Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIV. Strategic Goal Setting for 2009 Mount Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MAYOR I RVANA WILKS AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: DAVID STRAHL DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2009 SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 10 STRATEGIC GOAL SETTING SESSION The material that is provided in preparation of the Strategic Goal Setting Session includes the following: . An article about the Strategic Goal Setting process . Basics of Goal Setting for Local Government Environments . January 2008 S.W.O.T. Summary . Minutes from the January 8, 2008 Strategic Planning Workshop . Review of 2008 Strategic Goals . 2008 COW Topics Status Report . 2009 Projected COW Topic Schedule . Strategic Goals and Objectives Worksheet for 2009 Planning Prior to the Goal setting exercise Finance Director David Erb will present information on the following: . Bond Issue Status Report . Pensions Funding Update This information may prove useful in setting and prioritizing 2009 Strategic Goals. The objective for the evening is to undertake a S.W.O.T. analysis. SWOT stands for: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. A SWOT analysis is designed to identify the good, bad and the challenges about both the organization (internal) and the outside world (external). The internal review covers all four (4) SWOT characteristics. The external review generally focuses on Threats and Opportunities but may include the other areas. It is possible for an "item" to fall in more than one of the SWOT areas. An example of the latter might be - "Stable Village Workforce" as both a strength (suggests a good work environment) and a FEBRUARY 10 STRATEGIC GOAL SETTING SESSION February 5, 2009 Page 2 weakness (little opportunity for fresh perspectives). I would ask you to give some thought to the SWOT analysis prior to Tuesday's session. While we will conduct it as a "live" group exercise, you may want to come with a few SWOTs in your pocket. We anticipate using the 2008 SWOT Summary as a jumping off point for the discussion. Looking forward to a productive evening. ~sUp David Strahl c: Village Manager Michael E. Janonis H:IVILMIStrategic Goal Settingl2009 Strategic Planning Cover Memo.doc Educating Elected Officials in S tra tegie Goal Setting Gerald T. Gabris Strategic goal setting can help to determine the direction in which elected officials want an organization to move. Elected officials, especially those in local government, have become increasingly enamored with the formal identification and prioritization of policy goals for the benefit of administrative staffs. Given the increas- ing complexity of most public agency environments, periodic exercises in strategic goal setting make administrative and political sense. Ironically, few elected officials are familiar with strategic planning models, and the same can be said of professional administrators who often encourage the utilization of strategic planning as a form of ad- ministrative praxis. The outcome is predictable. Halcyon expectations coupled with insufficient knowledge frequently lead to frustrating, mar- ginal, or disappointing outcomes. Strategic planning can easily backfire, producing only marginal payoffs and thereby weakening the credibility of future strategic planning efforts. This is unfortunate, for well-designed strategic goal-setting exercises enable elected officials to grapple with complex political issues in a highly effective and productive manner and provide administrative staffs with an invaluable tool for responding effec- tively to the perceived needs of elected officials in a rational systematic context. Given these observations, the central purpose of this article becomes clear. It presents a strategic goal-setting model that has proved successful in several public-sector applications, particularly with elected officials. (The municipalities and organizations used as the basis for these obser- vations and model include the Bi-State Regional Planning Commission, Western Springs, Bensenville, Wheaton, Clarendon Hills, Libertyville, and the Bensenville Intergovernmental Group, Illinois.) The model encompasses four sequential phases (called 4M for short), which culmi- nates in a matrix format for goal classification and prioritization. It can be implemented in most organizational settings within a time frame of approximately eight hours. Highlighting the features of this model will be the primary focus. PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY &: MANAGEMENT REVIEW, vol. XIII, no. 2, Winter 1989 <9 ]ossey-Rass Inc., Publishers 161 162 Gabris Before the model is depicted in detail two ancillary concerns will be examined. The first addresses the question, Why engage in strategic plan- ning at all? Most elected officials face hyperbolic schedules and have little time to spare on abstract planning endeavors that may not produce quick and tangible political results. Hence, what is the rationale for such exercises? The second concern involves the potential pitfalls, booby traps, and constraints that can be connected with strategic planning efforts and how they can best be constrained. Elegant planning models can easily be strained by rather subtle and trivial obstacles. Understanding how to handle potential constraints is therefore important for anyone who pro- poses to embark on strategic goal setting. Why Do Strategic Goal Setting? One of the better examinations of terms pertaining to public-sector stra- tegic planning is that of James Bryson (1988). He defines (p. 3) strategic planning as "a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it." While strategic goal setting is conceptually linked to strategic planning, it is much humbler in scope. Strategic goal setting can be described as a disciplined planning process in which decision makers engage in order to reach consensus on the identity and priority of fundamental goals or objectives with the intent of helping to guide the organization toward the effective achievement of its mission or purpose. Conventional strategic planning can be a lengthy and complex process involving several components. A conventional process may begin with the articulation of a mission statement, move on to a stakeholder analysis, and then investigate the organization's strengths, weaknesses, opportuni- ties, and threats-a S. W. O. T. analysis. The process might then proceed to the isolation of strategic issues, the prioritization of issues, action plan- ning, and ultimately the creation of a futuristic vision. Implementing such a process takes considerable commitment, time, energy, and resources. Strategic goal setting is less intensive and grandiose. The central pur- pose is to identify fundamental goals and to prioritize or rank order them in relation to their importance for the organization. In this context, strategic goal setting is a very abbreviated, direct, and in some ways more utilitarian planning process. Strategic goal setting addresses the short- term planning needs that most administrative units face and fits com- fortably into the busy schedules of most decision makers. Strategic goal setting is an attractive alternative to organizations and decision makers who are unwilling to commit to full-fledged strategic planning endeavors. At the same time, the products of strategic goal Educating Elected Officials 163 setting