Quote Originally Posted by Lowell View Post
I heard the press conference with Mr. Orr. He was impressive, confident and erudite. One phrase he repeated a few times in regard to dealing with an issue was that he had to 'look at the data'.

I think he should be scored the same way - look at the data. How many street lights are repaired? By how much time is police response improved? Does the crime rate drop? Are weed lots mowed and abandoned houses removed?

We had some of this discussion last summer in the thread Benchmarking The Consent Agreement. Show Me The Progress.
Lowell -- those are the metrics that should have been applied to the council and mayor. They have only tangential relevance to the EFM.

The EFM's role is not to improve city services. Of course they should improve after he leaves, and be harmed as little as possible during the EFM's engagement.

I will argue that these metrics are harmful. An EFM should be harmful and hurt. One should only be engaged as the last resort. Avoiding declines in your metrics WERE the job of the council/mayor. It remains their job. The EFM is empowering them to do their job by stabilizing their finances where they were unwilling to do so.