Why I vote the way I do (Part 2)

In the last post, I explained my vote on the Long-Term Care Insurance Education and Information Outreach Program. In this post, I will explain my vote on the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the New York State Office for the Aging has allocated additional funds in the amount of $7,037.00 for the Senior Nutrition Assistance Program for the period April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2006, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT

RESOLVED, that the 2005 County Budget be and hereby is amended as follows:

Increase:

Expenses:
A6772 67745-54300 4341 Vehicle Expense/Repairs $7,037.00

Revenues:
A6772 6774 4 3772 4341 State Aid – Nutrition – SNAP $7,037.00


This resolution has to do with how we pay for car repairs - it has nothing directly to do with the Senior Nutrition Program, except that some of the repair costs apply to vehicles used in the Area Office for the Aging, and this cost will show up in that office's budget. Newell Willcox, proprietor of Willcox Tire and a man who knows a thing or two about car repair, had presented valid (in my opinion) objections to paying as much as we were paying for repairs after having done some investigation.

Newell asked in committee (both Human Services and Budget & Finance, to my recollection) for an analysis of how the cost to the county would differ were we to allow private shops to bid on performing repairs, as opposed to using repairmen employed in the county's Highway Department. We were told that this analysis would be done and presented to us before we were asked to vote on this matter at the legislative session. Along with the honorable Steve Dafoe and Newell Willcox, I voted no - because we were not given the analysis as promised.

For more background, here's an example of what concerned Newell: he reviewed an invoice which to his recollection was in the amount of $75 - for replacing a license plate! That piqued his interest (he runs an auto shop after all), and the more he looked, the more concerned he became. The invoices were well above what would be reasonable in the open market. The Administrator's justification was that more than just the listed repairs occur; for example, cars get inspected, even when only minor repairs are made. So we insisted that the invoices be accurate as to what was actually done - if the car was inspected, list that as a labor line item along with the time spent on the task.

The Administrator gave us some compelling reasons as to why the system operates the way that it does, taking into account reimbursement streams available through Social Services and the need to maximize utilization of our employees' time. But we still wanted to see the entire process reviewed. Why pay large amounts of money on repairs for near end-of-life vehicles? How do we determine when it is more worthwhile to repair rather than replace a high mileage vehicle? Would the overall cost be lower if we subcontracted certain kinds of repairs to private shops? Could the time of the Highway Department mechanics be better utilized doing tasks other than car repair?

Sometimes, the only way to get answers to these questions is to vote against business as usual, and demand accountability. And when we didn't get an analysis that would allow us to make a rational decision on whether the current practice was in fact the best practice, we voted no.

I hope that this post and the previous post have helped you to better understand the thought process behind my votes on these specific items, and perhaps my general approach to analyzing resolutions.

If you think that I should have made a different decision, or if you want to tell me "atta boy!", I would welcome your feedback either way. Please call (756-6313) or e-mail me.