Leadership and Trust as Obstacles to Regional and Merged Services and Governments
There are many obstacles to local governments working together or
merging in order to provide services at lower costs to taxpayers, but
the one that is hardest to put a finger on is the self-interest of
officials. Or at least that's how I read a new report from Wisconsin's <a href="http://www.localgovinstitute.org/" target="”_blank”">Local Government Institute</a>
called <a href="http://www.localgovinstitute.org/sites/default/files/LGI%20Roadmap%20Fi…; target="”_blank”"><i>A
Roadmap for Government Transformation</i></a>.<br>
<br>
This excellent report looks at the factors involved in communities
sharing services or changing their governmental structures (or, more
commonly, not doing either of these things, despite the advantages).
Most of the factors are legal and economic, e.g., the tax structure,
state revenue sharing, consolidation laws.<br>
<br>
<b>Leadership</b><br>
But there are also factors that cannot so easily be pictured in the
report's many graphs. One is referred to as "leadership."<br>
<ul>
Leadership is a difficult factor to develop a proactive framework for,
or to plan for in advance. It is almost entirely dependent upon the
actions of individuals to add value in a moment of decision, but it is
vital to a successful cooperative effort.<br>
</ul>
The report defines leadership as moving beyond “turf” issues, as well
as taking the first step to start the conversation. But the report says
nothing about why turf issues are so important, or why it is so hard to
start the conversation. And it has little to say about solutions.
"Perhaps," it suggests, "the most feasible tool available at the
systemic level is to recognize and reward examples of [leadership]."<br>
<br>
A quote from a focus group participant points at one concrete problem:
"You can really get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit."
When a bunch of politicians sit in a room and work out regional
solutions to problems, or discuss merging of fire, waste, or water
services, for example, no one gets the credit for the savings, while
each one gets the blame for any problems that occur as well as for the
perceived harm to the community.<br>
<br>
An official needs to be relatively selfless in order to take the lead
in regional or merged solutions to problems, unless taking the lead is
seen as a stepping stone to state office. The reason is that these
solutions mean the loss of power and, sometimes, the loss of one's own
position.<br>
<br>
Rocking the community boat can also cause a lot of headaches, because
people are essentially conservative, embracing the fire department or
the village government they have, even if they are inefficient and
overly expensive. "Turf" is about more than just a community's tax
base. We humans are territorial, and the rationality of our boundaries
is not a principal concern.<br>
<br>
<b>Trust</b><br>
In addition to lack of leadership, lack of trust among officials from
different jurisdictions (especially counties vs. cities) is a big
factor in preventing regional and merged solutions. The report has an
excellent recommendation for dealing with trust issues: "Build trust by
cooperating on limited initiatives before tackling the tougher issues."
It's important to develop working relationships. Often this is done in
regional organizations that already exist, sometimes focused on a
specific service, sometimes dealing more generally with regional
issues. But such organizations can undermine trust just as easily as
establish it. Outsize egos have a tendency not to get along, and
politicians have a tendency to form cliques based on party, position,
or personal relationship (friendship and animosity).<br>
<br>
Gaining trust among officials from different jurisdictions is nearly as
important as gaining trust among citizens. And as with trust in
government, where pursuing one's personal interest undermines trust,
focusing on the interest of your jurisdiction to the detriment of the
interests of other jurisdictions (that is, in an uncompromising manner)
is a sure-fire way to guarantee distrust.<br>
<br>
Another way to guarantee distrust is a lack of transparency, for
example, secret deals on the side with certain jurisdictions.<br>
<br>
These are not technically conflict of interest issues, but there are
parallels worthy of noting.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---