On workforce development (twitter post of 7/17/09)

This past week I spent a couple of days with a group of peers in what we call the Large Cities Executive Forum. The group consists of city/county managers (or chief administrative officers who work for elected mayors/county executives). To participate, one’s local government must have a minimum population of 200,000. The group meets twice a year, in January and July for two days in the local government of one of our members. We spend our time together sharing ideas, commiserating, and making site visits in the host city. The meetings are wonkish, not junkets. We don’t have golf tournaments or fishing trips. Our day and a half is filled with meetings and site visits, which are frequently part of the evening activities as well.

Of all the different professional activities in which I’ve participated, Large Cities has been the best. First of all it is an organization without structure -- there are no officers, no dues, and no requirements other than showing up and participating. Obviously, there is a lot of work for the host city, but there has always been a member who will step forward and take responsibility. Of most value, is the small size of the group (usually less than 2 dozen) and the relevancy of all of the discussions -- again, these are not intended to be vacations, but an opportunity to connect with peers on the real problems we are facing and in an environment where one can speak candidly. We mostly deal with the same issues but in different ways and with different internal and external constraints and resources.

This summer Virginia Beach City Manager Jim Spore and his wife Joan hosted us. By the way, this is also one of the few groups were spouses are warmly welcomed as part of the event, recognizing that for many of us, city management is truly a family effort. A spouse can be your strongest critic, fiercest supporter, and most trusted confidant.

Among the topics we discussed was workforce development. In tight budget times, such as we currently live, staff development can be among the first cuts. Conferences, training, professional memberships, tuition reimbursement rarely make it to the list of “core” services. This conference is a good example. Several members did not attend because of budget reductions and several of us who did participate did so at our own personal cost. For some it was financial, but for most of us it was image – we didn’t want the criticism for spending public money to help us do our public jobs better.

This same scenario is playing out across all levels of employees and threatens important development programs. For example, members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments support a cross-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary training program for mid-level managers and senior professionals. It’s a mini-MPA curriculum that leads to a Certificate of Public Management. It takes key players in our local governments who have been trained in a specific profession – engineering, law enforcement, firefighting, social work, library science, etc. – and exposes them to the basics of public administration. The idea is to give them new skills to be more effective leaders in the local government environment. The program also fosters a better appreciation for regionalism. Participants develop awareness and skills to operate in an interdependent world where different professions and different organizations must work together for success.

Alas, the COG program may not go forward next year. We need 25 students to be cost-effective and currently have less than 20. Some of the largest governments in the DC area have not a single applicant.

Another example is ICMA, the professional association for city and county managers. It’s annual conference serves as the most significant annual event for in-service training of managers and their assistants. The conference – as for most associations – is also a major source of funding to sustain member services. Unfortunately, this year the conference is in Montreal. Thus, it is doubly cursed. Managers are afraid to spend money on development anywhere, let alone “international” travel to Montreal. The paradox is that managers and other local government professionals need exposure to alternative ideas and best practices now more than any other time. And, Montreal is no more expensive than any other venue in North America for a major conference.

Public employees certainly don’t need to be traveling just for the sake of traveling. We need to make a business case for workforce development – and not be afraid to do so. During these times of cut backs, we’re expecting fewer people to do more with less. What is a reasonable investment in those who remain? 1%? 2%? Certainly not 0%.

An idea one city manager implemented to deal with the dilemma was to charge employees a “deductible” for professional development. The developmental activity still had to have a sound business purpose and had to be within appropriated funds. In this locality, however, the employee was responsible for the first $250 of expenses.

Is a deductible the solution? Is a per employee cap the right approach? The answer will be different for different communities, but hopefully we’ll resist a knee jerk elimination of staff development. We need creativity and competencies that will not be developed by withdrawing into isolation, obsessing on short-term financial limitations, and ignoring the long term implications.