Published October 29, 2008
GMAP: no good for campaigns?
They said it couldn't be done, but I may have written an article about the governor's signature program, GMAP, without doing lasting damage to the English language. The general issue explored: If all these good-government types say Gregoire’s efforts rule, why is she having a tough time with voters? You can read it here. The gist is up high:
Several polls show Gregoire in a tight race with her rival from the 2004 election, despite the success of her signature program, the Government Management Accountability and Performance Program.
"When you look at what the chief has been doing over at the (Washington State) Patrol with reduction of fatalities on the highways, GMAP is a mainstay of what he's been doing. That's lives saved," she said. "But you know what? It's not sexy to put it on a bumper sticker and in a 24-second ad and say 'Let's talk GMAP.'"
Rossi said Gregoire has spent too much money in the past four years, including expanding her office with the 15-person, $2.5 million-per-year program.
"You can get good information, have it in front of you and still make bad decisions," he said. "You can have all the people you want around you and telling you things, but if you're going to do things in purely a political nature instead of what's right, that's a problem."
Of course, to accomplish this feat, I had to avoid the words "target," "measurable," "opportunity," and "process," all of which are gateway words to data nerddom. (OK, I used "process" but I was quoting Jason Mercier, who suffers from prolonged GMAP exposure.) Also, very few numbers in the story, or a detailed explanation of GMAP, the reading of which would … zzzzz
"When you look at what the chief has been doing over at the (Washington State) Patrol with reduction of fatalities on the highways, GMAP is a mainstay of what he's been doing. That's lives saved," she said. "But you know what? It's not sexy to put it on a bumper sticker and in a 24-second ad and say 'Let's talk GMAP.'"
Rossi said Gregoire has spent too much money in the past four years, including expanding her office with the 15-person, $2.5 million-per-year program.
"You can get good information, have it in front of you and still make bad decisions," he said. "You can have all the people you want around you and telling you things, but if you're going to do things in purely a political nature instead of what's right, that's a problem."