Good to Great?

Within this post I am exploring an interesting phrase that John Curtis has used both in his campaign and personal blogs, this phrase being his belief in taking Provo City from ‘Good to Great.’ In order to understand the entire concept behind this seemingly simple phrase you would have to read a very interesting and quite popular book written by Jim Collins, adequately titled Good to Great. I would suggest all people, within any field or profession, read this book, as it is rife with great information about progressive management and leadership skills.

I do not wish to dissect all of Collins’ work here in this blog; you could easily Google his work and find adequate summaries of his findings concerning businesses who made simple yet genius steps to move their organization’s productivity from good to great. There is, however, one aspect I do want to focus upon, and that is the context in which John Curtis has used Collins’ terminology. According to his own political blog, Curtis has asked us to question the means in which he desires to move Provo from good to great:

"How do we as a community achieve greater safety, prosperity, and increased unity? These are questions that I hope every resident of Provo asks over the next few weeks. It is my plan to help us continue our move from good to great. I will use my years of experience in business, and years of asking questions previously not even thought of, and adopting proven strategies to reach our objectives, to help us plan for the future. We know planning is essential in our daily lives and our businesses. Now let us realize that long term planning is also the best way for our city to become the greatest it can be." [1]

Mr. Curtis, I formally accept your challenge. I acknowledge that you have a desire to ‘continue’ our community’s move from good to great, which means you believe we are already on this path to greatness. Many people would agree with you, some may not. Regardless of the opinions of the masses, you have noticed matters within our city that need to be changed, and you outline them fairly well.

“I will use my years of experience in business”: To do what, exactly? To make an organization move from Good to Great doesn’t come down to the type of experience you have, Mr. Curtis, but it is about the leadership and another important issue we will touch on shortly. I find your openness to approach the affairs and issues of government as a business man quite unsettling and slightly frightening; a simple reality check into the inner workings of government (i.e. budgeting, staffing, and financing) would show you that government is not a business. I hope, for the sake of Provo, if you are elected that you realize this before you actually start making administrative decisions.

“and years of asking questions previously not even thought of”: Once again I find myself scratching my head. How do you expect to move the City of Provo from Good to Great by “asking questions previously not even thought of”? Trust me, government officials have a lot of questions; there are multiple meetings and study sessions where officials gauge the opinions of not only other elected officials but also the general public. Questions are always present, Mr. Curtis, what we need are solutions. If you believe that leadership can come through asking unique questions, then I ask you to perform a reality check because Provo doesn’t need any more questions. We need answers.

“adopting proven strategies to reach our objectives, to help us plan for the future”: Might the general public of Provo be so blessed to observe these amazing “proven strategies” that are going to propel our community into a realm of success? I sort of feel like the elderly woman on those old Wendy’s commercials by saying “Where’s the beef?!” Where is your substance, Mr. Curtis? What proven strategies are you going to use in order to help Provo plan for the future? Ambiguity and interesting questions will not propel anything forward, but you might see that it tends to hamper processes. As a businessman, I think you would know that by now.

Last of all, Mr. Curtis speaks about long-term city planning. I could not agree more with Curtis on this point, in all seriousness. Municipal governments (and any organization, for that matter) need to have both short-term and long-term visions to guide and direct their processes, finances, and operations. However, long-term city planning is extremely difficult and it requires teams of skilled and educated professionals, not individuals, to formulate these plans. You need the best minds on a team to formulate efficient long-term plans that have foresight and wisdom, and I applaud Curtis in noticing that long-term planning is needed for any organization to move from Good to Great.

