How mission creep inevitably overwhelms gov'ts
Poster for The Blob, 1958
Why does SJ City Council stray so far from its charter, and is constantly asking for more money to fund more non-core projects? Jon Coupal of HJTA explains.
Mission creep is especially prevalent in government bureaucracies. How often do we see an agency gradually expand its defined mission statement to include new issue areas or programs?
The problem with bureaucratic mission creep is not only losing focus away from a primary responsibility, but without clear lines of demarcation, agencies start intruding on the “turf” of other agencies.
In California, there are several state and local agencies that deal with housing issues. At the state level, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develops housing policy, administers housing finance, economic development and community development programs. It also reviews the housing elements of regional governments drafted by each region’s Council of Governments through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which must be adopted by the jurisdiction, which is then responsible for ensuring there are enough sites and proper zoning to accommodate its RHNA allocation.
Given the myriad of existing government agencies dealing with housing, it is surprising that school districts have now expanded their portfolio into housing. What is not surprising is that they are not very good at it.
Earlier this month, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Mountain View Whisman School District, a Silicon Valley school district with a history of controversial spending and mismanagement, drew the anger of parents and taxpayers over its handling of “a lavish, over-budget teacher housing project, including the recent purchase of a $2,500 swivel chair and other pricey furnishings.”
The fact that school districts are even in the housing business is odd, but the history is illuminating. In 2000, Proposition 39 lowered the vote threshold for local school bonds from two-thirds to 55%, creating the first exception to a taxpayer protection that has been a part of the constitution for almost 150 years. (Last November’s Prop. 5, which sought to lower the vote threshold needed to approve debt for a broad range of projects and programs was soundly rejected by voters.)
Prop. 39 was sold to the voters as providing critical infrastructure for school facilities. There is nothing in the language of the measure, the ballot material or the implementing legislation suggesting that anything other than school facilities would be financed with local bonds. But because school bonds are the only local general obligation bonds that can take advantage of the lower threshold, it isn’t surprising that special interests would try to shoehorn all sorts of non-education-related infrastructure to take advantage of the 55% vote.
Last year, the legislature considered Assembly Bill 2571, which would have broadened the specified purposes for which school bonds could be issued. But not only was the proposal inconsistent with the plain language of Prop. 39, it never passed. This calls into question the legality of any Prop. 39 bond that envisions the construction of “workforce housing.”
Here’s an idea. Schools should focus on education and eschew expanding their bureaucratic turf into housing. And all bureaucracies should take care to “stay in their lane.”
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
We prize letters from our thoughtful readers. Typed on a Smith Corona. Written in longhand on fine stationery. Scribbled on a napkin. Hey, even composed on email. Feel free to send your comments to us at opportunitynowsv@gmail.com or (snail mail) 1590 Calaveras Ave., SJ, CA 95126. Remember to be thoughtful and polite. We will post letters on an irregular basis on the main Opp Now site.