2006-04-06 Cost of Government Commission Minutes

Home

The Chair noted that questions 2 and 3 are very similar and that one could be eliminated and a new one added in. After further discussion, the commissioners decided on eliminating question No. 2 and keeping No. 3. Ms. Nicholson asked whether, since Act 90 would be sunsetting shortly, it would be counter - productive to ask about experimental modernization projects. Ms. Garson said Act 90 is a totally separate thing and reminded the commissioners they could ask whatever they wanted. Ms. Nicholson pointed out page 157 of the Act 90 handout, where it says "Act 253 also authorized the use of experimental modernization projects by public agencies as a means to modernize and streamline their operations in lieu of privatizing the functions of the public agency." Ms. Garson asked if that was to replace the revised question No. 1 or No. 2, and the Chair said to delete No. 2. Ms. Nicholson suggested placing it between the current Nos. 5 and 6, and that it was to be in lieu of privatizing. She restated the question: "Can you suggest any modernization projects that might streamline your operations in lieu of privatizing functions ?" Ms. Cushnie asked if Act 253 should be referenced, and Ms. Garson said no. The Chair asked if there were any more suggestions or revisions to the draft letter, and Ms. Cushnie asked if the due date for responses was to remain May 5. Ms. Garson said she could have the letters ready for the Chair's signature by April 10, 2006, so it was decided the due date for responses would remain as May 5, 2006. To clarify, Ms. Nicholson said that the letter to the boards and commissions would give them an extra month, until June, to respond, as they would need to agendize and discuss the letter from the COGC at a meeting. Ms. Nicholson asked about the letter to the Department of Environmental Management, since they had already had its director, Barbara Bell, speak to them. It was decided that the DEM's letter should also ask about the consolidation of the waste water and water bills, and that the same question should be asked of the Department of Water Supply. Ms. Garson said that the letter would thank the DEM for coming to the meeting, and state something like, "As you recall, you made this suggestion and we would like more details on where cost savings can be made." The letter to the Department of Water Supply would be more generic. The Chair summarized the changes to the draft letter: The introduction was to be changed to "as the law requires." Question No. 1 was shortened to state, "Do you have any ideas about what your department can do to save money while not compromising essential services ?" Question No. 2 was to be deleted. Nos. 3 and 4 remained in place. Question No. 5 would be new, about modernization. The old No. 5 would become No. 6. The date would be kept at May 5, 2006. The letters would enclose a notice to be posted 21