are more limited in scope and less penetrating in their response to long-term needs for organizational change and adaptation. Given these observations, what are the specific advantages for conducting strategic goal-setting exercises? Reasons for Conducting Strategic Goal-Setting Sessions. Professional administrators must invariably interface with the political environment, and it is at this interface where careers are made, opportunities are lost, threats are most perilous, and substantive change can be accomplished. Strategic goal setting provides a mechanism for lowering the risk of interface interactions and makes win-win outcomes possible for both political leaders and professional administrators. Strategic goal setting can give the appearance (but not always the reality) of transforming a chaotic and turbulent environment into a stable, orderly landscape. These are some of the general supportive reasons that can be linked to the following specific justifications: . Strategic goal setting provides a mechanism for reducing risk while interfacing with the political environment . Strategic goal setting provides a means for reducing environmental turbulence and increasing internal planning stability that helps to avoid crisis management . Strategic goal setting provides a forum for dealing with intercon- necting external and internal environmental factors . Strategic goal setting enables elected leaders to achieve consensus on tough and controversial policy issues that probably cannot be resolved through normal meeting situations . Strategic goal setting provides the foundation for meaningful action planning . Strategic goal setting is short, quick, and direct, and it can provide substantial results given a minimum outlay of time. It would be possible to enumerate other reasons why strategic goal setting makes sense, but those just listed capture the majority of themes driving such sessions that the author has facilitated. Let us now consider these reasons in greater detail. Interfacing with Integrity. One astute commentator on interface dynamics suggests that administrators can smile, joke, and have fun with the crocodiles but should not mistake them for lovebirds (Golembiewski, 1985). Political leaders can radically change their opinion toward ap- pointed administrators in short order. Since certain professional admin- istrators, such as city managers, serve directly at the interface, they are keenly aware that elected officials possess the ultimate weapon, namely termination. Hence, many top-level administrators who serve at the inter- face may appear to be timid in advocating policy positions for fear that by appeasing one side they may alienate the other. Most of the author's experiences with strategic goal setting derive 164 Gabris from local governments, and consequently the examples and trends reported in this article reflect that bias. However, many of the patterns should be generalizable to other types of public organization settings. One common pattern in municipalities has been the perception on the part of department heads that city managers are often spineless mimics who parrot whatever the elected officials want to hear. Department heads feel frustrated, because in their opinion the city manager does not take tough stands in challenging elected officials on decisions that in their view reflect bad policy. For example, a city council may require a depart- ment to stop its routine and planned activities in order to satisfy requests from citizens that the department judges to be whimsical. City managers counter that not giving in on small things, such as planting shrubbery in front of fire hydrants, may preclude easy council consensus on such big- ticket items as the purchase of a new fire truck. Hence, giving in to the council on emotive small-ticket items is seen as a rational strategy for making the manager more effective on difficult policy issues. The key point is that strategic goal setting enables the council to grapple with policy issues in a context in which the city manager does not wear an evaluative black hat. This is a relatively safe way for surfac- ing fundamental policy differences and for achieving consensus on them without putting the top administrator in a high-risk role. Overall, this tends to augment the credibility and integrity of results. Environmental Turbulence and Need for Internal Stability. After con- sulting with numerous municipalities, the author finds that a common theme expressed by both department heads and city managers is manage- ment by crisis. This notion can taken on several meanings. Some depart- ment heads believe that they are asked to accomplish too many projects, activities, and or goals with too few resources in too little time. Adminis- trators feel overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of requests. They per- ceive the administrative machine as overtaxed and sputtering. A second aspect of this concern fixates on the mutability and cor- rigibility of constantly changing priorities. A high priority on Monday becomes a low priority on Tuesday. Because priorities change so rapidly, it is difficult to achieve any objective. The resulting situation resembles a skeet shoot: you aim the gun in the general direction, pull the trigger, and hope that your shot pattern is broad enough to hit at least part of the moving policy target. A third variation of this issue relates to unanticipated needs that spring from thin air, require immediate attention, and subsequently diminish the administrative unit's capacity to accomplish routine work assignments. Although prudence may dictate the immediate resolution of these unanticipated work requests, the time expended on such projects usually wreaks havoc on administrative stability. City managers perceive the fluidity and corrigibility of objectives as just part of the normal and Educating Elected Officials 165 daily work expectations associated with city government. City managers and other chief executives are hired to serve as interfacing agents and are trained to expect uncertainty. However, uncertainty is not conducive to program effectiveness at lower levels in the organization's hierarchy. Staff employees, who tend to prefer a modicum of certainty, stability, and routine in the work that they do, become confused. James D. Thompson (1967) stipulates that techni- cal-level employees are prone to closed-system orientations, which he defines as a preference for certainty and determinateness. Hence, strategic goal setting provides a means for better envisioning policy targets and, through prioritization, for determining the targets that should be pursued first. While this type of engineered policy stability is artificially fabri- cated, it should enhance organizational goal achievement. Interconnectedness of External and Internal Factors. For the Chicago metro area, the coinage NIMBYism has a sinister connotation. NIMBY- ism stands for not in my backyard. The problem is that what happens in one municipality often affects adjacent municipalities. During the fall floods of 1987, this became abundantly clear when municipalities had to release surging water from holding ponds directly into neighboring cities knowing this would flood them. The attitude at the time was us or them. Most cities chose them. Recently, the village of Bensenville, Illinois, implemented a strategic planning program with the park district, library