Apparently Roger wants to make the point that there is waste in the private sector as well as the public sector. Thanks for that update Roger.

Roger doesn't like the safe guards established to try to protect taxpayers from public employees "going rouge" with the government credit card.
Roger worked in government, he should know...right? Millions in mistakes and waste were uncovered in "Waste on the water", not an insignificant amount of money. Rogers philosophy of "Why look" is concerning and far too typical of current and former government employees.

Here is a little more on Roger and his Friends at Sightline/ Friends of Seattle or whatever other sub group they are forming to try and sound "independent".

Roger Valdez joined Sightline as a research associate after nearly two decades in policy research, community problem-solving, and public-sector management. He's served as a consultant to state and federal health programs; worked as a legislative aide for City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck; managed the Tobacco Prevention Program at Public Health Seattle King County; and served as Regional Health Officer and a Neighborhood Development Manager for the city of Seattle. He's also been a blogger and columnist with the Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce. Roger's work in public health and in neighborhood development has focused on creative partnerships that integrate economic development, neighborhood values, health, and the arts into the built environment. Roger has a B.A. in philosophy from the University of Puget Sound and a master's degree in Religion from UC Santa Barbara. When he isn't thinking or writing about how to create an affordable and sustainable Cascadia, he enjoys food, history, music, running, and travel. Email: roger (at) sightline (dot) org.

Good post, Cameron. Sounds like Roger needs to get an honest job. One of the best things "we the people" could do would be to rid the castle of the courtesans/vermin that have been whispering in our "representatives" ears and lobbying for their go at our community chest.

And, notice that in Roger's little parable, both he and the other employees had to travel to Denver to attend a work-related "meeting" (as local government servants, mind you). For all their talk of being green and saving the earth, these environmental advocates are not above jet-setting when they can charge the taxpayers for their gallivants.

Roger as a person is warm and affable. He has never in the years I have known him, had a real for-profit private sector job. But, we still love him.

His take is that the problem is gubmint types using their head. Some, but not many do. His problem is (good for you Roger) folks spending the public dime like it was their own, using a low cost rental, then getting a beatdown because some anal-retentive bureaucrat has six levels of approval, and archane rules.

Hey, Roger, how about making the rules make sense, hiring folks who spend our tax money like their own, and cut waste that way.

Some day I will figure out this charmed career path, and how it works. When I met Roger, and asked "why did we hire this guy" while a board of directors member, the answer was, "because it is politically expedient to do so".

Some day, I will discover like Roger has, where the bodies are buried, and have endless public sector jobs opened up to me, for no appearant justification.

Geezer OUT.

Wow, I am no fan of big government and waste but the previous comments completely floored me. Here's a guy suggesting we streamline procedures and make sure they actually save money, and it triggers a barrage of anti-government tirades. I seems to me entirely valid to question if adding more layers of rules leads to efficient government.

Of course there is waste, inefficiency, and bureaucracy in the private sector as well as in the public. I think what frustrates people about government waste, though, is that they have no alternative. There's only one United States, and we each only live in one state, one county, and, perhaps, one incorporated community. If we don't like the way things are being run, we can literally vote (easy, but the results don't satsify many), or vote with our feet (a lot easier said than done). But we can't switch our governmental service provider.

Of course, choice in the private sector is more of an illusion than many probably realize. If I get fed up with QFC, I have a Whole Foods, a Trader Joe's, and two Safeways nearby. If I don't like one coffee shop or teriyaki joint, I have plenty more to choose from. But the larger the institution, or if there's a monopoly situation, the less this is the case — don't like Comcast cable? You're stuck with it; want to drive, but not support Big Oil? Good luck with that.

But I think what frustrates people more about government waste than private-sector waste is the feeling they can't do anything about it, and that their money is being wasted. It's funny: with the government, the people exercise ultimate control; but they feel they have more control in the private sector, voting with their wallets and feet, than in the public sector, voting at the ballot box (or should I say mailbox).

Thanks for this piece, and it is quite an interesting story. I am reminded of the economist's James Buchanan's work on public choice theory. His work also began with the assumption that government employees are inherently lazy or fraudulent, and so to insure good outcomes, it was necessary to create concrete metrics in order to judge government's performance. Metrics such as arrest numbers for the police department, patient time in a bed at the hospital, etc. But these metric created perverse incentives. To the extent to which actual outcome diverges from the metric, there is an incentive to perform actions that are not in the public interest, such as making unnecessary arrests or needlessly shuffling patients between hospital rooms.

The private sector, as a whole, also used to be much more metric oriented that it is now. This was appropriate in the era when assembly line manufacturing dominated American industry. But as lower skills jobs moved overseas, the private sector has been able to adapt by creating a culture in which workers are able to make decisions and managers are able to evaluate workers using subjective criteria.

What was described in the article is not exclusive to government. I have worked for corporations who have the same seemingly arcane procedures that stem from prudent management of purchasing, as well as loss prevention (legal) reasons. These seem inefficient to the employees have to live with them, but they are there for a reason, and a grown-up learns to put in in perspective and go on with their job.

I seem to remember that one of the Eyman initiatives a few years back required performance audits of all gov't agencies. What were the results of those?

Yes, jml, but such a kneejerk, eymanesque, winger-bagger critiques appear to be par for the course these days.

Cameron operates in the realm of those who consider public work evil, hence he inserts Mr. Valdez's vita as an ad hominem attack. BlueLight, of the same school, cannot fathom why a business trip to Denver might be useful. Jet-setting? Have you flown lately, BlueLight? Geezer is a bit harder to fathom. On the one hand he seems to get some portion of the author's point: Yes, let's make the rules make sense. On the other, it would appear that at some point the corrupt government failed to hire him.

Good governance costs good money.

We paid good money. We haven't gotten good governance. We won't so long as special-interests, like Roger Valdez, continue to have our officials' ears.

I tell you what Dewams, I will give public employees the same amount of rope I would give private employees for being responsible with budget dollars and performance, along with the same consequences. Would you support removing any extra union processes, appeals and grievences for violations of policies and procedures?

How many of the safe guards you are complaining about that "restrict" good public employees from making rational economic decisions were put in place because of bad ones? Or because they recieve some sort of federal money or grants that require an additional level of fiscal conformance? Or maybe even rules put in place by the legislature itself. Just what is the dollar threshold for bad decisions, mis-spending, waste and fraud should be tolerated as acceptable?

If you think we havent gotten good governance, I can only assume you have never been anywhere where they actually have BAD governance.
There are 195 countries in the world- and we are definitely in the top ten or twenty in terms of honest, efficient government.
Of course, there is always room for improvement.
Washington State is so much LESS corrupt, inefficient, and wasteful than so many other states in the USA, though, that its hard for me to imagine what you are complaining about.
I have friends in Chicago who not only bribed their way out of speeding tickets, they asked for (and got!) change for a twenty from the cop.
Try that here.
Try giving a building inspector in Washington a fifth of whiskey to sign off on an illegal remodel.
Try paying a judge to dismiss a lawsuit.
Try paying off a city councilman to rezone for a plastics factory.

Stuff like that is routine in many eastern and southern states.

"Try giving a building inspector in Washington a fifth of whiskey to sign off on an illegal remodel."

Who inspected the McGuire? Were they bribed or just "bad"?

BTW... over in Kitsap County, the County Commissioners (all Democrats) are secretly negotiating with local indian tribes to grant tribal police expanded authorities off-reservation. Want a Banana Republic? Wait till the guy behind the gun isn't subject to the same laws he is enforcing AND claims sovereign immunity should he - for whatever reason - shoots you (or yours) in the head.

"Try paying off a city councilman to rezone for a plastics factory"

Well our most famous local example would have to go to a Strip Club parking lot expansions. Not from around here Rniemi?

Perhaps the Ron Sims Maple Valley/ Summit pit fiasco.

Welcome to Bad Governance Western Washington Style.

This guy from King County Tobacco Compliance wants to lecture us about efficiency? I'd just as soon be lectured by a Nigerian email scammer. Before you lecture, you've gotta have some remote semblance of credibilty.

About 15 years ago I had a friend who had been laid off temporarily from Boeing. Instead of drawing unemployment he decided to do the right thing & accept a job working at a convenience store in his neighborhood. Well KC tobacco compliance came in one day with a sting with a girl who looked well over 18. He sold to her--busted. She even had a kid with her to leave the impression she was an adult.

He explained the situation to the judge but to no avail. Judge fined him, and said "next...." He told me he was so pissed he wanted to punch the judge in the nose..or course he didn't.

The whole operation is a scam. If this Valdez fellow was a manager there, he is either a) a scammer; or b) too stupid to be worth listening to.

Pepper2000 wrote: "The private sector, as a whole, also used to be much more metric oriented that it is now. This was appropriate in the era when assembly line manufacturing dominated American industry. But as lower skills jobs moved overseas, the private sector has been able to adapt by creating a culture in which workers are able to make decisions and managers are able to evaluate workers using subjective criteria."

Really? This has been the exact opposite of my experience. But perhaps it's because most of my work experience has been in the tech industry, albeit on the content side of things. It's been a constant move toward metrics and away from subjective criteria. This is happening in healthcare, too, in which I have some work experience as well, although I suppose nonprofit healthcare organizations are in many ways closer to government than they are to private enterprise.

Rniemi wrote: "If you think we havent gotten good governance, I can only assume you have never been anywhere where they actually have BAD governance."

Excellent point. It could be a lot worse. But we have high ideals and expectations here.

Oh, the agony of bureaucracy! I remember when I worked in Olympia in the 90s, and the state auditor wrote up a state worker for using a single letter-size envelope for personal use. (And spent money producing and distributing that report.)

When I was a budget analyst, and my job was to look for ways to save money, I noticed that the best programs were often the most vulnerable to being cut. There was one agency in particular that I thought did terrific, public-spirited, efficient work that saved every household in the state money. Their meetings were productive, their perks were few, their staffing was lean, but whenever I called them I found a hard-working and really skilled staff person ready to get me whatever info I needed. It was the Little Agency That Could.

And--every budget cycle, it shrank. Because while they were busy focusing on their mission and doing what the public was paying them to do, a much bigger agency--let's call it the Department of Engulfment--was devoting a hefty percentage of its resources to perpetuating its own existence. Its legislative liaisons, instead of doing their real job (which is to make sure that legislation being drafted doesn't run afoul of whatever laws, rules, or issues the agency knows about), would act like lobbyists to build their department's empire.

It was a strategy that worked. And so every budget cycle, the Department of Engulfment would run another bill to take away another program or function from the Little Agency That Could.

It's only in times when the funding is pretty stable that the efficient, public-interested programs tend to hold their own. In times of big, hurried, crisis-driven cutting, the best programs tend to be the first to go. Decision-makers often want to do the right thing, but when it's a choice between a nifty program that the public will never thank them for and their own political survival, they usually choose to survive.

p.s. @BlueLight, @Cameron et al. --

I respect your right to your opinions, of course, but I can't help thinking that you have no idea who is really helping you, and who is not. There are some good things about our government, and if we don't appreciate them we could lose them. Things can always get worse, and I think they do get worse when we don't expect any better.

Instead of renting a car or taking a cab, why not take light rail or a bus? Now, that would have saved a bunch of money.

Since we're talking public versus private, and I've worked in both here in Washington State, let's compare some ad hominems:

Private corporation waited exactly 30 days from Credit.Con housing crash to meet Federal notification requirements, then laid everyone off down to the water coolers on Christmas week, to avoid having to pay annual bonuses.

