Part of what the idea needs—and was impossible for Jeroen to say in the context of Nathan’s post due to the length limit—is a ramp-up plan and limiting principles to prevent it from becoming more burdensome than it is worth. So it’s not realistic to implement this in a single year. As far as limiting principles: once there has been an explanation for “we spent X on the community health team and here’s a explanation why,” we should not expect another public explanation unless that funding line significantly changes (or perhaps all significant line items come up for re-explanation at 5-10 year intervals). Or perhaps there should be a first-stage listing of expenses, with the time/resources spent to publish a detailed rationale for most of them only if enough stakeholders request that in a poll.
The “detailed expected value calculation” may be a bit much for certain expenses. I realize it is heretical to say so, but not all organization expenses are subject to rigorous cost/benefit analyses.
Part of what the idea needs—and was impossible for Jeroen to say in the context of Nathan’s post due to the length limit—is a ramp-up plan and limiting principles to prevent it from becoming more burdensome than it is worth. So it’s not realistic to implement this in a single year. As far as limiting principles: once there has been an explanation for “we spent X on the community health team and here’s a explanation why,” we should not expect another public explanation unless that funding line significantly changes (or perhaps all significant line items come up for re-explanation at 5-10 year intervals). Or perhaps there should be a first-stage listing of expenses, with the time/resources spent to publish a detailed rationale for most of them only if enough stakeholders request that in a poll.
The “detailed expected value calculation” may be a bit much for certain expenses. I realize it is heretical to say so, but not all organization expenses are subject to rigorous cost/benefit analyses.