Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Performance Indicators topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners agree to hear pitches on performance-indicator programs, express data-security caution
Summary
Board directed staff to invite presentations from firms on key performance indicators while stressing caution about external access to county data and asking for internal alternatives and examples from other jurisdictions.
Kootenai County commissioners agreed to solicit presentations from a small number of firms about establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) for county operations, while expressing concern about data security and the need for widespread buy-in among elected officials.
The board discussed whether to develop performance reporting internally or hire an outside contractor. One commissioner said an outside firm could bring specialized experience and examples from other jurisdictions, while another voiced concern about giving external contractors access to county data, citing potential cybersecurity risks. "Data breaches. Typically, contractors with government agencies are very high profile targets for data, hackers and whatnot," a commissioner said when explaining the caution about external access.
Commissioners asked that any firm invited to present show concrete examples and measurable results and offered to consider inviting presentations to an elected-officials meeting so other officeholders can assess buy-in. The board also stressed that if an outside firm is invited, staff should check references with other jurisdictions that have implemented similar programs and seek evidence that the investment produced measurable improvements.
Why it matters: Commissioners said they regularly make budget and staffing decisions based on anecdotal accounts and want better numeric metrics to inform spending and long-term planning for the county's roughly $120,000,000 organization.
Board response and next steps The board directed staff to arrange presentations from a couple of firms and suggested involving elected officials in the review. Commissioners said the presentations should include examples of outcomes and references from other jurisdictions; they reserved further judgment until seeing demonstrable evidence of value and assurances about data handling.
Ending Commissioners agreed to hear pitches and to proceed cautiously only if firms demonstrate measurable benefits and account for data security and county-wide buy-in.
