challenges by maintaining the status quo with its 9,000 employees.""

Henry indicated Mayor Jackson was not informed, purposeful and forthcoming about the report:

Jackson has said that he hopes to balance next year’s budget shortfall, which his advisers have predicted will be between $30 million and $50 million, without layoffs or service cuts. He is not bound to the report’s suggestions, and his initial reaction was unclear this afternoon.

Andrea Taylor, the mayor’s press secretary, said she was preparing a cover letter for the report. The newspaper was not alerted to the document’s availability, though a reporter had been inquiring about it regularly since mid-October. At 1 p.m. Tuesday, Taylor denied that the report was available despite word that Jackson had discussed it with his administrators.

"The media will get the reports as soon as the mayor gives me the books," she said then.

"A reporter" at the PD clearly has known more about this study than has the public, for at least several months.

In this morning's print Plain Dealer, a different take on this story was reported in the metro section, with Henry bumped down the byline by James McCarty - the PD's Politics, Elections and wild Birding reporter (I'm not kidding) - who is not breaking eggs over this breaking story, that Henry first broke.

The "official" story the PD printed featured the renewed Mayor Jackson pledge NO LAYOFFS AHEAD.

For the on-line version of the story, now buried on Cleveland.com, Henry is removed from the byline completely, the headline is simply "Consultants suggest that Cleveland increase fees, eliminate freebies".

"Eliminate freebies"... in a headline about multi-hundred-million-dollar budget shortfalls for Cleveland... is this a joke?

The punchline is in the first paragraph: "Cleveland may solve its budget woes by consolidating departments, increasing fees and taxes, selling or leasing its cemeteries and golf courses, and eliminating job titles -- but not laying off employees, according to a consultant's report released Tuesday."

Read that strange wording again, aloud... ""Cleveland may solve its budget woes by (blah, blah, blah) -- but not laying off employees, according to a consultant's report released Tuesday."

Then, McCarty goes on to write:

"Cleveland cannot address its financial challenges by maintaining the status quo with its 9,000 employees," the report warns.

Sorry, McCarty... it sounds like heads are going to roll.

Another interesting perspective, from McCarty:

The report provides the city an assortment of options for cutting expenses and raising revenues by tens of millions of dollars -- some of the hardest of which involve reducing staff, increasing user fees, and ending some of the benefits of living in the city, such as free trash pickup and admission to pools and rec centers.

"Benefits of living in the city"?

Is this for real?

I'm guessing McCarty lives in the bird-watching county... one of those Xurban places with low taxes and no services... and burns his trash. In Cleveland, people pay taxes for public services, like to have their trash hauled away. For the taxes we pay, if the city doesn't haul our trash away directly, we expect the city to pay a hauler to do it for them. That is not free to taxpayers, and is a big deal to make an addition cost, to balance a bloated budget.

Neither are pools and rec centers free, unless police are free!?

All that is why people pay taxes in Cleveland, although you wouldn't guess people believe it.

I do not understand the reasoning nor financial analyses of this newspaper, and bird watching reporter, other than to make bad news sound palatable.

People are better serve by honest reporting of facts.

As I reported, in "Exactly one week after 77% of Clevelanders made Frank Jackson mayor of Cleveland for another four years...", some highlights of the innocuously titled "Management & Efficiency Study – Cleveland, Ohio" (download as .PDF here) include:

• "Cleveland faces a drop of over 50 percent in its capital program funding from FY2010 to FY2011; further reductions are forecasted for FY2012 and FY2013"
• "the City projects a significant budget deficit in 2010 if current spending is not adjusted to match the new revenue reality"
• "the City will have to scale back services to which Clevelanders have become accustomed"

Further, as is logical and presented in the report and all coverage in the PD, "Cleveland cannot address its financial challenges by maintaining the status quo with its 9,000 employees."

Nor should Clevelanders want Cleveland to.

Remember... shrinking city!?!?

Lots fewer residents... fewer facilities.... fewer wards... fewer neighborhoods... all mean fewer (fill in the blank with some type of City of Cleveland employee).

