In my head, it's a Venn diagram with two circles. One says, "GETS IT". The other says, "HAS THE JUICE". The leaders who have that I-95-ness are contained within the intersection.
Those who Get It are plentiful, thanks to the movement building done by so many over the last decade: be human-centered, iterate in small batches, prioritize people's real needs over policy.
But those who Have The Juice are much more rare: it's about having real power and being brave and creative in wielding it.
The paralyzing fear that grips local government teams when it comes to procurement (especially technology) has been a revelation in my short 5 years in government. We need courage and conviction in our good-faith procedures to speed up procurement action.
But what I haven't figured out yet is how to make the "weeding" you describe politically "sexy." That may be the hardest nut to crack of them all. And that may require action by the political parties. They may have to campaign on competence and responsibility. Indeed, they should. But what paid political hack would even recommend such an approach?
Completely agree. I've come to this conclusion myself. What would it take (a lot!) to change the culture of politicking in which the full scope of gardening is valued?
1. The I-95 case reminds me of what used to be another go-to example in this space: when the Minneapolis I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapsed in 2007 and then the replacement was designed and built in <15 months.
2. Beyond the “procedure fetish” stuff from things like procurement/hiring, many barriers to infrastructure development go deeper into Ezra Klein’s concept of “everything-bagel liberalism,” where it’s not only accountability-oriented procedures gone overboard (which I just wrote about in a new post https://civicinsighter.com/p/paradox-of-government-accountability), but also requirements that were tacked on to pursue other policy goals that may enjoy broad support.
As you said, building things is a lot easier if you say “Don’t worry about requirements for union labor, Buy America, green materials, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise preference programs, civil-rights laws and disparate-impact analysis, protecting endangered species, etc.“ And you can get away with that for a single high-profile project… but dropping these everywhere would invite a political firestorm that most politicians prefer to avoid, even if the payoff could be big! And I totally get their stance—because the average voter probably doesn’t understand how their own competing demands are getting in the way of each other, so telling the public that “I killed the program you like so we can pursue other programs” is a tough sell for elected officials.
3. Another thing about these crisis-rebuild examples is that they were presumably partially sped up by moving them to the front of the queue for approvals, which is clearly impossible for everything since not everything can be #1. That said, the excitement that comes when projects are done so quickly ought to be motivation for us to improve state capacity to the point where everything can get done much more quickly and so skipping a project to the front of the line doesn’t confer as much of an advantage because there isn’t a massive review backlog to begin with!
I know it’s not necessarily a civil servant’s job to change government policies and procedures but I think it is their job to recognize, think about, and communicate if and when the rules are making it difficult to nearly impossible to deliver services as intended. I’m wary of people just being really good at following orders. Organizations need constant feedback to learn and improve.
Yes, indeed. I definitely agree with you. It's more that a) some people are hired for their compliance skills, were trained for that, and are in a culture where that's what's valued: finding something that's not quite technically correct and acting on that, rather than seeing the big picture. No effective theory of change can rest on those folks changing out of their own volition. Leadership needs to reframe their jobs. But I completely agree, every public servant can help create a culture where what's valued goes beyond taking orders, and we should all encourage that!
I love the term I—95-NESS. Making government work for its citizens. I’ve always wondered why we aren’t tapping into technological advances to streamline efficiencies. Code For America has done some fantastic work, and I’m sure would be thrilled to do more. Let's put our out-of-work tech talent to work.
Many Americans struggle to appreciate the intangible benefits of procurement policies, which often operate behind the scenes to prevent corruption and maintain operational stability. Despite their seemingly slow nature, these policies are essential safeguards, particularly evident in states like New York and Pennsylvania, where convictions for corruption by Public Officials are prevalent. It’s my opinion that Governor Shapiro, the Office of Administration and Department of Transportation could have explored alternative procurement methods such as sole source procurements and interstate/interagency agreements via NASPO before resorting to emergency declarations. To be frank Governor Shapiro's actions appear self-serving, in that it is clear the “i-95 successes” will be a talking point as part of his 2028 campaign or as this article alludes potentially in 2024. Considering the very real state of emergency in Pennsylvania, such as the tranq/fet drug epidemic (where there have been calls to use an ED but hesitancy by his administration) having thoughtful and effective governance to determine when to use emergency declarations is necessary. Leveraging emergency declarations as part of campaign talking points feels dangerous and like an abuse of public trust.
Furthermore, while I appreciate your take on this, I do feel transparency regarding your relationships in Pennsylvania, including your recent engagements with Shapiro's office, via the Office of Administration and Code PA, may have been a good disclaimer. Given it is unclear whether you were paid for that engagement or if your organization Code for America will be doing work in PA in the near future this article feels a bit muddy.
