Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1). <br /> <br /> In January of 1981, the county council made their first <br /> <br /> attempt at program review. A list of five questions was given to <br /> each department head and they were also questioned orally by the <br /> <br /> council in a series of brief sessions. Most department heads <br /> <br /> answered the written questions with self-serving requests for <br /> <br /> more funding; many of the councilmembers did not bother to attend <br /> the oral questioning sessions. <br /> <br /> The lack of substantive program review led to the adoption <br /> <br /> by the council of a format for the legislative auditor's office <br /> to follow and a schedule for reviewing the programs of the <br /> <br /> departments. Between 1981 and 1982, six program reviews were <br /> <br /> completed by the county legislative auditor's office. <br /> <br /> In 1982, Rule 24 was adopted by the county council (see <br /> enclosure #2). From interviewing the principals from that time, <br /> <br /> the general feeling among many councilmembers was that one, the <br /> <br /> legislative auditors had traditionally served the councilmembers <br /> <br /> for office functions (answering mail to constituents, even acting <br /> in one case a-, permanent chauffer) and now their time was taken <br /> <br /> up doing program review, and two, the councilmembers' favorite <br /> <br /> programs were being seriously criticized for favoritism and <br /> cronyism. Rule 24 effectively disembowled section 3-17 (now 3- <br /> <br /> 16) of the county charter. Only two more program reviews already <br /> <br /> in progress were completed. <br /> <br /> Since that time only one and possibly two critical program <br /> reviews have been completed, one by Helene Hale and an aide in <br /> <br /> <br /> 3 <br />