Effective, Efficient, & Enforced
Using the Three E's before, during, and after to help the City meet its goals.
Embedded Files
Looking For My School Board Site? Click on Able4Ed right here! -->
A simple three question process to make the good work the city does better
A simple three question process to make the good work the city does better
By using the Three E's, we can plan for successful, productive change and make sure those changes work as planned.
By using the Three E's, we can plan for successful, productive change and make sure those changes work as planned.
No matter what the City does or needs, it ought to consider the Three E's before acting.
Is it effective? (Are we accomplishing the goal?)
Is it efficient? (Are we doing it in a way that respects the Taxpayers' money?)
Is it enforceable/enforced? (What do we do when people don't follow the plan?)
Of these three, you'll find the City has been very focused on the Efficiency question. At the bottom of Council documents, you will routinely find an "economic estimate" of how the action should affect City revenues. Now, that doesn't mean they never look at how Effective or Enforceable something is. They simply don't have a routine process to examine all three. So the City is doing well, but it could do better.
Using the Three E's to check up on what's been done.
Using the Three E's to check up on what's been done.
This is really where the City often misses the mark. The City puts forth resolutions and ordinances constantly, but how often does it go back and check to see how well these actions are working? This is where the Three E's can really help us take that next step as a municipality.
Asking the three questions again at 3-6 months and again at 1 year in to any action helps show that it works or points out what needs adjusting. Since the early answers to the Three E's are hopeful projections, it is only by going back and checking that we can know if things are going as planned.
Are we accomplishing our goal? If not: Why? What can we change? Is this goal achievable?
Now that we have real financial data, is it cost effective? Is there a cheaper way?
Are we enforcing this, or simply looking the other way? Why or why not?
As the City's Top Administrator, verifying the Three E's should be the Mayor's job. I assure you, as Mayor, I will schedule check-up reports to the Standing Committees and Council.
A small example of putting the Three E's to work
A small example of putting the Three E's to work
Do you know what this is? You can see these downtown. There were quite a few more when they were first installed about 5 years ago, I didn't know what they were, so I went to the Mayor's office and asked.
"They're bike racks," he told me. I asked why this had not come to Council for approval. I was told the budget that passed had included money for bike racks so he didn't "need Council's approval." I complained that they don't look like bike racks and that the benches we had downtown were being removed to make space for them. I said I don't think this is what the Council thought they were approving.
Setting aside the rather juvenile design, these "bike racks" point out a number of ingrained issues at the City:
An obscuring budget process (read more here),
An unwillingness to consider things from another perspective,
No procedure to evaluate changes before and after.
So let's consider the Three E's.
Is it effective? Is it accomplishing our goal?
I can honestly say I have seen a bike locked to one of these racks only once. I used to joke that maybe the City ought to lock some bikes on them so people would know what they're for. Maybe that's the bike I saw?
The "Parking Study" I said was a waste of tax dollars also noted that these should be "signed or marked as bicycle parking (p 46) ."
The supposed goal was to make downtown more friendly to bike traffic. How do anonymous bike racks, that hold two bikes at best, help encourage bike use?
I give this one a "No."
Is it cost efficient? Is there a cheaper way?
Obviously, any money spent on bike racks that aren't used or recognised as bike racks is money not spent efficiently. It would obviously be cheaper to put nothing there, which no one would chain a bike either. As far as a cheaper way, most people lock up their bike close to where they are going, and there is a lot of 'sidewalk furniture' providing opportunities for that.
Here, too, we fail the test.
Is it being enforced?
I really don't know how you'd do this- except to ticket people who lock up their bike anywhere else. This, of course, is counter to the goal, and effectively makes downtown unwelcoming to bikers. When enforcement clashes with intent, you know you have a problem.
In short, this was a bad idea from conception to execution. This simple three question process would have easily pointed that out. The City has wisely thinned them out, or recognised there are too many easier, closer places to lock up a bike.
A Silly Use of Tax Dollars and City Work Time
Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but it seems to me bike racks that look like bike racks is a pretty self-explanatory solution. I also think (if it is shown we really need them) those bike racks should go in an open parking space, not adding another obstacle to our sidewalks. That's not nice for the pedestrians, and pedestrians are who a sidewalk's for.
I would ask our parking control keep an eye out to see if these get any use at all. If not, I'd ask the Council if they want us to see if we still have any of those benches laying around. Who knows, maybe we've even got bike racks that look like bike racks too.
I know this is a silly example, but it does show how asking a few simple questions can serve as a check on any idea, no matter who has it.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse