By Keene Winters

Why should we keep government as small as possible? The answer is that it is an inefficient consumer of resources, and we are all the poorer when this segment grows relative to the economy.

Consider the natural incentives in the private sector. There, we have inventors, entrepreneurs, and managers, all of whom are rewarded for creating a competitive advantage. The person who comes up with the ideas to produce goods or services faster, better, or cheaper will make money. But also, the buyers—representing society as a whole—experience an increase in the standard of living as goods and services become faster, better, or cheaper. That is how wealth is created for everybody.

Government does not create wealth. To the contrary, one often hears government managers say, “how can you expect us to do more with less”—even though that is the basic job description of a manager?

The incentives within governmental organizations reward the consumption of resources rather than their conservation. For example, how does a Supervisor I in some municipality get to be a Supervisor II. The answer is by growing the number of people he or she oversees. Moreover, if some enterprising Supervisor I finds to do more with less, he or she will just lose headcount and be farther away from that reclassification to the next level. As you can see, the incentives run contrary to the wise use of resources. To “get ahead” in government, managers focus on making the case that more taxpayer resources should be placed in their hands and not on finding efficiencies.

Given the inherent disincentives to manage carefully that exist in government, how do we get necessary government work done efficiently? One answer is to take bids and contract with the private sector to do the work. And, one place in city government where there is a compelling case to move from an in-house staff model to contracting is the city’s legal services department.

To begin, the rising costs of this department have been out-of-control for an extended period of time. From 2010 to 20124, legal services costs for Wausau grew by 130%. That is twice as much as the department in second place and three times the rate of inflation for a sustained fifteen years.

Secondly, the timing is right. Wausau’s legal department has three attorney positions. Two have been vacant for more than a year. There is a part-time contract attorney staffing municipal court. An early retirement incentive could be offered to the remaining attorney, clearing the way to contract for legal services without layoffs.

Thirdly, the in-house staff model for municipal legal services is going to continue to be a problem. There is an acute shortage of lawyers willing to take these city and village attorney positions. Finding and keeping talented staff will be a constant challenge.

Even if all three positions are filled, that team will have little or no knowledge in some areas. Consequently, outside attorneys will still be needed to fill in those knowledge gaps. In a contract services model, the problems of keeping the positions staffed and having the expertise to deal with all issues will be off-loaded to the contract services provider.

Fortunately, this is a budget amendment that could be done at any time in the year since it is likely to produce an annualized savings of $250,000. Saving money is always in order. Hint, hint.

Keene Winters is a former Wausau city alderman. He is also a two-time winner of recognition from the Wisconsin Newspaper Association for opinion page content.

Home

Winters: Why shrinking government could save Wausau money, starting with legal services