I appreciate that this is a nuanced issue, and your perspective is valuable. It's all about the balance. I believe we need to weigh both the value of safeguards and their cost. But not dismiss the value of those safeguards.
To your question about Code PA, I was happy to meet with their team by video yesterday as I'm a fan of their work. Having been part of standing up a similar unit when I was in the White House, I know how hard it can be, and love the opportunity to provide encouragement to anyone working on these issues. I was not paid. I don't actually know if Code for America is involved with them; I stepped down from my role there in early 2020 and haven't been on the board for almost two years now. I am not sure what you mean about engagements with Shapiro's office -- other than an informal talk with the Code PA team yesterday, I have no such engagements.
While it's always fair game to ask about conflicts of interest, however, I don't think it's helpful to suggest that because someone is working with a government entity (though I am not) they shouldn't also mention them in a blog post. I consider it part of my mission to share news of important work happening in the public sector.
good analysis, but you are not properly crediting the Biden administration which has done a lot more than drop seeds. They came into a catastrophic situation that was built on a long period of neglect and have accomplished a lot more than I imagined they could. We should applaud real progress.
What have they accomplished? In terms of actually getting things built, not just in terms of passing policy and handing out funding. Where are the new subways, factories, or airports?
Sure, some. But Madrid built an entire subway system in four years with a fraction the money the IRA got, you'd expect us to have *something* built by now.
I'm beginning to doubt your good faith. I sent you a link that included a number of ongoing projects. By the way, IRA was signed in August 2022, it's just over 1 1/2 years old.
Our federal govt isn't in the business of "doing things", Republicans shut the down with privatization 40 years ago. It hands out money for other entities to do things, and in see those projects all over the country: coastal hardening, AC in southern/urban schools, R&D funds that gave us the COVID vaccines, etc.
Look between them the IRA and chips act spent a couple hundred billion dollars. I don't care how the administration was structured, I care what actual physical things they built. Because so far I'm not seeing anything (the things you mention all happened long before it).
In my head, it's a Venn diagram with two circles. One says, "GETS IT". The other says, "HAS THE JUICE". The leaders who have that I-95-ness are contained within the intersection.
Those who Get It are plentiful, thanks to the movement building done by so many over the last decade: be human-centered, iterate in small batches, prioritize people's real needs over policy.
But those who Have The Juice are much more rare: it's about having real power and being brave and creative in wielding it.
https://imgur.com/a/T3HZLBL
Yes, absolutely. I like the graphic.
The paralyzing fear that grips local government teams when it comes to procurement (especially technology) has been a revelation in my short 5 years in government. We need courage and conviction in our good-faith procedures to speed up procurement action.
But what I haven't figured out yet is how to make the "weeding" you describe politically "sexy." That may be the hardest nut to crack of them all. And that may require action by the political parties. They may have to campaign on competence and responsibility. Indeed, they should. But what paid political hack would even recommend such an approach?
Completely agree. I've come to this conclusion myself. What would it take (a lot!) to change the culture of politicking in which the full scope of gardening is valued?
Great post! A few thoughts:
1. The I-95 case reminds me of what used to be another go-to example in this space: when the Minneapolis I-35W Mississippi River bridge collapsed in 2007 and then the replacement was designed and built in <15 months.
2. Beyond the “procedure fetish” stuff from things like procurement/hiring, many barriers to infrastructure development go deeper into Ezra Klein’s concept of “everything-bagel liberalism,” where it’s not only accountability-oriented procedures gone overboard (which I just wrote about in a new post https://civicinsighter.com/p/paradox-of-government-accountability), but also requirements that were tacked on to pursue other policy goals that may enjoy broad support.
As you said, building things is a lot easier if you say “Don’t worry about requirements for union labor, Buy America, green materials, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise preference programs, civil-rights laws and disparate-impact analysis, protecting endangered species, etc.“ And you can get away with that for a single high-profile project… but dropping these everywhere would invite a political firestorm that most politicians prefer to avoid, even if the payoff could be big! And I totally get their stance—because the average voter probably doesn’t understand how their own competing demands are getting in the way of each other, so telling the public that “I killed the program you like so we can pursue other programs” is a tough sell for elected officials.
3. Another thing about these crisis-rebuild examples is that they were presumably partially sped up by moving them to the front of the queue for approvals, which is clearly impossible for everything since not everything can be #1. That said, the excitement that comes when projects are done so quickly ought to be motivation for us to improve state capacity to the point where everything can get done much more quickly and so skipping a project to the front of the line doesn’t confer as much of an advantage because there isn’t a massive review backlog to begin with!