Public GSA/Ecology waited A FULL YEAR before deciding affected permit staff were 'underutilized'. Governor squandered MILLIONS 'retraining' 'underutilized' permit staff as LEED and Carbon Assessors for the Big Lie, but ClimateGate exploded and Carbon Assessors became dodos. LEED International agreed to grant LEED certification WITHOUT State AUDIT.

Superfluous 'underutilized' and 'retrained' staff remained in place FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR with nothing to do. Governor kept them in their salaries, full benefits and pensions, betting on the come, putting the State Budget all on number '787' ... and losing big time thanks to Boeing, which is being grifted $35 MILLION in property tax rebates even now, even after they moved the second assembly line to South Carolina!

Tick-tock, it's now TWO FULL YEARS after Credit.Con and GSA/Ecology permit staff with NOTHING TO DO FOR TWO YEARS and STILL IN THEIR JOBS.
Notice the Governor 'demanded' 3% pay cuts for two years, and State Union responded with 3.2% PERMANENT increase in PAID VACATION!! Net-net, State just got 0.2% MORE TO SIT HOME ON VACATION.

Now let's go back to private side. After waiting two years with skeleton crew for economy to recover, private corporation completely final layoffs of administrative and accounting staff and filed for bankruptcy.

Now let's go back to public side. After waiting two years with FULLY EMPLOYED EVEN SUPERFLUOUS STAFFING waiting for economy to recover, public agencies commit to 0.2% INCREASE IN PAY AND MORE VACATION TIME, as the State rolls towards default that will cost WA taxpayers BILLIONS in taxes.

Donald Rumsfeld was called on the carpet on September 10, 2001 to explain how 'Defense' (sic) has MISAPPROPRIATED $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS WITH NO AUDIT. WSDOT Ferry System General Manager was called on the carpet just last year to explain how Ferry Staff were COLLECTING TRIPLE OVERTIME AND PLANNED TRIPLE OVERTIME AT THAT. 'We are studying the situation'...

Yeah, sure they are. We are BONED by public agencies and our Governor, who we elected on her pledge to cut useless boards and regulators, we are STILL PAYING FOR, after she decided, 'Reducing (FTE) State employees is UNFEASIBLE'. Instead, we lurch towards Bethlehem on a bleeding donkey.

I repeat- you have never been anywhere where there is really bad governance, if the best you can come up with is the Mcguire building and Strip club parking lots.

Earthquake hits the Northwest- say, for instance, the Nisqually quake- and a few 100 year old buildings are damaged.
Earthquake hits China, and 90,000 die, many due to buildings that really WERE built poorly, and not even up to Chinese codes.

Where, do tell, is there GOOD governance?
Which countries, or even states in the US, should we emulate?
And, then, what are their tax rates?

Yes, Rniemi, you caught my drift.

In fact, over the years, both my brother-in-law and my mother have been shaken down by Chicago cops during traffic stops. The line usually goes, "What are we going to do about this?" or "We can probably take care of this now."

There are days when I do wonder how our public employees can be expected to perform decently against the persistent thrum of denigration sounding through the media, of which a few commentators here are an unremarkable sample. There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And there are days when the weather's just bad and I cannot resist tweaking a few smug, pointy noses, largely, I admit, for entertainment value. After all, I know nothing I write will change those minds.

Cameron: StripperGate? StripperGate! Is that all you got? I guess you are from around here and need to see a bit more of the world, son. And, yes, I am chuckling.

Yes, Wilbur. Some nice ambiguity there.
Do you suppose he was referring to "freedom-fry red" or "commie-pinko red"?