district, and school dis- trict, which are all separate taxing bodies and therefore legally autono- mous. They created the Bensenville Intergovernmental Group, or B.LG. The central thrust was that these taxing bodies realized that they were interconnected in a complex intergovernmental system in which changes in one part could produce changes in other parts. A program developed by the park district might duplicate programs implemented by the school district. Since funds are limited, intergovernmental cooperation may save resources and actually produce better programs. The result of the B.LG. strategic planning process was that many mutually desirable policy objec- tives were identified, with the understanding that staffs from separate administrative units could work together to develop joint solutions that would benefit the entire system rather than just discrete parts of the whole. Strategic goal setting enables an organization to review its intercon- nectedness with other organizations in its environment. Certain policy objectives may be desired, but unless they are understood in the proper context, efforts to achieve them may result in failure. Strategic goal set- ting is an excellent medium for increasing the awareness of policy objec- tives that have an interconnected nature with both external and internal factors. Achieving Consensus on Tough Issues. The surfacing of complex issues can be enervating for elected officials via normal and routine meet- 166 Gabris ing formats. The presence of the press, insufficient time to discuss issues, and statutory decision-making requirements may preclude meaningful exploration of problems that are difficult to resolve. Consensus may be hard to achieve because elected officials are unaware of where they can agree to agree. Golembiewski, Munzenrider, and Stevenson (1986) refer to this situation as a "crisis of agreement," which they contrast with a crisis of disagreement. A council member may feel strongly about an issue but think that other council members hold a dissimilar view. To avoid con- flict, the first council member keeps quiet. Other council members feel the same way, but to avoid conflict they, too, remain quiet. Only by communicating openly about how they perceive issues do they see where they agree. Strategic goal setting forces elected officials to state their policy pref- erences publicly in an initially nonevaluative format and subsequently provides enough time for robust debate and discussion. The identification of areas of agreement enables participants to achieve consensus on goals expeditiously. It also focuses attention on areas of real disagreement that have to be tackled. Establishing a Foundation for Action Planning. A key role expecta- tion in most professionally administered municipalities is that the city manager will present the most effective alternatives for achieving a policy objective to elected officials. This role becomes obfuscated when policy objectives are vague and priorities are obtuse. Under such circumstances, professional administrators become cautious and procrastinate in pursu- ing substantive policies and programs. They fear that, in guessing what elected officials want, they may guess wrong, which could spell termina- tion or some equally undesirable outcome. Strategic goal setting frees professional administrators from policy ambiguity by placing the onus of stipulating clear policy goals on the elected officials. They also designate the priority with which these goals should be pursued. This enables the professional administrator to move swiftly and authoritatively in resolving policy issues that otherwise may be placed on the back burner. Indeed, strategic goal setting has the effect of turning attention toward the professional administrator as a problem solver and encourages the construction of action plans that can be pre- sented to elected officials for review. Action is legitimized and expected. Hence, strategic goal setting has the effect of streamlining the ability of an organization to address a panoply of policy objectives, and it mandates a more precise and dynamic implementation role for the professional administrator. Quick, Short, and Direct. Most elected officials are highly dedicated to their governmental responsibilities. Most serve in part-time, unpaid positions. Hence, the amount of time that they are willing to commit to their government responsibilities is scarce and limited. They prefer plan- Educating Elected Officials 167 ning exercises that take a minimum amount of time yet yield maximum results. Strategic goal setting is a good first step in this direction. It does not provide the degree of penetrating insight associated with conven- tional strategic planning, but it also requires much less time. Secondly, it is very direct. Participants are expected to state their policy preferences publicly with little or no beating around the bush. Consequently, strate- gic goal setting tends to get to the heart of matters rather quickly and directly. Finally, most strategic goal-setting sessions are implemented within a short period of time. By short, the author means a time frame of approximately six to eight hours of actual work. Most elected officials can fit this amount of plan- ning time into their hectic schedules, which is one reason why the model is so popular. The six reasons highlighted should constitute ample rationale for the conduct of strategic goal-setting exercises. However, this process is not without its limitations and pitfalls. At this point, the reader's attention will be directed toward the obstacles and constraints that can transform a seemingly successful goal-setting session into a minor disaster. Potential Pitfalls and Constraints Several constraints connected with strategic goal setting derive from its benefits. There is a cloud behind every silver lining. Subtle nuances in how the exercises are planned and implemented can lead to dramatic differences in success or failure. The common constraints include . Lack of perceived need . Lack of quality time for identifying objectives · Unwillingness to play by the rules of the game · Need for small group size . Great expectations that do not mesh with reality · Placing the chief executive in an evaluative role · Extreme or protracted conflict between elected officials · The apples-and-oranges syndrome. Lack of Perceived Need. Unless an extraordinary majority of an elected board agrees that a strategic goal-setting session is worthwhile, it is ques- tionable whether such an exercise is advisable. If several elected officials do not want the session, they may simply not show up. This will reduce the credibility and legitimacy of results. Another possibility is that they will show up but refuse to participate actively. This can dampen enthu- siasm for the entire affair and generate ersatz outcomes. Hence, profes- sional administrators should make a careful assessment of felt need. It is naive to implement strategic goal-setting efforts on the assumption that the process will automatically create a perceived need if none existed before. Hence, the question should be asked, Who wants strategic goal setting, and is there a felt need for such an intervention? 