We've all run into situations where an organization decides on a solution before fully diagnosing the problem. Not surprisingly, it doesn't work. One of the biggest conclusions I see organizations jump to is staffing. It's a natural progression: something fails, everyone is overwhelmed, so the answer must be more people. But that's rarely my first conclusion. Before hiring, restructuring, retraining, or, above all, buying new software, it's essential to understand how the wor

Most exclusion doesn’t announce itself. It appears as: Forms that assume everyone has the same background knowledge. Office hours that require someone to miss work. Websites that only function on a desktop computer. Public notices written in language that large portions of the community can’t understand. Meetings held in locations that residents can’t access. Hiring processes that reward people who already know the unwritten rules. These are often treated as inconveniences, b

When organizations feel pressure, one of the first instincts is to add people. Sometimes that is exactly right. But frequently the problem only looks like staffing. If workflows are unclear, ownership is fuzzy, tools are outdated, and priorities shift daily, adding headcount will only increase confusion. I’ve seen teams grow without improving outcomes because the underlying process never changed. A practical step before hiring is to map the work: where it starts, where it slo

Ballston Spa’s FOI debate gets at a problem I see often: agencies talk about records access as though the main issue is requester behavior, when the real issue is usually process. Volume is unpredictable. Capacity is limited. Training is uneven. When agencies are not set up to efficiently handle routine requests, legal review, delays, and frustration multiply. All of that is real. But FOI is still a right. It can’t be treated as abuse simply because compliance is inconvenient