It Is Not About The Snow, Virginia

When I served on the Madison Common Council, I learned that removing snow was bigger than any one storm. Snow removal represented the best or it could represent the worst in public management.

Efficient snow removal costs money and there are limited resources. These resources need to be measured against the benefits. What is so disturbing about the evolution of the Madison snow removal policy is that it morphed without deliberation or public hearing and comment.

Unlike the macho wags, who proclaim, "suck it in," public management calls for a bit more thought  that requires analysis and planning.

Most disturbing about Madison's present snow removal policies is that there was no conscious, planned analysis of reducing the plowing efforts. There was no examination of the externalities. There was no effort to measure the consequences of different levels of plowing.There was no thinking outside of the 'silo.' The affects of reduced plowing and extending the length of time it would take to clear city streets cannot be measured in the city's 'silo' alone. There are consequences for:

• emergency responders to traffic accidents and homes
• the public transit system
• hundred of thousand of commuters who encounter costly delays and, more accidents, and higher insurance premiums
• businesses that would prefer to remain open
• public institutions such as schools and hospitals that encounter their own challenges in storm
• environmental costs and damages

Every member of the Madison Common Council and the mayor ran on a platform of taking care of 'basic services.' Ask them:

• When did they make the decision to reduce the commitment to snow removal?
• When the city purchased the new garbage trucks did they realize it would reduce resources to remove snow?
• When they cut back on parks and public works positions did they realize it would leave a shortage of trained plow operators?
• When they made these decisions did they think about the consequences to the school district and Madison businesses?
• When they decided to further modify the alternate street parking ordinance did they realize it would raise costs for snow removal from $200 to $2000 a block and that it would prevent fire trucks from navigating Gilman Street?
• When new streets were added to the city, did they review the need for additional equipment?
• What are the problems with the labor agreements that make it difficult to use staff for snow removal that did not exist ten years ago?
• What are the relationships to staffing shortages for other services such as tree trimming, park maintenance, and snow removal?
• What is the impact on Madison Metro's bus operation and its passengers who do not or cannot use an automobile in inclement weather?

I spoke with a few alders about this. Everyone told me the same thing. They never made a decision to lower the city commitment to snow removal. It is not about snow removal. It is about public management and administration.

If we fail to do proper planning for snow removal, imagine what is happening with all of the other city services.

When I served Madison as mayor,  I learned that if I could provide the basic services, then I had a  base of close to 75% of the electorate who, might not fully support, but would at least tolerate projects like the State Street Mall, the Civic Center, public housing, a dynamic publicly subsidized bus system, Monona Terrace, and an innovative and aggressive community services program.

Comments

[Marius]

Paul:
Your first commitment as Mayor was always to basic services, followed by an aggressive agenda of projects and innovation with which some people agreed and many disagreed but one that was forward-looking. You were a tough boss, but whether they liked you or disliked you, you recruited and retained talented people who did their jobs well and by whom you were willing to be challenged and from whom you were willing to learn.

The current Mayor's commitment is, first and foremost, to himself.
From the water utility debacle, to snowplowing, to crime, to the Edgewater, to trolleys, to being MIA on Overture for five years, to the loss of development opportunities to adjacent communities, to the miserable treatment of successful, hardworking staff who weren't all "yes" men and women, what one sees from the incumbent is insularity, arrogance, a distinct strain of vindictiveness, and a self-serving, primarily re-active rather than pro-active approach to governance.