168 Gabris Lack of Quality Time. Although strategic goal setting can be imple- mented quickly, it still demands several hours of honest attention and involvement from participants if it is to be effective. Elected officials occasionally dovetail dinner, after-dinner drinks, and social get-togethers with goal-setting activities. On the surface, this is positive, because it tends to relax the participants and thereby make it easier for them to open up on tough issues. At the same time, too much dinner, too much wine, and too much socializing can trivialize the endeavor and cut deeply into the time and attention that participants need to devote to the goal- setting process. Therefore, participants should be forewarned the process will take a specific amount of actual planning time and that convivial socializing is not an acceptable substitute. Reluctance to Play by the Rules. During a goal-setting session with one particular city, council members were requested to vote on the prior- ity of identified policy objectives by assigning absolute values from a four-point scale, where four was highest and one was the lowest possible value. All elected officials had consented to these decision rules at the outset of the session. Unfortunately, some white council members began giving certain goals, mainly those of the single black council member, scores lower than those permitted by the designated scale. For example, one white council member stated that one of the black council member's goals "should receive a minus ten." Before long, some council members refused to participate, and one openly complained that the session had turned into a political game. The black council member perceived these statements as personal insults and withdrew his support from the process. Clearly, the rules had been violated, and this turned an otherwise pro- ductive session into a scenario where the policy outcomes were suspect. It is extremely important that participants stick to the rules once they have agreed to them. A participant may find adherence to the rules dis- advantageous regarding personal pet objectives. If the facilitator allows participants to deviate from the rules, the rules become relative, and participants endeavor to manipulate them to their advantage. This creates win-lose scenarios resulting in increased interpersonal conflict and ten- sion within the group. For this reason, rules should be adhered to strictly. This can be difficult with high-level decision makers, who normally advocate that the rules should apply to everyone except themselves. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to maintain rule integrity. Need for Small Group Size. Some organizations involve everyone con- ceivable in goal setting sessions to avoid the appearance of partiality, subterfuge, or bias. This can increase the number of goal-setting partici- pants to unwieldy levels. The result is usually an extremely long and obtuse list of goals that tends to frustrate rather than satisfy the partici- pants. Too many cooks spoil the broth. While the results of research on optimum group size are debatable, Educating Elected Officials 169 they highlight the number seven. Groups much larger than this experi- ence declining productivity, while smaller groups can increase perfor- mance by adding members (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). One way of reducing group size is to avoid mixing groups of elected officials with appointed administrators. The author's preference is to limit participa- tion strictly to elected officials, with administrators sitting in the van- guard ready to provide valuable information as questions come up. This assures that the final product unequivocally reflects the values and pref- erences of elected officials. Administrators who are requested to partici- pate actively in goal-setting processes concurrently with elected officials tend to feel awkward and uncomfortable in such roles. The bottom line is to keep the group small and homogeneous. Great Expectations. After spending several hours fleshing out com- plicated policy objectives, several members of the Western Springs, Illi- nois, board of trustees felt that they had been through the mill but that they were not moving fast enough. They had expected and wanted mean- ingful and quick results. The metaphor that best describes the situation is one of spinning one's wheels. Many elected officials want things done yesterday, and they are impatient with incremental decision-making processes. Both professional administrators and the goal-setting facilitator need to deflate the expectations early. It is important to avoid the pitfall of producing ersatz or phony results just in order to achieve a sense of closure, nor should the value of outcomes be inflated. Under normal circumstances, the facilitators should tell participants at the beginning of a session that the quality of the results hinges entirely on their partic- ipation and hard work, not on that of the facilitator or administrator. It should be communicated that not all objectives can be identified with precision and that the purpose of the goal-setting session is not to con- sider problem-solving alternatives. Placing the Executive Officer in an Evaluative Role. During a goal- setting session with the board members of Western Springs, Illinois, the participants had just completed the task of identifying their strategic objectives when one board member turned toward the city manager and asked, "What do you think about these goals?" It is tempting for elected officials to want to place their executive in an evaluative role. However, this is a danger to be avoided. Most administrators who attend goal-setting sessions are not prepared to provide on-the-spot responses with any degree of rigor or analysis. Hence, expecting them to evaluate complex issues on the spur of the moment is gauche. It also transfers the potentially black hat role from the consultant-facilitator to the chief executive officer, whose career may hinge on the response. This can quickly become a messy business. It is advisable to state up front that professional administrators who attend 170 Gabris goal-setting sessions are there to observe, learn, and provide clarifying information, not to assume evaluative stances. Extreme Political Conflict. Strategic goal-setting exercises are more difficult when there are extreme disagreements between elected officials. Experience suggests that the most volatile phase of the entire process is goal prioritization. It is here that winners and losers emerge. Losers do not like losing, and they may attempt to discredit the entire process in order to minimize the probability that their personal goals will be given low priority. There are no pure solutions to this dilemma, but there are some ways of mitigating the worst effects. First, do not allow participants to alter the rules. If this happens, disgruntled participants can use rule relativism to document the illegitimacy of results. Second, let participants know at the outset that goal setting and goal prioritization are parts of political process, not a way of avoiding political decisions. Third and perhaps most important, if political conflict persists, carry out the prioritization phase through secret balloting, not by public disclosure. This way, vocal critics do not have a forum for vitriolic personal attacks on political opponents. Apples-and-Oranges Syndrome. During several goal-setting sessions that the author has facilitated, participants have asked how they can prioritize goals when all the goals were important but distinct. One option is to rank order the goals independent