The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
George Ball
There are many people, mostly those with a financial interest I would imagine, pushing to make sure RTA Next (Props 418/419) passes. In the Arizona Daily Star story from Page A1 of March 2, there is a very telling reason why RTA has had problems and will continue to have problems if the propositions pass.
In that article, City Manager Tim Thomure made the following statements:
1. On the city's side, there is a possibility that, if RTA Next doesn't pass, then the city looks at "some other ways to generate additional revenues…”
2. “What those options are, I couldn't say," he said. "But in two and a half weeks' time, I might be having to come up with something.”
What, might I ask, have the people responsible for managing the RTA projects (and our City Manager) been doing for 20 years?
As someone with experience as both a business owner and working under government contracts, there are three major items that are always on the top of the agenda and those are “where is the next source of funding coming from; what if that source doesn’t materialize; and what if we run into unanticipated problems?”
Making an assumption that the money will just keep flowing is like hoping you will fly after falling off a cliff. Any halfway competent business manager will have constructed, at a minimum, four business scenarios in which the funding a) remains the same, b) is reduced, c) increases, or d) stops.
In addition, when working with highly complex problems, you always want to have a strategy that anticipates unforeseen obstacles. As the level of complexity increases, the higher the likelihood of problems arising that will derail your current path. As someone experienced in dealing with highly speculative problem spaces, I can say it is guaranteed that your path is not going to be close to your starting assumptions.
Based on Mr. Thomure’s statement, I would have to conclude that future planning was either not done or was done poorly. I will give the managers the benefit of the doubt and accept the answer as process planning was mediocre at best.
There are many ways to consider future outcomes that use well-structured analysis. For example:
Scenario Planning, which considers multiple plausible ideas against which your various strategies are tested
Horizon Scanning, which considers how shifts in behavior or regulations might impact the future
Backcasting, which looks at what your desirable future is (usually ten years out) and then considers various paths that might achieve that goal, adapting as flags appear that indicate the need for adjustment
Failure to anticipate the future is a sure way to have problems. We have heard a litany of reasons over the years as to why there were delays in construction, cost overruns, etc. Only someone with no experience assumes that over a 20-year period, nothing would change, which could impact your plans.
When you tell me that “… I might have to come up with something” it indicates to me that you haven’t given much, if any, consideration as to true alternatives. This is a sure way to blow another several billion dollars.
If Propositions 418/419 pass, I would like to have the managers of RTA Next show the public exactly what they have done to plan for alternative scenarios in order to accomplish the goals as outlined. If they haven’t done their homework, then the money should be held in escrow until such time that they can produce documented evidence of long-range alternatives that anticipate problems.
The citizens of Pima County, and especially Tucson where most of the money is generated deserve open communication and accountability if you intend to spend our dollars. Show us the scenarios that you have developed that anticipate the need to alter direction to achieve the goals when problems arise. No scenarios, no money.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
