What's in a name? Answer: whatever a man--or an organization--makes of it. Think of the the U.S. Marine Corps . . . Internal Revenue Service . . . Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . the Drug Enforcement Administration . . . Each carries a history with it, a reputation to uphold or restore.
So it is with the state's Department of Veterans Affairs, which is not to be confused with the scandal-ridden federal department by the same name, but all too often is.
The last crew of reformers in charge of the agency--like Cissy Rucker--did a fine, step-by-step job restoring its services and good name. But they had trouble escaping from the shadow cast by the federal agency's troubles. At one point they even considered changing the state outfit's name.
It's since dawned on the state agency's newest leaders that just changing its name won't change its nature. Change its substance, and its image will change soon enough. So they've wisely chosen to stick with the old name, and just keep plugging away one reform at a time. A sound decision.
Whatever you think about this subject, this much should be clear: Just throwing a lot of clichés at the problem won't help; nobody will be fooled by glib talk about "re-branding," "where the rubber meets the road," "mission statements," and other staples of today's executalk.
Why not just improve and add services one by one? Better to get back to business than try to sound like the cover story of Business Week.
In short, it's better to concentrate on substance than image.
Have faith: Improve the services offered, and the image will improve soon enough.
Editorial on 04/26/2015