of the content and context. Unfortunately, most elected officials do not like being boxed in. Another solution involves having participants classify goals and objectives before prioritizing them. Since the classification concept will be discussed in the next section, it suffices here to say that it is much easier to prioritize when goals are relatively similar. Four-Phase Matrix Model Now that the landscape has been mapped concerning the benefits of strategic goal setting and the problems that it can precipitate, our atten- tion turns to the model itself. What constitutes a viable and robust strate- gic goal-setting process? The four-phase matrix model assumes that an external or internal consultant will facilitate the goal-setting process. One reason for using an external consultant sterns from perceived third-party neutrality; an- other is that it takes the heat off the professional administrator, who may otherwise have to assume a black hat role. The four-phase matrix model has three components: a nominal group goal identification format (phase I), open group discussion and debate (phase II), matrix classification (phase III), and prioritization of classified goals and objectives. In choosing either an external or an internal consultant, the role o( Educating Elected Officials 171 the facilitator should be made clear at the beginning of the session. The author's experience suggests that a helping or supportive role is effective in building a spirit of trust and openness. Moreover, most public admin- istrators tend to prefer the use of an external consultant in order to reduce risk and avoid direct confrontation with their elected leaders. How does the model work? Nominal Group Goal Identification. A concern voiced by many pro- fessional administrators is that a few garrulous board members may dom- inate group discussions. While loquaciousness may be a political virtue, it can strain interpersonal relationships when a few leaders monopolize the opportunities for discussion. Another common complaint about rou- tine meetings is that they meander without a clear sense of direction or purpose. Time is wasted, and participants emerge feeling frustrated and inefficacious. Finally, routine meetings can erupt into covert or overt conflict due to the propensity of some elected officials to make evaluative statements about other group members. The question is, What can be done about these typical meeting dysfunctions? One solution is to utilize the nominal group meeting format. In the nominal group situation, each participant is allotted a predetermined amount of air time in which to state and advocate his or her personal goal preferences and objectives. Before having participants state their preferences, it is advisable to provide a short preparatory period in which they can compose their thoughts. Preparations accomplished, partici- pants are expected to state policy preferences openly. Normally, the facilitator records stated objectives on flip chart paper, which is tacked to the wall for all to contemplate. Numbering each goal statement facilitates later reference. Second, the nominal group format allows facilitator and participants to request clarification concerning the meaning of any particular goal statement, but it does not allow "evalua- tive" comments, questions, or assertions. Furthermore, it does not permit brainstorming for problem-solving comments. Its sole purpose is to extract fundamental goal preferences from participants. The author's experience suggests that goals begin to repeat once three or four participants have had their air time. This tends to reinforce the feeling of agreement within the group. Hatch marks can be placed next to goal statements to reflect a high level of concurrence. Because this phase does not permit evaluation, it moves along quickly in a direction that reflects the visceral views of participants. open Group Discussion and Debate. The second phase turns evalua- tive with participants assuming the roles of policy advocate or critic. Here, participants open up and state why they favor or disagree with certain goal preferences. This phase does not guarantee a specific amount of air time but instead encourages participants to jump in and debate. Three basic criteria should permeate deliberations. First, participants 172 Gabris should specify a time span for each goal. Is it a long- or a short-term objective? Second, is a particular goal highly complex and pregnant with political nuance and thus controversial to implement, or is it a noncon- troversial objective that can be implemented with routine in-house staff? Finally, and perhaps most important, how salient is a goal regarding overall organizational effectiveness in responding to perceived internal or external needs? Goals deliberated in this context should enable participants to focus their policy positions. Although discussion can be tense and it is almost always political, it helps to legitimize the final product by conveying an aura of realism-as long as it remains impersonal. Phase II normally takes between one and two hours, depending on the size of the group and the number of objectives scrutinized. Matrix Classification. As stated earlier, the first two phases are ordi- narily not problematic for elected officials. Elected officials are more likely to balk if they are asked to jump immediately into the prioritization component. This is where goal-setting sessions can lose momentum, because participants are expected to place a value on a number of objec- tives that they perceive to be equally worthy. Second, elected officials justifiably complain that being asked to compare differing goals is anal- ogous to being asked to compare apples with oranges. How does one rank building a new civic center with the objective of reducing auto accident rates on Elm Street? An alternative is to have participants group goals together so that when prioritization does transpire, relatively similar types of objectives are being compared. Although just about any classification scheme can work, the author has found that one particular framework works well in a variety of organizational settings. Two continua serve as the basic taxonomic decision criteria. The first is the time span for each objective. Will the objective be fully completed within a designated time span-say twelve months-or will it take longer to complete? Goals to be completed within twelve months are classified as short-term, while goals that take longer to complete are classified as long-term. The specific time span applied to any particular goal-setting session is up to the participants. The important point is to agree on the criterion at the outset. The second continuum can be defined as the complexity of a given goal or objective. A particular objective may have enormous appeal and support, but its complexity may render it unachievable. Other objectives may be so simple that in-house staff can accomplish them through rou- tine application of organizational policies, procedures, budgets, and man- power levels. Hence, objectives can be classified as either complex or routine. Each organization may develop its own criteria for the determi- nation of complexity, but such indicators as need for citizen input, need for extraordinary funding, political volatility, or inability to handle some- Educating Elected Officials 173 thing with in-house staff may help in making taxonomic judgments. Again, the