New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 12, 2007 12:55 PM

I love the idea of this because it would
hold each city agency accountable for its response.
but as Ald. Jorge Perez said
..it could turn out to be just another layer of bureaucracy. I can not deal with the amount of calls I am making at this. point If we were to set this up and get a number and nothing happens to respond to it...when I call am I going to get the same answer I get now there all more people ahead of you 3 4 years later??? If this will fix that then go for it!!

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | October 12, 2007 1:13 PM

Another new program, another round of new employees and another million dollars in "services" with no plan on how to pay for it. There ought to be a law against that.

Why not just require the departments to cost justify their line item expenses each year by exact performance or services provided. Why is this not being done now? Alders approved a record $445 million in local spending and never looked at the details???? Maybe that's why the budget never gets cut and we get soaked. As far an an equalizer goes -- lol -- if people are too stupid to find the right phone number, perhaps they shouldn't be complaining about poor service. They have more serious problems.

Why not just create a centralized databank of work orders/calls etc. which could be built without adding employees, setting up phone lines etc. Each department continues to take the calls as they are now, they access a central case number databank, assign a number to the caller and enter the imformation, log corrective action etc. This is an IT issue, not a whole new system issue.

Here's a better idea on towing cars for street cleaning -- DON'T TOW THEM! This is only done in the poor neighborhoods or neighborhoods with high density anyway. If there are too many cars in the way, clean the middle of the street and move on.

Oh..but then the rubberstampers and mayor wouldn't have that money - (fines went up by 25% or more this year).

Posted by: fairhavener | October 12, 2007 10:17 PM

"Here's a better idea on towing cars for street cleaning -- DON'T TOW THEM!"

Agreed. Street sweeping is a scam. The sole purpose of street sweeping is to generate revenue NOT clean streets. Doubt it? Then why are not the same efforts and resources (money, manpower, time) that are utilized for street sweeping invested into crime (and crime prevention)? And why is there garbage dumped at certain locations all over town that never gets removed or stopped? There is an area near my house under 91 at Front St that people continuously dump at - garbage everywhere - but nothing is ever done about it. Johnny doesn't care about trash unless it's in Westvillenewhaven or RoninSTnewhaven.

Posted by: Brutal Karma | October 12, 2007 10:44 PM

New Haven Tea Party - your comment misses the point, or at best obscures it.

This is both an IT and a procedural issue. IT would act as the underpinning for a revamped workflow allowing one phone number (webpage, etc) as an access point for all city services.

But let's follow your line of reasoning for a moment here - "A centralized database of work/call orders...Each department continues to take the calls as they are now, they access a central case number databank, assign a number to the caller and enter the imformation, log corrective action etc." Ok. So what happens to each department's current work order system? Do they abandon them, or is each call entered into the centralized databank and each department's current IT infrastructure (many of which are specialized for each department's specific line of work).

Wouldn't more efficiencies be gained by revamping the workflows of these departments by eliminating redundancies, reducing response time and implementing a system that is flexible enough to accomodate each department's unique responsibilities while at the same time rigid enough to demand accountability?

How familiar with 311 systems are you? From the thumbnail sketch of simplicity you have provided you could have easily made seven figures in consulting fees to Chicago and NYC (let alone the countless other municipalities who have implemented a 311 system (system, not IT application)) and saved each of the cities millions of dollars in the process.

And yes, the elderly, the uneducated and the desperate have much bigger problems than trying to find the correct phone number to (hopefully) get service from the city. Why add one more barrier and layer of complexity to the equation?

Posted by: jade | October 12, 2007 11:41 PM

FairHavener,
I live in Westville and my street was swept ONCE in the past 3 years? Why sweep the streets? THEY ARE FILTHY! We have litter, mud, stones, branches, leaves, clogged gutters that flood...etc! I have called public works dozens of times, and the result was the one successful sweeping, where they posted signs and people moved their cars. Believe me, Johnny doesn't care more for Westville than anywhere else in the city.

Posted by: Walt | October 13, 2007 11:42 AM

Hamden had a similar idea last year.

Call the "Help Line" which will keep track of complaints and follow through if they are not corrected. Sounded good.

Result, in my experiences---a worthless clerk who dooes little, and neither keeps track of complaints nor follows up. It was better before.

Before you sometimes needed clout to get dept. heads to perform.

