Daily Covers Served · 28 Days
28 days. One metric. One turn.
The turn was clear in Week 3.
Week 4 was already too late.
Read the turn. Not the crash.
67Mean
3Signal pts
↓ 44%MA drop
Metriq.OneDoes it matter? — Measure it‼️
Demo Stack · Local Government Unit
Running a Local Government Administration — and Demonstrating That Public Services Are Actually Being Delivered
A plain language deployment guide for a local government unit. Fill in the MCA section for your own administration. The stack structure and all 54 indicators are already built in. Works without electricity or internet. Everything is collected on paper by the people closest to the work.
The Idea
A local government that cannot show what it delivered is depending on political goodwill instead of evidence. Residents pay for services through taxes, fees, and compliance obligations. They have a right to see — in plain numbers — whether those services were actually delivered. Oversight bodies have a mandate to verify it. Evidence is what makes that possible.
1
Resident has a need or obligationA permit, a complaint, a service request, an infrastructure problem. The need is recorded at the point it arrives.
2
Administration processes the needThe correct department receives it. The correct procedure is followed. The responsible person is identified.
3
Service is delivered at the committed standardOn time. To the correct person. Documented at the point of delivery.
4
Record is kept by the person who performed the serviceNot reconstructed later. Not assembled from memory at audit time. Recorded on the day.
5
Report is produced from the evidenceBecause the evidence was collected all along. No scramble at oversight time. No narrative where data should be.
6
Resident and oversight body can both verify what happened.This only works if the service was documented when it happened — not after someone asked.
Most local government failures are not caused by lack of intention. They are caused by the absence of a system that records what was committed, what was delivered, and what the gap was. Without that record, problems are invisible until they become crises — and accountability becomes a matter of opinion.
MCA — Context (Fill in for your administration)
Fill in this section once, at the start of deployment. This is not a report — it is the foundation that makes every measurement meaningful. Do not use geographic names or the names of specific officials or agencies.
| What the administration does | Delivers mandated public services to residents, manages public funds and infrastructure, maintains legal and administrative compliance, and represents community interests in governance. |
| Who is involved | Elected officials who set policy and approve budgets. Department heads who direct service delivery. Frontline staff who deliver services and collect evidence. Residents who receive services and have complaints or requests. Oversight bodies that review compliance and performance. |
| What conditions it operates in | Geographic coverage of the jurisdiction, infrastructure limitations, connectivity, seasonal factors affecting service access, applicable laws and regulations, number and type of mandated services. |
| What resources it has | Approved budget for this period, filled and vacant staff positions, physical infrastructure and equipment inventory, vehicles and transport available, office and storage facilities. |
| What has gone wrong before | Services delivered but not documented. Complaints received but not tracked to resolution. Budget spent on items not traceable to a service obligation. Audit findings not addressed. Infrastructure deterioration not caught before failure. |
| The main challenge right now | State as an observable condition — something you can see and count — not as a feeling or a political statement. |
| What the administration is working toward | A measurable improvement condition connected to one of the six performance surfaces below. Not a pledge — a condition that can be confirmed or denied by evidence. |
The Stack — 6 CSI · 18 Modules · 54 PI · 6 CRI
DESIGNATION BRIDGE
Every service committed to residents in the annual plan is delivered at the agreed standard, documented at the point of delivery, and traceable in a report that any oversight body can verify without assistance.
PI
What to count
How to collect it
CSI-1
Stability
Is the administration financially sound — revenue collected, expenditure within approved parameters, and financial records producible on demand?
An administration that spends faster than revenue arrives, cannot trace expenditure to approved budget lines, or produces financial reports only when pressured by an audit is permanently vulnerable. Financial stability is the foundation that makes all other service delivery possible.
MOD-1.1
Revenue Collection
Is revenue arriving as planned?
PI-1.1.1
Local revenue collected this period vs. target — what percentage is in hand?
Revenue register — collections logged by date, source, and amount
PI-1.1.2
Number of revenue streams more than 30 days behind the collection schedule this period
Revenue tracking sheet — each stream compared to schedule each period
PI-1.1.3
Number of weeks the administration could meet core service obligations at current spending rate if no new transfers arrived
Finance officer calculation — cash reserve divided by average weekly core service cost
MOD-1.2
Budget Compliance
Is spending within approved parameters?
PI-1.2.1
Number of budget line items where actual spend exceeded allocation by more than 10% this period
Budget tracking sheet — variances flagged and signed off each period
PI-1.2.2
Number of expenditure items this period that cannot be traced to an approved budget line
Finance record — every expenditure coded to a budget line at point of payment
PI-1.2.3
Percentage of approved budget committed or spent by mid-period vs. the planned spending rate
Budget tracking sheet — actual vs. planned spend reviewed each period
MOD-1.3
Financial Reporting
Are records complete and submittable?
