PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

I was sitting in the backyard of a friend’s house the other night, having a drink of wine, and, as usually happens, our conversation turned to politics.

All of us bemoaned what I call “the loss of civility in politics,” which means that folks on the left often hate those on the right and those on the right often hate those on the left. It appears that never the twain shall meet.

The risk is that the tension could and sometimes does develop into something more critical, even open fighting between sides. And “hate” is a word that describes the abyss.

Well, I don’t know that I have a prescription for what ails us as a society when it comes to political differences, but, perhaps a bit ostentatiously, I do have prescriptions for better government, prescriptions that could be supported by the left and the right.

• Prescription #1: All of those in government, especially those in elected or top executive positions should, in response to proposals for more government programs, always ask whether the proposal represents an area where government should be involved. And, those who ask the question always should be prepared to answer no.
• Prescription #2: All of those in government should subject all government programs to what I call “the results test.” Are the programs producing results that warrant continuing expenditures? Some call this the ethic of “return on investment.”

In my long experience in government, I have seen these two prescriptions ignored for much too long.

To repeat what I wrote above: It is logical, given limits on spending, for the basic question to be asked – should government have a role in this perceived problem? Then, if the critically constructed answer is yes, any program should only be started if it is put to the results test.

Let me provide just one example of how this could work.

Back when I represented Youth Villages, formerly ChristieCare, I had the good fortune to work with the executive director there, Lynne Saxton, who had huge credibility in her role.

On behalf of her organization, we decided to advocate for legislation that would direct the State Department of Human Services (DHS) to place renewed emphasis on “strengthening, preserving and reunifying families” to avoid the need for expensive foster care.

A key here was that, in lobbying for what became Senate Bill 964, we insisted on subjecting any new program started by DHS under SB 964 authority to implement the “results test.”

The language said this: “Establish by rule client-focused functional outcome measures for Strengthening, Preserving and Reunifying Families programs. These outcomes measures may be used as a basis for funding programs and negotiating contracts.”

We were told by the Legislative Counsel Office, which drafted the bill, that it was the first time an emphasis on required outcomes had been inserted into law governing DHS.

This was a solid commitment to improved government – and it ended up passing the legislature.

All of us should want this. Is it too much to ask to question whether government should mount new programs and, if the answer is yes, then any new program should be expected to rely on a “results test?”