Now you need clout or political contacts to prod the Help Desk to perform, and even then, nothing happens,.

Result no assistance , just another clerk not-performing, and collecting an oversized paycheck to boot.

Be wary,

In New Haven it would likely be much more expensive and not get any better response re complaints.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | October 14, 2007 8:47 AM

Transparency and accountability? More like obfuscation and deception. I've pinged department heads directly about serious problems. No action. Putting another buffer between them is the perfect way of not dealing with the issues. Who are you going to point to if someone claims they never got the message, a functional illiterate who handles the phone? Yeah, that works. Vote 'em all out next month!

Posted by: Nancy Drew | October 14, 2007 9:24 PM

WHEN JOHN DESTEFANO RAN FOR GOVERNOR, NO CARS WERE TOWED IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD DURING STREET SWEEPING. SOME WERE NOT EVEN TICKETED!

THE STREETS REMAINED DIRTY, ESPECIALLY WHERE THERE WERE CLUMPS OF LEAVES COMPACTED, BECAUSE CARS WERE IN THE WAY.

DESTEFANO NO LONGER A GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, CARS ARE BEING TOWED ONCE AGAIN DURING SWEEPING. SHOULD JD DECIDE TO RUN FOR GOVENOR AGAIN, FOLKS WILL CATCH A BREAK FROM BEING TOWED IF THEY FORGET TO MOVE THEIR CAR DURING SWEEPS.

AS USUAL EVERYTHING IS CALCULATED FOR MAXIMUM POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, HOWEVER NOT TOWING DID NOT PROVIDE NASTY JOHN WITH ENOUGH VOTES TO WIN.

MR. MAYOR WHY DID YOU RESCIND LT. BILLY WHITE'S TRANSFER?

Posted by: fairhavener | October 15, 2007 11:09 AM

"I live in Westville and my street was swept ONCE in the past 3 years?...

...Believe me, Johnny doesn't care more for Westville than anywhere else in the city."

If your street has only been swept once in three years that means that cars could only have been TOWED once in three years. That is the point. I am glad that you have evidence to further corroborate what I think is the case.

BTW, I actually changed my mind about 311. The only problem I have is that we are not New York or Chicago. What is the population here 125,000 or something? We are a town. Even if 311 is more efficient (and a better way), we should be able to make do without it.

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | October 15, 2007 3:04 PM

Brutal Karma: It's the same sorry tale of woe, everytime the city wants to launch a new program, hire new employees and milk the taxpayers out of more of their money - we have to help the people who can't help themselves, we have to remove the barriers, we have to this we have to that.

I don't want to seem to simplistic, but the visionaires in city government always make the problem ten times larger than it really is, in order to have a king sized solution and to justify its cost.

Perhaps in a city like New York or Boston you need a centralized call in number - we have 123,000 people; 55,000 households. You're telling me we need to launch a million dollar plus system primarily to make sure the city workers do their jobs and the not so bright ones in the public, or ones who are language challenged can find the right phone number? I guess we can't trust the city workers to properly log the calls into an IT system so there is accountability, huh?

Would you get rid of any of the clerks in the city offices since presumeably, they would be taking fewer phone calls? Is there a case to be made for efficiency? Has anybody actually studied it and can prove it will be more efficient? Or are they just making the claims with no evidence. Don't laugh...it happens a lot in New Haven. This committee approves this - again - with no basis in fact, in cost, in execution. One of these people read about it in a newspaper and decided it would be a good idea here. That's the most likely scenario - I'd like the see a hell of a lot more details before this gets very far.

Posted by: Brutal Karma | October 16, 2007 10:27 AM

New Haven Tea Party - Agreed. There needs to be alot more study and details provided to secure citizen buy-in before such a huge financial commitment is made. A 311 system for New Haven has not been studied in-depth yet, and I don't think the alders have a solid grasp on how such a system would be set up, what accountability it would provide, or where the efficiencies can be gained. I would also question the million dollar estimate (per Hartford's implementation)as it seems exceptionally high. And no indication on Hartford's success and how efficiently they have implemented 311.

Having said that, I am not against 311. I think it provides the opportunity to better serve residents, while making city departments more efficient AND reducing costs. However, I would like to see these arguments made UPFRONT, before capital is committed to such a project. Return On Investment is something seldom heard in the city, and the "performance based budgeting" Goldfield speaks of should start with the alders.