However, there is one tiny problem with this scenario. Earlier I spoke of leadership trumping experience and mentioned another important detail that Jim Collins’ outlines in his book for any organization to move from Good to Great: Getting the Right People on the Bus. We are now talking about recruitment, and as I mentioned earlier, many of the plans Curtis has outlined will require some of the best and brightest minds in order to accomplish his goals. Luckily for us, Curtis has provided a section on his campaign website concerning Recruitment and Staffing. [2] There seems to be a disconnect between what Collins and Curtis believe in the essential factor of getting the right individuals on the bus. You cannot, and will not, move your organization from Good to Great unless you can attract the right talent to your organization, something which Curtis has openly claimed he will not do:

• We would expect those who serve to have some degree of expertise relative to the position in which they serve.
• Rather than drawing from the same “good ol boy/lady" pool, we would like to make a concerted effort to look beyond those who always seem to be in the loop and bring in fresh eyes when possible.
• We would only ask those to serve who actually reside in Provo.
• We would strive to select individuals that represent all groups in our city. This includes the 34 neighborhoods, students, minorities and businesses.
• We would insist that those who serve build unity in the city.

I think it is wonderful that Curtis wants to look for educational expertise in his candidates for staffing and appointments, but why would he only “ask those to serve who actually reside in Provo”? Mr. Curtis, do you actually believe that you need to live in Provo to understand the issues of our City? Are you willing to alienate the right people simply because they do not live in a geographical boundary of your liking? You state right before this that you are steering away from the “good ol boy/lady” system of politics, claiming that you are wanting to bring “fresh eyes” into your organization, but yet will refuse to look at candidates who do not live in Provo? That sounds strangely familiar to a “good ol boy/lady” system of government to me, Mr. Curtis, since you are directly contradicting yourself.

Mr. Curtis, you state that you want to take our fine city from Good to Great, but yet you lack the fundamental understanding and process of how to take us to that point. Unfortunately, despite your desires to be a progressive thinker with unique questions, your direct and blazing contradictions show that you are simply more of the same.

[1] http://provomayor.blogspot.com/

[2] http://www.johncurtis.org/staffing.html

The Price of Safety

John Curtis has created three specific terms which contain a majority of his vision and values in which he will lead the City of Provo as Mayor. For this post, I am interested in the first, and in his opinion “the most important duty of government”: Safety. [1]

Safety, in and of itself, is a wide and fairly ambiguous goal. Safety is an abstract term which borders on the same lines of pain. If we were to have a ‘safety scale’ ranging from 1 to 10 (with 1 being in “mortal danger” and 10 being “completely safe”) we could never really measure every individual’s true feeling of safety, as these feelings change from day-to-day. Some citizens may feel safer if there is easy access to firearms, while others may feel in danger at the same prospect. Some citizens may feel safe with 50 police officers patrolling Provo City streets, while other would rather see 150 to make them feel safe. Some citizens may feel safe if Provo only has one murder every year, while others believe even one murder puts their life in mortal danger. Government can certainly view statistical and community data to track crime rates, but crime is just one piece of the safety pie.

Curtis outlines his beliefs on safety and some very specific areas where he would work to make individuals not only feel safe, but, in his opinion, make the community safer:

“Safety must be the highest priority of government. I know what it takes to support a police and fire department—and it is not just about money. Safety also means that we educate residents about home security; that we work with local schools to ensure our children are safe at school and on their way home; and we work to provide appropriate recreational activities for residents of all ages, including mentoring programs between our Senior Citizens and our Youth.” [1]

According to Curtis’ belief, safety can be generally stripped down into the following measures: Police and Fire; educating residents about home security; working in and around local schools; and providing recreational activities and mentoring programs in the community.

Police and Fire
When it comes to the City’s Police and Fire Departments, Curtis believes that the men and women who serve in these departments “should be the most effectively trained personnel and best equipped in the County.” [1] Honestly, who can disagree with that? Do you want Barney Fife patrolling the streets of Provo or do you want an individual who understands both their duty and the law, and is willing to sacrifice his/her life to support it and protect you? However, what is Curtis’ ‘minimum standard’ of effective training and “best” equipment? Once again, like safety, this is a fairly ambiguous term when we start talking about ‘effective training’ and “best” equipment. In general, our men and women of both the Police and Fire Departments go through extensive training and education in order to get where they are; many have military backgrounds where they learned how to handle volatile situations and how to extinguish different types of blazes. In my opinion, the latter is some of the best training any individual could ever receive.