I work with a small environmental nonprofit. For grants from private sources (foundations, etc.) we've found that we usually only need to budget 10-20% of the grant for administration and reporting; so 80-90% of the grant will actually go to do the work and not bookkeeping and reporting that we've done the work. We decided a long time ago we would not go for grants from the state (i.e. the old PIE grants) because we would have to budget 25-35% of the grant for administration and reporting. How efficient is that? But by golly, the reporting is s thorough that Blue Light, Cameron, and Geezer won't have to worry about any paper clips improperly purloined at the taxpayer's expense.
(Cue the whining about how no tax money should be spent protecting or improving the environment.)

Actually, Steve, I believe money should be spent protecting or improving the environment. And if it is tax money being spent, I prefer it be spent by the government that has taken it from me. Not by some well-connected "small environmental nonprofit" that siphons off 20% (or any percent) for personal profit - uh - "administration".

We need to reform section 501(c)(3) of the tax code.

I had to chuckle at "The Parable". Here's my version. Working at Boeing, I made a business trip to Cedar Rapids to audit an electronics program. After being handed my airline ticket (in the days when tickets were as good as currency) I found a deal in which, if I flew another leg back home to New Jersey to see my parents and, in the process, stayed over a Saturday night, I could do the whole trip as what was called an "open jaw" (a leg to a destination and returning to a different destination at no extra charge). So, Cedar Rapids to New Jersey to Seattle qualified. In the process, I saved, as I recall $60 over the cost of a flight to Cedar Rapids and straight back to Seattle.

When I turned in my travel voucher, it was bounced by some troll in travel accounting who indignantly pronounced that they were not paying for my "vacation". When I pointed out to my Supervisor that I had done my job and actually saved the company money, he wrote a short memo to his manager and the voucher was paid forthwith. No huge bureaucratic hoo-hah.

Later in life, I became a turncoat and worked for the FAA, doing the dirty work for my old friends at Boeing who wanted to say "No" to a customer request, but were not able to do so (being a "Black Hat" was just part of my job description). On a business trip, I also found a much cheaper flight than I was ticketed on, but was told that I had to use airline X because the FAA had a contract with them. Ostensibly, this would save money over the long term, but the question was: the government is an, if not the, 800 pound gorilla in buying airline tickets, so why make concessions to the airlines at all? The hotels I stayed at gave steep discounts to government employees, sometimes without even needing to present an itinerary for official business, so why not the airlines too?

I leave the conclusions about culpability to the mercies of reader, but my take is that business travelers generally want to get home for the weekend, so the airlines hold the companies up for higher fares on trips not involving staying over a weekend, even though the trips may be entirely equivalent, but which the employee is not personally paying for, so could care less. Score one against ethicality in the airline industry -- or is it just shrewd business?

And by the way, guys, I am frequently amazed at the erudition and founts of wisdom displayed in these discussions, but you better look up "ad hominem". It does NOT mean a personal attack generically. That's my contribution for the day :-)

Just think about the "efficiencies" if the Ferries are privatized.
First, of course, fares would double immediately.

The state says that right now, fares only cover about 75% of costs- so thats 25% right there.
But the state doesnt pay for a lot of stuff a private company would have to.
The state owns the docks and terminals. A private company would have to lease or buy them.
The state gets all kinds of freebies from local cities-imagine if a private company asked for traffic and parking laws to be ignored or changed for its convenience.
I know you think the ferry employees are overpaid, but my guess is that equivalent Foss or Crowley crew get paid about the same.
I dont think a company could run the ferries for a mere 25% more, and, of course, there is profit on top of that.

Long term, we would not get "choice" there is not enough traffic to justify two firms, except for passenger only service. Just building ONE new dock, with adequate parking, could easily cost a half billion in most of the east puget sound locations- buying land in downtown Seattle, or Everett, permits and construction could easily cost that much, and take 5 years per.

Most likely, the City of Seattle would close down Fauntelroy- its a terrible access problem, the roads are too small, and it only works by changing parking laws.
And building a new terminal downtown? Forget about it.

