From 2000: A play on the Bud Light Commercial

Under the Legislation that we were working with from 1998 to 2005 I was managing and/or administering a discretionary grant program. Typically we would allocate funds in the beginning or middle of the year and if the States weren't going to use it we would deallocate the funds and reallocate them the next year. Along with the funds we would provide obligation authority, which acts a bit like a limit on checking privilege. We would also withdraw the authority where we had deallocated the funds in order to provide new authority the next year.

One year, a State wrote in asking us not to take away the funds when we withdrew the authority. Some official in the State was worried the funds would not be reallocated the next year.

I went to speak with the then chief of our finance office. His name was Bud Wright. The conversation went like this.

Me: We shouldn't agree to this because the State's concern is without merit and withdrawing the obligation authority without deallocating the funds risks a financial accounting problem.

Bud: Do you think you could explain both the fact that the State's conern is meritless as well as the accounting risk to our Administrator.

Me: Yes, of course.

Bud: Do you think you could explain both on one side of one sheet of paper.

Me: Of course not. It would take at least two pages simply to explain the demands of the statute.

Bud: If we can't explain it in one page, the Administrator won't understand why we are denying a State request, which, on its face seems reasonable.

Me: And if the Administrator doesn't understand it, then..

Bud: No State request will be denied unless the Administrator understands it.

Me: You know what. You are not just right. You are Bud Wright (using the hand symbol for drinking a beer as was done on the commercial for Bud Lite).

Coda: The next year, when the Administrator left we changed our policy so both the authority and the funds would disappear at the same time.  ¶ 7:00 PM

  People In FHWA Remember Me for Negative Comments on Stewardship

Here is an email I sent by in November 2000 that was in response to a query on what the 'working level' of FHWA was thinking about the subject of Stewardship. A number of people were on the cc: list and I've since discovered that a lot of people in FHWA saved this message.

-------------

From: Martin Weiss
To: BURBANK, CINDY
Date: 11/9/00 8:49AM
Subject: Re: Update on Stewardship Task Force ‑ Comments by COB 11/09

I've never liked the concept of stewardship. In the middle ages the steward made sure the serf's best cattle were available for the lord and that the lord could have first use of newly engaged women serfs.

In the 90s, I saw the stewardshp concept used by FHWA to empower some of us to attend grandstanding philosophy seminars, busybody conferences, and produce endlessless long and only marginally comprehensible strategic plans and reports. This also involved making ignorant and/or self serving statements about what States and transit agencies were doing implying that such agencies were doing poorly and we (in FHWA) were on the side of good and would soon set them straight. We had also had policy statements about customer service and inclusion and public involvement and various other things that raised expectations that could not be realized.

On a practical scale, we've seen poorly rated funding proposals (e.g., discretionary programs) earmarked by higher management within DOT and we've taken measures, in our reports to Congress about why they were funded, to be less than candid about why such proposals were selected for funding. Similarly, we've applied our own regulations with extreme leniency by order of higher management (e.g., approving financial constraint statements that were near fantasy), and we've managed to take credit for actions done with virtually no impact by FHWA (e.g., lower pollution emissions from autos).

Thus, whatever we said about stewardship in the 90s was basically a deception and/or a waste of time.

In addition, the definition in the Jacoby memo is,

The efficient and effective management of the public resources which have been entrusted to the Federal Highway Administration.

one, might ask what resources are entrusted to the FHWA? How many miles of pavement does FHWA maintain or operate? How many traffic lights, directional/informational signs, toll bridges, scenic roads, ports of entry, etc.?

Who says any physical resources are 'entrusted' to FHWA other than our desks, telephones and such.


>>> CINDY BURBANK 11/07 11:07 AM >>>
For the past several months, an FHWA Task Force has been reviewing our oversight and stewardship policies and repsonsibilities. Below is a summary of recommendations by the Task Force Leader, Carol Jacoby of HIF. Feel free to share your reactions and comments with me.


CC: HEPALL  ¶ 6:04 AM