Curtis states that “we can’t be satisfied with well enough” when it comes to our men and women in Police and Fire. [1] To this I have a simple question: What is “well enough” in your opinion? You will be the head of the Administrative branch of our municipal government, and you will need to communicate “well enough” to the seated members of the Council in order not only to garner funds but to also inform them that there is a disparity of training, equipment, personnel, or whatever you feel is not “well enough.” In addition to this, though additional training and continuing education are always appropriate, Provo Fire Chief D. Blair Camp seems to have more confidence in his men than Curtis does:

“Provo Fire & Rescue has provided fire protection and emergency response since 1890, and today is a modern, professional, all-hazards response organization. We provide a variety of emergency and non-emergency services, including a state-of-the-art paramedic transport service, and we respond to more than 8,000 requests for emergency assistance each year. Our personnel are highly trained professionals.” [2]

The Provo Police Department has a similar tune found on their departmental website:


“We are Committed to:
Providing High Quality, Community-Oriented Police Services With Sensitivity, Protecting Constitutional Rights, Problem Solving, Teamwork, Openness, Planning For The Future, Providing Leadership To The Profession. We are proud of the Diversity of our workforce which permits us to Grow and which Respects each as individuals and we strive for a Healthful workplace.” <sic> [3]

Beyond increasing a budget for these individual departments, what exactly will John Curtis do for the Police and Fire Departments that they are not already actively striving to do?

Home and School Security
In another field of safety within the community, John Curtis is advocating that we beginning looking at the foundation of any society: the home. Curtis believes that “security starts at the home,” and, once again, he is completely right. [1] The home is the center of any successful community; it is this simple structure that brings stability to neighborhoods, provides a nurturing environment for tomorrow’s leaders, and is the best school of values and prosperity. Curtis states in his goal of community safety that he wants to “work to educate residents of simple things they can do to ensure a safe and comfortable home. I will work to make sure our children are safe at school and in public parks.”

Once again, Curtis has hit yet another ambiguous ideology when he begins to speak about “safe and comfortable” situations at home. Thinking along his lines, Curtis is probably speaking about typical methodologies of home security: lock your doors and windows; do not leave underage children home alone; report suspicious activity to the authorities; and provide enough outside lighting to deter criminals from your home at night. In general, a majority of home owners understand and realize these facts because they have been engrained in us from our youth. Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t walk down dark alleys alone. Don’t answer the door if you don’t know who the person is. This is really nothing more than common sense. However, if he is speaking about more than the typical methods of safety, then how is he going to deliver specialized home safety training to every individual in Provo? Are there going to be community educational seminars, and if so will they be mandatory to ensure everyone receives the message? What about those who want to attend but do not have transportation, will transportation be provided? How is this message of “safety and comfort” going to be delivered to the people and what is the message going to be?

Curtis also addresses an issue that most parents worry about, and that is their child’s safety at both school and play. Ever since April 20, 1999, the belief that our public school system had inherent systems to ensure student safety was shattered in a terrible way. Since this time, schools have taken measures to safeguard students while they obtain an education. ‘Resource Officers’ are seen in many, if not all, schools around America, and evacuation plans are present if a school shooting or disaster occurs. This is not a perfect system, but it is also impossible for both parents and government to completely safeguard a school from all potential harms which may occur. Curtis states that he “will work to make sure our children are safe at school and in public parks.” Once again, I have a simple question: How? Would John Curtis like to see more uniformed police officers patrolling the halls of our schools and city parks? Does he feel that community education will fill a gap in the apparent lack of safety we have in this community in regards to our schools and parks? Will he advocate stricter legislation punishing those who make our community unsafe? What course is he going to take in order to make schools and parks safer to our children and to the public?

Recreational Activities
In Curtis’ opinion, he believes that “safe and appropriate activities” need to be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department to “keep kids off the streets.” [1] The Parks and Recreation Department at the City of Provo is already greatly involved within the community and provides a wide-array of activities and services to all ages of the general public. As a matter of fact, the current activity guide which covers Fall/Winter 2009 is 41-pages long and full of activities. [4] I understand the notion of ‘keeping kids off the streets’ and having wholesome recreational activities present, but from what I can see the Parks and Recreation Department is already doing a fine job of providing both services. What other “safe and appropriate activities” does Curtis have in mind for the citizens of Provo?