PI-1.3.1
Number of financial reports submitted on time to oversight bodies this period vs. total required
Reporting calendar — submission date recorded against deadline for each report
PI-1.3.2
Number of audit findings from the last review that remain unresolved
Audit response register — findings listed with assigned action, responsible person, and resolution date
PI-1.3.3
Number of financial records requested by council or oversight bodies this period that could not be produced within 5 working days
Records request log — requests noted on arrival with fulfilment date
CRI-1
Is the administration collecting revenue as planned, spending within approved parameters, and producing financial records that any oversight body can verify without assistance?
CSI-2
Safety
Can the administration keep delivering services if a department head leaves, infrastructure fails, or a funding transfer is delayed?
Administrations that depend on one person, one piece of equipment, or one budget transfer have no protection against the disruptions that happen in every operating environment. Safety is built before the disruption — not after residents notice the service has stopped.
MOD-2.1
Service Continuity
Do mandated services keep running under pressure?
PI-2.1.1
Number of mandated services that experienced unplanned interruption this period vs. total mandated services
Service delivery log — interruptions recorded with date, cause, and duration
PI-2.1.2
Number of service disruptions this period where a documented contingency procedure was activated
Contingency log — activation date, procedure used, and outcome recorded
PI-2.1.3
Number of critical service functions that have only one person trained to perform them
Department head review — single-point-of-failure functions listed and updated each quarter
MOD-2.2
Staff and Capacity
Are the people needed to deliver services in place?
PI-2.2.1
Number of filled positions vs. approved staffing establishment this period
HR register — filled and vacant positions reviewed each period against approved establishment
PI-2.2.2
Number of department heads or supervisors who left this period vs. total at start of period
HR register — departures recorded on the day with reason and effective date
PI-2.2.3
Number of service delivery failures this period attributed to staff shortage or absence
Service delivery log — cause of failure recorded at point of occurrence
MOD-2.3
Infrastructure Readiness
Is the equipment and facility base functional?
PI-2.3.1
Number of critical infrastructure items confirmed operational and at required standard vs. total in the asset register
Asset inspection record — condition noted each period for items rated critical to service delivery
PI-2.3.2
Number of reported infrastructure defects this period not addressed within the agreed response time
Defect log — report date, response date, and resolution date recorded for each item
PI-2.3.3
Number of services that could not be delivered this period because required equipment or facility was unavailable
Service delivery log — unavailability reason and affected service recorded at point of failure
CRI-2
Can the administration absorb a departure, an infrastructure failure, or a funding delay and continue delivering essential services without an unplanned gap that residents experience?
CSI-3
Continuity
Do residents still trust the administration to act in their interest — and do oversight bodies still have confidence in its governance?
An administration that loses resident trust loses its political mandate. One that loses oversight confidence loses its operating latitude. Both are earned continuously — through visible accountability, responsive governance, and evidence that decisions are being implemented.
MOD-3.1
Resident Trust and Engagement
Are residents choosing to engage?
PI-3.1.1
Number of public consultations or community meetings held this period vs. number required by charter or annual plan
Meeting register — date, venue, and attendance count recorded for each session
PI-3.1.2
Number of resident complaints resolved within the administration's published response timeframe vs. total received this period
Complaints log — complaint date, response date, and resolution outcome recorded for each item
PI-3.1.3
Number of residents who participated in a public process this period vs. last period — trend up or down?
Participation register — count of participants per public activity, compared period to period
MOD-3.2
Governance Compliance
Is the administration being run as agreed?
PI-3.2.1
Number of council or governing body sessions held on schedule this period vs. number required
Meeting register — date held and quorum confirmed, recorded each session
PI-3.2.2
Number of council resolutions from previous periods that remain unimplemented without a recorded reason
Decision register — open items reviewed at each council session with status updated
PI-3.2.3
Number of governance decisions this period communicated to the public within the agreed timeframe
Communications log — publication date recorded against decision date for each item
MOD-3.3
Oversight and Accountability
Are compliance obligations being met?
PI-3.3.1
Number of compliance requirements due this period met on time vs. total required
Compliance calendar — deadline and submission date recorded for each requirement
PI-3.3.2
Number of oversight visits or reviews this period that resulted in a written finding requiring corrective action
Oversight register — visit date, body, and outcome recorded; findings tracked to resolution
PI-3.3.3
Number of corrective actions from previous oversight findings implemented vs. total outstanding
Corrective action register — action, responsible person, target date, and completion date recorded
CRI-3
Do residents choose to engage with the administration's public processes — and do oversight bodies find its governance traceable and compliant when they look?
