> At 09:04 AM 10/15/96 PST8PDT, you wrote:
> >------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
> >Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 12:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
> >To: John Teeter <johnt@fsr.com>, vision2020@uidaho.edu
> >From: lkeenan@norby.latah.lib.id.us (Lori Keenan)
> >Subject: Re: 1% homepage
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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)
>
>
> Egad! Knowledge is NOT "free" at the library... In 1995 Idaho property
> taxpayers happily paid $5,787,799.00 for so-called "free" knowledge.
>
> The quip should read: "You and your spouse get up extra early, get the kids
> off to school, both parents go to work, come home from work a couple hours
> after your kids are out of school, collect your paychecks, one paycheck goes
> to the governmental budgets, the other to the family budget, try to spend
> some time with you kids, kiss you spouse goodnite, do the same routine
> tommorrow, and try to squeeze in a visit to the library for some 'free'
> knowledge."
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Laird
>
>
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)