The Muni Reform Initiative is an excellent public policy proposal. I would
like to offer some comments to help make the initiative even more
effective. My comments are based on 12 years experience working for DPW, as
an architect/project manager, during which I have helped DPW begin to
develop similar customer service accountability systems.
1. In Sec. 8A.100(d) The Agency shall manage the Municipal Railway so that
it: ... I suggest that the following additional management goal be
added: *Communicates effectively with customers regarding: schedules for
all trips of all vehicles, vehicle delays, system modifications, and route
changes.*
2. It is my understanding that no City contracts are valid without review
by the City Attorney. Therefore , I suggest that the end of the last
sentence regarding the contract of the management consultant, in Section
8A.107(a), should read *approved by the Controller, the Agency's legal
counsel, and the Board of Supervisors.*
3. Is the proposed Agency's authority over all contracts subject to: 1) the
Human Rights Commission's contracting requirements, 2) the Charter's
requirements for public advertisement of all contracting opportunities,
including construction contracts and RFQ's for professional services, and
3) the City Attorney's review and approval?
I believe that the initiative intends to require this . However, it's not
really clear how this will be achieved while creating a separate Agency
with sole authority over all contracts. I suggest that the initiative state
more clearly how these City requirements all remain in force to minimize
potential opposition from "good government" interests or those that could
easily perceive this as an end run around the City's affirmative action
programs.
4. Sec. 8A.108 Fares and Route Abandonments : The first paragraph of
subsection (a) has very little practical force. I suggest replacing it with
the following language:
*The Agency shall not propose a fare increase unless such fare increase is
found by the Agency to be consistent with the Agency's most recently
completed five-year financial plan, prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 8A.102(b.)2. The element of the five-year financial
plan that addresses projection of anticipated revenue, shall include annual
re-evaluation of the fare structure , including, without limitation, the
following sub-elements:*
5. Regarding the monthly performance measurement reports required under
Appendix E. Sec. E.100, I would like to make several suggestions, listed
below. The suggested revised text is shown below my comments, with new
language marked with ***'s.
a. The section begins with a requirement that all performance measures be
reported by mode, therefore the phrase "by mode" throughout (b) System
Performance is redundant.
b. Regarding "expenses incurred by mode" in (b) System Performance: This is
a very important, very fundamental requirement!! The customers must be able
to follow the money. In order for performance monitoring by customers to be
effective the entire MUNI accounting system must be changed so that it CAN
allocate all costs by *activity*. This common-sense accounting concept is
relatively new, even in the private sector, and it is not a trivial
requirement.
b. I question the usefulness of Muni customers getting involved in the
logistics of Muni's staffing problems. What is the customer benefit of
tracking position vacancies and the new employee attrition rate? As a
customer I care about missed service runs, as tracked in the System
Reliability section. The reasons for the missed runs are of secondary
importance. I suggest this item, and references to it, be deleted.
c. I suggest that the Customer Service section of the performance measures
be revised to define explicit characteristics of customer service that are
to be measured, similar to the System Reliability and System Performance
sections. The customer service that were #2 & #5, regarding publication of
schedules and improved public information, have been deleted. I am assuming
that these concerns will be addressed by the additional management goal
suggested in Item #1 above, combined with the customer satisfaction surveys.
d. Regarding the last item of Employee Satisfaction, recent studies have
shown that one of the strongest predictors of customer satisfaction is the
level of employee satisfaction and appropriate work/life balance.
***
(a) System Performance
1. Operating performance.
2. Passengers carried.
3. Fare revenues generated.
4. Hours and miles operated.
5. System operating costs based on a comprehensive "activity-based"
accounting methodology that effectively allocates costs of all parts of the
system, based on activity, to each mode and unit of customer service.
(b) Staffing Performance
(DELETED)
(c) Customer Service
1. An annual status report on the Municipal Railway's customer service
continuous improvement program.
2. Quantity of operator conduct complaints and their resolution, by
complaint, consistent with due process and required confidentiality.
3. Levels of customer satisfaction, by line, for all Agency service
standards as defined in 8A.103(b), based on passenger surveys performed at
least annually.
4. Quantity and effectiveness of investments in employee training
including, without limitation, customer service, vehicle and system
operation, passenger and employee safety, and post accident follow-up.
5. Number of passenger injuries and crime incidents on Municipal Railway
vehicles or in Municipal Railway facilities.
(d) Employee Satisfaction
1. Number of grievances.
2. Speed of resolution of grievances.
3. Levels of employee satisfaction and appropriate work/life balance based
on employee surveys performed at least annually.
***
I look forward to comments and to the meeting on the 25th.
Jim Buker, A.I.A.