important point is to ensure that all goal-setting participants understand and agree on the criterion. Assuming that the matrix format is utilized, each goal is classified as falling in one of the quadrants indicated in Figure 1. Participants are asked to classify each goal according to criteria for both continua, usually by secret ballot. Normally, this is accomplished quickly; the consultant tabulates the results. Based on the author's experience, between 70 and 80 percent of the goals receive clear and decisive classifications with few ties. If ties do occur, further discussion of results typically eases revoting aimed at achieving distinct outcomes. Where consensus is very difficult, an objective may be classified as falling in two quadrants. Such a classi- fication gives participants a medium for comparing roughly similar goals in the interest of prioritizing. Most tend to feel that this facilitates tough decision making and results in more realistic and pragmatic ways of understanding policy objectives. Obviously, any continua can be used. This is fine as long as the participants understand and agree with the rules. Prioritization of Goals. The old folk saying "cut bait or fish" is relevant to the final phase of the goal-setting process. At this juncture, participants are expected to rank all objectives within each classification quadrant from most to least important. This can be the most political aspect of the entire process and consequently the one that evokes the most conflict. The principle of equifinality suggests there may be several ways of prioritizing objectives, such as forced ranking or paired comparisons, yet the most parsimonious alternative is to have each participant publicly assign an absolute value to each objective. An advantage of this method is that it indicates the relative worth of objectives. The method works well when conflict between participants is low. When conflict is high, a secret balloting format can be used. Whatever prioritizing method is used, all participants should understand the rules and stick with them. Assuming that conflict is low, prioritization normally proceeds Figure 1. The Matrix Classification Scheme Routine II Short- Term Long- Term III IV Complex 174 Gabris smoothly and rapidly. Public voting enables all participants to see how everyone else is thinking and tends to build consensus. The facilitator then tabulates the results and reports the findings on flip chart paper for all to review. One drawback in using absolute values (such as stipulating that a four equals urgent, a three equals important, and so forth) is the possibility of ties. When ties happen, the facilitator should ask partici- pants to make finer judgments so that all objectives eventually have a numeric rank order. At the conclusion of the prioritization process, most participants feel weary but satisfied. If uncertainty remains over the priority of specific objectives, further deliberation and debate may bolster the legitimacy of results. Ultimately, the facilitator transposes all flip chart results into a final report for the elected officials and professional administrators who attended the session. So ends a robust strategic goal-setting exercise. Conclusion The public sector is likely to become more rather than less complex in the not so distant future. Life will be riskier for most professional admin- istrators who serve at the interface between the organization and its polit- ical environment, because the law of the fishes prevails: the big ones eat the little ones, and the little ones have to be smart. Determining the preferred direction in which elected officials want the organization to move will be central to efforts aimed at resolving enigmatic policy issues. Top-level administrators will be expected to increase efficiency and effec- tiveness, which in part depends on their ability to generate stable internal working conditions for employees. Strategic goal setting is a tool for gaining an edge in this endeavor. If nothing else, it provides a means for resolving the Alice in Wonderland dilemma. When Alice came to a fork in the road, she asked the Cheshire Cat which way she should go. The cat replied by asking Alice where she wanted to go. Alice said that she did not really know, whereupon the cat stated it therefore did not make any difference which path she should take. Administrators ask the same questions of elected officials. Fortu- nately, the technology exists to provide definitive answers if the organiza- tion has the felt need for such answers. References Bryson. ]. M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. San Francisco: ]ossey-Bass. 1988. Golembiewski, R. Humanizing Public Organizations. Mt. Airy. Md.: Lamond Publications. 1985. Educating Elected Officials 175 Golembiewski, R., Munzenrider, R., and Stevenson, J. Stress in Organizations. New York: Praeger, 1986. Hackman, R., and Oldham, G. Work Redesign. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980. Thompson, J. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Gerald T. Gabris is with the Department of Political Science, Division of Public Administration, Northern Illinois University. The Basics of Goal Setting for Local Governments Recently, more and more local governments have been getting into a different kind of goal setting - goal setting for the GOVERNING BODY itself to map out what the group plans to accomplish over a given time period. What those local governing bodies have found is that goal setting takes some effort AND a well-thought out process if it is going to work. So what makes it worth the effort? Here are some possibly "whys:" . GOAL SETTING GIVES YOU A BASIC FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION. By setting some goals and then deciding which ones are most important, you're defining what you will try to achieve over a given time period. Otherwise, you may find yourself floating from issue to issue, crisis to crisis. . GOAL SETTING HELPS YOU SPEND YOUR TIME MORE WISELY. When you know what you are trying to do, you can allocate most of your time to the important issues. . GOAL SETTING GETS EVERYONE ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH. It gives you a change to share individual goals and priorities and then hash out the differences. What you will end up with is a list of goals which everyone is committed to. . GOAL SETTING GIVES THE ADMINISTRATOR CLEAR GUIDELINES TO GE THE JOB DONE. It lets your administrator know exactly what you are trying to accomplish as a group. Without clearly defined goals, the administrator may get conflicting signals and end up not meeting anyone's goals. . GOAL SETTING GIVES YOU SOME IMPORTANT BUDGET GUIDELINES. If you know what programs and issues are your highest priorities, then the staff will have a better idea of how to allocate funds when preparing the budget. And you'll have a better handle on where to make cuts when approving the budget. . GOAL SETTING GIVES YOU AN EVALUATION TOOL. When you have set goals and priorities, you have some valuable data in hand to see how well you and the administrator did in achieving your agreed-upon goals and priorities. Do not overestimate the potential impact of a goal setting process. It is not the be-all and end-all for running a local government. It will not solve all your immediate problems and guarantee that you will not have another crisis. But it will help you get a better handle