We're talking about a picnic here, people. Fifteen to twenty families who have kids with Down syndrome gathering in a park. Using the playground. Eating some hot dogs. Maybe we'll get wild and crazy and have an egg toss.
So I marched around to the various departments. Picked up my very own 7-page copy of the noise ordinances (having told them we wouldn't have speakers or music of any kind) from the Police Department. Got a signature from Engineering. Talked through safe grilling with the Fire Department. Paid $90 to the Health Department because they will come and do an inspection of our food before we cook it. Received a one-page document that was an amended version of the 52-page document of the requirements for cooking food in the park. Requirements include a three bin "wash rinse sanitize" system for cooking utensils.
"You know," she said, "If a spatula falls on the ground."
Mmhmm.
Should we need to cancel due to rain, I can get my money back, but only if I write a letter that will then be read at the Town Council meeting, sometime. Maybe. Went back to Parks and Recreation. Paid $25. Back to the Clerk's Office and we're approved.
Under any circumstances, it's absurd. The need for six different individuals in six different offices to approve my application for 50 people to gather in a public park and cook hot dogs screams bureaucracy at its worst. But I happen to live in a state where hundreds of millions of dollars are being cut from the education budget. I respect the need for a balanced budget. I don't respect the fact that there are kids who need early intervention services, kids who could be learning more in after-school programs, teachers who are losing aids in classrooms, and it takes SIX offices and SIX people to tell me we can have a picnic.
It is always a temptation to put programs ahead of people. People are messy and unpredictable. Kids fail tests. Teachers sometimes do a bad job. Programs--regulations about picnics, for instance--can be controlled. School budget votes are scheduled for April 20. The state has proposed cuts across the board, including 12 million dollars worth of cuts from the Early Intervention Program. I know first hand the benefits of Early Intervention. I believe that wealthy citizens within the system should pay a part, even a substantial part, of the cost. But I know that shelling out $100/hour for services is burdensome to any family, particularly people within the middle-class who are working hard and trying to care well for their kids.
I know I'm not comparing apples to apples when I consider a state education budget in light of a local township office, but I have to believe that there are other places to cut the budget. Take care of our kids and our schools. We can take care of the picnics just fine on our own.
Posts
2 comments:
I share your frustration, Amy Julia. It's ridiculous that the township required so many man-hours for you to hold a picnic which you probably could have held sans approval and been just fine.
On the other hand, I cannot help but to wonder whether these two things are two sides of the same coin.
Here's what I hear you to be saying: you are pleased to have a local (by which I mean non-federal) government which is big enough to provide costly services to some of its most needy citizens. At the same time, however, you are frustrated because that same government is so big that it takes a whole day to navigate. If the government were smaller and less self-absorbed, it'd be easier to get your picnic approved; however, a smaller and less active local government might not be capable of providing the early intervention services you enjoy.
I know I've over-simplified the issue by using the terms bigger and smaller (not to mention gone and tea-partied the whole thing up--not my intention at all). So I'll put it differently. It seems like you are grateful to have a local government that is vibrant and active enough to provide early intervention services; but the cost of having a vibrant and active local government is that it of necessity contains dozens of vibrant and active bureaucrats who create paper trails like the one you spent all day chasing.
Without those active bureaucrats, you wouldn't have a day-long picnic approval process. But with less active bureaucrats, you might not have early intervention services.
I know I've gone on too long. But, as Mark Twain said, "If I'd had more time, I would have written a shorter letter."
David,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I see why one might require the other, but not why they necessarily do. I'm a moderate when it comes to government. I want the government to step in when collective action and service is more efficient and caring than individual action can be.
In the case of Early Intervention, a child with autism or Down syndrome will not only personally benefit, but their ability to learn skills early on in life will impact their entire community for the rest of their lives. These are skills that parents (in the vast majority of cases) cannot provide for their children alone. They require someone with training. Yes, I could pay for speech therapy for Penny, at $300/hour, out of pocket. Instead, I'm incredibly grateful that our community has decided that it is worth it for all of us that she be able to communicate.
As for the picnic, what good does it do us to have all those people overseeing what we're doing? Get a permit from parks and recreation--makes sense to me. But the sixfold process? Use that money to keep aids in the kindergartens.
I guess I want those who govern to ask different questions. What can we entrust to individuals and what ought we take care of collectively? I hope it would help us end up somewhere in the middle of the tea-party folks and Big, wasteful, government.
Thanks again,
AJ
Post a Comment