San Francisco
--============_-1292490810==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param><bigger>The Muni Reform Initiative is
an excellent public policy proposal. I would like to offer some
comments to help make the initiative even more effective. My comments
are based on 12 years experience working for DPW, as an
architect/project manager, during which I have helped DPW begin to
develop similar customer service accountability systems.
1. In Sec. 8A.100(d) The Agency shall manage the Municipal Railway so
that it: ... I suggest that the following additional management goal
be added: *Communicates effectively with customers regarding:
schedules for all trips of all vehicles, vehicle delays, system
modifications, and route changes.*
2. It is my understanding that no City contracts are valid without
review by the City Attorney. Therefore , I suggest that the end of the
last sentence regarding the contract of the management consultant, in
Section 8A.107(a), should read *approved by the Controller, the
Agency's legal counsel, and the Board of Supervisors.*
3. Is the proposed Agency's authority over all contracts subject to: 1)
the Human Rights Commission's contracting requirements, 2) the
Charter's requirements for public advertisement of all contracting
opportunities, including construction contracts and RFQ's for
professional services, and 3) the City Attorney's review and approval?
I believe that the initiative intends to require this . However, it's
not really clear how this will be achieved while creating a separate
Agency with sole authority over all contracts. I suggest that the
initiative state more clearly how these City requirements all remain in
force to minimize potential opposition from "good government" interests
or those that could easily perceive this as an end run around the
City's affirmative action programs.
4. Sec. 8A.108 Fares and Route Abandonments : The first paragraph of
subsection (a) has very little practical force. I suggest replacing it
with the following language:
*The Agency shall not propose a fare increase unless such fare increase
is found by the Agency to be consistent with the Agency's most recently
completed five-year financial plan, prepared in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 8A.102(b.)2. The element of the five-year
financial plan that addresses projection of anticipated revenue, shall
include annual re-evaluation of the fare structure , including, without
limitation, the following sub-elements:*
5. Regarding the monthly performance measurement reports required under
Appendix E. Sec. E.100, I would like to make several suggestions,
listed below. The suggested revised text is shown below my comments,
with new language marked with ***'s.
a. The section begins with a requirement that all performance measures
be reported by mode, therefore the phrase "by mode" throughout (b)
System Performance is redundant.
b. Regarding "expenses incurred by mode" in (b) System Performance:
This is a very important, very fundamental requirement!! The customers
must be able to follow the money. In order for performance monitoring
by customers to be effective the entire MUNI accounting system must be
changed so that it CAN allocate all costs by *activity*. This
common-sense accounting concept is relatively new, even in the private
sector, and it is not a trivial requirement.
b. I question the usefulness of Muni customers getting involved in the
logistics of Muni's staffing problems. What is the customer benefit of
tracking position vacancies and the new employee attrition rate? As a
customer I care about missed service runs, as tracked in the System
Reliability section. The reasons for the missed runs are of secondary
importance. I suggest this item, and references to it, be deleted.
c. I suggest that the Customer Service section of the performance
measures be revised to define explicit characteristics of customer
service that are to be measured, similar to the System Reliability and
System Performance sections. The customer service that were #2 & #5,
regarding publication of schedules and improved public information,
have been deleted. I am assuming that these concerns will be addressed
by the additional management goal suggested in Item #1 above, combined
with the customer satisfaction surveys.
d. Regarding the last item of Employee Satisfaction, recent studies
have shown that one of the strongest predictors of customer
satisfaction is the level of employee satisfaction and appropriate
work/life balance.
***
(a) System Performance
1. Operating performance.
2. Passengers carried.
3. Fare revenues generated.
4. Hours and miles operated.
5. System operating costs based on a comprehensive "activity-based"
accounting methodology that effectively allocates costs of all parts of
the system, based on activity, to each mode and unit of customer
service.
(b) Staffing Performance
(DELETED)
(c) Customer Service
1. An annual status report on the Municipal Railway's customer service
continuous improvement program.
2. Quantity of operator conduct complaints and their resolution, by
complaint, consistent with due process and required confidentiality.
3. Levels of customer satisfaction, by line, for all Agency service
standards as defined in 8A.103(b), based on passenger surveys performed
at least annually.
4. Quantity and effectiveness of investments in employee training
including, without limitation, customer service, vehicle and system
operation, passenger and employee safety, and post accident follow-up.
5. Number of passenger injuries and crime incidents on Municipal
Railway vehicles or in Municipal Railway facilities.
(d) Employee Satisfaction
1. Number of grievances.
2. Speed of resolution of grievances.
3. Levels of employee satisfaction and appropriate work/life balance
based on employee surveys performed at least annually.
***
I look forward to comments and to the meeting on the 25th.
</bigger></fontfamily>
Jim Buker, A.I.A.
San Francisco
--============_-1292490810==_ma============--