I assume Mayor Jackson hired Public Finance Management to find out how many fewer employees the City of Cleveland may possibly have, ASAP, within the nest five years...

Although, it is still unclear who hired PFM, and paid the bills. In the PD McCarty coverage, we read:

Jackson asked for the consultant's study in hopes of balancing next year's budget shortfall, which his advisers have predicted will be between $30 million and $50 million, without layoffs or service cuts. He is not bound to any of the report's suggestions.

As a consultant, I see two red flags, here.

That is is reported Jackson "asked" for the consultant's study suggests Cleveland did not sponsor or pay for the study, and senior management may not buy-in. Was this another Cleveland Foundation or GCP gift to the community, or paid for from our pockets... at what cost, either way?

That it is reported Jackson asked for the study to balance next year's budget shortfall, "without layoffs or service cuts", raises the question was that a specification he imposed upon the consultants' initiative, which may compromise the value of the report and recommendations.

Having conducted very similar consulting engagements for senior management of enterprises larger and more complex than Cleveland, I expect this consulting effort cost $100K+, involved considerable face-time, workshops and meetings with executive leadership and key stakeholders, and included periodic progress reports to the sponsors, over a period of 6-12 months.

If not, it should have.

I know the fear and uncertainty even the hint of such disruptive reconstructive master planning may bring to all internal stakeholders of an organization, from senior management down through the rank and file - even vendors and strategic partners - especially when reorganization, process reengineering, downsizing, outsourcing, privatizing and workforce reductions will likely come into play.

When reorganization is going to have significant impacts on end users and customers - like the citizens of Cleveland - market studies and public relations are used to prevent harm and loss of loyalty.

Lies are not part of good public relations.

Usually, the consultants preparing such a report present their honest best-effort findings to as many stakeholder groups as possible, in person, to explain data and recommendations and address any concerns. The consultants are usually looking for follow-on work, conducting further analyses, broadening investigations and implementing recommendations, so face-time at the reporting stage is critical.

The final reporting starts with the lead sponsors and funders of the consulting initiative...

Yet, the Plain Dealer reports:

Jackson said he would review the consultants' report to determine which of the recommendations he will ask City Council to implement.

City Council President Martin J. Sweeney said he had yet to read the report and that few details were shared at the meeting. He said the mayor could introduce legislation reflecting his plans as soon as Monday.

"Possibly - that's the key word," Sweeney said.

Asked if he was concerned about the prospect of job cuts or privatization of some city services, Sweeney said: "None of those terms have even been discussed."

If Cleveland sponsored and funded this consulting effort and report, there should now be deep subject matter experts on the process and findings, in Cleveland city government, and the chief executives of the city should already be very familiar with all recommendations, as they share them with other stakeholders they lead.

Unless this was a far less serious, significant and purposeful effort than it seems, and is presented to be.

From looking at PFM's website, I doubt that is the case... they seem rock solid.

While consultants and outside intellectuals may love the idea of putting Cleveland through a perfect storm of rightsizing, process reengineering and reorganization, to see what still floats when the waters calm, they don't do that for free, and the survivors are left to pick up the pieces and move on.

PD coverage of the consulting work and reporting of PFM raises more questions than provides answers, at this point.

Let's hope PFM does a better job explaining their value to our community, and exactly what or who brought them here to save our world, in the first place.

And, let's hope the PD reporters may read the report from PFM with open eyes to the real news contained within, which includes:

"Cleveland faces a drop of over 50 percent in its capital program funding from FY2010 to FY2011; further reductions are forecasted for FY2012 and FY2013"

"the City projects a significant budget deficit in 2010 if current spending is not adjusted to match the new revenue reality"

"the City will have to scale back services to which Clevelanders have become accustomed"

"Cleveland cannot address its financial challenges by maintaining the status quo with its 9,000 employees"

Now, let's be real about the value of "Management & Efficiency Study – Cleveland, Ohio" (download as .PDF here), as it may offer significant insight, for the right sponsors.... the citizens of Cleveland.

We are ready for our consultants to make their presentation to their funder.