Also, beyond the belief of having a wide variety of activities to choose from, we hit yet another ambiguous term when speaking of “safe and appropriate activities.” What exactly does this mean? Any physical activity can be potentially unsafe, so is the City of Provo only going to provide activities which have zero risk for injury? The ambiguity behind this very broad belief for recreational activities literally jades the true meaning behind what Curtis desires from the Parks and Recreation Department. What specific activities would you like to see provided which are currently not provided, Mr. Curtis?

In Review
Last of all, under all of these issues of safety, there is one overarching question and concern that every Provo resident should be asking throughout this discussion: How is John Curtis going to pay for all of these initiatives? Throughout his discussion of ‘Safety’, John Curtis speaks about increasing the feeling of safety in neighborhoods; increasing the effectiveness of both Police and Fire personnel; and providing community educational services. Not only this, but Curtis “will make sure that all city employees are properly trained and equipped to serve our residents” (emphasis added). [1] With a tight budget already present, how is Curtis going to add the necessary funds to meet all of these goals? When we start talking about training professional staff at the City, coupled with training and ‘properly equipping’ Police and Fire personnel, we are talking about millions of dollars in costs. This does not include vastly expanding the budget and operations of the Parks and Recreation Department to include a wider variety of community services and educational initiatives, beyond the currently provided recreational activities.

I invite every Provo resident to look over the adopted City Budget for 2010 and look at 1) the limited amount of resources the City is already dealing with (please see Revenue Sources on p.29), and 2) what departments are already utilizing a vast majority of the General Fund (please see General Fund Departmental Budgets on p.32). [5] The three departments in which Curtis seeks to provide increased ‘safety’ to our community, through a long list of ambitious goals and initiatives, are already the top three funded programs run by the City of Provo. Mr. Curtis, where is the money going to come from? How are you going to fund all of these new initiatives and programs? And last of all, how are these large investments going to make our community more ‘safe’ in the end?

[1] http://www.johncurtis.org/safety.html
[2] http://provo.org/fire.fire_main.html
[3] http://provo.org/ppd.ppd_main.html
[4] http://provo.org/downloads/parks/activityguidefallwin2009_web.pdf (2.35MB File)
[5] http://provo.org/downloads/finance/budget_adopted_10.pdf (5.91MB File)

A Tale of Two Curtises

Some people may know that John Curtis has run for public office in the past. As a matter of fact, he has run in two separate elections previous to his bid for Provo mayor. In 2000, John Curtis ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat against Republican Curt Bramble for a Utah Senate seat. I ran across a campaign website for this particular campaign and will let Curtis explain his decision to run as Democrat for the Utah Senate:


"I am John Curtis, candidate for the Utah State Senate, District 16. John Curtis with daughter Nicole I am running because I believe deeply in a set of values which are shared by my friends and neighbors. Currently, I believe these values are not being properly represented in the legislature. As a senator, I will bring leadership on critical issues by using personal freedom, responsibility, and accountability as my foundation. I am running as a Utah County Democrat because the changes to the 2000 platform have brought it into close harmony with my core values" (emphasis added). [1]


The only question I have in regards to this aspect of Curtis' political history is surrounding the 2000 platform of the Utah County Democrats. What political philosophy or platform moved Curtis in such a strong manner as to have him switch parties in, for the most part, a Republican-dominated state? In order to answer this, I had to do some more searching and found yet another campaign website. [2] It is at this website where I found the title of this post: a little story created to show the difference between "Curt" Bramble and John Curtis, something he titled A Tale of Two Curtises [sic]. [3] This site was more informative as it had an in depth 'Q&A' section that addressed some of Curtis' strongly-held beliefs and political platforms:


Q: You sound just like a republican, why are you running as a democrat?

A: "I believe one-party dominance to be at the heart of the problem. Republicans, controlling the House, Senate and the Governor's seat have unchallenged power, allowing them to meet behind closed doors and make decisions that have been without opposing debate. I would like to see people with 'Utah County Values' running in both parties."