I would guess that both would end up moving to Harbor Island. Longer, and of course, more expensive, trip to Vashon.
There is no appropriate location on Whidbey for the Port Townsend run-- the current Coupeville dock is too shallow and is in an environmentally sensitive area. Commerically, the closest reasonable spot is probably Anacortes- again, much longer run, trickier waters, and triple the fares.

Some runs are just not economically feasible, if unsubsidized- I doubt anyone could make money on the San Juans, if the current cost, of Forty Bucks, is only 3/4 of actual cost, then I would estimate a private industry fare of at least 75 bucks- and all of that is assuming oil prices dont go up.
Good luck on that one.

At a hundred bucks per car, who is going to Friday Harbor for the weekend?

Privatization of the ferries would result in economic disaster for Port Townsend, Whidbey, Vashon, and the Peninsula in general- most likely taxes paid would decrease by far more than the amount "saved" by getting out of the ferry biz.
It would result in doubling, probably tripling, of fares, within a couple of years.
Say goodbye to family trips to the Hoh, unless you drive thru Tacoma, and pay the bridge toll.
The cost of everything in Port Townsend, Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, and Hood Canal towns would go up 20% or so.

But I guess if your goal is to turn Washington into Somalia, its a first step.

Me, I think we ought to just build a couple of bridges. But that, of course, would cost tax money...

Well done story. Of course, it will not move the thinking of those who deeply resent government and everything it stands for. And the fact that government, rather than the private sector, is subject to public transparency, allegations of waste will continue to provide a regular diet of suspician and criticism for an increasingly cycnical population.

I worked for the state and the U.S. governments for thirty years and this article is spot on. Government will spend $100 so someone doesn't lose or steal $10. There is no percentage for the employee who thinks on his or her feet. That's why bureaucrats get a bad name. Why should they do the right thing if they end up getting spanked.

This approach also produces a culture of somewhat dishonest "workarounds" just to get the job done. The employee gets stiffed for his rental car expense? He arranges to return home later in the day on the next trip to earn some extra per diem.

Just one personal experience (mine was a law enforcement and investigative specialty): purchase of anything, even flashlight batteries while in the field, required a purchase order approved by a manager. Then a procurement specialist had to issue a purchase order which would then be taken to a vendor to provide the batteries. Or we could double back to the office to check batteries out of the supply room which might take half a day. What is the employee to do? Sacrifice the job to comply with the purchase regulations? Or eat the expense? Or lie on an expense voucher?

But the legislature and auditors are happy because there are expense controls in place.

If someone misspends money that is a performance issue and supervisors and management should take corrective action.

As someone who has worked for Federal, State, and County entities as well as a variety of for-profits and non-profits, I could appreciate the author's observations and the message he was conveying. I found many of the comments left by readers at Crosscut to be severely disturbing and indicative of the growing distrust and resentment of government services and public entities. Over the last 40 years, this sentiment has been getting louder and nastier and at times violent.

I still believe that there is some nobility in public service and I recognize the challenges of providing cost effective and responsible services that citizens require and/or demand. While there are flaws in these service delivery systems, there is no denying that the operating costs and the technical difficulties inherent in providing services would be similar whether performed by a public entity or a private sector business. Of course, there are great examples of government services outsourced to private or non-profit contractors as well as examples of governmental agencies that provide more service value than can be achieved elsewhere. We can all agree that service delivery models should undergo regular evaluation and improvement, but we must all be more realistic about our assumptions and our expectations.

Bureaucracies are often inefficient, whether public or private. The difference between the two, though, is that inefficient private institutions eventually fail through competition or innovation. Public institutions don’t.

I do take issue with the earlier statement suggesting that voters have more control over the public sector. Everything we do as individuals and as a group (whether we download an iTune or use Google as a verb) affects our society and culture. We all make an impact. Government is a closed system, impervious to the will of the people by any degree it chooses

This is an excellent piece. It's a perfect example of why the stimulus has not hit the proverbial ground as fast as it should. So many regulations and efforts designed to stamp out waste and corruption end up creating waste. Good job, Roger!