CSI-4
Capability
Does the administration have the trained staff, functional infrastructure, and documented procedures to deliver services at the required standard?
Intention without capability produces effort without result. An administration whose staff are untrained for their roles, whose infrastructure is unmaintained, and whose procedures exist only in the heads of a few long-serving employees is one departure or one equipment failure away from a service gap.
MOD-4.1
Staff Competency
Are staff trained for the roles they perform?
PI-4.1.1
Number of staff in service-critical roles who have completed required training or certification vs. total in those roles
Training register — completion date and certification reference recorded per staff member per role
PI-4.1.2
Number of service delivery errors or resident complaints this period attributed to staff knowledge or skill gaps
Complaints and error log — cause of error recorded at point of investigation
PI-4.1.3
Number of service-critical positions where no cross-training or succession plan exists
Department head review — positions assessed each quarter; gaps listed and assigned for resolution
MOD-4.2
Infrastructure Condition
Is the asset base maintained and functional?
PI-4.2.1
Number of infrastructure assets rated functional and at required service standard vs. total in the asset register
Asset register — condition rating updated at each scheduled inspection
PI-4.2.2
Number of planned maintenance activities completed this period vs. total scheduled in the maintenance plan
Maintenance log — planned date and completion date recorded for each activity
PI-4.2.3
Number of emergency infrastructure repairs this period that could have been prevented by scheduled maintenance
Maintenance log — emergency repairs flagged and root cause noted at point of repair
MOD-4.3
Documented Procedures
Are service procedures written down and accessible?
PI-4.3.1
Number of service delivery procedures that are documented and physically accessible to the staff performing them vs. total service areas
Procedure inventory — one record per service area confirming document exists and location known to staff
PI-4.3.2
Number of times this period a service was delayed because a required procedure or form was not available to the staff member
Service delivery log — delay cause recorded at point of occurrence
PI-4.3.3
Number of procedures reviewed and updated this period to reflect current requirements vs. total due for review
Procedure register — last review date and next due date recorded for each procedure
CRI-4
Does the administration have trained people, functional infrastructure, and documented procedures for each mandated service — confirmed by evidence, not asserted from memory?
CSI-5
Actor Orientation
Are the people and organisations the administration depends on — staff, elected officials, and partner agencies — aligned on what needs to happen and each performing their role?
A local government depends on more than its own staff. Services are delivered through coordination between departments, between administration and elected officials, and between the administration and partner agencies. When any of these relationships is misaligned, the service gap lands on a resident who did nothing wrong.
MOD-5.1
Internal Alignment
Do departments understand what they are trying to achieve?
PI-5.1.1
Number of department heads who can state the administration's current priority objectives without reference to documents
Coordinator check — verbal confirmation requested at each department head meeting; result noted
PI-5.1.2
Number of inter-departmental coordination failures this period that caused a measurable service gap or delay for a resident
Service delivery log — coordination failure noted as cause at point of resolution
PI-5.1.3
Number of departments where frontline staff can connect their daily task to a specific service obligation in the annual plan
Department head confirmation — assessed at team briefings each period; result recorded
MOD-5.2
Partner and Agency Coordination
Are external partners delivering their part?
PI-5.2.1
Number of joint activities or services with partner agencies delivered as planned this period vs. total committed
Joint activity log — each commitment recorded with planned date and actual delivery outcome
PI-5.2.2
Number of partner commitments not fulfilled on time this period that directly affected service delivery to residents
Partner performance log — failures recorded with impact on service noted at point of occurrence
PI-5.2.3
Number of coordination meetings with key partner agencies held this period vs. number scheduled
Meeting register — date, attendees, and outcome recorded for each partner coordination session
MOD-5.3
Elected Official and Administration Alignment
Are policy decisions translating into operational action?
PI-5.3.1
Number of council-approved priorities that have a corresponding operational plan with an assigned responsible person and a timeline
Operational plan register — one entry per approved priority confirming plan exists, owner named, timeline set
PI-5.3.2
Number of council decisions this period implemented by the administration within the agreed timeframe
Decision register — decision date and implementation date recorded; delays noted with reason
PI-5.3.3
Number of policy or budget decisions delayed this period due to unresolved disagreement between council and administration
Decision register — delay cause recorded at point of postponement; resolution date tracked
CRI-5
Are staff, officials, and partner agencies aligned and each performing their defined role in service delivery — confirmed by what was delivered, not by what was intended?
CSI-6
Process Flow
Are the administrative processes that connect a resident's need to a delivered service clear, moving without avoidable blockage, and producing a traceable record?
A service that exists in policy but cannot be accessed by a resident because the internal process is unclear, broken, or dependent on a single person's knowledge is not a service — it is a commitment that has not been kept. Process Flow measures whether the pathway from need to outcome is open.