on what is happening in your community and what you WANT to happen over the long run. Strateqic Planninq Session January 8, 2008 STRENGTHS External . Proximity to O'Hare . Population Diversity . Strong Property Values . Proximity to Chicago . Good Relations with State Representatives/Senators Good Relations with Sister Taxing Bodies Good Economy Two Commuter Lines Reinventing Housing Stock - T eardowns VOMP Central Location Caring Citizens Internal . Experienced Staff . Conservative Fiscal Philosophical . Village Board Takes Some Risks . Renewal of Infrastructure Open Communication - Multiple Options Good Board/Staff Relations Good Board Relations Demand Quality/Durable/Flexible Construction Staff Gets Grants Board Doesn't Micro-Manage Village Board Brings Individual Areas of Expertise New Public Buildings Village Board Does its Homework Technology * Done or Underway WEAKNESSES External . * Aging Housing Stock Lack of Maintenance . Language Barriers to Effective Communication . Aging Infrastructure . Several Difficult Intersections Grade Crossings - Traffic Disruption Emergency Response Economy Return on Annexation Investment Multiple Sister Taxing Bodies Downtown Parking I DOT Response Loss of High Profile Business People Not Engaged with Village Happenings First Generation Immigrants Don't Participate Internal . No Permanent CIP Funding . Emergency Preparedness *Internallntegration External Integrations · Lack of Efficiency Model . Succession Planning . Technology Old Public Buildings Conservative Fiscal Philosophically Lack of Staff Diversity Lack of Elected/Appointed Diversity Lack of Critical Assessment Collective Bargaining Process *Police/Fire Building Expansion Staff Turnover - Retirement Eligible OPPORTUNITIES External . More Regional Approach to Basic Services Police Fire Public Works EMS . O'Hare Expansion . * Annexing UAL Area-Partial Completion . Grocery Store in Downtown Technology - Traffic Notification Aging Population - Volunteer Opportunities Children of Immigrants - Point of Communication Business Loss Creates Other Opportunity Shopping Center-SWOT Internal . Reinventing Department Service Delivery - Fire . Develop an Efficiency Model . Updating Code to Meet Community Needs . Camera Traffic Enforcement Review Board/Commission Structure - Rotate Membership *More TIFs as Economic Development Tool *Levee 37 Corridor Improvements Additional Subcontracting *Update Comprehensive Plan Retirement Bring Fresh Blood Task Reorganization Across Departments THREA TS External . Health Care Costs . Pension Obligations . *Traffic . Aging Population Places Demand on Services Energy Cost Volatility Property Tax Structure - Anti-Business Lawsuits Unfunded Mandates Teardowns Destabilizes Neighborhoods Construction Time Change to Character *Long-Term Multi-Family Property Maintenance Must Have Strong Association Leadership Commuter Lines - Disaster Freight Jurisdictional Transfers Gangs/Crime O'Hare Expansion *Flood Risk Condition of un-numbers state routes Internal Pension Obligations Health Care Costs Further Unionization Employee Relations '-:> ~i1hgl' of Jlll1.1llnf t~ro'fltd <' .. ,\' \ '~"'., '. ~,~i.- 1'1 '-" "'~ ~--' '// // --<::: :--:./ MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING Village Board of Trustees Strategic Goal Setting Workshop January 8, 2008 The meeting was convened at 7:12 p.m., in the Community Center of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Those present at the Special Meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Arlene Juracek, John Korn, Richard Lohrstorfer and Michael Zade!. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Police Chief Dahlberg, Deputy Chief Rzepecki, Deputy Chief Semkiu, Police Commander Tim Janowick, Finance Director David Erb, Accounting Supervisor Lynn Jarog, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Public Works Deputy Director Sean Dorsey, Community Development Director William Cooney, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, IT Director Joan Middleton, Fire Chief Mike Figolah, Fire Marshall Paul Valentine, Administrative Analyst Christina Park, Administrative Analyst Michael Dallas and Public Information Officer Maura EI Metennani. Strate~ic Goal Settin~ For 2008 Village Manager Michael Janonis provided an overview to the Board of the 2007 Goals and Actions undertaken by the Village staff. It highlighted their priority listing as directed by the Village Board. General discussion from the Village Board members included the following items: · There was general discussion regarding the need to communicate to residents about how to operate more environmentally within the community and a need for the Village to set an example for such consciousness. · There was a discussion regarding the economic health of the community and the role the Village Board should playas part of that health. · There was also discussion regarding property maintenance and economic development opportunities within the community. It was suggested that the Board establish five Global Goals for 2008 with five Sub-Goals based on priority ranking. Goals or Tar~ets for 2008 (In rank order) 1. Randhurst Redevelopment 2. Emergency Preparedness 3. Phase I Facility Study and Construction 4. Crime and Gang Mitigation 5. TIF in Sub Area #1 Triangle Redevelopment 6. Citizen Integration 7. Jurisdictional Transfer 8. Green Initiatives 9. Fund Balance Maintenance 10. Board and Commission Review It was also suggested that some action items be categorized generally under overall goals therefore establishing actions steps to achieve the overall objectives of the Village Board. List of General Objectives with the recommended steps to accomplish the objectives the Board agreed to as follows: 1. Community Economic Health · Property Maintenance · Economic Development · Randhurst Redevelopment 2. Customer Service/Focus · Delivery of Services · Employee Resources · Process Improvement · Village Boards and Commissions 3. Safety and Disaster Preparedness · Public Safety · Traffic Control · Emergency Preparedness/Preparation 4. Quality of Life · Tree Inventory Property Maintenance · Green Initiatives 5 Stewardship · Infrastructure · Financial Health/CIP Funding · Unnumbered State and County Traffic Routes A review of Committee of the Whole topics and suggestions as presented by Village Board and staff. The COW Topics include the following items: · Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement · Police Department Traffic Unit Staffing · Increase of Police Department Tactical Unit To Five Officers From The Current Two · Progress Towards Meeting Goals Articulated In The Comprehensive Plan · Green Region Compact . Neighborhood Resource Center Residential Housing Market Discussion Village Branding, Retail and Economic Development Strategy Emerald Ash Borer Update Jurisdictional Transfer Policy Discussion New Storm Water Ordinance Recommendations Discussion Pavement Evaluation Results Rear Yard Drainage Improvements for Private Property Hydraulic Water Modeling and Discussion on By-Products Phase II Compliance Results Sanitary Sewer Responsibility Policy Discussion Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Discussion Chicago Community Trust Grant Discussion Building Code Update . . . . . . . . . . . . · Zoning Code Update · Retail Marketing Analysis Report · Revision of Chapter 5 Boards and Commissions · 151 Quarter Budget Review · Water and Sewer Rates Study · Review