Q: Why should we vote for you?

A: "I am not afraid to stray form [sic] the stereotypes of the past. This is evidenced by my willingness to break from the dominate party. I believe many of the answers to today's problems will be found in creative and unconventional paths. An example of this is the gun safety fair I organized and sponsored in Provo. Without legislation and without government funds we were able to take a large step towards making guns safer in Provo."


Q: What is the single most important issue facing legislators this year?

A: "Without a doubt it is education. This state has no long term education plan. As a result our teachers are overworked, underrecognized [sic] and underpaid. Our students don't have critical text books and our classes are too large. We need leadership from the governor, and support from the legislators to give our kids the education the [sic] deserve."

Q: Why did you decide to run for this office?

A: "I'm a father of six, part owner in a company that employs over 100 Utah County families and a scout master. Believe me, I had no intention of running for elected office for any party. Yet, as I watched and listened, I felt compelled to get involved." [4]

It appears that education was at the forefront of the changes to platforms within parties that caused Curtis to run for elected office, though he admits fully that there really has been no intention of ever running for public office due to having a large family and business to operate. Yet I must raise additional questions concerning Curtis' answers.

• Does John Curtis believe that people who do not vote or believe in similar platforms are delving into "stereotypes of the past"?
• Curtis has stated that he wants people with "Utah County Values" to run for elected office. Are these values only found in the Democratic Party, or are they found in the Republican Party as well? What do these 'values' consist of? If individuals do not meet these 'values', then are they merely a 'stereotype' in his mind?

After John Curtis' loss to Curt Bramble for a seat in the Utah Senate he did not stay politically idle. From what I have found in public records, John Curtis was very active in the Utah County Democrats and even served as the organization's county chairman in 2002-2003. He was replaced by Roger Layton of Springville in April 2003. During his tenure as county chair, Curtis stated that the Utah County Democratic Party had seen "steady growth" within the organization and their biggest challenge was "letting people of Utah County know who we are and what we stand for." [5]

It appears that John Curtis was a rising star not only within the Utah County Democrats, but amongst all Democrats in the State of Utah. The values of this political party did align more closely to his ‘core values’, so it is not surprising that he was making great strides within this political organization. However, in 2oo6 there was a highly publicized event which has caused me wonder whether the people of Provo are dealing with A Tale of Two Curtises?

In Spring 2006, Curtis changed his political affiliation to ‘unaffiliated’ without explanation or reason. However, shortly after this time Representative Jeff Alexander resigned from his State House seat and Curtis threw his hat, once again, into the race for a State-level political seat. But there was one major difference with this political race which drew heavy criticism towards John Curtis’ campaign: this time around, he was running as a Republican. An article I found in the Deseret News adequately sums up the concerns of this decision:

“The owner of Action Target, a Provo business, Curtis ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat in 2000 against state Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, but a far more recent act clearly miffed some delegates Tuesday night: Curtis didn't register as a Republican until Nov. 30, nearly two months after Alexander announced he would give up his seat in the Utah House and the same day news reports announced the process to replace him.

Alexander's resignation came a month before the November election, too late to replace him on the ballot, and he won what would have been a ninth term because he was unopposed. The process to replace him mirrored a county Republican convention, where a pool of candidates is whittled down to two through multiple ballots” (emphasis added). [6]

Within the same article, Curtis sought to console the concerns of the leery Republican Party by telling delegates of House District 62 that he was, indeed, a “lifelong Republican” who only switched over to the Democratic Party “in an effort to give Utah County voters more choices at the ballot box.” In addition, he added the following statement:

"I've been a Republican my whole life," he said. "I joined a dramatic attempt to align the Utah County Democratic Party with Utah County values, and we changed the county party platform to reflect personal responsibility and to a pro-life position. My values have never changed. My beliefs have never changed."

