BG Blog: Homeless Study Cancellation Shows Questions, Opposition For Leadership Priorities
The recent news that interim city manager Jesús Garza was canceling a planned study of the community’s response to homelessness - a $2 million deliverable from high-profile consultants McKinsey & Company - was illuminating for close watchers of political maneuvering in and around city hall.
Garza and Mayor Kirk Watson trumpeted the study as essential to improving coordination among the four entities most heavily involved in creating housing and providing social services needed to help the unhoused. It’s not surprising that the two would have turned to high-dollar analysts since McKinsey conducted a comprehensive review of the Development Services Department last year that was seen as a beneficial move toward streamlining DSD’s operations.
There appeared to be early agreement on the larger goal of identifying gaps and redundancies among the city, Travis County, Integral Care and Central Health. But the study never got out of the starting blocks once Travis County commissioners balked at the $400,000 contribution expected of them - among other objections - and Central Health reportedly wanted a kind of veto power over some of the language associated with the city’s solicitation for the contract, if not the final study itself.
In somewhat lower-profile happenings, at least one City Council member took to social media to label McKinsey a “high-priced consulting firm.” And that was after a handful of Council members were vocal in their unhappiness that Garza had opted to hire former Austin Police chief Art Acevedo for a high-priced deputy city manager position, with that appointment ending with Garza issuing a terse memo to the Council outlining his plans through the end of April.
His memo announcing the cancellation of the homelessness study had a similar air of defiance, this time at the other three governmental entities who weren’t all the way on board with no-questions-asked enthusiasm.
What we’ve seen in the last few months is a reluctance from portions of the Council dais, and other leaders in the community openly questioning or contradicting some of the policy decisions that Watson and Garza assumed were rubber stamp done deals. The reluctance to join in on the McKinsey study was accompanied by what was at least lip service intention of cooperation going forward, with spokespeople for Central Health and Travis County saying they remain committed to finding the best strategies for finding housing for those currently without a home.
In Council circles, though, things have been notable more claws-out when it comes to expressing dissatisfaction with two of the city’s top decision-makers. Garza has been the main recipient of that criticism, likely for two reasons. He’s taken Watson’s “let’s get things done” ethos and turned it up to 11, almost adopting the view that it’s better to ask for forgiveness than for approval, which puts him on the front line of fire for any action that Council members find fault with.
There’s also the fact that Garza won’t be in his seat for long since we’re about two months away from the intended deadline for finding a permanent city manager to replace Garza. Worth noting for those outspoken Council members: even though Garza won’t be the city’s top executive by late spring, he’ll almost certainly remain in a position of influence with Watson, which could make it difficult to do much deal-making when the time comes for those who were loudest with their complaints.
The high cost of the McKinsey study is also worth looking at a little closer. For a city with a multibillion-dollar budget, $2 million might not seem like an outstanding expense, especially when it’s related to solving the ongoing homelessness crisis. But homeless services providers fighting for every dollar they can get were vocal in their criticisms over the proposed expenditure.
All of which brings the question: couldn’t a focused work group with the leaders from the four entities convened with an advisory body - maybe provided by the University of Texas’ LBJ School of Public Affairs or some similarly austere organization - for a couple of months to accomplish many of the goals spelled out for the McKinsey study? That could almost certainly be completed for far less than $2 million, which could possibly mean some more needed funding for badly needed social services for the unhoused.
//A.J. Bingham
Contact A.J. at: aj@binghamgp.com