Contrary to opinion printed elsewhere, the reason the Jefferson County budget was seven days late this year had nothing to do with sacking long-time public employees or clandestine efforts to purge political opposition from the payroll. In fact, if anything, the evidence reveals just the opposite.

After speaking with several commissioners, county department heads, and becoming blurry-eyed watching budget meetings via web cam, it’s abundantly clear that the Jefferson County Commissioners tirelessly discussed, debated, and argued over how best to retain and fairly compensate their employees all while providing for new hires, maintaining public services, and financing building projects. Unfortunately, their travails were in vain.

For approximately two of the three-week budget session, County Commissioners toiled with grossly underestimated revenue and overestimated cost—unknowingly. The Commissioners were not merely laboring with bad estimates. They were working with such bad figures that when reasonable ones were finally exposed, the Commissioners were able to satisfy employee pay raise requests, provide for new hires and capital building objectives, and complete the budget within five days. Unbelievable.

Of course there already is, and will continue to be, plenty of accusations and finger-pointing as to who is responsible for this waste of time and excruciating haggling. Consequently, I offer a suggestion.

Jefferson County is a $23 million enterprise. Private companies of this magnitude prudently have experts on staff in the fields of budgeting and human resources. Indeed, over 70 percent of this year’s county budget was spent on personnel. Accordingly, it’s imperative that Jefferson County hire a human resources director and task this individual with key measures to ensure a smoother budgeting process next year and every year. These measures must include bringing the entire process into the 21st century, managerial training and accountability, and adherence to county goals and priorities.

Over the past month, commissioners voiced frustration that the data provided to them from the outset of the budget process was incomplete and in an unusable format. No one can be expected to efficiently distribute millions of dollars, sometimes in very small increments, among roughly 50 entities, with a clerk, a pencil, and calculator. Although this method has worked in the past, it’s obvious times have changed.

The basic technologies of document scanning, electronic spreadsheets and power point presentations must be used to gather, organize, and arrange information. Beyond these fundamentals, the new human resources director should also offer the commissioners analysis of their budgeting options and “what if” scenarios of their choices. The mechanics of these higher-level contributions are a snap if the initial information is in electronic form. Implementing these few technological changes would enable the commissioners to concentrate on policy rather than data management.

The apparent lack of training and accountability among department heads in Jefferson County is startling. Our county government has 14 departments. In recent memory, there has been no comprehensive training provided to the managers of these departments in the area of creating and submitting a budget. While one department, during this recent budget round, asked for a 20 percent department-wide salary increase for all its personnel, another asked to offer an inexperienced administrative assistant the same salary as one who has been working in the same capacity for the county for three years.

In short, there are no controls or limitations upon which to base a budget request. Ask for the moon and put the onus on the commissioners to figure out that their lasso is not long enough. One commissioner even complained during a workshop meeting that in years past, unlike this year, departments showed restraint in their budget request. The county simply must change this situation.

The new human resources director should assist with the creation of threshold standards, including an evaluative step-grade salary system, and ensure that all managers and supervisors are trained regularly and uniformly as to these requirements. Furthermore, budget requests should be screened before they are accepted and forwarded to the commission. Any request that does not meet these standards should be refused and returned as non-compliant. Implementing these substantive and procedural changes would eliminate the element of surprise and level the playing field for all involved.

Finally, our county commissioners should seek out best practices guidelines for budgeting. It’s a given that budgeting is a political process, but it is also a planning and managerial process. The county should plan, develop, adopt, and execute its priorities through the budget. Thereafter, budget requests should be measured against these priorities. Furthermore, an ongoing evaluative process assessing whether goals are being met throughout the year would not only lighten the load for the commission during budget season, but also fairly enable all participants to meet policy expectations.

Implementing these suggestions may well prevent future debacles and enable the county commissioners to be more proficient in the budgeting process—if not down right efficacious