This is where I start to see a distinctive tale of two very different John Curtis’. According to Curtis’ words, he had always been a Republican and not strayed from the values that this party has held. Yet as we read previously in this article, Curtis said that there were two major points behind his decision to run as a Democrat for the State Senate: 1) the changes to the 2000 Democratic platform were in “close harmony” with his “core values,” and 2) his personal belief that “one-party dominance” of the Republican Party in Utah had been providing “unchallenged power” in the legislative process.

I think anyone can clearly see that Curtis’ values had, indeed, changed quite a bit during his six-year hiatus from the Republican Party. If we are to take Curtis’ opinions and beliefs during his tenure as a Democrat, coupled with his awakening of Republican values, then he was apparently on a mission to convert Democrats to the ‘right-side’ of the political spectrum. Or maybe Curtis was working as a double-agent to investigate both sides of the political spectrum in the State of Utah? Or did he just feel obligated to run as a Democrat and support their value statements and platform to provide a ballot initiative for political diversity? In his own words, Curtis stated that while he was a Democrat he “remained true to Republican values, principles and platforms” all while “successfully moving the Utah County Democratic Party to the right.” [7] How can you remain true to the values, principles and platforms of the Republican Party if you are a Democrat?

And now we find John Curtis running, yet again, for another political office. This time he is trying his luck with a non-partisan race. This fact alone is both convenient for Curtis but provides a huge disadvantage to the residents of Provo: Curtis is able to hide his background of political experimentation and self-awakening, all the while Provo residents must trust what John Curtis tells them regarding his background, philosophies, and, more importantly, his values. However, this is not a normal mayoral race that Curtis is attempting to obtain, as he is positioning himself to take the most powerful elected position in Utah County. Since Provo is the Seat of Utah County, the mayor of Provo has an extraordinary amount of political influence inside and outside of the city boundaries.

The question I am asking myself, and the people of Provo, is simply “Who is John Curtis?” He has a track record as both a Democrat and a Republican, and even though the Utah County Democratic Party has a platform which aligns closely to Curtis’ “core values”, he has always been, and always will be, “true to the Republican values, principles and platforms.” Is Curtis a Democrat, a Republican, or is he somewhere in-between the two parties? What are Curtis’ ‘core values’ that have caused him to jump between parties and run for two state-level political seats on two very different political parties? Has Curtis found his political identity well enough to be the solid, clear, and concise leader that Provo needs out its next mayor? Or will Curtis’ ambitious goals and platform fall flat once he is in office because of a change in platform and/or philosophy?

Will the real John Curtis please come forward?

[1] http://www.ourcampaigns.com/cgi-bin/r.cgi/CandidateDetail.html?&CandidateID=13693

[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20010331013421/http://johncurtis.org/

[3] http://web.archive.org/web/20010613210950/johncurtis.org/opponent.shtml

[4] http://web.archive.org/web/20010303183349/www.johncurtis.org/q&a.shtml

[5] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/975560/

[6] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/650219973/2-vie-for-Provo-House-seat.html

[7] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070104/ai_n17112851/?tag=content;col1

Introduction

If you have driven around Provo lately, you have probably seen a number of campaign signs flooding neighborhood streets and businesses. The sign you've probably seen the most of has the name "John Curtis" in large white letters against a blue and red background. As of September 15th, John Curtis, along with Utah Representative Steve Clark, are the two candidates for Provo City mayor.

The issues surrounding this current mayoral election are numerous and have already stirred up considerable ire amongst both parties. However, out of all the numerous newspaper articles I've read about both candidates, I have come to the conclusion that I really do not know anything about John Curtis. Steve Clark has been in the political arena for a lengthy period of time, so it is quite easy for the everyday person to find out about him. During the primaries he did gain 41% of the total votes and his campaign slogan of "Safety, Unity, Prosperity" can be seen everywhere, but who is he and what is he all about? John Curtis supporters are downright excited about their candidate, and comments on various newspapers extol that he is the "right choice" for Provo's mayor.

In my self-discovery process of who John Curtis is, I am hoping that both you and I can look at the issues Provo is facing, and critically analyze (not sling mud) the platform and positions of John Curtis to see if, indeed, he is the "right choice" for all of us.