Knocking heads? You bet

Tenacious? Yup. Irreverant? Maybe. Pollyanna? Probably that too (if I was just tenacious and irreverant, they'd take away my Civic Commons privileges).

But when someone reads my exhortations to people to get on the stick about something and urges me to "knock heads," I know I'm on to something.(You can see what that looks like at next week's afternoon City Club Forum on Thursday, February 2, 2012 - read more and register here.)

This time around, the "something" is to entice local governments to consider and try sharing services and consolidating service provision, sooner rather than later.

This imperative - to not ignore such options - has never been stronger, given that the needs that the local governments must satisfy and the funds they've got at their disposal don't match up. And there are no local government venture capital angels, the economy, no matter who are you listening to when it comes to the national political scene, is not going to be the answer anytime soon and SB5 is off the table; personnel costs will be trimmed only as the parties negotiate. Similarly, raising taxes, as a general rule, is not going to happen on any reliable basis for any number of reaons. And cities are loathe to laying off workers, short exigent circumstances.

Does this mean that the buzzwords of the last few years - regionalism - efficient government - collaboration - consolidation - sharing services - merger - offer silver bullets to communities?

LOL! (As in, duh and unequivocally no)

Does it mean that people have to lose jobs if local governments pursue any of these paths?

Nope - and there are recent examples in Ohio where minimizing and even eliminating that from happening has been prioritized.

Does it mean that a community's identity has to be compromised, lost or otherwise eliminated?

It does not. How many communities exist even in any one intact city, large or small, already? Nothing prevents that from being the case should communities do wholesale mergers.

So what's hindering the march toward more action, especially given the availability of Local Government Innovation Fund grant and loan money?

Honestly, the obstacle can be as simple as a fear of change, as Cleveland State University political science professor David Elkins describes in this podcast or a need to do more sharing of what's being done...in sharing. Likewise, having leaders prioritize sharing services as a way of meeting needs is also something that can propel communities toward using collaborative solutions routinely, rather than as an exception.

As colleagues of mine, in a variety of settings, will tell anyone, I'm usually the first to ask the contrarian questions - to express a concern that sounds like I doubt an idea, when in fact I'm just drawing out more information.  And the notion of local governments collaborating more is no different. I have plenty of reservations about it, even as I espouse the need to test it out.

But talk is cheap - and it certainly doesn't help a city's bottom line. Real dollars and funding and potential solutions can.

So I hope you'll come knock some heads (only figuratively of course, I like my Civic Commons privileges) next Thursday, February 2, 4:30pm, for an hour at the City Club. Joe Frolik from the Plain Dealer is moderating the discussion, so I'm supremely confident will see only the most refined and acceptable form of public head-knocking.

 

Like on Facebook

Tweet

Copyright © 2012 Jill Miller Zimon; available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.