Letter to the editor

I am disappointed by Milt Zall's partisan prattle and obvious attempts to circumvent any structure designed to bring about comparability and control to the government bureaucracy, as intended by the Government Performance and Results Act ["GPRA and government business"].

"Strategic planning" alone without identifying tangible specifications and inviting cost comparisons merely facilitates a continuation of inefficiency.

The real issue is forcing the substantive implementation of GRPA so taxpayers and constituencies have tangible information to apply in evaluating the performance of governmental programs. That means identifying relevant quantitative data that can be linked to financial data. This empowers the public.

Mark Huber

Milt Zall replies: I'm sorry you think I'm partisan. I don't believe in any administration's attempt to try and measure government performance. In many instances, there's nothing meaningful to measure. Every effort to identify "relevant quantifiable data" to measure government performance has failed, beginning with the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System and Zero-Base Budgeting. What makes you think GPRA is any different?

WRITE US

We welcome your comments. To send a letter to the editor, use this form. Civic.com readers, use this form.

Please check out the archive of Letters to the Editor for fellow readers' comments.


Featured

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.