MOD-6.1
Service Request Processing
Are requests moving from receipt to resolution?
PI-6.1.1
Number of resident service requests processed within the administration's published response time this period vs. total received
Request log — receipt date and resolution date recorded for each request
PI-6.1.2
Number of service requests this period that required more than two inter-department handoffs before being resolved
Request log — handoffs noted as each transfer occurs; count per request recorded at resolution
PI-6.1.3
Number of service requests closed this period without a documented outcome on file
Request log — closure requires a recorded outcome; incomplete closures flagged in weekly review
MOD-6.2
Document and Record Flow
Are documents moving and findable when needed?
PI-6.2.1
Number of administrative processes delayed this period because a required document was missing or could not be located
Process log — delay cause recorded at point of occurrence with document type noted
PI-6.2.2
Number of permits, certificates, or official documents issued on time vs. total applications received this period
Issuance register — application date and issue date recorded for each document
PI-6.2.3
Number of document requests from other agencies or oversight bodies fulfilled within the required timeframe this period
Records request log — request date, required response date, and fulfilment date recorded
MOD-6.3
Bottleneck Identification
Are process blockages being found and addressed?
PI-6.3.1
Number of process steps this period identified by staff as causing regular delays — compared to the previous period
Staff feedback log — bottlenecks reported at team briefings; list updated each period
PI-6.3.2
Number of identified bottlenecks that have a documented improvement action assigned vs. total on the current list
Bottleneck register — each item has an assigned responsible person and target resolution date
PI-6.3.3
Number of process improvements implemented this period that resulted in a measurable reduction in processing time or steps
Improvement log — before and after processing time recorded; improvement confirmed before item is closed
CRI-6
Are residents moving from need to documented outcome without avoidable delays — and are process blockages being identified, assigned, and resolved rather than accumulated?
No Electricity. No Internet. No Problem.
Every number in this system can be collected by the person closest to the evidence, recorded on paper at the point it happens, and submitted when a connection is available. The measurement works because the discipline is in the form — not in the technology.
| Paper Instrument | What it records | Who fills it and when |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue Register | Collection date, source, amount received, official receipt number | Finance officer — on the day each collection is received |
| Budget Tracking Sheet | Budget line, allocated amount, expenditure to date, variance | Finance officer — updated each period after expenditures are posted |
| Service Delivery Log | Service type, date delivered, resident name or reference, staff responsible, outcome | Frontline staff — on the day the service is delivered |
| Complaints and Requests Log | Date received, nature of complaint or request, assigned staff, response date, resolution outcome | Receiving staff — on the day the complaint or request arrives |
| Asset Inspection Record | Asset description, inspection date, condition rating, defects noted, action required | Responsible officer — at each scheduled inspection and after any reported defect |
| Meeting Register | Date, type of meeting, attendance, decisions made, actions assigned | Secretary or coordinator — during each session |
| Decision Register | Decision date, resolution number, responsible implementer, implementation deadline, completion date | Administrator — updated after each council session and at each review |
| Compliance Calendar | Requirement name, oversight body, due date, submission date, outcome | Administrator — maintained continuously; reviewed weekly |
| Training Register | Staff name, role, training completed, date, certification reference if applicable | HR officer or department head — recorded on completion of each training activity |
When You Present This — What to Say
1
A local government that cannot show what it delivered is depending on political goodwill instead of evidence.
Residents pay for services. They have a right to know whether those services were delivered. Oversight bodies have a mandate to verify it. This system makes both possible — not through narrative or photography, but through traceable numbers collected at the point the work happens.
2
Evidence collected at the time of service is worth ten times evidence reconstructed at audit time.
When a frontline staff member records what happened on the day it happened — with a date, a name, and a reference — that record is credible. When the same information is assembled from memory six months later because an auditor asked, it is not. This system builds the audit file while the work is happening.
3
These numbers protect the staff as well as the administration.
When a service was disrupted because equipment failed, the cause is recorded — not the performance of the person who was trying to deliver. When a partner agency did not fulfil a commitment, that is documented. The record shows what happened, without placing blame where it does not belong.
4
The six CSIs are not a checklist — they are six questions about survival.
Is the administration financially sound? Can it absorb a disruption? Does it still have the trust of residents and oversight bodies? Does it have the capability to deliver? Are the people it depends on aligned? Are its processes open? An administration that cannot answer all six with evidence is operating on assumptions — and assumptions run out.
5
All of this works without electricity or internet.
Paper registers, a complaints log, a maintenance record, a compliance calendar, and a meeting register. That is the whole system. The person closest to the evidence records it on the day. The coordinator aggregates it each period. The report follows naturally — because the evidence was already there.