of E-Pay Program · Review of Business License Fee Schedule and Structure · Annual Review of Fund Balance Policy and Current Fund Balance Levels There was also a discussion regarding the proposed change in Police vehicle purchases for 2008. Meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. DAVIS STRAHL ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DS/dj REVIEW OF 2008 STRATEGIC GOALS Goal #1: Randhurst Redevelopment . Demolition and Redevelopment currently underway . Village Staff meeting regularly with Randhurst Representatives to monitor progress . Negotiated Redevelopment Agreement . Planning and Zoning Approvals Secured Goal #2: Emergency Preparedness . Emergency Operations Center Design underway . Actual disaster managed in real time during the year . NIMS Training Conducted for numerous Staff . Developed and Mailed to Residents an Emergency Preparedness Guide Goal #3: Phase I Facility Study and Construction . Negotiated an Intergovernmental Land Use Agreement . Design underway for new Fire Station #14 . Public Works Expansion Design underway . Bid package expected 1 st Quarter 2009 . Fire Station and Public Works construction Expected to Start 2nd Quarter 2009 Goal #4: Crime and Gang Mitigation . Utilized Bike unit to focus on high crime areas . Revised Personnel Deployments based on crime trends and patterns (HEAT) Goal #5: TIF in Sub Area #1: . Parcels Assembled by Village, Developer, Developer's partner . Village owned Buildings demolished . Current Developer's financing has stalled Goal #6: Citizen Interaction . Neighborhood Resource Center (NRC) Grant Received . Coordinated Southside Cultural Event . Budget for NRC Approved . NRC Business model Design Development in Process Goal # 7: Jurisdictional Transfer . Scheduled for Discussion 2009 Goal #8: Green Initiatives . Green Compact Resolution Approved . Green Building Elements included in the new Fire Station Design . CFL Blub Distribution Inititated Goal #9: Fund Balance Maintenance . Fund Balance Policy Approved Goal #10: Boards & Commissions Review . Modification Completed for Board of Fire and Police Commissions . Review Scheduled for 2009 H:\VILM\Cow\2009\REVIEW OF 2008 GOALS.doc 2008 COW Topics Status Report · Automated Red Light Photo Enforcement - Done · Police Department Traffic Unit Staffing - Withdrawn · Increase of Police Department Tactical Unit To Five Officers From The Current Two - Withdrawn · Progress Towards Meeting Goals Articulated In The Comprehensive Plan - Covered as part of regular updates · Green Region Compact - Done · Neighborhood Resource Center - Done · Residential Housing Market Discussion - Withdrawn · Village Branding, Retail and Economic Development Strategy - Done · Emerald Ash Borer Update - Done/Update 2009 · Jurisdictional Transfer Policy Discussion - for 2009 · New Storm Water Ordinance Recommendations Discussion - Done/Update 2009 · Pavement Evaluation Results correspondence Done/Covered through memo · Rear Yard Drainage Improvements for Private Property - Done · Hydraulic Water Modeling and Discussion on By-Products Phase II Compliance Results - 2009 · Sanitary Sewer Responsibility Policy Discussion - 2009 · Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Discussion - 2009 · Chicago Community Trust Grant Discussion/NRC - Update for 2009 · Building Code Update - 2009 · Zoning Code Update - 2009 · Retail Marketing Analysis Report - 2009 1 · Revision of Chapter 5 Boards and Commissions - 2009 · 1 st Quarter Budget Review - Annual/Quarterly updates scheduled for 2009 · Water and Sewer Rates Study - 2009 · Review of E-Pay Program - Done · Review of Business License Fee Schedule and Structure - Ongoing Discussion as part of Financial Software Process 2009-2010 · Annual Review of Fund Balance Policy and Current Fund Balance Levels - Update for 2009 H:\VILM\Cow\2009\2008 Past cow Topics.doc 2 COW Date F eb-1 0 Feb-24 Mar-10 Mar-24 Apr-14 Apr-28 May-12 May-26 Jun-09 Jun-23 Jul-14 Jul-28 Aug-11 Aug-25 Sep-08 Sep-22 Oct-13 Oct-27 N ov-1 0 Nov-24 Dec-08 Dec-22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2/5/2009 2009 Projected COW Topic Schedule Projected Topic Strategic Planning Jurisdictional Transfer, Traffic Calming, See Gwun Update, Barrier Curbs Gypsy Moth, Emerald Ash Borer, Forest River FPD Land Swap Discussion Financial Software Consultant Discussion Basin #14 Flood Mitigation, Zoning Code Update, Building Code Update, Property Maint Code Update, Sidewalk Inspector 1 st Quarter Financial Review, Long Term Financial Policy, Debt Service Policy RTAP, South Mount Prospect Corridor, NRC Update Summer Schedule - No Meeting Hydraulic Water Modeling - Water Distribution System, Sanitary Sewer Evaluation, Stormwater management Discussion (MWRD) Summer Schedule - No Meeting CIP Review Summer Schedule - No Meeting Mid-Year Budget Review, Water/Sewer Rate Study Discussion Summer Schedule - No Meeting Audit Firm Discussion 2010 Budget Meeting/3rd Quarter Budget Review 2010 Budget Meeting Optional 2010 Budget Meeting Topics Yet to be Scheduled: Election Discussion/Referendum Economic Development: Small Triangle, Randhurst Redevelopment, Central Plaza, Downtown Grocery Store (Option to Handle through correspondence) Annexation Discussion (Option to handle through correspondence) Employee Recognition Program (Option to handle through correspondence) Speed Limit Enforcement Around PW Vehicles in the Street (Option to handle through correspondence) Marketing Campaign Update/Direction/Shop Mount Prospect Vehicle Sticker Discussion (Option to handle through correspondence) Strategic Planning Update Commercial Tree Ordinance/Regulation H:/vilm/Cow/2009/COW Schedule.xls STRATEGIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WORKSHEET (2009) Instructions: This worksheet is designed to stimulate your thought process prior to our strategic goal setting workshop, as well as to provide you a means to deliver your ideas to the group. To begin, please take a few minutes to review the Village's 2008 goals below. 2008 Village Strategic Goals 1. Randhurst Redevelopment 2. Emergency Preparedness 3. Phase I Facility Study & Construction 4. Crime & Gang Mitigation 5. TIF in Sub Area #1 Redevelopment 6. Citizen Integration 7. Jurisdictional Transfer 8. Green Initiatives 9. Fund Balance Maintenance 10. Board & Commission Review As you may notice, most of the 2008 goals have already been partially or completely accomplished. With last year's goals in mind, identify below the goals and objectives you believe the Village should pursue in 2009 to address any unresolved issues or areas of improvement. If you wish, you may identify goals from last year or previous years. As a reminder, strategic goals are where you want the Village to be in the future, and strategic objectives are the steps needed to get there. Importantly, objectives must be verifiable and measurable so we can evaluate whether we have successfully achieved the goals. When you are creating your goals and objectives, do your best to be specific and detailed, instead of merely identifying an area that you wish to see improved. * * * Your Proposed 2009 Village Strategic Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Objecitve A: Objecitve B: Objecitve C: Goal 2: (worksheet continued on the other side) Objecitve A: Objecitve B: Objecitve C: Goal 3: Objecitve A: Objecitve B: Objecitve C: Goal 4: Objecitve A: Objecitve B: Objecitve C: Goal 5: Objecitve A: Objecitve B: Objecitve C: