By the way, congratulations on FSR's graduation from the Incubator. I'm
coming to the party. Lori
>sorry, didn't intend to offend. it would be nice to see what each of the
>various agencies would do with their 1%-imposed cuts whether-or-not the thing
>happens to pass, just as an exersize in cost accounting:)
>
>johnt
>
>================================================================
>>>>>> "Lori" == Lori Keenan <lkeenan@norby.latah.lib.id.us> writes:
>
> > Boys, I have to jump in here and say loud and clear that not all
> > government agencies are bloated and fat. Libraries aren't! As
> > a matter of fact, libraries have always been the leanest and
> > trimmest folks around! That's because we have great training in
> > always doing more with less. But even we couldn't absorb the
> > kind of cuts the 1% would impose. Lori Keenan
>
> >> hey, that should happen w/o things like 1%, but the normal
> >> human condition is to bloat to fit the bag.
> >>
> >> johnt
> >>
> >> ================================================================
> >>>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Cooke <scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu>
> >>>>>>> writes:
> >> > John, Good point. I was implicitly assuming that cnty gov't
> >> was > currently working at a least cost pace. This is perhaps a
> >> heroic > assumption. The more local gov't can increase
> >> productivity, the > better the services and the lower the
> >> cost. Perhaps the 1% is > intended to encourage the pursuit of
> >> this kind of productivity > increase in the public sector.
> >> Steve Cooke
> >>
> >> >> a good list. but a question? The list of services on the
> >> list >> says the service is required, but doesn't reflect the
> >> level of >> expendture needed to meet the "must be provided"
> >> requirement. >> That is, it is possible that a service like
> >> "Issue permits and >> licenses as required by law" might be met
> >> at a cost of less >> than current expendture levels (through
> >> magic or something) and >> still meet the requirement? >> >>
> >> If so, then your implication that the full 25% reduction has to
> >> >> come from the non-required things which are done by the
> >> county >> is not quite true. it may be that aportion of that
> >> can come >> from optimizations at the "required" level as well.
> >> If we save >> 10% in the overall required services, then only
> >> 15% must come >> from the rest etc. >> >> johnt >> >> >>>>>
> >> "Steve" == Steve Cooke <scooke@marvin.csrv.uidaho.edu> >>
> >> writes: >> >> > ....Therefore, the 25% reduction in county >
> >> revenues (state >> wide average) would fall disproportionately
> >> on > services not >> on this list ... >> >> > Associate
> >> Professor Dept. of Ag. Economics & Rural Soc. > University of
> >> Idaho Moscow, ID 83843 >
> >> http://www.uidaho.edu/~scooke/onepercent 208-885-7170 (phone) >
> >> 208-885-5759 (fax)
> >>
> >>
> > Lori Keenan 110 S. Jefferson Street Moscow, ID 83843 tel:
> > (208)882-3923 fax: (208) 882-5098 e-mail:
> > lkeenan@norby.latah.lib.id.us
>
> > KNOWLEDGE IS FREE AT THE LIBRARY. JUST BRING YOUR OWN
> > CONTAINER.
>
>
Lori Keenan
110 S. Jefferson Street
Moscow, ID 83843
tel: (208)882-3923
fax: (208) 882-5098
e-mail: lkeenan@norby.latah.lib.id.us
KNOWLEDGE IS FREE AT THE LIBRARY. JUST BRING YOUR OWN CONTAINER.