💯 to all of this
That's a quality comment right there. Thanks.
I know it’s not necessarily a civil servant’s job to change government policies and procedures but I think it is their job to recognize, think about, and communicate if and when the rules are making it difficult to nearly impossible to deliver services as intended. I’m wary of people just being really good at following orders. Organizations need constant feedback to learn and improve.
Yes, indeed. I definitely agree with you. It's more that a) some people are hired for their compliance skills, were trained for that, and are in a culture where that's what's valued: finding something that's not quite technically correct and acting on that, rather than seeing the big picture. No effective theory of change can rest on those folks changing out of their own volition. Leadership needs to reframe their jobs. But I completely agree, every public servant can help create a culture where what's valued goes beyond taking orders, and we should all encourage that!
I love the term I—95-NESS. Making government work for its citizens. I’ve always wondered why we aren’t tapping into technological advances to streamline efficiencies. Code For America has done some fantastic work, and I’m sure would be thrilled to do more. Let's put our out-of-work tech talent to work.
Oh Sweet Baby Elvis -- this is fantastic. This resonates so much with me I am vibrating.
in tech startups the word for I-95-ness is "scrappy", or sometimes "hungry", fwiw. and this is the #1 trait we hire for
Many Americans struggle to appreciate the intangible benefits of procurement policies, which often operate behind the scenes to prevent corruption and maintain operational stability. Despite their seemingly slow nature, these policies are essential safeguards, particularly evident in states like New York and Pennsylvania, where convictions for corruption by Public Officials are prevalent. It’s my opinion that Governor Shapiro, the Office of Administration and Department of Transportation could have explored alternative procurement methods such as sole source procurements and interstate/interagency agreements via NASPO before resorting to emergency declarations. To be frank Governor Shapiro's actions appear self-serving, in that it is clear the “i-95 successes” will be a talking point as part of his 2028 campaign or as this article alludes potentially in 2024. Considering the very real state of emergency in Pennsylvania, such as the tranq/fet drug epidemic (where there have been calls to use an ED but hesitancy by his administration) having thoughtful and effective governance to determine when to use emergency declarations is necessary. Leveraging emergency declarations as part of campaign talking points feels dangerous and like an abuse of public trust.
Furthermore, while I appreciate your take on this, I do feel transparency regarding your relationships in Pennsylvania, including your recent engagements with Shapiro's office, via the Office of Administration and Code PA, may have been a good disclaimer. Given it is unclear whether you were paid for that engagement or if your organization Code for America will be doing work in PA in the near future this article feels a bit muddy.
I appreciate that this is a nuanced issue, and your perspective is valuable. It's all about the balance. I believe we need to weigh both the value of safeguards and their cost. But not dismiss the value of those safeguards.
To your question about Code PA, I was happy to meet with their team by video yesterday as I'm a fan of their work. Having been part of standing up a similar unit when I was in the White House, I know how hard it can be, and love the opportunity to provide encouragement to anyone working on these issues. I was not paid. I don't actually know if Code for America is involved with them; I stepped down from my role there in early 2020 and haven't been on the board for almost two years now. I am not sure what you mean about engagements with Shapiro's office -- other than an informal talk with the Code PA team yesterday, I have no such engagements.
While it's always fair game to ask about conflicts of interest, however, I don't think it's helpful to suggest that because someone is working with a government entity (though I am not) they shouldn't also mention them in a blog post. I consider it part of my mission to share news of important work happening in the public sector.
good analysis, but you are not properly crediting the Biden administration which has done a lot more than drop seeds. They came into a catastrophic situation that was built on a long period of neglect and have accomplished a lot more than I imagined they could. We should applaud real progress.
What have they accomplished? In terms of actually getting things built, not just in terms of passing policy and handing out funding. Where are the new subways, factories, or airports?
You do realize that major construction projects take some time?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/12/26/in-2023-the-united-states-started-building-big-again-thanks-to-bidens-inflation-reduction-act/?sh=789bda2c5ba9
Sure, some. But Madrid built an entire subway system in four years with a fraction the money the IRA got, you'd expect us to have *something* built by now.
I'm beginning to doubt your good faith. I sent you a link that included a number of ongoing projects. By the way, IRA was signed in August 2022, it's just over 1 1/2 years old.
Our federal govt isn't in the business of "doing things", Republicans shut the down with privatization 40 years ago. It hands out money for other entities to do things, and in see those projects all over the country: coastal hardening, AC in southern/urban schools, R&D funds that gave us the COVID vaccines, etc.
Look between them the IRA and chips act spent a couple hundred billion dollars. I don't care how the administration was structured, I care what actual physical things they built. Because so far I'm not seeing anything (the things you mention all happened long before it).