Morton J. Marcus, an economist, author, and speaker, formerly with the Indiana University Kelley School of Business

I was sitting with my back to the door, watching the deer consume urban gardens when she entered.  "Mr. Marcus?" she asked, in a voice that suggested the lower range of a clarinet.
 
"Yes," I replied, swiveling in my swivel chair.
 
"You don't know me," she said.  "My name is Arlene Amour."
 
"I can understand that," I said, examining her with my eyes as would an eagle swirling over his prey.  I liked what I saw.
 
"I want you to write about Governor Daniels' plan to privatize state government," she pleaded.  "He's going to ruin the state."
 
"Have a seat. I think you're straining your restraints," I growled softly with lechery in my heart.  "I don't happen to agree with you about privatization.  Except for a few government services (police, the judicial system, and legislative functions) privatization can make lots of sense.  Even the governor's office could be privatized, if it were done properly."
 
A tear started to form in her eye.  She dabbed at it with a delicate hankie.  "I had so hoped you would blast Daniels for his anti-government sentiments.  You're known as a critic of most everything.  Why not privatization?"
 
I stood to get a better view of the pendant resting on her chest.  "What do we want?" I began.  "We want a government that offers the highest quality of services for the lowest cost possible. Right?"
 
"Right," Arlene sniveled.
 
"Then why do we care whether it is a private company or a public agency that delivers the service.  The question is 'Does the same high quality job get done at the lowest possible cost?'  That cost must include inconvenience to customers/citizens.
 
"The Daniels administration has taken some important steps toward figuring out what state agencies should do.  You'll find a report right on the Governor's home page that spells out performance standards and achievements in 2005 for three dozen agencies.
 
"You and I can argue easily that they are not measuring the right things, that their metrics are a mess.  We certainly can contest the writing style which is sycophantic."
 
"That's what I mean," she interrupted, "they are sick, almost psychotic in wanting to tear down government."
 
"No," I insisted, "the report flatters the governor and reads like a campaign document rather than an objective study.  Nonetheless,
this process and the resulting document are very necessary first steps to improve government services.  We can not run government (with public or private employees) unless we have a clear understanding of what they are expected to do.
 
"Once we can make that known, clearly and publicly, then we can move on to asking 'Who can do the best job at what cost?'  It might be a private company, a government agency, or a not-for-profit corporation.  All must be given an opportunity to compete for the task.
 
"If I have a disagreement with the Daniels administration, it is that they are drawing up contracts that extend over too long a period of time.  Yes, we want stability in services.  Yes, it takes a while to get up to speed and that should be an advantage for existing government agencies.  But the state must be able to change performance standards and get out of contracts easily.   If we have long contracts, it may not cover changing circumstances and could allow succeeding governors to say, 'Hey, not my fault. It was the other guy'."
 
"I'm disappointed," Arlene pouted.  "I was depending on your reputation as a contrarian."
 
"Listen," I said as if I had a sudden impulse, "let's go to Miles Archer's Bar and I'll tell you all about me and you can tell me all about you."
 
"NO, I've a reputation to preserve," Arlene said as firmly as she closed the door.
 
I went back to studying the deer.