Dan Rutherford (who I generally understand is a decent guy and a good State Senator) takes on exactly the wrong issue with the Treasurer’s office:
In the two years since the office switched from legal ads in newspapers to direct letters to those believed to own unclaimed assets in state hands, 4,741 Illinoisans got more than $5.5 million back, he said. A partnership could do even better, Mr. Giannoulias wrote.
But Mr. Rutherford isn’t exactly comfortable with allowing someone else to affix his signature to letters to residents of his district.
In a Jan. 28 note back to the treasurer, he wrote that no letter at all is needed, since those involved may already have received some notice. Instead, Mr. Rutherford said, he’s had great success using e-mail and his Web site, and in contacting the family and friends of those who may have moved away.
“While a taxpayer-funded direct-mail piece may be better exposure for the local legislator and the state treasurer, I suggest it is not the best use of taxpayer dollars,” Mr. Rutherford snipped.
I talked with the Treasurer’s office a bit today to get some background on this because I remembered an off the record conversation I had with Alexi about 1 1/2 years ago. The conversation as a whole was off the record, but I think I can give away this. Alexi was covering some of the issues he’s dealt with and a few reforms he instituted most of which I found interesting. He then went on to unclaimed property. I’m generally one who enjoys talking about the minutia of government and I love a good simple trick to save money. He completely lost me on this though. My eyes glazed over and my mind wandered. He kept going which is pretty unusual for a politician. Usually they move on quickly when they see someone’s mind wandered. He didn’t appear to notice. I was only saved by a phone call he got. It’s important to note, I’ve actually given local electeds lectures on technology management at their professional conferences.
The funny thing about Alexi–he’s a complete good government geek and can bore the hell out of you with policy. And that’s really hard to do with me. So when I saw the story today, I figured I should probably make a point about it.
So if you read through the law, it makes pretty clear the Treasurer has to do one of two things with unclaimed property: post a public notice in a newspaper or contact a person directly by letter. So Rutherford argues that mail is a waste of money and instead the newspaper notices are the best way to do it. I can sort of see how one might think that off hand, but if you are running for the office you are criticizing you ought to know before spouting off on it.
So according to the Treasurer’s office, it costs on average about $3.25 a name for the twice a year publication in all counties. Usually this is how it has been done because if something is unclaimed for 5 years, the person isn’t likely to live at the last address. Fair enough.
Additionally, as a legislative courtesy, a list was provided to General Assembly members of the property unclaimed in their district and the Members were encouraged to reach out to those they might know.
When Alexi got to office, his office decided to try something new and teamed up with direct mail companies to find updated addresses for the people with unclaimed property. The Treasurer’s Office then sent them a letter with a claim form attached satisfying the notification requirement. If the Treasurer’s Office can verify receipt, the Office doesn’t have to include the name in the newspaper announcements. The letters costs about $.70, thus saving nearly $2.55 per name. Now some, still cannot be verified as received and in that case there is a more costs in those cases, but overall there is still a significant savings of about $25,000 so far and the process has only been in place about 2 years (when I talked to Alexi about it, it was just underway). That isn’t going to fix the state budget deficit, but it’s good use of the taxpayer’s dollar.
So the letter Rutherford is complaining about is one that is mandated by law and he was provided an opportunity as a courtesy to be included on the mailing. One can be cynical about these things, but the reality is that if a more local General Assembly Member is on the letter, it probably gets slightly more notice than a typical form letter so I think that makes sense.
Rutherford blasts this effort:
In a Jan. 28 note back to the treasurer, he wrote that no letter at all is needed, since those involved may already have received some notice. Instead, Mr. Rutherford said, he’s had great success using e-mail and his Web site, and in contacting the family and friends of those who may have moved away.
“While a taxpayer-funded direct-mail piece may be better exposure for the local legislator and the state treasurer, I suggest it is not the best use of taxpayer dollars,” Mr. Rutherford snipped.
His web site and e-mail are certainly additional ways he may want to provide constituents information, but it doesn’t satisfy the law and you aren’t going to have e-mail for all of your constituents and most aren’t going to check out your web site. Both are good practice and something I’d expect out of Rutherford who is known for pretty good constituent service, but neither satisfy the law nor should they.
So far we know that Rutherford has blasted a cost savings program, doesn’t seem to understand the legal requirement, and he’s running for the office. Certainly no where near the comedy we are going to get out of Bill Brady, but not what I expect out of Rutherford.
To make matters worse for Rutherford, the program is more effective. The claim rate for the old system where legislators were given lists was around 1 percent. Of those sent direct mail–only people who the office thinks they can reach–there is about a 40 percent claim rate and over the last two years nearly $5.8 million has been returned to 5,000 people. In contrast, legislators who previously contacted people off the lists had about $6.7 million returned to around 6,500 people over 10 years. In the third year of this program, the claim rate will most likely surpass the 10 year total for the old method.
That’s good government. It doesn’t change the world by any means, but it does treat taxpayers money and property with the respect it deserves.
Yet Rutherford blasted the effort and essentially complained about a courtesy from the Treasurer’s Office. This isn’t a promising kick-off to the general election. It’s the kind of silliness that makes our national politics so dysfunctional.