Dispatch: Check the arithmetic

This is an extremely well written editorial posted Thursday, Sept. 9, by the Columbus Dispatch. The points expressed here should be noted by all of us here in Darke County.

Editorial: Check the arithmetic

Consolidation of local governments is a worthy goal where savings are real

The Columbus Dispatch

Ohio's local governments need to find more ways to improve efficiency by collaborating, but the efforts should be based on demonstrable cost savings, and there should be no rush to ask voters to eliminate elected offices.


The Ohio Commission on Local Government Reform and Collaboration, asked by the General Assembly to recommend ways for governments to work together, has issued a set of recommendations that doesn't entirely please the folks who want to see more local-government collaboration or those who defend the status quo.

The issues addressed by the panel are compelling: Ohio has 88 counties, 938 municipalities, 1,308 townships and 612 school districts. That adds up to about 20,000 elected officials, many more bureaucrats and a lot of duplicated and overlapping effort.

For example, the Westerville City School District serves its 13,900 students with $3.3 million in central-office-administration spending, while in Tuscarawas County, eight separate school districts with similar total enrollment - 14,200 students - spend $5.7 million for the same services.

For schools or government, combining efforts on functions such as purchasing, food service, dispatching and transportation could be the low-hanging fruit of improving efficiency, while keeping intact the political independence that some taxpayers value.

In Wayne County, the Orrville and Rittman school districts opted in 2007 to combine their central offices. The moved saved $270,000 in its first full year, and officials hope to increase the savings by merging more services.

The commission's most controversial recommendations - addressing ways to change the structure of local governments - demand close scrutiny. Some, such as making it simpler for municipalities and townships to merge, are more easily digested.

The commission has drawn fire for recommending that county commissioners be empowered to give voters the option to fundamentally reshape county government. Ohio law already allows two alternatives to the standard arrangement of a three-member board of commissioners. Both require voter approval. One, not in use by any county, allows the board of commissioners to have from three to 21 members, and includes a chief executive who can be either elected or appointed. Under this form, the board of commissioners can enact legislation, which standard county governments cannot.

The other alternative is the charter form, in which the county assumes the power and role of a charter municipality and can create any form of government. Summit County, which has an elected executive and an 11-member council, instituted its charter government in 1980. Cuyahoga County voters recently approved a similar charter, which will take effect in 2011.

But county elected officials are up in arms over the recommendation that boards of commissioners be empowered to ask voters to eliminate other elected county offices. The statewide associations of county auditors, treasurers, recorders, prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs, coroners, engineers and clerks of courts object to the idea that two out of three commissioners' votes could put their offices in jeopardy.

That's not to say that the structure of county governance shouldn't be rethought; it is, the commission points out, about 150 years old and based in part on the principle that no man should live more than a day's horseback ride from a county seat.

But before any fundamental changes are made, consideration should be given to what the alternatives might be and how they would save money and serve Ohioans better. Those questions should be taken up by the legislature, and answers should apply to the whole state. Having more county-governance options makes sense; allowing a hodgepodge of setups, influenced by 88 different local political dynamics, doesn't.

Those considering the issue also should bear in mind that the statutory county system, spreading power and authority among many independent elected officials, was meant to provide checks and balances.

On the question of closer collaboration among existing local governments, the commission didn't go far enough to suit some, including former Republican state Rep. Larry Wolpert of Hilliard, who sponsored the bill that created the commission and who also served on it but declared the report "nothing earth-shaking."

Some wanted to see stronger incentives for local governments to share costs of services such as fire and police dispatching and income-tax collection, and even penalties from the state for those that decline to seek savings.

The commission's report stops short of such aggressive action, instead urging that local governments considering joint projects be given bonus points when seeking state grants to aid those efforts, and that funds be made available to help with start-up costs when setting up new collaborations.

The cautious approach probably is warranted; all of those elected offices represent a lot of turf, and persuading those in control to relinquish it won't be easy.

Dan Troy, a Lake County commissioner and co-chairman of the government-reform panel, has heard fellow local-government officials plotting to band together to resist pressure to consolidate and to fight any cuts to their budget. He knows, however, that Ohio's budget crisis will force government at all levels to operate on leaner budgets.

His response to those with their heads in the sand is blunt: "Do you know what kind of train wreck is coming? And you're just going to say it's business as usual?"