By James W. Dolan

While government tends to give lip service to efficiency there is too little of it in a system where being more productive runs counter to political expediency and a culture that operates on the need for additional resources rather than doing more with less. It doesn't need to be efficient; where else can you go?

There are pockets of efficiency and some who strive creatively to address problems, in my years as a judge too often the complaint was: "We don't have enough judges, probation officers, assistant clerks, court officers or clericals." I believe that attitude is pervasive throughout government.

Becoming more efficient requires the capacity to be self-critical and openness to new ideas disruptive of the status quo. Without the fiscal incentives that operate in the private sector there is little motivation to sacrifice in order to do things better.

It is easier to lay off responsibility for institutional failings on funding sources - most notably the legislature. Coupled with that is the real need of legislators to find jobs for constituents. These two streams converge creating a compelling rationale for adding more jobs.

I confess I'm not as disturbed by that reality as I once was, perhaps because I now recognize the inevitability of the process. Courts and other governmental institutions will always ask for more resources and in the absence of a fiscal crisis, the legislature will respond. The generosity of that response to some degree will be commensurate with the influence the legislature has in who gets what jobs.

Rather than questioning the merits of such requests, the legislature acting in its own interest, accepts the need and adds positions. After all, people need jobs and government has a legitimate responsibility to respond to that need. If in so doing some unnecessary jobs are created, better to err on the side of employment.

Also, if in the course of promoting employment, constituents can be helped, so be it. While helping those in need, why should I overlook those who helped me? That attitude is reasonable and inevitable in this and probably any system of government.

One cannot and should not seek to transplant the greed that fuels private sector efficiencies such as downsizing, lay-offs, office or plant closings and outsourcing into the public sector. If government became brutally efficient, what would become of all those persons who lost their jobs or did not get a job?

So how do we get the private sector to have a heart and the public sector to have a brain when it comes to efficiency? We pick government managers with basic management skills who try to better utilize their personnel, set and enforce standards of performance and recognize and reward talent. Given the absence of fiscal incentives, recognition can take the form of compliments, achievement awards and advancement.

There are many government managers adept at showing their appreciation for outstanding performance. They are the ones who first try to help themselves. But there are others less engaged who know little about the day-to-day operations of their departments and lack both the understanding and initiative necessary to adopt even rudimentary efficiencies. They look to blame others and turn to the legislature for more help.

Too often the inefficient are rewarded with additional personnel while others struggle to do better. It is easier to ask for help than to demand improvement of both oneself and others. The well-connected get help but more doesn't necessarily mean better. Sometimes comparable courts with fewer personnel perform better than others with larger staffs. The difference is management, motivation and standards.

Since in Massachusetts the Legislature approves the budget of each individual court, personnel decisions are made without regard to the needs of the system as a whole. By funding specific jobs in individual courts, the legislature and not court administrators determine the allocation of personnel within the system. Often positions not requested by trial court administrators are funded. This leads to fundamental disparities.

Well-connected courts without the need for additional personnel will prevail against less influential but more needy courts. What should be administrative decisions are made by the legislature often without regard to the wishes of those charged with running the system.

So long as we have human beings with relatives and friends who need jobs, we will have patronage. It operates to one degree or another in getting into schools, joining clubs, getting tickets or reservations and in almost everything else where we need someone to help us get something we or someone close to us wants. Life's unfair, some people have connections and others don't.

It then becomes a question more of control and balance than eliminating an "evil" practice. Legislators should have the opportunity to promote qualified candidates for court positions but only after those charged with managing the whole system have determined the job is necessary.

(James W. Dolan is a retired Dorchester District Court judge who now practices law.)